Then actually do it, or link to places that do it. You can link from those to places that give the background necessary to understand.

The entire "this is an arcane priesthood that you can't understand" vibe plays entirely into the hands of climate-change deniers. "The arcane priests say: trust us. Uh-huh. Riiiight."

The thing to emphasize is that it's open (or should be). Anyone who has the background can, hopefully, check things out. Anyone who doesn't have the background but does have the aptitude to gain it can, hopefully, gain it if they're motivated. The more people who can see for themselves the extent to which reality agrees with what climate scientists are saying, the better.

Now, if one really does that, one ends up with some awkward questions, like why CMIP6 models vary threefold in their equilibrium climate sensitivity, up from twofold-and-a-bit in CMIP5, which itself doesn't exactly scream "we understand this physical system well"!

But those are the sorts of discussions we should be having, not "this picture at high tide in 1950 shows higher water levels than this picture at low tide in 2020, therefore sea level rise is a myth".

My favorite site for people who actually want to dig into some of the details of why the myths are myths is Skeptical Science (https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php). It's not nearly as good as talk-origins.org is for evolution, but it's still quite good.

I don't have a great set of resources for learning climate science, though. Maybe you do, and if you do, I really wish that's what you'd put here instead of something that reads, "Oh, well, you couldn't understand this. Too complicated."

Openness works better. Here it is! This is what we know! Doesn't make sense? Here are the prerequisites!

People can major in climate science. It's not like we don't know how to teach people what they need to know, and if non-climate-science-majors don't feel like investing the time or it just seems out of reach, let it be their decision how much time to invest.