On September 8, 2019 at 04:18, davidcasemore said...
He speaks pseudo-science rather than politics. I've got way better things to do than argue a topic which has been settled quite some time ago. It's like if I tried to argue with some street-corner bible thumper that there is absolutely no evidence for god(s). Why the hell would I waste my time?
It's easy to cry foul when one doesn't tell one's opponent the rules of engagement.
I'm more than happy to discuss any aspect of climate change, and also provide evidence in support of my views. Taking a leaf out of your book, though, what would be the point when you have already convinced yourself of your own version of the issues being the only correct one?
