It's a tough sell once industry starts getting impacted by findings (hydrocarbons). Look at asbestos, tobacco, clean water, etc...
I see those issues you mention as having some similarities to the Global Warming issue; yet I believe that GW is by now fundamentally much more similar to two other controversies of the Twentieth Century. One was the Eugenics Movement which became hugely important in Germany; the other was what became known as the Lysenko Affair in the Soviet Union. Both hypotheses were promoted as scientifically sound and proven, politicians were in agreement, and had a vote been taken, wide acceptance by the public would have been shown. Just as then, I believe media attention and political involvement now in the issue of Global Warming has caused the issue to become hopelessly muddled in the public's mind. There is no longer a distinction being made between the Hansen Hypothesis, which I believe has been disproven beyond any reasonable doubt, and Global Warming.
I'll attempt, but I am certain of failure from the outset, to state the situation as succinctly as I possibly can. Whereas there remains some doubt as to the extent of warming beyond what has historically occurred in certain regions, and some question as to its geographic distribution; even if one accepts without question that there is warming; that it is global in distribution, and that it is anthropomorphic in origin, the specific cause and its mechanism is far from certain. As far as I'm concerned the peer reviewed work of the last 20 years make it highly unlikely that CO2 is involved in any direct way, and nearly as unlikely that it is involved significantly in an indirect way. I have concluded that the Hansen Anthropomorphic Global Warming Hypothesis based on rising CO2 concentration has been thoroughly disproved.
I can't explain my unpopular position and how I arrived at it in anything like adequate detail in any brief statement. It would require a long dissertation wholly unreasonable in these forums. And I don't want to be unreasonable. But suffice it to say that one of the longest threads posted here concerned Global Warming, and despite hundreds of posts there is no resolution to the question here in the ET Politics Forum. It's a question that can only be resolved in the peer reviewed scientific literature. The claims that 97% -- or whatever -- of scientists believe this or that with respect to warming are as specious as the original Hansen Hypothesis turned out to be. These claims of scientist agreement occur often enough in print and in prestigious fora too, to convince nearly anyone. That even 3% of experts in atmospheric physics and climatology, however, should disagree with any single primary thesis is, from a scientist's perspective, a very bad sign indeed. And, in the present case, the primary thesis alone is hopelessly muddled, making science by vote even more absurd.