I think it's folly to believe we can convince people like Yankuba's friend that the news they are exposed to/are exposing themselves to is based on unsound science or lies (ETA) and that by so convincing the, we will convince them then to act on climate change.
IMO, people do not usually establish or change their position on previously established philosophical or moral issues based an any evidence, no matter how robust.
People adopt most of their political stances on particular issues because of their broader philosophical or ethical beliefs, or on sheer tribalism, and then they work backward to find evidence to back up those stances, not the other way around.
People often are not developing their opinions about climate change based on reading about the science. Instead, they believe bullshit non-scientific evidence BECAUSE their foundational worldview (consisting of some combo of the following concepts) is incompatible with most of the actions proposed for humanity to deal with the problem.
1) God created the world and all other species for humans to use. Therefore, it is morally good that we do so. God would not create a world where human use could possibly destroy his creation. But if by some chance he did, it was deliberate and humans are STILL doing his will by destroying it. God will save the planet or not according to his will, not ours.
2) Evidence of environmental and socio-political breakdown just brings the rapture closer to hand. Therefore climate change is good.
3) Human individual liberty of choice is the primary moral good, and all infringements upon it are to be resisted unless they involve preventing immediate theft of your private property or imperilment of your personal safety. Since fighting climate change would involve imposing restrictions on individual choice, and impose economic burdens on individuals, I therefore cannot acknowledge that it is real or I will face an impossible and irreconcilable moral choice.
4) Globalism is inherently evil and undemocratic. The US capitalist/democratic system as it exists is the greatest human achievement; and therefore nationalism is a foundational moral good. Fighting climate change will require unprecedented cooperation with other nations, shifts away from capitalism, and subsuming our nation's dominance to that of a greater global community. This is morally unacceptable, so I cannot acknowledge how serious climate change is or I would be faced with an impossible moral choice.
5) Climate change is real, and serious, but the upheaval in the U.S. economy required to change to a different system would cause economic ruin and/or place too much strain on the socio-political system, potentially causing a breakdown economically and politically (possibilities for U.S. breaking up as a nation or civil violence). This risk is too great, so I will 1) deny evidence that the consequences will be that serious, or 2) shrug and deal with them as each arises, with the expectation that our nation can adapt over time.
Etc etc etc. Persuading people with 'better evidence' is unlikely to work in a lot of cases.
As I have said before, I actually think as the consequences of climate change become more easily apparent and more dramatic (more bad storms, more droughts, water/food insecurity, disease, refugees, flooding), it might not move public opinion much at all. In fact, I'd lay good odds that the worse the consequences get, the more entrenched the deniers will get and the more politicized and deadlocked the issue will become. Humans are wired to become more irrational, more tribalist, and more nationalist the more they experience fear and insecurity.
Personally, I've never cared that much about the consequences of climate change to humanity. I mean, I don't want to see increased human suffering b/c of it, but humans are like cockroaches. My species is not going to go extinct from this, and if our numbers are eventually knocked back by several billion, thems the breaks of being morons. What fills me with insane rage is the mass extinction we are forcing on the rest of the planet. We know we are doing it, we know we could prevent much of it, and yet we will do nothing. That is a moral crime that is beyond forgiving and almost beyond imagining, IMO.
At this point, my only hope is in the inherent selfishness of my species. If practical consequences are bad enough in a short enough time scale and a politically manageable geographic scale (i.e., East and Gulf Coast cities going underwater, entire farm belt running out of water, etc), then maybe the political will might develop to push for research into a geoengineering fix. Perhaps the cities/states can find solutions that can be scaled up by default. The concept of geoengineering also revolts me on a gut level, not to mention it is dangerous as hell, but at this point, I'll take ANY sliver of hope.