I think the main issue is not arguing on scientific facts. It's about arguing on the impacts, outcomes and tradeoffs of policy decisions, which lie far outside the realm of fact and are reasonable to discuss. Many of the faulty reasoning you bring up here are legitimate tradeoffs to discuss.

In particular, the storage requirements, on-demand capacity requirements, and raw material requirements for renewables are real considerations. Abundance, low cost and relative cleanliness of natural gas compared to coal. These should not be hand-waved as against facts, or denigrated in the face of the coming apocalypse.