> you should be responding to instead is the quality of the comments. But that's the thing, isn't it? I'm not an expert in climate science, I can't judge what'

> you should be responding to instead is the quality of the comments. But that's the thing, isn't it? I'm not an expert in climate science, I can't judge what's quality and what's FUD reasonably phrased. Neither the vast majority on HN. There is no way for us to determine if this anonymous guy makes some good points or just wants to spread some doubt towards the study. Just because climate science seems more approachable than maths, doesn't mean people are equipped to determine what's true, what's manipulation or what's plausible. Blows my mind some guy made an account, said he was a physical oceanographer, made some grammatically correct comments and everyone believed it. Just like that! > internet users are far too quick to assume that they're encountering manipulative stealth behavior. It's 2023 and it's about climate change, dang...