Moses - thought-for-today - if you want to avoid the wisecracks - you need to make sure you do not spare any grammatical expense explaining the full meaning of your intent:
Happy New Year, friend.
I don't mind the wisecracks. It shows me fairly quickly who is here to genuinely learn something, and who is here to oppose and obscure the truth.
I particularly like it when a denier (maybe some are not trolls) deny the obvious truth, and then I get to point out where they are obviously wrong. And then they make out as if they didn't understand in the first place. The exchange tends to go like this.
Me: Obvious truth demonstrating point.
Denier: Denial of obvious truth.
Me: Example of obvious truth demonstrating point - and a mild jab at the denier's competence in the field given the denial.
Denier: Backtrack "Uh - I don't understand the question." Projection. "That mild jab applies to you!" Change the subject to a slightly different one, to hide the error, or a story that would indicate denier would have or should have had the knowledge not to have denied the obvious truth. "Well, of course I've been in a plane - in my younger days, I was quite the pilot..."
See this exchange below, posted for your amusement as well as mine.
What evidence do you have that the atmosphere is transparent?
So you obviously have never seen any mountains, right? Because they become invisible before they disappear "over the horizon". Hence demonstrating that the atmosphere is not completely transparent. Enough atmosphere and it becomes opaque.
Enough atmosphere? What does that even mean? By the way, I've seen Mont Blanc from about 30,000 feet as well as other alpine peaks. I've flown over quite a few mountains, including the Rockies. Some days there is cloud, others mist, and sometimes it is completely clear. You should get out more.
Okay. End of exchange. Back to my response to you, now.
(Yes - it is intended to be funny - please laugh...)
Lol.