If someone is trying to spread awareness of global warming, and someone asks this person "but the climate has changed before, why is it different now", and all the climate change awareness advocate can say is "well, uh, climate change is bad, ok" then it still reflects poorly on the advocate for not being able to defend what they're advocating, not on the person who may have been misinformed but was giving the advocate a chance to show them the error of their ways.
And this isn't even accurate, everything I said is a common pro nuclear response. The only part I wasn't informed on at that moment was the budgeting issue.
Not for advocacy, but as a representative of an organization whose policy choices were very controversial for a group of stakeholders. (I cannot talk about specifics, which aren't relevant anyway)
It's not smart or productive to get into a public debate with people in that type of forum. You're there to deliver a message, and engaging in ad hoc public debate is unwise for your cause and disrespectful to your hosts. The only way to win is to not play the game; it's better to just end the conversation in the most tactful way possible (which may include playing dumb or remaining silent) or move it to a private forum.
