Nice one, demand that I provide irrefutable proof for my claims, while providing no evidence for your own. I should know better than to engage with climate tro

Nice one, demand that I provide irrefutable proof for my claims, while providing no evidence for your own. I should know better than to engage with climate trolls, but I have some time to kill, so here we go. > 1. That's not my definition of science--it's the definition of science. Definition of science: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science > That scenario would be a matter of Newtonian physics, which any astronomer could run the numbers for. Please provide citations and evidence for these extraordinary claims. And no, academic references don't count because they are obviously biased due to them trying to advanced their own careers. I will only accept citations from 2-bit think tanks funded by mega-corporations that have obvious financial interests at stake. > Should we do what you demand when you demand it because you personally are convinced that the planet is going to be destroyed? Yes. > i.e. decimating the economies and lives of billions of people in poor and developing nations. Please use science to back up that claim. Until then, clean energy is the way forward. Its already cheaper[1], healthier[2], and creates more jobs[3] than fossil fuel. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-19/solar-and-wind-power-so-cheap-they-re-outgrowing-subsidies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-19/solar-and... [2] https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/coal-air-pollution https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fu... [3] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm