> I did, I just don’t think this is the discussion I want to have.

So, you replied to something in which you are not interest, with words related to content in which you are interested? This is something I haven't seen before.

> It’s a strawman in a way. It’s like this argument "what harm is in asking questions" as if asking a question wasn’t a way to frame a conversation.

Things are sometimes like that, but this isn't one of those times.

I challenge you to choose some words I'm saying that you believe are guilty of that. And please don't frame it as if the actual conversation is about the topic you are interested in ("If all climate models are wrong, it still makes sense to..."), and it is I who changed the subject.

> IMHO, you make the conversation a lot more difficult. For sure, we can talk about human psychology and ego in terms of climate change.

I'm way ahead of you, this is what I was already discussing. My comment is right there for you and others to review, what you hope to achieve by feigning surprise is beyond me.

> Your points a-c:

My questions were written as a response to @svara's question: "How does that move the conversation forward?"

> a) It’s interesting to you, it’s boring for others.

Ok. May I ask: why did you reply?

> b) This includes a) and makes a) goal-oriented. Yes, we can talk about how effective the current approach is to deal with climate change. We can also talk on how to optimize this conversation. Part of this might be to understand the deniers to some extend. But this has its limits.

Does it? Upon what do you base this assertion?

> It’s hard to be goal-oriented with people that are merely destructive.

Upon what is your assertion that they are "merely destructive" based?

> It’s like talking to Nazis. At some point, this is pointless, because hate is all that comes out of their mouths.

This is an absurdly broad generalization, and it kind of sounds like the kind of thing someone on the internet would just make up. Once again, upon what do you base this assertion?

> c) Criticism is allowed. Derailing the conversation however is ineffective.

I'm not derailing the conversation. I introduced a new topic, and a conversation ensued based upon that new topic. You entered that discussion, and attempted to redirect the topic of conversation, and now you are giving me advice on how to conduct myself?

> Talking about conspiracy stuff that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny is ineffective.

Really? Lots of people believe conspiracy theorists and deniers actually spread their ideas.

> But it’s done all the time by deniers. And people who think climate change is real got a little tired by all the BS.

Sorry to hear that.

> Your last two paragraphs are cryptic.

You asked: "But how do you solve this if one part of humans think that the only thing that's left is a "giant middle finger to the system"?", and I replied telling you to essentially think. This is cryptic advice?

> Please add some actionable ideas to this discussion. Because simply asking me to think about stuff you are unable to point out exactly is lazy.

Entering a conversation, changing the topic, and then refusing to think is.....I dunno, absurd?

> All you keep repeating is that psychology and ego should be added to the discussion or the human brain should be exploited. Like how exactly? What’s your plan? What’s the goal you wanna achieve?

All of this is very clearly contained within the text of the discussion. I'm not sure if your ignorance is feigned or genuine, but I don't have the energy to find out. Not to say that I'm not curious though, this is one of the more interesting permutations of unusual behavior I've encountered yet.