3 ms·

Broadly speaking there's a long history of doomsday predictions. Credentialed members of academia or religious institutions have participated in doomsaying thro

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.