Absolutely mate, I don’t know shit about it at all and really am not interested, I feel like I made that pretty clear. But anyone claiming something is 100% fact in a debate without having actual proof is arguing in bad faith, because they’re literally engaged in a debate, if it’s 100% fact there is no debate, it would have been proven and anything else becomes conspiracy. The fact that Wikipedia actually says man made means there is some debate.

They might be bang right, but not acknowledging any amount of doubt when it clearly exists (unless they are holding back the proof that they haven’t shared with the world for whatever reason) is bad discussion.

I’ll side any day with someone passionately espousing the truth, over someone who calmly lies

I’m totally with you there bud, there’s a big difference between passion and anger though. One might win people round to your side, the other will only ingratiate you to people already on your side.

You’d have to do alot of explaining if you claimed global warming wasn’t manmade too, at that point you’d just be arguing definitions… Whether that’s the definition of what constitutes global warming or the definition of when something becomes manmade.

Good talk :) x