[cowbell]

It does have some structure to it. It seems he leads with an introduction to try to give himself some credibility (engineer, done solar farms, energy efficient housing, drove an ev). If you go to page 11, he has a list of 5 points he goes through and refutes.

I thought it was interesting that he leads with a 150ppm argument. He basically states that increasing CO2 saved us from certain doom.

Interestingly, I don't hear anyone here refuting his primary point so it must be too new for realclimate.org to have a page giving marching orders to the drones. Mostly all I see is sarcasm and name calling... ie. Quality comments in league with Yahoo news and YouTube.

I'm glad this didn't make it to the front page. It's pretty off topic for this site. It doesn't really belong on hacker news.

[phkahler]

OP here. I'm kinda glad it didn't make the front page too, but some stuff from the other side has made it there so I figured what the heck. I find the comments here on HN interesting - attack on him for length of presentation, failure to address ocean acidity, not being a climate scientist (not in the club, so screw him) and such are mostly what you get anywhere else. The guy presents data, but nobody talks about the data - as usual. I would say the HN comments are better than the internet at at large, but not as much better as I had hoped.