3 ms·

As a geologist: we are not concerned about the change, we are concerned about the rate of change. The fastest is the change, the largest number of groups of org

by furins 6y ago

As a geologist: we are not concerned about the change, we are concerned about the rate of change. The fastest is the change, the largest number of groups of organisms will be exinct.

exporectomy 6y ago
That's neither here nor there. Do you disagree with anything I said? Are you trying to suggest humans are likely to go extinct because of human-caused climate change? If you are, then you'll need some better evidence than appeal to your qualifications.
- furins 6y ago
  I'm replying exactly to your assertion "Do your homework before repeating random exaggerated claims you've heard on the internet". I did, I didn't get my qualifications searching on Wikipedia, did you? "This melting cycle was happening before the industrial revolution and was not created by humans.": the cycle existed before humans, I agree, but the velocity of temperature change has increased after humans started to burn fossil fuels and deforestate.We are increasing the rate of change.
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    I'm not really sure what to make of your replies. I've just been correcting some factual errors people made. You seem to agree with me but using a tone that sounds argumentative and adding some disconnected additional facts which nobody was denying and which are common knowledge. Are you engaging in an ideological fight with someone who's not present here?
    - gzer0 6y ago
      > Are you engaging in an ideological fight with someone who's not present here? Quit with the red herrings. It's fairly easy to comprehend what is being said here. "The velocity of temperature change has increased after humans started to burn fossil fuels and deforestate. We are increasing the rate of change."
      - exporectomy 6y ago
        Yes that's common knowledge. So what?
    - furins 6y ago
      I understand that you are correcting some assertions, but the way you did questioned the scientific competence of other contributors is reducing the value of the entire sentence you were replying to. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water. The key message I wanted to stress, with additional contributions to the discussion, is that we have to be concerned. If you agree with me on this I'm fine. Unfortunately however your corrections suffered the same problem of the ones you were correcting. In particular I do not agree with you on these two sentences: "Climate change is not predicted to exterminate humans." It is. It's not predicted to make Homo sapiens sapiens extinct, like you probably meant, but many humans can be exterminated by repentine climate changes (think to famine, wars, drought). "This melting cycle was happening before the industrial revolution and was not created by humans." Human-made contributions are perturbing the cyclicity, to an extent that can lead to a non-cyclical patterns.
      - exporectomy 6y ago
        Extinction of the species, not killing of some individuals. I thought that was clear all along. It comes from "It is that we, humans, we likely not survive". You might just be shocked by words like "not caused by humans" and have reacted reflexively. Sometimes climate changes really aren't caused by humans.
        furins 6y ago
        you probably do not understand what I've wrote but it's fine, it's your right. I'm not replying to you anymore, I wrote the people that paid my education in order to study palaeoclimatology and give a educated opinion in their place when necessary. They can hopefully read my messages with a more open mind. I tried to make them constructive and informative, and I'm open to constructive questions.
        flir 6y ago
        You were being sealioned. You're more patient than I am.
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    >I didn't get my qualifications searching on Wikipedia, did you? In fairness, Wikipedia's coverage would support the more alarmist narrative. Skepticism and nuance are framed as conspiracy theory. In my reading of Wikipedia's editorial position someone who took their articles at face value would be inclined to support your tilting.

by furins 6y ago

As a geologist: we are not concerned about the change, we are concerned about the rate of change. The fastest is the change, the largest number of groups of organisms will be exinct.

exporectomy 6y ago

That's neither here nor there. Do you disagree with anything I said? Are you trying to suggest humans are likely to go extinct because of human-caused climate change? If you are, then you'll need some better evidence than appeal to your qualifications.

furins 6y ago
I'm replying exactly to your assertion "Do your homework before repeating random exaggerated claims you've heard on the internet". I did, I didn't get my qualifications searching on Wikipedia, did you? "This melting cycle was happening before the industrial revolution and was not created by humans.": the cycle existed before humans, I agree, but the velocity of temperature change has increased after humans started to burn fossil fuels and deforestate.We are increasing the rate of change.
- exporectomy 6y ago
  I'm not really sure what to make of your replies. I've just been correcting some factual errors people made. You seem to agree with me but using a tone that sounds argumentative and adding some disconnected additional facts which nobody was denying and which are common knowledge. Are you engaging in an ideological fight with someone who's not present here?
  - gzer0 6y ago
    > Are you engaging in an ideological fight with someone who's not present here? Quit with the red herrings. It's fairly easy to comprehend what is being said here. "The velocity of temperature change has increased after humans started to burn fossil fuels and deforestate. We are increasing the rate of change."
    - exporectomy 6y ago
      Yes that's common knowledge. So what?
  - furins 6y ago
    I understand that you are correcting some assertions, but the way you did questioned the scientific competence of other contributors is reducing the value of the entire sentence you were replying to. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water. The key message I wanted to stress, with additional contributions to the discussion, is that we have to be concerned. If you agree with me on this I'm fine. Unfortunately however your corrections suffered the same problem of the ones you were correcting. In particular I do not agree with you on these two sentences: "Climate change is not predicted to exterminate humans." It is. It's not predicted to make Homo sapiens sapiens extinct, like you probably meant, but many humans can be exterminated by repentine climate changes (think to famine, wars, drought). "This melting cycle was happening before the industrial revolution and was not created by humans." Human-made contributions are perturbing the cyclicity, to an extent that can lead to a non-cyclical patterns.
    - exporectomy 6y ago
      Extinction of the species, not killing of some individuals. I thought that was clear all along. It comes from "It is that we, humans, we likely not survive". You might just be shocked by words like "not caused by humans" and have reacted reflexively. Sometimes climate changes really aren't caused by humans.
      - furins 6y ago
        you probably do not understand what I've wrote but it's fine, it's your right. I'm not replying to you anymore, I wrote the people that paid my education in order to study palaeoclimatology and give a educated opinion in their place when necessary. They can hopefully read my messages with a more open mind. I tried to make them constructive and informative, and I'm open to constructive questions.
        flir 6y ago
        You were being sealioned. You're more patient than I am.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
- aww_dang 6y ago
  >I didn't get my qualifications searching on Wikipedia, did you? In fairness, Wikipedia's coverage would support the more alarmist narrative. Skepticism and nuance are framed as conspiracy theory. In my reading of Wikipedia's editorial position someone who took their articles at face value would be inclined to support your tilting.