Climate change has an actual and real potential to end our species in the relatively near future. We have already kicked off a mass extinction event that has only just begun. I "offered backing" for this in other comments in this thread, discussing it with someone who demonstrated a willingness to have a conversation, not just debate-bro-reddit-style demand evidence from me for something any decent climatologist would straight up tell you.
Climate change has an actual and real potential to end our species in the relatively near future.
A gamma ray burst has an actual and real potential to end our species tomorrow. Yet it would be wildly irresponsible for me to tell people that they're going to die in a gamma ray burst.
not just debate-bro-reddit-style demand evidence
The implication that it is somehow rude to insist that you back up positions that can actively cause distress in other people is not one that I'm going to accept, so complain about "debate-bros" at your leisure but don't expect me to care.
something any decent climatologist would straight up tell you.
And yet neither you nor anyone else here can point an actual example of any of them actually saying human extinction is very likely based on their projections. My climatologist friend is getting married in August. I'm going to the wedding. They're planning to have kids.
Ok, here's the first result in a duckduckgo search:
Catastrophic climate change outcomes, including human extinction, are not being taken seriously enough by scientists, a new study says. .
Second result
Will Humans go Extinct? Death by ecological contamination or the climate emergency would be slower but still within the realm of possibility. .
Third
Climate endgame: risk of human extinction ‘dangerously underexplored’ .
Happy now? I hope you realize how reddit-tier it is to demand sources like that when you can easily do a search without forcing the person you're talking to to do it for you with the implication that they're full of shit if they don't do your homework. Not to mention the "well my best friend is [expert in field being discussed] so nyeah."
any [climate scientists] saying human extinction is very likely based on their projections
From the study cited in two of those articles.
This caution is understandable, yet it is mismatched to the risks and potential damages posed by climate change. We know that temperature rise has “fat tails”: low-probability, high-impact extreme outcomes (9). Climate damages are likely to be nonlinear and result in an even larger tail (10). Too much is at stake to refrain from examining high-impact low-likelihood scenarios. The COVID-19 pandemic has underlined the need to consider and prepare for infrequent, high-impact global risks, and the systemic dangers they can spark. Prudent risk management demands that we thoroughly assess worst-case scenarios.
hahah my god, I am back on reddit. I thought I had gotten away from that. I wonder where the goalposts are going to be moved next. Doesn't matter, I'm just going to refer you back to what I actually said several comments ago: "Climate change has an actual and real potential to end our species." As for the demand of specific scientists, they're referred to right there in the articles I already presented, which I shouldn't have gone to the trouble of finding for someone obviously unwilling to engage in actual discussion.
How is quoting back at you literally what I asked for verbatim moving the goalposts?
Climate change has an actual and real potential to end our species.
This is true, and if had been where we started, I wouldn't have objected. Where did we start actually though?
"we're all going to die" is indisputably going too far and it's a meme that needs to die.
No it's not. It's not going too far to recognize a very real possibility
very real possibility implies a probability threshold that you absolutely cannot substantiate. Telling people they're all going to die of climate change is a far cry from the much more reasonable claim "climate change driven extinction of the human race a possibility in the coming centuries".
Literally all I said: "It's not going too far to recognize a very real possibility." I've done nothing but back that up. Over and over. And over and over you're telling me I haven't.
"we're all going to die" is indisputably going too far
No it's not.
The claim that climate change is going to kill nearly everyone currently living is absolutely unmoored from current science, modelling, or anything else. The defensibility of that claim is what we were originally talking about when you jumped in.
very real possibility implies a probability threshold that you absolutely cannot substantiate.
I substantiated it by giving you articles that said it's a very real possibility. You quote one of those articles that is saying "yes, it's a very real possibility" but because they also use the words "low probability" of that very real possibility, you think... you've refuted something I said. One specifically talking about a low-probability event that was a very real possibility... because IT HAPPENED. This is... I can't even...
