1) is what you get when you don't even try to be charitable, here's an exercise: how large of a climate driven failed state/refugee crisis would be required to destabilize the current world order to the extent that nuclear war becomes significantly more likely?
-
-
Replying to @hikikomorphism @GrumplessGrinch
regardless of what the answer is i don't see how you can interpret "the world ends in 12 years" as a reasonable summary of it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
charitable interpretation isn't a blanket excuse to say stuff that's completely wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @GrumplessGrinch
She did clarify her statement, in the very tweet you're quoting it says 12 years to take action, not 12 years or we're all doomed. Reads to me as a clarification of obvious hyperbole to head off takes such as the ones upthread
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hikikomorphism @GrumplessGrinch
yes, 12 years to take action to ensure we get only 0.5 degrees of warming above present. not 12 years to take action to prevent the end of the world
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @GrumplessGrinch
You seem like the kind of person who would have taken great delight in pointing out that nuclear war between the US and USSR would not technically result in the end of the world because it wouldn't literally destroy the Earth's core.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hikikomorphism @GrumplessGrinch
this is a fully general snark that you can use to defend any false claim
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @GrumplessGrinch
It's me pointing out that the rhetorical techniques you're using are very close to full generality.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hikikomorphism @GrumplessGrinch
i'm claiming that the difference between what the average person imagines on seeing the claim that "the world ends in 12 years" and "we have 12 years to prevent an additional temperature increase over 0.5 deg" is a really important one
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
unlike the difference between, say, the destruction of the earth's surface and its core
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
(nuclear war wouldn't destroy the earth's surface or probably even human civilization; this is a legitimate point to make)
-
-
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @GrumplessGrinch
Noting for the record that my snarky fully general argument turned out to be extremely correct.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.