So, you won't accept it in any case
I think it would be interesting to turn the question back on you: what evidence, if any, would convince you that the broad scientific community has been seriously wrong about AGW and that we are not facing any real crisis?
The problem is that it has been proven but you don't accept the data
> I think it would be interesting to turn the question back on you: what evidence, if any, would convince you that the broad scientific community has been seriously wrong about AGW and that we are not facing any real crisis?
A compelling theory that can de3al with the actual data.
1. Mathematical or logical proof
2. Proof by controlled, reproducible experiment
3. Proof by predictions bourne out reliably by observations
We certainly don't have the first two here, and for the third, given the time frames, we find that predictions (from computer models) from the past have been wrong compared to realised events. But I suppose if backfitting a model is proof enough for you then you already have all you need.
I would also find it persuasive to see people with skin-in-the-game make informed decisions. For instance, selling off desirable waterfront properties because they believe rising sea levels will make them worthless within a century.
But let's say 10 or 20 or 30 years from now, we have not observed any additional warming or maybe we've even had cooling. I would not be surprised. Whereas I imagine there would be a lot of people walking around thinking "How could 97% of scientists have been so wrong? How could so much well funded research produce the wrong conclusion?" They would struggle to integrate it into their worldview. (although I guess they would probably just say it's a temporary pause or something)