He actually presented a «balanced» approach by treating Lindzen with respect, but not presenting his argument as if it had
equal evidence supporting the his claims.
Not exact matches
They all have
equal evidence to
support their
claims (zero
evidence), so how can one be «right» or «wrong»?
The truth is that there is no «
evidence» «logic» or «fact» to
support either
claim — both require
equal amounts of faith (regardless of which God you believe in).
However, the strong
evidence that
supports the climate science and human causation of climate change doesn't warrant
equal weight with minority
claims, often disputed by other research, that are not credible, they add.