I think the reference to "pre-modern" is referring to your (over-)confidence in having realized something very simple, simple enough that a 10 paragraph post on HackerNews can possibly put things straight, and then the arrogance in assuming that hundreds if not thousands of climate researchers are, consciously or unconsciously, overlooking these very simple things.
If a question of research can indeed be settled in a 10 paragraph post on HackerNews, then that question is, in a sense, pre-modern, out of its simplicity alone.
In the modern world: For each of your paragraphs, I can be almost sure to find a long trail of researchers having carefully evaluated it. The story is never as simple as you make it out to be. If anything, your over-confidence sets off my anti-vaxxer flat-earther alarm. But show me sources and I'll read them (then for each of those I can go and find the 10 papers proving those wrong, then the 10 papers proving those papers wrong again; and so on...). In the modern world, the story is never as simple as you make it out to be.
PS: Your concrete arguments is the least interesting part of what you write. The interesting part is that you think something is simple enough that you should be able to convince us about it in a HackerNews post, yet IPCC is either consciously or subsconsciously overlooking it. You must be aware that this is basically a conspiracy theory (that doesn't make it false of course, it is possible for a conspiracy theory to be correct).
I bring you the Wikipedia page for Heartland institute to show how oil is funding the sceptics; also it is deeply human to want to believe there is no disaster coming. Do you on your side have anything concrete for why so many climate researchers today are sacrificing their integrity?
If a question of research can indeed be settled in a 10 paragraph post on HackerNews, then that question is, in a sense, pre-modern, out of its simplicity alone.
In the modern world: For each of your paragraphs, I can be almost sure to find a long trail of researchers having carefully evaluated it. The story is never as simple as you make it out to be. If anything, your over-confidence sets off my anti-vaxxer flat-earther alarm. But show me sources and I'll read them (then for each of those I can go and find the 10 papers proving those wrong, then the 10 papers proving those papers wrong again; and so on...). In the modern world, the story is never as simple as you make it out to be.
PS: Your concrete arguments is the least interesting part of what you write. The interesting part is that you think something is simple enough that you should be able to convince us about it in a HackerNews post, yet IPCC is either consciously or subsconsciously overlooking it. You must be aware that this is basically a conspiracy theory (that doesn't make it false of course, it is possible for a conspiracy theory to be correct).
I bring you the Wikipedia page for Heartland institute to show how oil is funding the sceptics; also it is deeply human to want to believe there is no disaster coming. Do you on your side have anything concrete for why so many climate researchers today are sacrificing their integrity?