> that means 10MW of other loads on the grid were not powered by green energy, or 10MW of non-green power sources likely could have been throttled down/shut down.

No. Renewable energy capacity is often built out specifically for datacenters.

> Even if they install solar on the roofs and wind turbines nearby - that's still electrical generation capacity that could have been used for existing loads.

No. This capacity would never never have been built out to begin with if it was not for the data center.

> By buying so many solar panels in such quantities, they affect availability and pricing of all those components.

No. Renewable energy gets cheaper with scale, not more expensive.

> which means in a year they're selling enough chips to use 700MW of power.

There are contracts for renewal capacity to be built out or well into the gigawatts. Furthermore, solar is not the only source of renewable energy. Finally, nuclear energy is also often used.

> the IC industry uses a massive amount of water

A figurative drop in the bucket.

> It's hilarious how HN will wring its hands

HN is not a monolith.

Who is going to decide what are a worthy uses of our precious green energy sources?

The climate models aren't based on accurate data, nor enough data, so they lack integrity and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Likewise, the cloud seeding they seem to be doing nearly worldwide now - the cloud formations from whatever they're spraying - are artificially changing weather patterns, and so a lot of the weather "anomalies" or unexpected-unusual weather-temperatures could very easily be because of those shenanigans; it could very easily be as a method to manufacture consent with the general population.

Similarly with the arson forest fires in Canada last summer, something like 90%+ of them were arson + a few years prior some of the governments in the prairie provinces (e.g. hottest and dryest) gutted their forest firefighting budgets; interesting behaviour considering if they're expecting more things to get hotter-dryer, you'd add to the budget, not take away from it, right?

> It's meaningfully affecting people today near the equator. Look at the April 2024 heatwave in South Asia.

Weather is not climate, as everyone is so careful to point out during cold waves.

It isn't a quantitative model unless you give a prediction of some kind. In this case, dates (or date ranges) would make sense.

1. When do you predict catastrophic global warming/climate change? How do you define "catastrophic"? (Are you pegging to an average temperature increase? [1])

2. When do you predict AGI?

How much uncertainty do you have in each estimate? When you stop and think about it, are you really willing to wager that (1) will happen before (2)? You think you have enough data to make that bet?

[1] I'm not an expert in the latest recommendations, but I see that a +2.7°F increase over preindustrial levels by 2100 is a target by some: https://news.mit.edu/2023/explained-climate-benchmark-rising...

Or we could use microwaves to drill holes as deep as 20km to tap geothermal energy anywhere in the world

https://www.quaise.energy/

I’m not sure where you found your information to somehow form that ludicrous last strawman… Climate change is real, you can’t deny it, you can’t debate it. Simply look at the data. What you can debate is the cause… Again a sort of pointless debate if you look at the science. Not even climate change deniers as you call them are necessary saying that we shouldn’t do anything about it. Even big oil is looking into ways to lessen the CO2 in the atmosphere through various means.

That being said, the GP you’re talking about made no such statement whatsoever.