Nice blog.
I'd like to add that it is even more aggravating when I agree in part to something but, because I am not in lock-step with the prevailing theory, I am treated like the enemy.
Case in point is climate change. I believe in the theory of optimums, as originally taught by the same meteorologist who coined the phrase "global warming." The two points I try to make about optimum theory are:
1) If the optimum is a natural occurrence, then it is not man-made. Those who adhere to the idea that mankind can somehow stop the natural weather cycles are skating on the thin ice of "magical thinking". We might as well go back to human sacrifice to appease the rain gods.
2) If the optimum is returning us to climate patterns that paralleled cultural advances in the classical and medieval ages, we need to stop studying how we can stop these patterns and instead study how we can take advantage of these patterns. For one: more carbon in the atmosphere means more opportunity for forestation and farmland reclamation. During the classical optimum, parts of North Africa that are now considered desert were fertile farmland.
I am already aware that other countries are using climate change to restore their deforested habitats. It is very irritating to me when I try and point this out in a climate change argument and am dismissed as both a tree-huger and an advocate for fossil fuels at the same time because I don't take a polar stance on the issue.