It's exhausting. His thinking is literally a direct threat to human survival as we know it. Yet somehow, we accept this shit as part of the discourse. I don't see why we don't treat them like flat earthers or cultists.
I live in California and have first-hand experience with water shortages and all kinds of other fun things pertaining to drastic climate changes. I'm not a Global Warming or a Climate Change denier, but I do want to lay some things down. Flat-earthers are people who ignore the laws of physics that make up almost everything that has to do with modern civilization. Global Warming or Climate Change deniers are people who disagree about the effects of humanity on global climate and the policies that are being enacted locally or federally to avoid potential consequences. The first group is full of idiots. The latter group predominantly consists of people who look at bans on plastic straws and farting cows and draw their conclusions from that. I'm sorry, but the only exhausting thing about all of this is people like you who completely dismiss the other side because they somehow beat into their head that this is a simple one-dimensional issue.
> The latter group predominantly consists of people who look at bans on plastic straws and farting cows and draw their conclusions from that.
What about the people who think climate change is real but question the science and ask why 1 study includes X but not Y while another includes Y but not X, and suggest it’s cherry picking data?
It's a bit hyperbolic to say that any one person's thinking is "literally" a direct threat to human survival, unless that person has his finger on the nuclear button. Some person's incoherent opinion on the internet is not literally a threat to anything.
I'm pointing this out because hyperbole and demonization do no one any good, either when trying to correct misinformation or when trying to enact policy.