Yet the linked post doesn't employ it.

> "Keep the pressure on."

This is the same as be vigilant, be persistent. Fight for what you believe in. This has nothing to do with skeptics, it's about engaging those who similarly do so. Thus it's an active discussion. The pressure is obvious because of the high stakes nature of the topic.

> "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

The threat of a fucked up Earth for our children seems a lot more terrifying for us than for them. They are born into it, we see the change.

> "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."

This simply applies to people who are either science communicators by occupation or paid shills for fossil companies.

> "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside"

That's why climate change denialists continue to deny full force, clinging onto the slightest thing. Fighting straw men.

> "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

That's again why denialists muddy up old things, like the Al Gore movie. Which has nothing to do with the science.

> the alarmist side instead uses phrases like “virtually none of the climate-change deniers have a clue about the underlying science.”

And? It seems to be true. It's not a smear phrase, it's the truth laid bare. Denialists are not sophisticated scientists proposing alternate models that explain the data better. Their level of argumentation is very simple, and very much not in good faith.

> It’s impossible to have a rational debate when the leadership of the debate engages in ad hominem attacks as a matter of tactics.

I don't know who you identify as the "leadership", but there are millions of people who think there's man made global warming and they regularly try to convince other people of this without following any sort of leadership.