On Climate Debate and Debate Climate

Some comments of mine from a very recent exchange with a person genuinely convinced AGW is a settled argument:

(on the usage of the term “denier”)
Words have meanings, and “denier” appears un-necessarily harsh, especially if you really believe AGW is obvious

(on how to engage across the pro- and anti-AGW divide)
It would be wiser to analyse their points of view, rather than simply engage in a debate to prove them wrong.

There exist points of absolute no contention at all, like the fact the H2O vapor is a better GHG than CO2, and that CO2 effects grow logarithmically with concentration (so that the first 20ppmv are more important than the following 320ppmv or so, more or less).

If you go against those, you put yourself well outside of the consensus.

What I mean is, you destroy your own argument if it is only made of the opposite of whatever your counterparts say.

(on the difficulty of speaking with people with a closed mind and that keep changing their argument never to admit they are wrong)
I could say the same of some pro-AGW people. Now, I know Penn Jillette is not “authoritative” but for some reason we share some feeling about this.

(on the likelihood that Solar wind and other electromagnetic effects do not affect the Earth’s climate)
If somebody figured out how could the solar wind strongly affect some parts of the atmosphere but not others, that would be a very important discovery in its own right…