>people flying around the world trying to stop it would not be major drivers of the problem.

Thats missing the point. The fact that these people arent willing to sacrifice the slightest convenience for the planet strongly suggests they dont actually believe what they are saying. Obviously no one person can ruin the planet.

And: >"A 401k sounds great, but if everyone's starving and the world is in chaos, what's the point?" Is just a nicer way to say: >"I shouldn't save because the apocalypse is coming"

>marginal relative wealth increases

Understatement of the century. >Former vice president Al Gore had a net worth of about $1.7 million at the turn of the century and 13 years later, his wealth has grown to more than $200 million. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320452/Al-Gore-Rom...

The article says Gore made his money in business, by starting a TV network and from stock options earned while sitting on Apple's board. The options were from before the massive rise in Apple's stock.

You implied Gore made his money from climate activism, but your own source contradicts you. The options are:

1. You have such confirmation bias that you don't even read articles you post as evidence, or 2. You know you're arguing in bad faith, but you hope to persuade people who don't read the link

I'm sure Al Gore has made some money from climate activism, but the vast bulk of his fortune came from elsewhere. So the comment you were replying to was accurate in describing it as a marginal increase due to activism.

Here's the first hit from a web search for "al gore solyndra"

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_1961299

Tldr; The Washington Post attributes most of Al Gore's net worth to investments in taxpayer subsidized climate startups.

There certainly are bad faith people on hackernews, i just hope you yourself arent one of them lol.

"These people" are. You just haven't heard of them. In particular there are quite a few low-energy, off grid, permaculture advocates living what they preach. The existence of Al Gore doesn't change the science.

No, but it does put into question the motivations of people funding the science, and academics are poorly-paid professionals constantly fighting for funding, not gods with uniformly honored moral scruples.

The future has been, since the birth of language, terrifying and uncertain.

There have been times in history where focusing on your retirement has been a stupid idea (fall of Rome, WWII, areas devastated by plague or flood, etc, etc). However, there have also been times where catastrophe has stubbornly refused to occur.

It is actually pretty easy to describe a horrific future that can't be quickly or reasonably debunked - but anyone with sense should also be prepared for the outside scenario that everything carries on as planned. Doomsayers always face the risk that the problem turns out to be solvable or minor, and should be prepared for that.