Making an antithetical statement doesn't invalidate anything by definition. If you have a rebuttal, do as the author, and express it. State specifically what you're opposing, and give your best rebuttal. Then we can consider what set of arguments and data best predict reality.
Not all claims in the article are outrageous. As a matter of fact most are pretty solid. Which is why the bit about "just wait for tech to solve climate change" stood out for me.
It's definately an article written with emotion - so I think one has to separate underlying arguments from rhetoric.
As I read the technological take, it may be framed optimistically, but otherwise directionally correct.
Solar power for instance have a very steep adoption curve as we've gotten better at producing solar panels. And batteries allow for async electricity production and consumption, which solves some of the issues that renewables have traditionally had.
And without specifying why the claims are outrageous, you yourself is guilty of not providing any proof.
I fail to see how this moves the debate in a productive direction.
For a meaningful exchange of viewpoints to take place, I find it useful to establish what facts we agree on- and disagree on, and figure out their sources, before we heat up a debate, that is simply downstream of missing or poor evidence.
If two opposite parties in a debate, holding strong opinions, but both show up with strong evidence for either side, then both would ideally benefit from being exposed to the other.
Closing your eyes to the other sides evidence, while denying them of yours, accomplishes neither your and their goals - if the goal is the get closer to some resemblance of truth.
"They probably don’t realize that the marginal rate of energy cost is fast approaching zero. That technological innovation is exponential and carbon capture can likely be made economical relatively soon."
Two wildly optimistic statements that can be characterized as "the model" he's criticizing in the rest of the article.
I agree that bit is wildly optimistic, but its still not a claim that climate change is not real and it does not really change his main points that they are idiots.
I think a bigger problem in the context of the article is that they are not intellectuals.
> They probably don’t realize that the marginal rate of energy cost is fast approaching zero. That technological innovation is exponential and carbon capture can likely be made economical relatively soon.
By adding that, he is implying "Don't need to act, keep burning fossils, tech will fix it". That is in itself asserting a simplified model assumption about a (human) world that is much more complex; something he was railing against in the previous parts of his text.
Either it's a cheeky joke, he himself is an intellectual or both.
This is about the 50th anti-solar panel comment I've seen from you over the last number of months. If you google "solar albino" you just get your comments on here (and the AI summary is absolutely roasting you btw), perhaps you mean something else. None of the comments of yours I've seen have ever contained a source for your claims. I'd hate to assume bad faith but it does seem ideologically motivated more than based on reality.
nottorp · · focus · HN ↗
yvdriess · · focus · HN ↗
jagged-chisel · · focus · HN ↗
fransje26 · · focus · HN ↗
vovavili · · focus · HN ↗
prolly97 · · focus · HN ↗
FranzFerdiNaN · · focus · HN ↗
nottorp · · focus · HN ↗
prolly97 · · focus · HN ↗
prolly97 · · focus · HN ↗
I fail to see how this moves the debate in a productive direction.
For a meaningful exchange of viewpoints to take place, I find it useful to establish what facts we agree on- and disagree on, and figure out their sources, before we heat up a debate, that is simply downstream of missing or poor evidence. If two opposite parties in a debate, holding strong opinions, but both show up with strong evidence for either side, then both would ideally benefit from being exposed to the other. Closing your eyes to the other sides evidence, while denying them of yours, accomplishes neither your and their goals - if the goal is the get closer to some resemblance of truth.
graemep · · focus · HN ↗
That is very different from a claim that climate change is not happening or not anthropogenic.
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
nottorp · · focus · HN ↗
"They probably don’t realize that the marginal rate of energy cost is fast approaching zero. That technological innovation is exponential and carbon capture can likely be made economical relatively soon."
Two wildly optimistic statements that can be characterized as "the model" he's criticizing in the rest of the article.
graemep · · focus · HN ↗
I think a bigger problem in the context of the article is that they are not intellectuals.
yvdriess · · focus · HN ↗
By adding that, he is implying "Don't need to act, keep burning fossils, tech will fix it". That is in itself asserting a simplified model assumption about a (human) world that is much more complex; something he was railing against in the previous parts of his text. Either it's a cheeky joke, he himself is an intellectual or both.
hunterpayne · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
staminade · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-09-26-wind-and-solar-power-could-significantly-exceed-britain-s-energy-needs" rel="nofollow">https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-09-26-wind-and-solar-power-co...
dpatterbee · · focus · HN ↗
variadix · · focus · HN ↗
variadix · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]