“No good evidence” sounds suspiciously like “no true scotsman.”

Alice: “There’s no evidence that humans have contributed to climate change.”

Bob: “Well, actually, X, Y, and Z.”

Alice: “I don’t accept those. There’s no GOOD evidence...”

And here we have a throwaway account using emotional rhetoric like “climate alarmist monster.”

This kind of comment is not anywhere close to the standard we have come to demand on HN. Doubly so for a topic where vast sums of money are to be made by oiligarchs if we delay doing anything about fossil fuels.

That does not, in and of itself, invalidate any particular criticism. But it could explain why a throwaway account uses questionable rhetoric.