An oddly uncharitable tone to the post, at least to my eye, but otherwise looks fine to me. Wasn't expecting those...
@xriskology just letting you know: i storified our exchange and linked to it in a tumblr post. http://nostalgebraist.tumblr.com/post/149187735559/i-warned-you-about-stern-bro …
-
-
-
yeah i am being kinda snarky. i should be honest: repeated use of stern # by xrisk ppl DOES lower my confidence in xrisk ppl
-
bc i think it comes from misunderstanding of stern, and understanding + integrating research like stern is part of xrisk job
-
that's harsh but i hope you can see how it is the correct update to make, given my existing beliefs
-
[6] incorrect or misleading info!
-
to my eye, your third para is misleading bc it makes it sound as if the 0.1 # is due to, or related to, climate change
-
if i didn't know background, i'd have read it as meaning "stern said climate was top priority in bc of extinction concerns"
-
although the paragraph is, in fact, technically 100% accurate! just issues with implication, which i admit are subjective
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
tweets to be on public display, but perhaps that was my error!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.