I find this very revealing: it's easier to argue against an objective claim—even if all the evidence points against you—than it is to argue against a normative claim. So it's easier to deny "global warming exists" than it is to deny "if global warming exists we should make sacrifices to prevent it" even though, abstractly, it should be easier to make a strong case for the first point. Zooming out even more, it's somehow easier to argue against established scientific fact than it is to argue for valuing shorter-term concerns more and longer-term ones less.
Part of this is that if you argue against the first position you might be labeled as uniformed or ignorant, but if you argue against the second position, its supporters will tar you as immoral, evil and generally a bad person.
Part of this is that if you argue against the first position you might be labeled as uniformed or ignorant, but if you argue against the second position, its supporters will tar you as immoral, evil and generally a bad person.