> while the world burns (metaphorically speaking)

Here's where you lose me. I don't see a world burning, and past predictions of coming apocalypse have proven false.

Yes, the world is warming. We're going back to the temperature of the world a few million years ago, still much cooler than it was during most of the history of life on Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m...

> don't see a world burning

If the NASA and IPCC graphs of global temperature, and rate of change don't convince you, nothing will.

Most predictions on climate heating are turning out to be far worse in actuality. Sea level rise is neatly tracking the IPCC's worst case prediction. Yet they're still putting out the middle ground , conservative case.

And that's evidence of warming, not "burning".

Apocalyptic language is not scientific. But when the facts don't inspire action, activists resort to hyperbole and distortion.

GP spelt out they were metaphorically speaking. I don't see them claiming to be one of the climate scientists etc.

Warming or burning, it's shaping up to ruin society as we know it. At least if we are going to believe the scientists and economists at the IPCC. They seem to be expecting at least two of the four horsemen. That seems pretty apocalyptic to me.

If that;s not enough to inspire action, what the hell is? New York knee deep in water?

> Apocalyptic language is not scientific

Disagree. The effect to society the warming causes is apocalyptic (1 billion climate refugees). Pointing to rising sea level and temperature is the cause, the effect is our society being unrecognizable in a few short decades.

Can we stop downvoting fair arguments we disagree with? Can't we just "agree to disagree" without resorting to unnecessary measures?

No that's how any up/downvote website works. HN is no different

if a child has a fever its common language to call that "burning up". This doesn't mean she incinerated it means the overall temperature of her body is increased beyond what it needs for a prolonged amount of time. Leave it like that and damage to organs will occur. Leave it too long and system failure will occur and the enough of the organs fail the entire body will die.

It works the earth as well. we're in the middle of a fever, leaving it like that will cause damage to organs. Leave it too long those organs (polar regions, tropical areas, ocean temps) will fail. These failures lead to chain reactions that equate to system failures. entire regions will become uninhabitable. Those on the extreme edge of survivable regions will have to leave to areas that can support them. Those that are use to living in "golden zones" are going to experience climate changes that turn those areas into very uncomfortable and potentially survivable conditions.

The language is accurate, its just not precise or pretty.

Protip: If you have to argue the Earth was warmer "a few million years ago", you've lost the argument.

Not even worth responding to. That kind of low-effort comment doesn't belong here.

(My original response didn't belong either, so I edited it.)

> If your argument is that returning to temperatures a few millions years ago is apocalypse, you've lost the ability to reason.

As humans did not live on Earth a few million years ago, insofar as human society is concerned, why would the fact that temperatures had previously occurred a few million years ago be even slightly inconsistent with them being apocalyptic?

Close relatives of humans have lived on Earth for much longer. Unless you have evidence otherwise, I'm betting they required similar climate conditions.

That they lived when the climate was significantly different and were replaced when it became more like current climate is evidence otherwise (it's not, in and of itself, conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.)

Only if you make the significant (and I think unwarranted) assumption that the advantage the genus homo had over other apes was climate adaptation and not greater intelligence, standing upright, etc.

> Only if you make the significant (and I think unwarranted) assumption that homo sapiens' advantage over other apes was climate adaptation and not greater intelligence, standing upright, etc.

No, it's evidence both for the general conclusion and that specific point, it doesn't require that point as an assumption.

Evidence is any fact whose existence makes a conclusion more likely than it would be in the absence of that fact.

Given X could potentially cause Y, the fact that Y happened is not evidence of X.

In other words, the mere fact that something happened isn't evidence for a proposed (even plausible) cause. Proving the cause requires further evidence.

They also weren't trying to hold together an advanced technological society. Survival on the margins of existence may be possible long after society as we know it is in ruins.

Close relatives of humans didn't have to sustain societies, and as animals living out in nature are much stronger and more resilient. Plus they could die in droves, and nobody would care (in fact, other apes, living further away wouldn't even know it).

So, if you mean we get to enjoy living in conditions fit for apes, then you might be on to something, but I wouldn't exactly rejoice about it...