If you want to be persuasive, stop calling the people you wish to persuade "deniers" as though they were holocaust deniers. Starting a persuasive conversation with an insult doen't go far.
But I don't think you want to persuade. You want to bludgeon the unbelievers with arguments and punish them for their refusal to see the Truth.
Science isn't about belief, it's about testing and falsifying hypothesis. It is politics and religion which require belief. And it looks like you are into both, bigtime.
You have gathered with zealous energy a set of aggressive arguments here, each of which have been reasonably challenged by skeptics. Some of the arguments are reasonable and have good data and arguments behind them, and some are probably quite wrong.
The lynchpin of your arguments is the claim that 99% of all scientists agree that humans are causing climate change. You should reduce the number to the bogus 97% figure your fellow alarmists use to impress and intimidate. Stay in step.
What do 97% of scientists agree on? There's never been a large and thorough poll of their beliefs, but it is safe to say they believe co2 is a greenhouse gas, people have been adding it to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and it is responsible for some of the warming we have experienced since the end of the little ice age.
Beyond that you don't get anything like a consensus. How much of the warming is man made? What will the effects be? How best to measure the warming? And most importantly, does the warming even matter, or good it be a good thing?
The other key thing to keep in mind is the reason this argument has slipped from science into politics and nature-worship religion. If you accept the alarmist proposition that we must immedietly change our ways or face the heat-death of the world, then you MUST accept radical changes to the structure of the economy and society.
These consequences are a matter of life and death to billions of people, which is why I believe the alarmist train must be derailed at all costs. Renewable energy cannot supply the kind of muscular power needed by industry--only nuclear. Nuclear is strong but it will take time to build. But cutting or eliminating oil and coal without replacment with nuclear is a recipe for poverty and hunger.
Finally, there is a practical question of remaining competitive. The U.S. unipolar moment has failed, and now the world is breaking into a multipolar arrangement in which countries like China, Russia, and India no longer listen to the dictat of the U.S. and the West. Even if the West were to hamstring its own economies to achieve net zero, those other countries will not. Their output far outstrips the carbon output of the west and they aren't going to lift a finger to do something about carbon.
So, Alarmist. Here is a Denier. Go ahead, take swing!