So when you say "very real possibility", you don't mean to imply anything about the probability of that event. You just mean "possible possibility"?
The article doesn't even say 'very real possibility' for the record so I don't know why you're treating that as a verbatim quote to show correspondence with your position.
The pedantry is just too much. If you want to reply to this to have some sort of last word, have it, knock yourself out. I'm not going to read it. Having to explain extremely basic and obvious concepts to someone who almost certainly knows them already but doesn't want to be wrong or something, someone constantly trying to find some gotcha and misrepresenting everything said... well it's just tiring.
to be wrong or something, someone constantly trying to find some gotcha and misrepresenting everything said... well it's just tiring.
I'm not trying to have gotcha's or misrepresent anything you've said, my singular goal is to make it clear to any reader that when they read the statement "climate change is going to kill you", that such a universalized claim is not supported by current science, and that you cannot take that as a literal claim.
lol. So you quote one of the articles as a gotcha? The one that talks about another "low-risk" event that DID HAPPEN and that literally just killed off tens of millions of people? Yeah, that's a great refutation of my statement about climate change induced extinction being a very real possibility... by pointing out a low possibility but very real threat that literally just happened. And is still happening... despite mass denialism. Wow. Please, by all means, prove my point further by trying to own me some more.
A roulette wheel came up red 32 times in a row in 1943, so you should go buy a lottery ticket right? It is a very real possibility that you could win, and anyone that claims such "I am going to win the lottery tomorrow" is not supported by probability is being needlessly pendantic right?
To use the example you were using from the article to apparently try to own me... Covid was the red 32 times in this analogy. It happened. Funny how in retrospect, they are both actually something of an inevitability if the warnings of people who did predict them aren't heeded. Just like rolling red 32 times is if you have millions of wheels continuing to spin without stopping, guess what... odds go up. No, I'm not going out to bet my life savings on 32 red in a row tomorrow. The same way I'm not nor did I *ever imply we're all literally going to drop literally dead literally tomorrow. But 32 red actually happening somewhere in the world at some point in the very past? Yeah... hmm.. it happened, go figure. Thanks for reminding us all that even seemingly low probability events actually really do happen.
Sorry for the late reply, I actually didn't log in for the last couple days after this.
Hey thank you for digging into this as well. The pedantry is tiring.
Thanks for doing the lions share of trying to push back and reason with the deluge of pedantry, in this thread but also in others I've seen too. I'm convinced that when people start using that as a tactic in their argumentation, they're no longer arguing with me anymore so much as their own cognitive dissonance. They know on some level they're just plain wrong. But that's too hard to own up to, so instead they try to find something to nitpick at in your wording. If they can shift the argument into focusing on some insignificant hole in your phrasing or onto an analogy you used that isn't a complete and perfect 1-to-1 example, they can feel emotionally safe in writing off your position. Then they can likewise feel emotionally safe in not having to examine their own position and can continue feeling Right and Correct that they know the Truth.
I know I'm not saying anything new, but it helps to remind myself of that when having to put up with the kind of bullshit you were getting swamped with in this thread (that I also waded into). It's especially frustrating to have to put up with it here. And from a mod apparently too.
the "we're all going to die" was something someone else said if you're so caught up on that kind of ridiculous cringey pedantry, but what they were referring to was human extinction as a result of climate change. If you are truly incapable of understanding context or anything but the most literal and absolute interpretation of any combination of words ever used, your qualm is with them. No one, not even the person I was disagreeing with who said that, believes anyone was ever saying "every person reading this is going to die tomorrow and it is 110% absolutely unavoidable."
What is being discussed here is climate change ending the species. Which remains a very real possibility, which is what I said, which is what everyone here who reads this, even you, knows is what is being discussed. It is not only NOT irresponsible to point out this very real possibility, it is irresponsible and foolish denialism to imply otherwise.
Now kindly sod off, you bad-faith-arguing, asinine pedant. I won't be reading anything else you say to me.
