Hello pdx.

You wrote: "Why does it threaten you so much?"

This is a classic aggressive move, no-one has claimed being threatened, they have instead pointed out useful information about this obvious fraud.

As you have been on HN indeed a while, may I ask you that you justify this "Why does it threaten you so much?", or go away?

Thank You

The person he replied to wrote:

|You're a danger to the world we live in.

The above person is saying he threatens the world, and as a resident of such world, is also being threatened.

"You're a danger to the world we live in." is not pointing out useful information.

You don't need to say "I feel threatened". Who the hell says "I feel threatened"? The fact that there is so much anger and gnashing of teeth is evidence that a worldview that does not include AGW must be viciously and immediately attacked. I find that fascinating.

By "I find that fascinating," do you mean "I interpret that as meaning people who believe in anthropogenic global climate change are closed minded and unwilling to entertain opposing viewpoints"? Because if so, that's not at all what's happening here. What's happening is that people are unwilling to devote an hour of their time to an untrustworthy actor peddling a viewpoint that is heavily pushed by those who have the most to lose from a global switch away from fossil fuels. There are so many reasons not to bother watching this video, and the best reason you can come up with is "it's interesting".

People feel threatened because people like you are the reason our planet may well be unable to support global civilization in the near future.

Anger? No, just tired of the same old debunked denyalist bullshit claims

Hey now, reddit doesn't need any more people like this either...

Why are people still using the appeal to the present year as though it were an argument? It's 2017!

This is a technical matter, not a political one. Your mention of Al Gore makes me think that for you, it's a political battle and not a technical or scientific matter.

There are now two very good reasons not to watch the video: 1) the lecture is by a dishonest man and we are being asked to trust that his models and judgement are accurate, and 2) it's most likely that the video was posted for a political agenda and not scientific or technical edification.

An "echo chamber" when it comes to science usually means that things have been mostly figured out correctly. An "echo chamber" for political discussions is where it could be considered a bad thing.

Echo chambers are bad for science as well as for politics. It means that nobody is thinking anymore, they are just regurgitating a memorized response.

On the matter of AGW, we have the situation where the science is not separate from politics because there is a strong push by many people to use the power of the state to impose changes on people and companies in the name of AGW mitigation.

The fact that there are huge amounts of money that could flow into the coffers of heavily debt burdened western governments should make you pause a little to consider how this money may bias the science.

That's complete BS. As a scientist, I see rigorous arguments change into echo chambers all the time, because people collect more data and ideas and theories solidify. It's not dangerous, it's progress.

Al Gore? I didn't knew he was an scientist.

Perhaps people here reads what actual climate scientists say and doesn't talk about Gore