It's a tricky businsess, writing persuasively about complex subjects where your conclusion puts you outside the bounds of commonly accepted opinion (at least for a big subset of the target audience).
One of my favorite examples: nuclear power considered as a key component of our solution to the global warming crisis...
Suppose I wrote yet another pro-nuclear FAQ, something like this, or maybe like this old favorite. I might list the half-dozen issues that everyone seems to worry about: safety, waste, cost, potential vs the competition, and so on, then I'd need to try to answer them quickly, without getting bogged down in too much detail...
That would all lead up to a statement of a case I would've hoped would be obvious at this point: the problems with nuclear power may seem big at first glance, but they're small compared to the quantity of clean, on-demand power it can generate, and the global warming problem makes it critical for us to increase it's use.
Maybe I could try some analogies: letting dramatic events like Fukushima dominate your imagination can warp your decision-making, much in the same way dramatic events like the murder of some reporters by ISIS can encourage us to engage in ill-advised military adventures.
Or maybe I would compare expert opinion on nuclear power to expert opinion on global warming, and suggest that nuclear hysteria is a cognitive failure much like climate change denial.
Would any of this work? Many things like this have been written before, and they don't appear to sink-in.
Looking around at some of the pro-nuclear material out there, I think you can see some good examples of the bind you're in if you need to argue a position that's outside the Overton Window (i.e. outside the bounds of the range of commonly acceptable opinion).
I've seen some attempts at distilling things down to sound bites, but it doesn't seem plausible they're going to impress anyone-- I expect they just look like cranky propaganda.
To really nail down any of the half-dozen questions people always have about nuclear power, you need to drill down into the material pretty far-- it's pretty likely that eyes will glaze over before you reach an understanding of any one of the points.
In my experience, the way the discussion actually goes is that you can't get people to focus on any of the individual issues in isolation-- just when you're getting rolling on how the risk of nuclear accident isn't really that bad, they're still looking at you in incredulity when they want to shift to talking about nuclear waste disposal and then while you're trying to explain that that's not really such a big deal, they're looking at you like you're insane, and they want to to change the subject again to "but why not just go with solar?".
In effect the issues aren't really independent: If you don't get that the potential of wind & solar are exaggerated by enthusiasts, then you don't see why anyone would think about nuclear safety or waste disposal at all. If you start by trying to dial back expectations for wind and solar, that turns into a morass of it's own. E.g. you can spend a long time discussing different aspects of solar power before even getting near the conclusion that it has some inherent limitations that make it unlikely to be the sole solution to climate change.
This is the bind: When what you need to say isn't regarded as a seriously acceptable opinion, supporting the opinion requires a lengthy exposition that no one will engage with, because you haven't met the standard to be regarded as serious yet. I don't mean to sneer at this phenomena as necessarily close-minded or irrational: we all operate this way to some degree, we have to. Time and energy will never allow close engagement with every voice, you need some form of "triage" to decide what's worthy of close study. The problem is for us rational and intelligent supporters of outlandish opinion to distinguish ourselves from the crazies who genuinely don't deserve to get through the not-serious filter.
So, what strategies are there to deal with that situation?
I'm gradually coming to the rather unsatisfactory conclusion that if what you beleive to be true is not acceptable as a truth, you need to tone it down, you need to make it sound like it's at least not that far away from what's regarded as acceptable. You have to tug gently on the edge of the Overton Window, even if that means saying things that you don't quite believe-- though it's probably better to just try to avoid saying saying things that you figure people aren't ready to hear yet.
The reason this is unsatisfactory: if you give people the sense that you're disingenuous and not quite playing it straight, you've handed them an excuse to ignore you completely. It's very tricky to get it right-- and I doubt I'm temperamentally suited to it (I'm happier being a Cassandra than a politician).
To take one example, consider the number of deaths attributable to Fukushima-- they're much lower than most people are willing to credit: you can argue that the correct figure is zero. The temptation is to just say this out-right, because it it makes a striking, eye-catching statement, but I fear that this will just make most people shut-down. It might be better to use a high figure for estimated deaths-- even if you suspect it's wrong-- and then try to argue that the overall average for the industry as a whole is still rather low.
But that kind of argument in itself runs up against problems for many people-- there's at least a very vocal sub-culture that seems to feel that in an area like industrial safety no casualties are allowed (though there are other areas, like military adventures and auto transportation where human life is apparently much less valuable... humans are funny that way).
Another strategic issue: should you repeat the talking points typically raised by the opposition? Anti-nuclear folks make some very strange assertions on occasion -- the idea that nuclear reactors are net-C02 emitters is one, another is that there are no suitable sites with available cooling water ("Haven't you heard of global warming! It's just thermodynamics!").
The question then is should these be included in this hypothetical pro-nuclear FAQ, or are they so obscure (and frankly, crazy) that the cause would be better served if you never raised these points yourself, but rather waited to see if someone else does?
The anti-nuclear faction is so vocal, it's entirely possible it warps our perceptions about mainstream opinion on the subject. Consider this from one of the FAQs mentioned above:
Do Americans support using nuclear energy?:
A February 2013 national poll of 1,000 adults by BiscontiResearch Inc.-Gfk Roper found that solid majorities have favorable opinions about nuclear energy and building new nuclear power plants. Sixty-eight percent of Americans favor the use of nuclear energy—up from 62 percent in September 2011.
Fifty-five percent of respondents agree that the industry should build more nuclear power plants in the future and two-thirds said that a new reactor would be acceptable at the nearest operating nuclear power plant site.