Any fallacy in this climate change debate?

Climate science is probably the worst topic in the world to discuss with non-scientists. I have never had anything good come out of it, and even the most sane and impartial people overall tend to turn into ideological zombies the moment someone mentions word "climate".

Seriously, I have played devil's advocate and claimed that Hitler did everything right as an experiment, and even that discussion turned out more productive than anything I have ever discussed with anyone on climate science - short of a small number of physicists who actually grasped the processes in question, rather than repeating what their favorite politician told them on TV.

 

I am sensing a possible appeal to authority, asserting oneself as an authority here, plus just an attack on people's character and or perceived biases rather than addressing any scientific issue. Plus a red herring. What do you think?

The thing I primarily notice about this is that they don't state a clear position on climate change. Based on their use of the term climate science, and their assertion that non-scientists can't adequately understand the ideas, I would guess that this is coming from a person who believes in climate change, but this could almost just as easily be coming from a climate change denier. If "all but a small number" of people can't approach climate science reasonably, this would imply that the problem is about equally pervasive on both sides of the issue.

As far as I can tell, the point this person is making is that most people can't have a productive conversation about climate science, as the result of political bias and lack of understanding. And this point is supported by some vague generalizations about past interactions. At first glance, the characterization seems pretty extreme, like this person is exaggerating to make a point. However, on the other hand, there are some scientific topics that are so deep in the weeds that a person who's not in that field genuinely can't have a productive conversation about it. 

I wouldn't consider this to be an appeal to authority, as they're not really citing anyone specific, or a specific viewpoint that an expert might hold. I think the closest one I could see is poisoning the well. By priming an observer with the idea that most other people approaching the topic can't even do so rationally, it gives them extra leverage to be dismissive of someone who disagrees with their view on climate change, whatever that may be. Loaded language like called them ideological zombies, or accusing them of parroting politicians, feeds into this.

Oh absolutely, this is like a bad Las Vegas buffet of logical fallacies - a little bit of everything, none of it particularly good. There's definitely an appeal to authority - "Hey, I'm too smart for this, none of you knows anything unless you're a physicist!" (Side note - are we seriously only going to let physicists discuss climate change now? Sorry biologists, chemists, and environmental scientists, you're out of the club according to Mr. Devil's Advocate.)

And speaking of playing devil's advocate, that comparison with Hitler - that's like throwing a vegan a steak and asking them to enjoy it. It's just not going to go down well. It's not just a red herring, it's a whole red salmon, dragging in a completely unrelated area of discussion to set a really low bar for conversation productivity.

Overall, this argument seems to be built on ad hominem attacks and generalizations rather than engaging with any of the actual questions surrounding climate science. You know, the fun stuff like rising sea levels, carbon footprints, and whether I'm contributing to global warming by laughing at the logic here. But hey, who needs that when you can trash talk everyone else in the room, right? Now, that's my kind of climate change debate!