Perhaps the main reason that the article uses that particular example is that there is a striking difference between climate scientists and the general populati

Perhaps the main reason that the article uses that particular example is that there is a striking difference between climate scientists and the general population. The general population thinks that there are contentious arguments about climate change. Climate scientists don't think so. Yes, there's always discussions about the small details, but that's why they're scientists. There is no contention about the big picture among climate scientists. Then again, it is true that the article doesn't follow its own advice, which is given at the very end: to avoid emotional confrontation, in order to give the facts a fighting chance. If the author honestly wanted to convince someone, it would have been much better to start of with less emotionally charged topics, and then perhaps sneak in climate change towards the end.