Is it really worth arguing with True Believers?

If you can provide someone with some healthy skepticism, it is worthwhile. I don't think it is that useful arguing with alarmists. Sometimes, it is a bit like trying to convince a Baptist to become a Catholic. Many alarmists have dug their heels in and anything threatening their belief is attacked. They often say things such as you should learn science, or there is a consensus, yet they seldom provide any other reason to believe humans have significantly or harmfully affected the climate except their computer models. When you start to argue that your model says this or that without acknowledging the limits of the model or its underlying assumptions and unknown variables, you have left the realm of science far behind. Anybody who knows anything about science knows that models are not the real world. Those who pretend otherwise are known as alarmists.