Most of us know from experience that it's not easy to convince others to change their beliefs or policy positions. It's nice to think that humans acquire and change their beliefs in a logical manner based entirely on evidence, but it's not that simple. Humans are driven by emotions, loyalties, (mis)understandings of our world, etc.
Nothing I can suggest here will result in you convincing all others of what you say - even if what you say is truly supported by the evidence. However, there's one factor you need to keep in mind. People with different views tend to begin from different premises. Some of these can be influenced by in-born predispositions. If you try to convince someone by beginning with the premises underlying your beliefs, there's even less chance to convince the other person if she begins with other premises. So, one can improve the chances of influencing others when you use a line of reasoning based on one of his basic beliefs.
If you can show that one of their basic beliefs can actually lead to a policy position different than their current position, they may come to consider changing their position. Let us consider an example involving pollution and (what you and I would call) environmental protection regulation.
Hundreds or thousands of years ago, humans may not have truly understood the connection between the fires we built and used, and the soot and other resulting pollutants. At a certain point in the Industrial Revolution, factory owners started using tall smokestacks. They did this so the smoke, soot and such didn't affect their property so much. Perhaps, way back then they may have honestly thought that whatever left the top of a tall smokestack simply vanished from the world never to be seen again. But now, we certainly know that is not the case. Soot and pollution from tall smokestacks simply land on other properties. Pollutants that are dumped in rivers affect water and crops at other properties. Toxic waste dumped in the ground makes its way into the groundwater, impacting those elsewhere.
Now, suppose I took my trash and threw it up in the air near the wall surrounding the mansion of a factory owner, and the trash fell down inside her yard. She would object that I had no right to do that. She would say it is her property and her property rights protect her from me doing anything there without her permission. As far as business people and conservatives are concerned, property rights are one of the most fundamental rules of society. So, it follows that it violates my property rights when a factory owner builds a smokestack to spew his filth beyond his property line into my property. I should not have to spend time and money cleaning up a rich factory owner's filth from my home because he chose to toss his trash over the wall to my place.
In effect, environmental policy simply says businesses can't violate other people's property rights by throw their trash into other people's properties.
When the government tells coal or other companies that they must put their toxic waste in carefully sealed dumps that will not leak into water supplies [public property] or other people's properties, they are only being required to comply with property rights.
Business owners can't have it both ways. If they don't need to respect other people's owner’s rights to their properties, then there is no reason we need to consider that the business has rights to its properties - and the government can do what it wants to that property to which there are no real rights. On the other hand, if the business does, in fact, have rights to its properties, then other people have rights to their properties - and the business can be penalized for violating those rights.
The same logic applies to such sources of pollution as car emissions. If we accept property rights, then a car owner does not have the right to spew pollutants to the properties she drives past. Since all car owners have the obligation to respect others’ properties, but the average car owner is not in a position to modify a pollutant-spewing car into a car that respects property rights, the solution is to require that car manufacturers make cars which have limited emissions. Having this done at the mass-production stage also makes it less expensive for the car owner to control the emissions (and it more consistently ensures that all cars respect property rights.)
If we try to look at issues in this way, we can find premises (such as property rights) which are basic to businesses and conservatives which actually argue against common business / conservative practices. Some people may find that inconsistencies between conservative premises and conservative policies lead them to question conservative sources on a more general basis.