I believe that outside of religious doctrine there are not very many actual science deniers.

There are many people who are skeptical of claims that are presented in ways that are not persuasive even if the claim itself is true or partially true.

If the goal is to convince or persuade it is wise to avoid talking points, slogans, logical fallacies, or any kind of partisan rhetoric. Anecdotes or appeals to authority are unlikely to be persuasive.

It is much more effective to provide citations of actual research studies by mainstream, dispassionate researchers who are seeking truth and not advancing an agenda.

In medically related research an example would be a long term controlled, double blind, longitudinal study conducted with a large sample of subjects. That type of study would be persuasive to nearly everyone.

Dunning-Kruger effect.

If you could talk sense to a science denier there would be no science deniers. It's not worth the energy or the frustration, unless you are collecting data for a book, like this one.

Religion denies "sense" exists because science is wrong. Those who believe in it are wrong so automatically can't be making "sense." I'm afraid this is going to get played out as religious battles often do. Those who survive this century, if they survive this century, will have lived a very miserable life. Wasn't there a French play about that? It happens from time to time.

It’s best to ignore and keep a distance.

Talking to a wall is generally just as productive.

You know, I just don't think that there is any way to reason with an unreasonable person. For those that have gone down the Trump driven republican rabbit-hole there is no way to be in their world and maintain your own sanity.

I have no patience with the willfully ignorant - I am quite unable to talk sense into any science denier.