I love this article and enjoyed it and the writing style, but I wish we would stop countering bad-faith arguments with bad-faith, or in the case of the comments

I love this article and enjoyed it and the writing style, but I wish we would stop countering bad-faith arguments with bad-faith, or in the case of the comments, assumptions of complete stupidity. Gohmert, who asked about “moving the moon”, knows very well that task is beyond our capabilities. He was suggesting that effecting the earths climate -at all- is beyond our capabilities. He’s completely wrong, and being a jerk, but he didn’t genuinely ask if we could move the moon. This reminds me of when the last president said “I could shoot someone and still be popular” and people genuinely thought he literally meant that. Being an asshole is worth calling out - we don’t have to pretend they’re completely brain dead. The more interesting conversation is: can the BLM and forestry services effectively curb climate change with a bigger budget? In this case it was malice, and not stupidity, although the rule of assumption stands - this is the exception to that rule. One could argue being unaware of how we -do- effect the climate is stupidity, and I’d agree - but if you comment “this guy really thinks we can move the moon!?!??!” You’re falling into a well constructed trap designed to prevent a real conversation between the isles.