[I'm sorry for all the climate change in this topic, I'm using this as an example about information as a whole. What I write can be applied on topics as racism and fascism, I'm just not as familiar with them as with this] I think you see a much clearer distinction between misinformation and and non-misinformation (yes, I know that's not accurate but I want to avoid some traps here). As with climate-denial, you can say a lot of things about it that isn't untrue, it's just not relevant or just wrong for very obscure reasons. They can muddy the water enough for them to be not-wrong. I can't stress enough how wide and deep climate research is. A skilled debater can talk circles around me because I don't have near the expertise to meet all their arguments. Even very popular proponents of climate change research like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson get criticism from the field because they sometimes misrepresent certain facts. Which is natural since neither of them has all the degrees needed and they also have to simplify things for a larger audience. But I love this conversation Corbet and would like it to go on, and if you do watch some of the videos I think we will have much more to agree and disagree on!