The problem was that the climate alarmists used changing definitions.

When discussing mere climate change (lowercase), which meant that "the climate was changing, and warming since the last ice age," you would say science supports it.

Then, when discussing Climate Change (uppercase), which meant that "the climate was changing due primarily to human behavior in such a way that there was imminent danger requiring immediate and very costly liberal spending programs," you also pretended that science supported it.

So, when someone denied Climate Change, you would attack them for denying climate change, which was a great political tactic but was disingenuous. Also, I think it succeeded in confusing people on both sides. If you had used consistent terminology, the debate would have been clearer. But, your goal was not clear debate.

Maybe it would work if you called for the deaths of climate change deniers while pretending to love your fellow man? You seem to think that works in other contexts.