Please consider that AL is absolutely certain of what he knows. He is sincere to the bone, so much so that all attempts to confront what he knows to be the 'truth' is seen as a hostile act. If entire communities of independent experts spread over the globe and generations develop an understanding that's contrary to his core Truth, he can't help but blame it on some hostile conspiracy. It makes no sense to him that his understanding could be wrong.
On the other side, we have people for whom the pursuit of better understanding and new discoveries is the goal. Self-skepticism and a willingness to subject one's own convictions to the toughest tests and then allowing the evidence to direct what one trusts or rejects is the order of the day.
If one's pet theory, or one's understanding, turns out to be wrong, one learns from those mistakes and moves forward, hurt feelings be damned.
Unfortunately your climate science uni-directional skeptics aren't built like that.
They don't have the imagination nor desire to look beyond their own limited socio-economic/political perceptions, they don't care about the world out there, only the one in their heads. Crack that nut and you'll deserve a Nobel Prize.
What makes this round so fascinating is that Dave managed to never sink to AL's level.
Instead he took the time to review and comment on the 30 peer-reviewed papers AL cut and pasted and tossed at Dave as though they were self-evident proof that the MWP was no different than today's warming. And the ending is classic.
I don't know who Dave is, but I like his style and depth of understanding, it would be very cool if others (of like capability and disposition) might be inspired by his example of standing up the peddlers of scientific nonsense.
"In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions." (learn more at http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm)
For more background see:
Changing Sun, Changing Climate
1) when we are discussing the reports referencing them is thus unavoidable
2) I am also referencing AR5 when using it as a benchmark representation of mainstream views
3) the point of a reference is not merely to give authority to a statement, but it also allows the reader the opportunity to find out where the statement came from and get further details, and to ensure that the statement is in line with the source. It also allows the reader to formulate a rebuttal
4) I am indicating where I got my knowledge from
5) AR5 is a literature review and as such it is a useful point by which the underlying research can be read
6) it contains many basic facts
7) It has to be at least as good as the links to denialist blogs
8) It is well respected. The current Paris conference is making decisions based on it.