And it's this: does anybody know if any active scientists have changed their mind about the whole hypothesis from doubters to believers? You can find stories of scientists who originally were advocates, like Judith Curry, but then after more research changed their mind and are now labeled "deniers". Most seem to be people who were well established and safe from being fired, like Curry, who had tenure, and has said that she would not have dared to speak up if she hadn't, if she had been just in the beginning stages of her career, because saying what she is now saying would have made her unemployable in the current era.
But the main question is pretty much this: how many scientists, especially well respected ones, have gone from advocates to "deniers" after studying the hypothesis longer, compared to how many have maybe gone from "denier" to advocate?
Because all you can easily find online are all in the first group. And if there are more of those, or especially if there are none of the latter type, that certainly would say something about the whole thing.
And could be used as a point in arguments with the staunch believers you have to deal with in your life.
I think you're asking the wrong question. No legitimate climate researchers believe that there is anthropomorphic climate change, or that there is any significant "warming" or "sea level rise" going on. This is all about the gravy train, and corporate and government grants and other funding. (This is also true with other types of research, like covid and fusion research, for example.) Published papers are peer-reviewed by researchers who have a vested interest in pushing the narrative (and therefore ensuring continued funding for all similar studies), so only pro-climate change papers get published, with those dissenting being not only refused recognition, but also black-balled such that they are forced out of the agenda-driven inner circle.
These "researchers" are directly involved in fraudulently changing climate data, so they know full-well what the original stats say. Also, they are behind the known decommissioning of rural weather reporting stations, which provide the most accurate reporting...in favor of the urban stations influenced by concrete and asphalt.
Now, the people who might actually believe in the propaganda are mostly students who have been indoctrinated in universities, and are unable to think for themselves. They find their way into Dept. of Interior positions, for example, and do their part in guiding funding for projects that support their misguided beliefs.
I happen to know, however, that within the Dept. of Interior, there is a growing voice of individuals rejecting the "sea level rise" narrative and replacing it with the scientifically-proven land subsidence model.
True too, but again, that will not work with the believers. But as there are scientists who in the beginning were in that gravy train, but later spoke out against it - and again, they seem to mostly be ones who at that point were secure enough that they no longer had anything they could lose by doing so - having a list should work.
And if you can't find any, or at least not many, old established scientists who would have gone in the other direction - and my guess is that if there are they did that due to threats to their income or careers - well... but if there are those cases I'd of course like to know before using that in an argument.
This is not about what is true or what isn't or why most scientists are onboard, we all know those, I am looking for points I could use when talking with the "sheep", and it occurred to me that comparing those numbers should work at least to some extent, if only by throwing even a little bit doubt in the mind of a blind believer.
Because you can never persuade anybody by just one, or a few, arguments, or just telling them. If you can do it at all you need to find questions that might make the other person think, and throw at least a little bit doubt in their mind, even if it is only in a subconscious level, then they might end up doing the work themselves (and will probably then think they also reached the conclusion all by themselves, but who cares).
Questions they can't answer usually supposedly work best.
So "why are there more scientists who have gone from advocates to "deniers" than there are ones who have gone from "deniers" to advocates after studying the matter themselves?" might be a good one, but I'd need to be able to confirm it first.
This is an old article, I know. There is a much more recent list of deniers, but I can't seem to locate it at the moment. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1
Thanks.