[black_puppydog]

Seems people are very taken aback by the "extremist rhetoric" of the group publishing this. Two comments:

1. Focus on the actual report, the leaked files. Top right corner, or somewhere here on HN there's a link to it. That document is the primary source here and might fit your taste better. Judge for yourselves what conclusions are presented there and whether those match the "extremist" ones you complain about.

2. To be completely clear here I'm more convinced than ever that any moderate response (and rhetoric) about the climate crisis at this point is the truly extremist stance to take. Recently courts have ruled that any semblance of incremental changes are, at this point, endangering the very lives of future and current generations. See e.g. the Shell case, I think in the Netherlands, or the recent constitutional court ruling in Germany.

[tejohnso]

> any semblance of incremental changes are, at this point, endangering the very lives of future and current generations

Yes, appropriate emphasis on current. Another example:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58303792

[lowkey_]

It would've been much better served for OP to link to the actual IPCC report, so we could have a substantive conversation about climate, rather than everyone (understandably) being taken aback by the extremist and communist arc of the current link.

(I've been reading the report, and it's definitely worth seeing even if you despise this "Science Rebellion" website).

[black_puppydog]

Maybe some mods can change the link to the pdfs? In any case they're not difficult to find and I trust the HN crowd wants to see the primary source anyhow.