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.
nottorp · · 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.