People who still believe climate change is a myth aren’t reasoned or reasoning people.
His position is ideological not logical.
More info in a Bloomberg piece won’t help, and it’s silly to pretend otherwise.
His position is ideological not logical.
More info in a Bloomberg piece won’t help, and it’s silly to pretend otherwise.
I don't know if I agree with the GP that this article would be considered fluff, or that it could be an easy target for pundits, but I definitely see that pattern pop up a lot. ACLU/EFF frequently disappoint me with completely valid points steeped in FUD and bad methodologies that make them easy to rebut. The opposition finds the errors, turns around, gets their base hype on some key emotional rebuttals or mocking while ignoring the real valid points, and all we end up with is stronger division between sides.