Creative Speculation

... because, as has been repeatedly called to your attention (to no avail), it's actually a video of him bragging to his buddies rather than "confessing". But, yes, I claim that any reasonably rational person can easily why that's weak circumstantial evidence rather than "hard evidence."

Unlike you and your "hard evidence" bullshit, I can even define the term "circumstantial evidence": "Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference."

And unlike you, I can even say specifically why it's "weak" circumstantial evidence: The necessary inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact requires the premise that he wasn't just lying to his buddies to impress them, but that is a possibility, so the inference is unreliable as "proof" of anything.

See what I just did there? It's called defending my argument with reason. You should try it sometime.

> If I'm so very wrong, then why can't you stop? Why do you persist?

LOL, there's that reading comprehension problem again. You're responding to a post in which I just gave one reason why I'll keep egging you on as long as you want to play this silly game. It's actually just another case steady of the poor "reasoning" used by conspiracists and, as Jonathan Swift once noted, the impossibility of reasoning someone out of beliefs that were never the result of reasoning in the first place.

> Meanwhile, did you answer my other questions? Do you deny human caused climate change?

And there it is again! Would answering a second time help? I have to doubt it.