This article investigates the causal antecedents of conflictual language and the geometry of interaction in online threaded conversations related to climate change. We employ three annotation dimensions, inferred through LLM prompting and averaging, to capture complementary aspects of discursive conflict (such as stance: agreement vs disagreement; tone: attacking vs respectful; and emotional versus factual framing) and use data from a threaded online forum to examine how these dimensions respond to temporal, conversational, and arborescent structural features of discussions. We show that, as suggested by the literature, longer delays between successive posts in a thread are associated with replies that are, on average, more respectful, whereas longer delays relative to the parent post are associated with slightly less disagreement but more emotional (less factual) language. Second, we characterize alignment with the local conversational environment and find strong convergence both toward the average stance, tone and emotional framing of older sibling posts replying to the same parent and toward those of the parent post itself, with parent post effects generally stronger than sibling effects. We further show that early branch-level responses condition these alignment dynamics, such that parent-child stance alignment is amplified or attenuated depending on whether a branch is initiated in agreement or disagreement with the discussion's root message. These influences are largely additive for civility-related dimensions (attacking vs respectful, disagree vs agree), whereas for emotional versus factual framing there is a significant interaction: alignment with the parent's emotionality is amplified when older siblings are similarly aligned.