3 ms·
Dismissing a person's anxiety about existential threats is also unhelpful. As if u/halfjoking has more responsibility, agency, culpability than the actual villi
by specialist 5y ago
Dismissing a person's anxiety about existential threats is also unhelpful. As if u/halfjoking has more responsibility, agency, culpability than the actual villians.
True, a return to Eocene-like conditions (iirc atmospheric methane 200ppm) is unlikely. (On mobile; too lazy to find tidbit that rules out calthrate gun hypothesis.)
But there are plenty of existential threats. As well as compounding factors interacting in unforeseeable ways.
In other words, please be nicer. Shit's bad, getting a lot worse, and people are (understandably) freaking out.
- mathlover2 5y agoFair. It's just that I am a bit grumpy at all the people denying parts of science to fit their agendas. I've been dealing with a more classical denialist on Discord. Halfjoking, if you are reading this, I apologize for being so forceful. I should not have assumed you were knowingly posting incorrect information, and I should have been more polite.
- halfjoking 5y agoNo need to apologize - I'm used to reddit where I get banned. But I do not agree alarmism feeds inaction and disdain. I want geoengineering to happen now. I want more surveys of the ocean seafloor like the study of this post. It would be great if someone could prove that negative feedbacks are going to offset the positive feedbacks like albedo change in the arctic. The IPCC has consistently underestimated the rate changes are accelerating and I'm extrapolating. I don't mind if people do more science to prove my extrapolations are way off.