Paul, I disagree with your points on climate science, but I do agree there's a bit of overreaction to what could be honest questions. However maybe this explai

Paul, I disagree with your points on climate science, but I do agree there's a bit of overreaction to what could be honest questions. However maybe this explains the response: * Your questions do seem a little like assertions with question marks at the end, because they repeat some climate denial propaganda. In fairness, maybe that's all you've read (Suggestion: Don't get your climate science from mainstream media that is at all politicized (e.g., most UK newspapers, Fox, Huffington Post, etc.) It's a waste of time and misinformation. Try Nature (nature.com), Science (sciencemag.org), New Scientist, Scientific American; even the NY Times is better, though IME very incomplete). * Many of the questions are easily answered with a little research, which make them look more like assertions and not like questions from someone interested in learning. * Unfortunately, easily researched questions that repeat inflamatory propaganda don't add much to the conversation. Perhaps on a less inflamatory subject, where others were less tired of propaganda and less concerned with it taking over the conversation, nobody would have downvoted you.