I wouldn't have even noticed the National Review debate between Oren Cass and John Cook, if a creepily worded article title at Vox hadn't caught my attention. The title: "Scientists are testing a 'vaccine' against climate change denial." The author is Michelle Nijhuis. It would be bad enough for someone to have an actual vaccine against denial of anything. One thing makes the article less creepy than the title: Ms. Nijhuis is not referring to an actual vaccine but to a way of arguing that reduces people's defenses. One thing, though, makes the article more creepy. She doesn't seem to distinguish between climate change denial and disagreement with specific claims about climate change. So it seems that, if she had her way, she would have people on her side of the issue use the "vaccine" on anyone who doesn't agree with some of the most extreme proponents: those who think humans are causing 100 percent of global warming.
Why do I make that last claim? Because she approvingly cites John Cook, whom I have posted about earlier, as someone who uses the vaccine. And the item she cites by Cook is his claim that 100% of global warming is caused by humans. Cook writes:
There is a consensus of evidence that human activity is causing all of recent global warming. Not some of it. Not even most of it. All of it.
I would give you the blow by blow, but it's more edifying if you read the debate in order: first Cass, then Cook, then Cass.