3 ms·

...and you don't have to disbelieve that it will work either. It gives you no evidence either way. "Really about" climate change is a different issue from whet

...and you don't have to disbelieve that it will work either. It gives you no evidence either way. "Really about" climate change is a different issue from whether or not it works. You're again trying to change the subject to the distraction issue of original intent, not actual efficacy (for which you clearly have no evidence, only insinuation).

roywiggins 2y ago
The odds that a vanity project that someone picked because they thought it was cool will fix climate change seems substantially lower than a project that was picked because they really think it will fix climate change. Those two things are pretty closely related, since it's much easier to come up with a cool project with a vague promise of a climate change goal than a project that will really work. Instead of bringing back mammoths, maybe help genetically engineer existing species to help them adapt faster, like people are doing with coral. I don't know, but "resurrecting the mammoths" is probably far down the list of useful climate change projects these people could be putting effort into.
- schiffern 2y ago
  > I don't know, but... That's the thread, folks! Thanks for finally admitting your lack of a real evidence-based argument.
  - roywiggins 2y ago
    The mammoth-breeders aren't climate change experts either. They're genetic engineers. They don't know either, but they're selling it like they do.
    - schiffern 2y ago
      Genetic engineers can't talk to / work with climate experts? News to me. Specialization of labor within a project is hardly a new concept.
      - roywiggins 2y ago
        Well that's the thing, I don't think they care whether it would benefit the climate. They want to do it either way. They're also trying to de-extinct the dodo and the Tasmanian tiger. So why should I trust them that they've done the research? If it does work, that would be awesome. A wooly mammoth certainly sounds cool and it's not my money, so whatever.
        ipaddr 2y ago
        Someone might trust them because they sat through a presentation, read the facts and have a background. Why should you trust them? I don't think you should. Save your trust for things you know about.
        schiffern 2y ago
        Quoting myself (missed it the first time?): > You're again trying to change the subject to the distraction issue of original intent, not actual efficacy. We're spinning in circles now. You have no argument against the concept or against the results, only a vague disdain for the path taken. You don't enjoy the storybook, nothing more. Come back with a real argument please. Until then we have nothing to talk about.

roywiggins 2y ago

The odds that a vanity project that someone picked because they thought it was cool will fix climate change seems substantially lower than a project that was picked because they really think it will fix climate change. Those two things are pretty closely related, since it's much easier to come up with a cool project with a vague promise of a climate change goal than a project that will really work. Instead of bringing back mammoths, maybe help genetically engineer existing species to help them adapt faster, like people are doing with coral. I don't know, but "resurrecting the mammoths" is probably far down the list of useful climate change projects these people could be putting effort into.

schiffern 2y ago
> I don't know, but... That's the thread, folks! Thanks for finally admitting your lack of a real evidence-based argument.
- roywiggins 2y ago
  The mammoth-breeders aren't climate change experts either. They're genetic engineers. They don't know either, but they're selling it like they do.
  - schiffern 2y ago
    Genetic engineers can't talk to / work with climate experts? News to me. Specialization of labor within a project is hardly a new concept.
    - roywiggins 2y ago
      Well that's the thing, I don't think they care whether it would benefit the climate. They want to do it either way. They're also trying to de-extinct the dodo and the Tasmanian tiger. So why should I trust them that they've done the research? If it does work, that would be awesome. A wooly mammoth certainly sounds cool and it's not my money, so whatever.
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        Someone might trust them because they sat through a presentation, read the facts and have a background. Why should you trust them? I don't think you should. Save your trust for things you know about.
      - schiffern 2y ago
        Quoting myself (missed it the first time?): > You're again trying to change the subject to the distraction issue of original intent, not actual efficacy. We're spinning in circles now. You have no argument against the concept or against the results, only a vague disdain for the path taken. You don't enjoy the storybook, nothing more. Come back with a real argument please. Until then we have nothing to talk about.