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.
nottorp · · focus · HN ↗
prolly97 · · focus · HN ↗
FranzFerdiNaN · · focus · HN ↗
nottorp · · focus · HN ↗
prolly97 · · focus · HN ↗