"we're all going to die" was something someone else said
Which you jumped in go defend as a reasonable position.
What is being discussed here is climate change ending the species
That's where we are now, but that is absolutely not where we were when I began this conversation several hours before you jumped in with a position that was not unambiguous enough to differentiate from the original doomer position.
I'm sorry I'm being such a ball buster about this and I'm glad we agree about the probabilities of immediate extinction and the possibility of eventual extinction in the end, but I absolutely think it's important to be very precise about this and not unnecessarily blackpill people.
Climate change has an actual and real potential to end our species in the relatively near future. We have already kicked off a mass extinction event that has only just begun. I "offered backing" for this in other comments in this thread, discussing it with someone who demonstrated a willingness to have a conversation, not just debate-bro-reddit-style demand evidence from me for something any decent climatologist would straight up tell you.
A gamma ray burst has an actual and real potential to end our species tomorrow. Yet it would be wildly irresponsible for me to tell people that they're going to die in a gamma ray burst.
The implication that it is somehow rude to insist that you back up positions that can actively cause distress in other people is not one that I'm going to accept, so complain about "debate-bros" at your leisure but don't expect me to care.
And yet neither you nor anyone else here can point an actual example of any of them actually saying human extinction is very likely based on their projections. My climatologist friend is getting married in August. I'm going to the wedding. They're planning to have kids.
Ok, here's the first result in a duckduckgo search:
Second result
Third
Happy now? I hope you realize how reddit-tier it is to demand sources like that when you can easily do a search without forcing the person you're talking to to do it for you with the implication that they're full of shit if they don't do your homework. Not to mention the "well my best friend is [expert in field being discussed] so nyeah."
No, try again.
From the study cited in two of those articles.
hahah my god, I am back on reddit. I thought I had gotten away from that. I wonder where the goalposts are going to be moved next. Doesn't matter, I'm just going to refer you back to what I actually said several comments ago: "Climate change has an actual and real potential to end our species." As for the demand of specific scientists, they're referred to right there in the articles I already presented, which I shouldn't have gone to the trouble of finding for someone obviously unwilling to engage in actual discussion.
How is quoting back at you literally what I asked for verbatim moving the goalposts?
This is true, and if had been where we started, I wouldn't have objected. Where did we start actually though?
very real possibility implies a probability threshold that you absolutely cannot substantiate. Telling people they're all going to die of climate change is a far cry from the much more reasonable claim "climate change driven extinction of the human race a possibility in the coming centuries".
Literally all I said: "It's not going too far to recognize a very real possibility." I've done nothing but back that up. Over and over. And over and over you're telling me I haven't.
The claim that climate change is going to kill nearly everyone currently living is absolutely unmoored from current science, modelling, or anything else. The defensibility of that claim is what we were originally talking about when you jumped in.
I substantiated it by giving you articles that said it's a very real possibility. You quote one of those articles that is saying "yes, it's a very real possibility" but because they also use the words "low probability" of that very real possibility, you think... you've refuted something I said. One specifically talking about a low-probability event that was a very real possibility... because IT HAPPENED. This is... I can't even...
So when you say "very real possibility", you don't mean to imply anything about the probability of that event. You just mean "possible possibility"?
The article doesn't even say 'very real possibility' for the record so I don't know why you're treating that as a verbatim quote to show correspondence with your position.
The pedantry is just too much. If you want to reply to this to have some sort of last word, have it, knock yourself out. I'm not going to read it. Having to explain extremely basic and obvious concepts to someone who almost certainly knows them already but doesn't want to be wrong or something, someone constantly trying to find some gotcha and misrepresenting everything said... well it's just tiring.
