I think that it is interesting to note that at near the bottom of the Salon article above it mentions that:"They [ Oreskes and Lewandowksy]are currently working together on a paper on the effects of denial on the scientific community."
But I'm not sure that I have the same study in mind. To be useful, I think this needs to be seen as an iterative process. One that is informed by your work on cultural cognition, and looking at ways that past messaging is being evaluated by opposing sources and then how the next set of messages ought to be altered accordingly. So in the case of climate deniers it is not so much the deniers themselves that are the targets, it is those undecided folks who might be influenced by their messages. And ultimately, the messaging to understand is that coming from industry. In order to see how they are targeting blocks of voters and adjusting (using a special squad of in-house +Dan Kahan
robots) to gear messages towards targeted "tribes" in ways that effectively counter the science messaging.
In that regard, I think that there is much useful information in the CDC cigarette article above.
The 97% figure could be seen as doing essentially nothing to convert those actively denialist, it might not reach those undecided either. But I do believe that it does serve to "build the scientific platform", as the CDC article puts it in their conclusion. This increases the proportion of society that then begins to treat global climate change as a forgone conclusion and takes actions accordingly. In so doing they increase the likelihood that communications media will adopt that view. And THAT change in societal alignments starts to bring the undecided along.
Scientists and other science communicators then reacting to the barbs of denialists essentially derails the societal consensus process and serves to bring the media back to reporting heavily on the denialists views. And thus the actions of the pro-science side are bent to serve and to promote the positions of their opponents. Anti-vaxxer Andrew Wakefield was a master at this. Creationist Ken Ham also.
IMHO, some journalists, most recently exemplified in your post on Paul Krugman, are lashing out in their frustration at the dismantlement of the functions of traditional newspapers in delivering journalism, and commentary, to the public. They are having a hard time getting their message through, and are thus understandably angry about it. But then, in the manner of so doing, falling into the trap set for them by their opponents. If stronger forces wall you in, it is wrong to respond by bashing heads to a pulp against it. It is necessary to look for alternative paths and weak points.