ozimoron

Clearly you aren't interested in advancing the debate in a meaningful manner.

It's better than voting for parties and politicians who deny there's a problem.

Who publishes news?

Irrelevant. I vote for the political parties who promise to do the most to combat climate change. Arguments in the same vein as your question like I flew to Thailand on a jet are just childish, as an example. Climate change can only be halted by collective action. It is an international problem because we all live on the same planet. I believe this single truth is the reason so many deny it is a problem.

The mainstream media don't "want" me to think anything. They publish the news, that's it. If Keep Right was seeking the real truth he'd provide links, right?

Nobody said that all the science was known but anthropomorphic climate change sure as hell isn't going to be proven false or anything other than an existential emergency. The only science that's unknown is exactly how the climate reacts to greenhouse gases and how to go about stopping or reversing it and where the tipping points are. The concept itself is set in concrete.

I agree with your general sentiment that xenophobes exist in all countries but I'd like you to explain why the article was published if you don't believe there is any interest in it.

Untrue. Trump's documents were not stored in one location and the secret service is not responsible for the custody of his belongings. Furthermore, he falsely denied that he had further documents. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/07/us/politics/trump-classified-documents-search.html

Did you really think that comment through? You have no idea how the accident happened.

I prefer the word "any". Every would be a good alternative. Denial of overwhelming scientific opinion is zealotry. There's no kind way to describe deniers.

Then in my opinion you deserve to be labelled as one. Scientists overwhelming state that we are in an existential crisis over climate change. Claiming that the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion is wrong has to be zealotry unless a credible argument can be put to counter that scientific opinion. I never see any.

I didn't. I replied to you with a generalisation. You can either agree with the generalisation or not as you wish.

Any person who repeatedly argues that climate change is overblown as an issue or outright false or denies that it is caused by human activities can be fairly labelled a zealot in exactly the same way as creationists can be likewise described. The science is in and that ship has sailed.

I agree. I have also occasionally pointed out that there is no need to bash an entire nation based on the actions of one person. The actions of this person were inexcusable and he deserves derision. Defending him is a lost cause.

I didn't infer anything. I think you mean implied.

It was not a response to you and my comment as general. If you believe you fit the description that's on you.

That message isn't getting across too well among a number of members who prefer to engage in whataboutery.

Complaining about nationalities being reported seems a bit trite considering the sheer number of members on this board who are more than willing to engage in gratuitous Thai bashing at any opportunity. Could you explain the problem with reporting nationalities? It seems free speech is good until it isn't.

Or you debate in good faith.

Did I say that?

Was a that a response to you?

Could you make a more inane comment?

I didn't. Again don't misquote me.

Don't misquote me. It's against the rules. If you make a disparaging comment about a young activist with a disability you have exposed your attitude for the world to see.

She doesn't have to change any minds. She only has to encourage people not to vote for politicians who resist climate change. That's her main message and she's wildly successful at it. Every fool knows you can't change the mind of a zealot climate change denier.