I think that, from now on, whenever anyone claims that anthropogenic climate change is a myth or a conspiracy, instead of explaining that increase of CO₂ in the atmosphere leads to rise in ambient temperatures, I should say something along these lines:

“The roto-vibrational absorption lines, determined as the eigenvalues of the quantum oscillator model of atmospheric molecules like CO₂, interact with specific wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation emitted from the surface and isotropically from the atmosphere. The envelope of actual emission follows the black-body Planck function but with spectral features corresponding to the lines of the emitting gas and surface, collisionally broadened.

For radiation emitted from the surface, Wien’s displacement law dictates that the bulk of the emitted energy falls within a few μm on either side of about 10 μm. CO₂ absorbs in this wavelength and, following from Kirchoff’s law, also re-emits at that same wavelength, resulting in an increase of downward infrared flux convergence. The resultant radiative heating is a function of the local atmospheric density and the volumetric heat capacity at a constant pressure, assuming a collisionally-equilibrium gas with a Maxwellian velocity distribution, with the energy being radiated isotropically, including the 2π sr solid angle towards the ground.

Some of that radiation makes it to the surface where it may be absorbed but the precise value of heating must be determined by solving the Schwarzchild equation of radiative transfer, given known spectral properties of all present gases and taking into account the Doppler broadening of the quantum emission line.

Which part of this do you disagree with?”

In so many words, science communication is very important but it requires the public to be able to distinguish evidence from deeply held opinions. Again, teaching the basics of rationality and so raising the sanity waterline seems to be more important than ever.