More like: "HN Commenter Shocked To Discover Climate Change Changes Lots Of Things"

That's not snappy enough for the Onion really.

If you tend not to believe something, give greater weight to evidence that it's true. If you tend to believe it, give less weight and actively seek for other explanations. This is how we defeat the confirmation bias in ourselves and have better arguments.

For example, believe climate change is quite real but have a poor intuition for its scale and timeline, which is why I am extra skeptical about the claim that these specific habitat changes are caused by climate change, and wonder what other factors may come into play. (I have the same reaction to climate events - if sloppy thinkers claim heat waves are evidence for climate change, then equally sloppy thinkers on the other side can claim cold snaps are evidence against. Both are wrong, and waste our time.)

Authors should speculate about alternative causal chains even if they eventually discard them. This builds trust. Unfortunately this good behavior is associated with climate change denialism, and so those who admit its reality simply don't offer an alternative even when the complexity of the situation is extremely high. The result, ironically, is just more badvocacy on both sides, more noise in the infospace, which ultimately means the "do nothing" side wins.