I'm not trying to have gotcha's or misrepresent anything you've said, my singular goal is to make it clear to any reader that when they read the statement "climate change is going to kill you", that such a universalized claim is not supported by current science, and that you cannot take that as a literal claim.
lol. So you quote one of the articles as a gotcha? The one that talks about another "low-risk" event that DID HAPPEN and that literally just killed off tens of millions of people? Yeah, that's a great refutation of my statement about climate change induced extinction being a very real possibility... by pointing out a low possibility but very real threat that literally just happened. And is still happening... despite mass denialism. Wow. Please, by all means, prove my point further by trying to own me some more.
A roulette wheel came up red 32 times in a row in 1943, so you should go buy a lottery ticket right? It is a very real possibility that you could win, and anyone that claims such "I am going to win the lottery tomorrow" is not supported by probability is being needlessly pendantic right?
To use the example you were using from the article to apparently try to own me... Covid was the red 32 times in this analogy. It happened. Funny how in retrospect, they are both actually something of an inevitability if the warnings of people who did predict them aren't heeded. Just like rolling red 32 times is if you have millions of wheels continuing to spin without stopping, guess what... odds go up. No, I'm not going out to bet my life savings on 32 red in a row tomorrow. The same way I'm not nor did I *ever imply we're all literally going to drop literally dead literally tomorrow. But 32 red actually happening somewhere in the world at some point in the very past? Yeah... hmm.. it happened, go figure. Thanks for reminding us all that even seemingly low probability events actually really do happen.
deleted by creator
Sorry for the late reply, I actually didn't log in for the last couple days after this.
Thanks for doing the lions share of trying to push back and reason with the deluge of pedantry, in this thread but also in others I've seen too. I'm convinced that when people start using that as a tactic in their argumentation, they're no longer arguing with me anymore so much as their own cognitive dissonance. They know on some level they're just plain wrong. But that's too hard to own up to, so instead they try to find something to nitpick at in your wording. If they can shift the argument into focusing on some insignificant hole in your phrasing or onto an analogy you used that isn't a complete and perfect 1-to-1 example, they can feel emotionally safe in writing off your position. Then they can likewise feel emotionally safe in not having to examine their own position and can continue feeling Right and Correct that they know the Truth.
I know I'm not saying anything new, but it helps to remind myself of that when having to put up with the kind of bullshit you were getting swamped with in this thread (that I also waded into). It's especially frustrating to have to put up with it here. And from a mod apparently too.
deleted by creator
And so we come upon the limits of the frequentist interpretation of probability and it's inability to work on single trials.
So we do. And So you continue to dig your own hole while pretending you're doing something other than prove my point.
That telling people that they're all going to die of climate change is irresponsible and not backed by current models or projections?
the "we're all going to die" was something someone else said if you're so caught up on that kind of ridiculous cringey pedantry, but what they were referring to was human extinction as a result of climate change. If you are truly incapable of understanding context or anything but the most literal and absolute interpretation of any combination of words ever used, your qualm is with them. No one, not even the person I was disagreeing with who said that, believes anyone was ever saying "every person reading this is going to die tomorrow and it is 110% absolutely unavoidable."
What is being discussed here is climate change ending the species. Which remains a very real possibility, which is what I said, which is what everyone here who reads this, even you, knows is what is being discussed. It is not only NOT irresponsible to point out this very real possibility, it is irresponsible and foolish denialism to imply otherwise.
Now kindly sod off, you bad-faith-arguing, asinine pedant. I won't be reading anything else you say to me.
Which you jumped in go defend as a reasonable position.
That's where we are now, but that is absolutely not where we were when I began this conversation several hours before you jumped in with a position that was not unambiguous enough to differentiate from the original doomer position.
I'm sorry I'm being such a ball buster about this and I'm glad we agree about the probabilities of immediate extinction and the possibility of eventual extinction in the end, but I absolutely think it's important to be very precise about this and not unnecessarily blackpill people.
deleted by creator
I'm not referring to you here, I'm saying in general.
deleted by creator
No, just that the fact that certain low probability event occurred does not imply all low probability events must occur.