[gboudrias]

> If he offends you then you either have issues or don't understand him or both, but he would gladly engage with you either way.

Hmmm no we can also think he uses mostly weak papers with dodgy methodologies and over-generalizes the conclusions. Not all scientists within a field agree with any given scientist of that field, that would be ludicrous.

[unabst]

How do you know he uses mostly weak papers? That is an overgeneralization. And why would he? Which papers should he have chosen?

And I never said all scientists agree. Typical straw man. But what I will say is there are plenty of climate change deniers that claim to be scientists.

[gboudrias]

You literally said if he offends me I have issues or don't understand him. This disregards the notion that you can understand someone as a fellow scientist and be offended by their indefensible interpretations. Sorry but it's not all black or white, and you describing the issue as such makes you more of a zealot than a scientist.

[unabst]

Why would you be offended by the science of a scientist? Let alone their opinion? Why does he offend you so much? I would put this person in the "has issues" category. Not saying that is bad. But it doesn't make you right. Instead, we should focus on the issue. What about what offends you so much? Btw there are plenty of videos of him confronting exactly this.

Nothing is indefensible. Challenge him all you want.

His views are his views. Most of his lectures are about other people's work. When he draws conclusions his logic is sound and his premises are transparent. Talk, think, debate.

Why hate? He continues to help so many people.