"If anyone wants to debate the existence or seriousness of anthropogenic climate change, I’d give the same response as I would if they wanted to debate the existence or strength of gravity."
The author views debating climate change as "pointless".
IMHO, the author is actually missing an important point. In a scientific debate, it is perfectly acceptable to remind the "settled science" opponent that a sense of conviction has nothing to do with reality. Trying to convince someone in a scientific debate is to miss the point of the debate. Scientific debates are not rhetorical debates. Why? Because reality doesn't care what anyone thinks.
Take gravity. Is gravity "settled science" and beyond debate? From the physics arXiv blog comes:
"Some physicists are convinced that the properties of information do not come from the behaviour of information carriers such as photons and electrons but the other way round. They think that information itself is the ghostly bedrock on which our universe is built.
Gravity has always been a fly in this ointment. But the growing realisation that information plays a fundamental role here too, could open the way to the kind of unification between the quantum mechanics and relativity that physicists have dreamed of."
Notice that it does not matter how convinced some people are. That is not the goal. So that would not be my goal in a debate on climate change. Just present the science behind the changes. Don't try and convince anyone. Almost Zen-like, the science will win the debate. (I seem to be on a Zen theme.)