Instead of both of you using hyperbole to make your points, how about one/both of you outline exactly under which circumstances the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one? That might actually advance your discussion.
From a species standpoint, I think the good of the many always trumps the good of the few.
I also concede that the intentions of both sides are honorable. I think there are puppet masters who use environmental issues to effect trade negotiations or as cover to take more power, but the average hacker news reader, I think has honorable intentions.
The disagreement lies in what constitutes the good of the many. What was so attractive about this article for me was that the articles author attempted to open up that discussion a little more than "is it warming or isn't it".
Instead of both of you using hyperbole to make your points, how about one/both of you outline exactly under which circumstances the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one? That might actually advance your discussion.