He's clearly just another one that views any argument against their narrative as totally opposite. If you just look at his points on climate change.

I can have an argument with you about what to do about climate change. I can even accept somebody making an argument that, based on what I know about human nature, it’s too late to do anything serious about this—the Chinese aren’t going to do it, the Indians aren’t going to do it—and that the best we can do is adapt. I disagree with that, but I accept that it’s a coherent argument. I don’t know what to say if you simply say, “This is a hoax that the liberals have cooked up, and the scientists are cooking the books. And that footage of glaciers dropping off the shelves of Antarctica and Greenland are all phony.” Where do I start trying to figure out where to do something?

Just look at this, the argument he considers the middle ground is pretty much, "I totally agree with climate change, but it's too late and we're already fucked." Anything further away from that instantly becomes an actual conspiracy theory hoax. There is a lot of space in between those two. Perhaps, for example, one believes the collected data (i.e. the actual facts) is valid, but the theory that these facts point to the impending apocalypse if we don't take drastic action, is invalid.

That's really the problem with their entire mindset though. Deviate from the narrative more than about 10%, and you're instantly a total nut conspiracy theorist.