It’s not the actual claims of the article that got me interested (denying human-induced climate change is a receding faith, probably soon to join antivaxxers, and then, eventually, flat-earthers), but the way the article is written. I tried to find more about this Andrew Urban from Australia, but couldn't. I got curious what his background was. Humanities, most likely? Judging by what he uses to build his argument — a catalogue of general-purpose utterances by people related (or unrelated) to science; your basic namedropping (Einstein said, Hawking said, Mark Twain said...). There is something from literary studies, or literary criticism about this method. After finishing the article, the reader is none the wiser about what exactly is wrong with climate science.
