This is the key point - even if all these claims are true, they don’t add up to any coherent argument about the substance of climate change.

At best they seem to be arguing against some cultural sub-trends, such as those who argue for “organic farming” or are “anti-nuclear”, or those who make some mistakes such as overestimating the contribution of the Amazon to global oxygen production.

Perhaps some of the more breathless claims are overstated, but none of that materially changes the climate change argument.

I wonder what he is trying to achieve.