They are agenda-driven ideologues, not honestly challenging the science. What they really want to do is have you exhaust yourself tracking down leads to these stories, and assembling rebuttals, thereby planting doubt in potential listeners. By the time you present your case they will have moved on to something else, and you'll find yourself constantly playing catch-up. You will note they never actually challenge the data, its always something about exposing the Great Conspiracy that is arrayed against them, and its usually second hand. With these guys its always conspiracies. Its because they can't challenge the facts, all they can do is confuse and obscure them, or divert attention to personalities or ideological issues. And never forget, they are not fighting you because they disagree with you. I'm convinced some of them actually DO agree with us. They attack you because they don't want anyone ELSE to agree with you.

I have learned to not play their game, but to just present them with data. Let them go out and try and find contradictory information from reputable sources. Of course, interpretation is always subjective and there will be some valid and conflicting data, all science needs to be challenged vigorously, and no one is right all the time. And there is certainly no guarantee that ALL pro-AGW research is correct or even honest. That goes without saying.

But in a non-specialist forum like this I present dramatic and unambiguous data, like the satellite ice series from NSIDC and JAXA, and the PIOMAS Arctic ice volume reports. If there is anything wrong or misleading about this information then it could be pointed out for discussion and debate. There is also much more data out there that supports our case, but if I don't follow it clearly and easily, I don't expect any in our forum to be able to either. The data are consistent and in standardized formats, and easily verified in reputable websites. They are straightforward, simple to analyze, and do not require specialized training to understand.

A lot of the corroborating information supports this, but avoid bringing this in; again you will be dragged deeper and deeper into the bog of scientific debate in obscure journals about subtleties and off-the-wall topics, like ice core assay protocols. And that's exactly what they want! You can't win that fight against them, they spend all their time looking for obscure alternate facts and they document them meticulously and misinterpret them outrageously. Remember the infamous proxy Scandinavian bog fossils? And no matter how many shrinking glaciers you report, they will always be able to locate at least one that isn't. They will report every minor error, exaggeration or mistake as proof that the entire AGW concept is not only wrong, but a deliberate falsehood concocted by the enemies of Freedom. And of course, you'll have to track down each and every one to make sure it hasn't been cherry picked or taken out of context.

I present the latest updates on the polar weather every month, in a way that it can be compared with the long term trends, and from sources that can be easily verified. You will note the denialists stay away. They can't compete on level turf. Are my presentations complete and definitive? Probably not, I'm no expert, and neither is my intended audience. But I try to present information and sources that suggest further research and study and easy verification. I stay away from partisan sources or those who have an obvious ideological ax to grind.