Very emotional language. Picturesque victims. A gagged female scientist, who wouldn't dislike that. Who dares to impose hierarchies on female scientists.
It’s like playing Russian roulette, and having all the fun ruined by some eagle eyed gun expert pointing out that actually, there’s a bullet in that gun. The risk comes from the bullet, but we’re still tempted to be annoyed at the expert instead.
we project that the world is going to end unless we do X which is not a scientific finding but rather one of a multitude of opinions on the future which is why climate models are averaged because there is no consensus and even if there was science doesn’t work on consensus.
You can tell by the dramatic article that this is why the government doesn’t let people like her give its opinions because her opinion diverges from that of the government.
So, no worries, the world is not going to end.
And if humans manage to ruin their living conditions so badly that we end up dying out, evolution has just made another important step. After all, it is not like we deserve to survive.
I'm framing this, it's a perfect example of the endemic "dumb HN take".
1. asserting some personal desire as a rule
2. asserting it across the entire world
3. ignoring the actual details of the actual thing being discussed (climate change is surely not political in the same way that gravity isn't)
4. having no empathy at all for the actual topic or interest in it
5. despite all of the above, for some reason deciding to post a comment instead of saying nothing
And here is the APS professional standards manual. https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/corporate/ethi...