Some advice: there is definitely an acceptable way to challenge the mainstream here, but I don't think you've succeeded at it. Since all of your points have app

Some advice: there is definitely an acceptable way to challenge the mainstream here, but I don't think you've succeeded at it. Since all of your points have appeared here before, my suggestion is not to make them all at once (which encourages people who disagree with you not to bother responding and just to downvote) but rather to pick one or two of the most relevant points and back them up with extreme detail, meaning more than a link to Wikipedia. For example, if we're talking about the proxy studies, you can mention how central they are to the larger debate and then go into detail about the long history of problems like the short-centered PC analysis in at least one of the MBH papers, or Briffa's divergence problem, or more recently the all-but-retracted Marcott paper. Or alternatively, respond to someone claiming that the skeptics are completely responsible for politicizing the subject by pointing out that since the alarmists are demanding all the change, action, new laws etc, there is a very significant burden of proof on their shoulders. Then say that claiming "the science is settled" so they can skip to the legislation is very much why the subject is so politicized today. And unfortunately, no community can completely avoid politics and groupthink at all times. So if you see a large number of people who seem like they will violently disagree with any but the most tactful of arguments then you can always just let them have their echo chamber and move on.