I recently have been annoyed by reading debates on global warming. Is there anything more tedious, more annoying, and more pointless than trying to convince a global warming skeptic of the reality of the situation? It is as absurd as arguing with creationists, UFO true believers, or conspiracy theorists.
There is one mistake people always make in arguing with these people: they argue about facts. This may seem like a strange thing for me to say, because a rational argument depends on facts and logic. However, arguing facts and logic is incorrect when laypeople argue about complex scientific topics. Take the global warming case for example. What often happens is that a skeptic will jump in and wave some facts around and proclaim that it's all a big lie. There's no danger, etc, etc. Someone will attempt to counter those claims. Neither party knows anything about climatology. The debate will drag on, because someone on the internet who has an agenda and is reasonably intelligent can avoid being cornered by the debate and proven wrong.
This is the way it always goes. Endless debates. But let us ponder what should happen. First of all, is a debate by parties who don't have any fundamental understanding of a complicated science such as climatology really a valid debate? Of course it is not. The skeptic will of course not admit they have no training to judge the merits of their claims. And once they start an argument, no one is going to demure to argue just because they also have no expertise. After all, if the skeptic can start it, then why can't they join in the debate? It would be better, though, if the response is to merely say that no one participating has expertise in the field, and therefore the debate is meaningless. Anyone who wishes to take issue with the scientific consensus could write a letter to a scientific journal, or go back to school to acquire the knowledge participate in the process as an equal.
To acknowledge that you cannot debate such a thing requires a certain amount of humility. You have to realize you don't know much about this subject. You are not qualified to judge the merits of facts and arguments made. The best you can hope to do is to base your beliefs on experts. This is perfectly logical to do, even though proof by appeal to authority is fallacious. The difference is that no one is trying to prove anything, merely to point to authorities as spokespeople for the scientific process, which is itself the proof. Parties that want to examine the proof can acquire training in the field, and examine the scientific papers in question. I recommend Bruno Latour's Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts for a description of the relationship of scientific process to reality.
A reasonable person should choose what to believe by examining what people who are experts in this subject believe. It might be that those experts are wrong. The status quo should be challenged. But it should be challenged from a position of expertise, not ignorance. We should all be humble enough to acknowledge our limitations and simply quit engaging in endless internet arguments.