A good and clear response. which in the main, I respect.

I do not accept that the existence of a climate crisis is irrefutable. There is so much evidence of its effects on our world that, even if there were no disagreement among scientists, it is evident to any intelligent and observant person.

All legitimate science is independent, regardless of its funding source. That there are some 'scientists' whose competence, methodology or findings cannot be relied upon, or whose findings are misrepresented or suppressed, is also true.

Your last paragraph is, in my view, an unfortunate and insulting denigration of myself. It is also spurious because where it applies, it does so as readily to those 'who have no better arguments', regardless of their point of view.

I have an extremely analytical mind and have frequently called out the flawed tendency of so many to generalise from the particular. I do not 'denigrate critical minds' and am always willing to engage with them.

I do not accept, without challenge, materials and statements that clearly represent only a single point of view which conflicts with both rationality and overwhelming evidence but represents itself as valid by resorting to selective presentation of information, conspiracy theories denigrating other expert opinion and clear skewing towards those who benefit from the status quo.

'Climate deniers' is not my term but a common one for those who suggest that climate change is either not happening and/or not something that needs any action because it is just a conspiracy theory with manufactured 'false' evidence to support it. That is not a stereotype.

A stereotype is a labelling that over simplifies or characterises the whole on t he basis of a single. characteristic.