Regardless, I would like to see humanity safely thrive. I don't want earth to become an example of the great filter theory.
If the entirety of humans were very likely to be wiped out from 2025 to 2095, you would definitely call that imminent, and is a much more apt comparison.
"DOOM ITS THE END OF THE WORLD!" is a tale as old as time... revelations has been screaming the end is near for thousands of years now.
It's "accurate to say" that prophets and prophecies are notoriously wrong which is why signs that the ice caps will be gone by 2000 have been removed from state parks.
hint: they aren't gone.
and "thousands of scientists" lol sure... thousands of priests say that miracles happen.
Meanwhile... those same "scientists" are silent as the solutions to "climate catastrophe" are mountains of "green" tech that's unrecyclable after destroying the earth to create batteries, wind mills and solar panels that under perform and end up in land fills.
https://www.newsweek.com/nobel-prize-winner-who-doesnt-belie...
But... if that's not enough? What about scientists - including Nobel prize winning scientists - that say there are no crisis?
My opinion? "Climate Change" is a religion just like other religions - some truth mixed with a lot of "follow what I say or WE'RE ALL DEAD!". Literally 100 years of failed predictions making global warming... I mean cooling... I mean acid rain... I mean CLIMATE CATSTROPHE! wrong at every step.
Can't have real conversations about real solutions to real problems when you're dealing with religious faithful which is why green solutions are going to fuck our planet up more than oil could ever dream of.
Name one and show their evidence
Meanwhile... those same "scientists" are silent
What are you talking about
as the solutions to "climate catastrophe"
Now you are mixing 'solutions' with just admitting there is a problem.
My opinion? "Climate Change" is a religion just like other religions
Climate change has huge amounts of evidence behind it. A religion by definition doesn't. If a religion had evidence it would be science.
Can't have real conversations
Is this your version of a real conversation?
Rushing to comment has deep effects on HN, the threading incentivizes appending to the top comments rather than replying. This will now be a philosophical debate about scientific trust for hours just because people assume the article says "collapse is happening shortly by X date", but its just a statistical model :(
Don't mean to make you feel bad or call you out, most people don't read the article if it's popular. It's my attempt to give a little back to the community to note it, been here a very long time, and when people try calling it out coarsely it isn't constructive.
[1] sort of: they understood it was a statistical model but spent so much time hand-wringing about Nature publishing a statistical model that it came off like there was something wrong with the article, causing a rush of replies of "how can I trust anything??"
I see your point that harping on this fact is perhaps boring and repetitive so I apologize for that.
I'd love to see a chatmodel as a forum board moderator. They understand nuances, so it would be able to spot people just fighting or adding too much snark. A real net nanny.
HN does reward earliness somewhat, but less so than many other fora.
Focus more on getting it right than getting it fast.
I felt the article was clear collapse is not imminent, not even in this century.
I felt it noted focus was not on imminence, but on changes worth mentioning in aspects of interest.
Perhaps the difference is this article is talking of timing for transitions of significance, rather than the forthcoming collapse more likely to arrive sooner after such transitions?