I'm hardly a "pro-fossil fuel troll" as you seem to imply, though I do think it's odd that you'd resort to framing someone with opposing views as "losing [an] argument" when scientifically speaking, facts should speak for themselves - no arguments needed. The facts relating to AGW are
far from clear. Anyone telling you otherwise is either funded by powerful political agendas, or too ignorant to recognize the manipulation happening in the media.
There are very legitimate reasons to support the use of fossil fuels and to consider the cost - in human lives - of trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels. To ignore that side of the debate is simply irresponsible. They certainly aren't free from negative consequences, but the negative consequences of eliminating fossil fuel use are far greater.
Lastly, pointing out additional flaws in the AGW narrative is not an indication of "losing an argument" or subsequently deciding to fight another. I raised this particular point to help illustrate the fact that even if you do happen to subscribe to the idea of AGW, if you follow that idea to its logical conclusion, you're still no better off in terms of actually fixing anything. It's just one more clue that the whole AGW ideology serves a hidden political purpose. In my experience, ideological flaws tend to travel in pairs - or in this case, herds.
I bet it feels like you're doing the world a favor by perpetuating the flawed idea that climate change and fossil fuels are the most important problems of our time, but unless you're actually willing to give up everything that fossil fuels do for us (FYI, that includes pretty much all the conveniences of modern civilized living), then that's a pretty hypocritical position to take. Worst of all, the anti-fossil-fuel agenda ends up hurting the people who stand to gain the most from industrial progress - especially those in developing countries.