Picking this new world order climate hysterics cabal conspiracy theory malarkey apart a little bit....

> Climate hysterics want to avoid responsibility for the economic damage that their carbon-neutral policies are going to have on society.

Not a great start. I don't know of any clean energy policy advocates who _arent totally enthusiastic_ about an opportunity to take full responsibility (and credit) for migrating to a clean economy in the next 10 years. Who, at this point, is ignoring the economics of climate change? Nowhere in here are you even claiming that there is a specific, agree'd upon "consequence" of transitioning to renewable energy, you're just raising a vague spectre of economic collapse, which only implies that policy-makers haven't considered that possibility...which is provably false.

> Many of the most ardent callers for climate action are themselves not even climate scientists, but merely offload their thought processing to the intellectuals who are.

Sounds like a how functioning, science based democratic society should operate, right?

> Almost without fail, neither them, nor the intellectual are educated in economics.

Absolutely right--scientists aren't politicians aren't economists. Multi-disciplinary public policy requires input from many kinds of 'intellectuals' (also, hn is a weird place to be calling people who trained in, and do, a science professionally 'intellectuals', as if its a bad thing).

The alternative is that we live in a fictional autocracy lead by a god-like genius who is singular, all-knowing, and benevolent.

> The reality is that nobody can work out the second and effects and so on for these drastic changes, because they have incomplete information.

Semi-valid criticism. Implies no one has _any_ idea, but its true no one an predict the future with absolute certainty.

> The intellectuals and 'thought leaders' themselves have a fraction of a percent of the actual tacit knowledge that drives economic activity. The knowledge is very widely distributed, which is why central planning is less efficient than the market almost all of the time.

Ah... here is the god you're alluding to--anarcho-capitalism? The distributed knowledge of the market economy knows best.

There is even an anarcho-capitalist case _for_ renewable energy. If you could just price in the cost of emissions and remove subsidies of oil and gas, we would be decades ahead of where we are today on this issue.

> it is misplaced fear due to grossly exaggerated climate scare claims, drummed up by the status-quo.

So "climate hysterics" are the powers that be, and oil and gas is punk-rock. I guess on a millenia scale this is true.

> They won't put their own money or action where their mouths are, but demand it of others - many of whom are not in such fortunate positions.

Waiting to hear about the "climate hysteric" who thinks the solution requires higher taxes (or even, significantly higher cost of living) for people who make under $30k/year. The only reason this would be part of a proposal by a reasonable person is because they know they are negotiating against cynical "ideologues" who personally benefit more from the status quo of an oil and gas dependent economy, who will require this provision for a vote, because they know it sabotages the underlying goals. Why vote no when you can pass intentionally hamstrung legislation?

An overarching criticism of parent's point of view: The general theme of their criticism is that "climate hysterical intellectuals" don't know better than the singular, all knowing free market. It barely leaves room for any public policy position at all--which ignores the fact that the current market status quo is driven massively by public policy that has been in effect now for several generations. To say the current place even approximates a "natural, optimal equilibrium" is a gross misunderstanding of 300 years of carbon policy and political and cultural entrenchment.