It’s absurd, as if they have this idea that scientific discussion is merely a topic that is debatable purely by rhetoric and not strict methods of logical reasoning to support claims. That means CREDIBLE sources and an overwhelming amount of EVIDENCE and not just assumptions or circular reasoning “well, because I say it’s true.”

I thought one of them, just one of them could present something strong to validate their claims. Nothing. Where is this vast amounts of damming evidence and why would you not want to be blasting it all over?! I sure as hell would want to know if it was true or possible, but I believe the evidence in front of me and the strength it holds.

I will in fact say that climate change is made up if provided with the damming evidence proving so and I am not bias for wanting evidence over the word of some nobody on the internet. That is called… logic.

It’s simple to understand, random people on internet saying something is true does not outweigh the numerous amounts of evidence against what they say and saying that scientist are corrupt then show the EVIDENCE.

You do that, then no one can say a damn word about your claims being undoubtedly false. Simple right? That ends any argument, so do it and make sure it’s air-tight evidence. Stop barking and back it up. Done.