Your comments have bordered on bullying or character assassination, rather than simply focusing on facts and data. It's this style of argumentation that makes

Your comments have bordered on bullying or character assassination, rather than simply focusing on facts and data. It's this style of argumentation that makes your position seem less convincing. If it were simply about facts and data, you would be able to rely on facts and data to demonstrate your point and convince your opponent and other readers. Instead, you've used aggression and ridicule, and relied on multiple argumentative fallacies (most notably, appeal to authority and consensus fallacy) in your quest to win the argument. The causes of good science and effective solutions for climate change - both of which I care a lot about - are harmed, not helped, by this style of debate. I recently heard of the term "Steel man" argument, which is the opposite of "Straw man". With a "Steel man" argument, you demonstrate your sincere commitment to finding truth by taking a charitable view of your opponent's position and arguing against the most formidable version of it. If you were to try that on this topic, perhaps you might start by going through the list of scientists named on this Wikipedia page [1], and understanding the basis and the details of each of their reasons for skepticism (it varies a lot between them). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_th...