[eb3c90]

> When you look at how many bad decisions have been taken these past few years despite plenty of access to good information, this sentiment seems pretty out of touch…

I'd argue we have lots of good information about what is going on. I'm not sure we have lots of good information about what we should do. Should we move to renewables and storage, nuclear or carbon capture and storage or would it be better to geo-engineer?

There are lots of trade-offs for all these paths. Being able to simulate their interactions accurately and under different assumptions might help form a consensus about a not too bad way forward.

[ijpsud]

Agreed. And in regard to GP's comment:

> kind of arrogant "make the world a better place" attitude

It's not "arrogant" to want to make the world a better place. If GP thinks they're lying, they's better described as "deceptive". If GP thinks they're naive, they should say that, and ideally provide some constructive feedback. This kind of knee-jerk comment (and the subsequent knee-jerk upvotes) is my least-favorite thing about HN.

[strangemonad]

That’s conflating availability of lots of data with ability to understand though.

[eb3c90]

Could you be more precise in what you are responding to?

[strangemonad]

Meant to agree with your reply, the comment was for the post you were replying to. We have lots of data but that doesn’t mean we have widely distributed understanding. Data != understandable models of the world. We need much more of the later.