3 ms·

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 th

by 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
> "Climate change is not predicted to exterminate humans." It is. It's not predicted to make Homo sapiens sapiens extinct, like you probably meant Sorry, but the only legitimate way to interpret "climate change is predicted to exterminate humans" is as a claim that the species will go extinct. You do not appear to be a native English speaker: > the way you did questioned the scientific competence of other contributors is reducing the value of the entire sentence you were replying to > you probably do not understand what I've wrote > I wrote [?] the people that paid my education You're probably better off not trying to do fine interpretation on English sentences.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Broadly speaking there's a long history of doomsday predictions. Credentialed members of academia or religious institutions have participated in doomsaying throughout history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_ap... Regardless of if the claim is or isn't being semantically backpedaled, I think historical context is important here.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    It's not an issue of backpedaling. There are several different people in the comment chain. furins isn't obligated to stand by brainless' claims. I'm just saying he should be able to read them before declaring whether they're true or false. The chain starts like this: > The problem is not with the Earth. It is that we, humans, we likely not survive if this cycle of climate change continues. This person has gone out of his way to be explicit that he believes humanity is about to go extinct. > Climate change is not predicted to exterminate humans. This response uses different, less dramatized wording for the same idea. But then: > 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 furins is trying to make an argument about the meaning of a sentence without being able to understand the sentence. This is a bad idea.

by furins 6y ago

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

> "Climate change is not predicted to exterminate humans." It is. It's not predicted to make Homo sapiens sapiens extinct, like you probably meant Sorry, but the only legitimate way to interpret "climate change is predicted to exterminate humans" is as a claim that the species will go extinct. You do not appear to be a native English speaker: > the way you did questioned the scientific competence of other contributors is reducing the value of the entire sentence you were replying to > you probably do not understand what I've wrote > I wrote [?] the people that paid my education You're probably better off not trying to do fine interpretation on English sentences.

aww_dang 6y ago
Broadly speaking there's a long history of doomsday predictions. Credentialed members of academia or religious institutions have participated in doomsaying throughout history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_ap... Regardless of if the claim is or isn't being semantically backpedaled, I think historical context is important here.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  It's not an issue of backpedaling. There are several different people in the comment chain. furins isn't obligated to stand by brainless' claims. I'm just saying he should be able to read them before declaring whether they're true or false. The chain starts like this: > The problem is not with the Earth. It is that we, humans, we likely not survive if this cycle of climate change continues. This person has gone out of his way to be explicit that he believes humanity is about to go extinct. > Climate change is not predicted to exterminate humans. This response uses different, less dramatized wording for the same idea. But then: > 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 furins is trying to make an argument about the meaning of a sentence without being able to understand the sentence. This is a bad idea.