Once again, standard argument collection; draft 0.0.6 "points" list...

1) The Earth's climate is dictated by many variables, including but not limited to incoming solar radiation, albedo (surface reflectivity), ocean circulation, GHGs (greenhouse gases).
2) Changes in these variables result in changes in the Earth's climate; such changes can either be forcings (initial drivers) or feedbacks (amplifying/dampening responses). Some variables can be both (such as CO2), while others are basically one or other (tropospheric water vapor is essentially only a feedback, solar irradiance only a forcing).
3) GHGs influence the climate by changing the planetary energy balance- short-wave radiation (light) passes through the atmosphere to reach the Earth's surface, where it is absorbed and reradiated as longer wave radiation (infrared); although GHGs are basically transparent to visible light, they are not with respect to IR, absorbing and re-emitting it and thus increasing the Earth's energy balance.
4) Changes in the Earth's energy balance will result in a warming or cooling to a new equilibrium. The presence of GHGs and the resultant increase in Earth's energy balance, including positive and negative feedbacks, increased the Earth's globally averaged temperature by ~33K.
5) Human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and land use have increased the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere well outside the bounds of natural variability for at least the last 800,000 and likely the last several million years, necessitating a warming to a higher equilibrium in the absence of some mitigating factor.
6) How the climate system (including feedbacks) responds to changes in forcings and feedbacks can be constrained by examining paleoclimatic (from the Earth's history), observational, and physics-based modeling evidence. This evidence provides a basis for "fingerprints" of various perturbations to the climate system.
7) Observed phenomena such as changes in/to: the surface temperature over the last century, temperature trends in different layers of the atmosphere, outgoing and incoming radiation, expansion of the tropics, etc. are consistent with the "fingerprint" of enhanced greenhouse warming and stratospheric ozone depletion in addition to natural fluctuations in solar, volcanic, ocean/atmosphere oscillatory activity.
8) Conversely changes in non-anthropogenic GHG forcings/ozone depleting substances alone (e.g. solar irradiance, volcanism, ocean/atmosphere oscillations, etc.) are insufficient to explain observed phenomena.
9) Paleoclimatic, observational, and physics-based modeling evidence necessitate further warming to a higher equilibrium, with concomitant changes in climatic norms like globally averaged surface temperature, precipitation patterns, sea level, etc. to which human civilization is accustomed.
10) While these changes will not be uniformly negative (e.g. high latitude NH countries like the China, Russia, Canada, the US may see an initial boost in crop productivity), the balance of evidence suggests that warming beyond 2°C will result in net negative consequences for humanity.
11) Unchecked emissions growth is capable of driving a warming of ~ 6°C in a century or two, a similar temperature change from the warmth of an interglacial to the depths of an ice age but an order or two of magnitude more rapidly.
12) Due to the immense atmospheric lifetime of CO2, emissions trajectory policies decided now matter in determining impacts experienced not just over the next few decades, but in the coming centuries and millennia.
13) Although climate is dynamic, in the geologic past changes similar to those expected under unchecked emissions growth (in magnitude and rate of change) have resulted in mass extinction events.
14) Mitigation of emissions to a stabilization level of ~450 ppm CO2 or lower is technologically possible and economically feasible (i.e. will cost growth of global GDP equivalent or less than the cost of unchecked emissions growth).

Counterarguing is an often effective resistance strategy that involves direct rebuttal of message arguments (Abelson, 1959; Buller, 1986; Cameron & Jacks, 1999; Eagly & Chaiken, 1995; Festinger, 1957; Festinger & Maccoby, 1964; Jacks & Devine, 2000; McGuire, 1964; Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965; Wright, 1975; Zuwerink & Devine, 1996). Attitude bolstering, in contrast, involves support arguing- that is, generating thoughts that are consistent with and supportive of one's original attitude without directly refuting message arguments (Abelson, 1959; Cameron & Jacks, 1999; Festinger, 1957; McGuire, 1964; Sherman & Gorkin, 1980). Message distortion involves selectively processing or understanding a persuasive message in a way that favors one's original attitude (Cooper & Jahoda, 1947; Festinger, 1957; Kunda, 1990; Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979; Pomerantz, Chaiken, & Tordesillas, 1995). Social validation involves resisting the message by bringing to mind important others who share one's original attitude (Festinger, 1950, 1954, 1957; Festinger, Gerard, Hymovitch, Kelley, & Raven, 1952). Source derogation involves insulting the source, dismissing his or her expertise or trustworthiness, or otherwise rejecting his or her validity (Buller, 1986; Festinger, 1957; Festinger & Maccoby, 1964; Wright, 1975). Social validation and source derogation are responses that do not require message scrutiny, although both are likely to be coded as unfavorable thoughts in the general cognitive response approach. Negative affect involves responding to the persuasive attempt by getting angry, irritated, or upset (Abelson & Miller, 1967; Jacks & Devine, 2000; Janis & Terwilliger, 1962; Sherif et al., 1965; Zuwerink & Devine, 1996). Finally, selective exposure involves resisting persuasion by leaving the situation or actively tuning out the persuasive message (e.g., Brock & Balloun, 1967; Frey, 1986; Kleinhesselink & Edwards, 1975). - (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5)

And for those who like pretty pictures, the (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5) stuff as a "pyramid" graphic.