I find it interesting that the believers are absolutely certain they are right, and the deniers are absolutely certain it's all BS. Almost all rely solely on "what they have heard", generally assuming their position based on political orientation, convenience, or because it fits some narrative.
But enough about Benghazi, we were talking about greenhouse gas emissions
Once a position is established, forget discussion, the opposition is fair game for whatever ridicule and name calling can be mustered. Even what might be a cogent argument is generally presented in the form "Hey dumbass, look at this graph, are you stupid or what?". Or my favorite, go read someone's 500 page book, or research paper, or whatever, that obviously proves
this or that is or isn't happening.
That said, it's tough to argue with a picture of a polar bear floating on a chunk of ice; it's apparent time is running out.