Odd that the person citing the primary literature, quantifying (or trying to quantify) the scale of effects, discussing multiple hypotheses, and so on, is the "pseudo-intellectual", whereas the person linking to popular accounts, leaning on authority, not responding to the other person's detailed points, and strawmanning the other's position is apparently the "intellectual" (?).

I do, actually, have the same type of discussions with climate change ideologues on both sides: I cite the IPCC reports and primary literature and point out confidence intervals, and on one side they say "but it's solar activity" (even though I showed the estimates of the impact of changing solar activity) and on the other side they say "the earth will be too hot for humans to survive in 2050!" (even though I show intervals for temperature estimates in 2050, where some regions on Earth may indeed become too hot but absolutely not the whole planet).

Anyway, good luck with effecting positive change in the world! There are enough problems so that you still have a pretty good chance of at least being net positive anyway.