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.
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.
Sorry, but the only legitimate way to interpret "climate change is predicted to exterminate humans" is as a claim that the species will go extinct.
You do not appear to be a native English speaker:
> the way you did questioned the scientific competence of other contributors is reducing the value of the entire sentence you were replying to
> you probably do not understand what I've wrote
> I wrote [?] the people that paid my education
You're probably better off not trying to do fine interpretation on English sentences.