Have you heard of Google? </sarcasm>

Here's a starter for 10:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-climatechange-palmoil/e...

Interestingly the figure quoted here is half rather than 60%, and it seems the EU want to phase it out entirely, which might explain Greenpeace's "targeting of food companies" and relative lack of apparent interest in biofuels (assuming that's a thing).

Yes I'm aware that I can search Google for facts.[0]

What I'm interested in are the sources that the author is using so that I can read them, and then compare to searches I might conduct myself.[1]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0oa3Qiz5tw

[1] https://study.com/academy/lesson/comparing-and-contrasting-s...

Saying it that way will be much more helpful for the conversation. When people say something very easy like "Sources or it didn't happen", my normal gut reaction is to think "That person is just trying to waste my time because they have a contrary stance". Even better would be to say something like "Could you post the sources you used because this source[1] seems to say something different".

Sometimes when you are honestly trying to convey some information, people who are contrary are just shouting you down. It's usually better to ignore them because otherwise you end up going down a rabbit hole of their choosing. But, at least for me, if I see that someone is genuinely interested in exploring the subject I'll usually go the extra mile and prepare the information I have. Sometimes it leads me to find out I'm wrong, and I'm always grateful for the prompting.

> When people say something very easy like "Sources or it didn't happen", my normal gut reaction is to think "That person is just trying to waste my time because they have a contrary stance".

Agree. To me it almost feels like a pre-programmed response/reaction or, at best, something that might be said to try and be funny, which can be frustrating depending on the context.