> This article essentially amounts to a fire-and-brimstone sermon full of questionable statements, things that run directly contrary to established science, and poor argumentation and use of sources
Which claims run contrary to established science? Are the claims you mention that are established agreed upon unanimously, or are there multiple models comprised of competing evidence?
Which claims run contrary to established science? Are the claims you mention that are established agreed upon unanimously, or are there multiple models comprised of competing evidence?