Ok that makes sense. Still it sounds like he was regurgitating the findings of a study of frog behavior in polluted environments, and then creating a conspiracy theory around it. How was anything he added correct information on top of the preexisting evidence?
No, nothing he added was correct, he just technically wasn’t 100% wrong in what he said on the topic. This is only notable in that he usually is 100% wrong.
Ok that makes sense. Still it sounds like he was regurgitating the findings of a study of frog behavior in polluted environments, and then creating a conspiracy theory around it. How was anything he added correct information on top of the preexisting evidence?
No, nothing he added was correct, he just technically wasn’t 100% wrong in what he said on the topic. This is only notable in that he usually is 100% wrong.