Ah, well, that would make sense. I guess it was the weird wording starting with the “this might appall some people” that let me to believe they had something more sinister in mind.

This might appall some people, but someday I’m going to gain access to a drone, and subsequently the insurance premiums on various Amazon and Walmart properties would be about to experience a drastic rate hike…

The hell? There’s a stark difference between uncovering illegal activities with a camera drone and literal terrorism against retailers you dislike. You should legitimately be put in prison, which you will be, if you were to follow through on your insinuated threats.

What you write suggests to me that temperatures would, in a worst case scenario, rise beyond approximately +4C after 2100. Often, when I read comments, they seem to imply runaway climate change. Last I checked science was saying that this seems very unlikely to be possible at all, and that a hothouse earth would possibly reach a stable state at approximately +4C.

I also figure that most people to not know that additional warning would require more, and not less CO2. As far as I know, research has shown that humanity would likely not be capable of reaching such a level of emissions.

So, what we are left with is the +4C scenario. Its consequences are uncertain enough, that’s fair. However, when you say that this is an environment humans did not evolve to live in, while technically true, it just makes it sound a lot more dramatic than it probably is likely to be.

To get back to the initial claim about the end of human civilization, this clearly requires unsurvivable conditions globally, including in regions least effected by climate change. While this may sound cynical, the worst effects that are likely to affect Africa, the Sahara, or the Middle East, certainly to not mean the end of human civilization. Implying so is in my opinion dubious. If we look at that Wikipedia article that has been shared, there seems to be a lot of handwaving about a combination of effect supposedly somehow combining to lead to humanity’s extinction mostly by triggering migration and wars. A dubious proposition.

Without trying to go into conspiracy territory, it often seems to me that scientists are hesitant to clearly communicate basic facts around climate change that might be used to oppose needed climate action.

And for the record, I agree that action is needed. However, I disagree with spreading apocalyptic scenarios that seem very unlikely to even be possible, much less a likely outcome. Studies have suggested that climate fears affect a large number of young people, it’s in my opinion a mental health concern. People online love to fuel it, there’s nothing more popular than climate change hyperbole.

To understand how this has happened, how humanity has gambled its civilisation on no more than promises of future solutions

A casual implication of climate change ending human civilization. I don’t think this is backed by science, like at all. Why should I trust anything else the authors have to say if they can’t stick to facts from the start?

In other words, you switched out of fear of restrictions that still haven’t manifested nearly two decades later

I find the kbin website to work rather well, it’s good work. Also the backend seems stable for now, I didn’t notice any hiccups recently when commenting. If things can be made simpler and more intuitive over time, it does seem like a viable alternative.

Horrible idea. No one sees this button, no one knows what it does, and upvotes definitely should have that effect.

This is a literal conspiracy theory.

I went through 3 pages of their comments and what I‘ve read were respectful and well articulated comments from someone quite religious and with conservative values.

Maybe I missed some extreme stuff but I wouldn’t be surprised if you guys are completely making this up.

Well, speak for yourself. I don’t have an issue at all with a bot that summarizes publicly available posts and comments.

Meanwhile votes and favorites by username are publicly accessible. I consider that an actual threat to privacy. This here seems more like somewhat pointless anti-AI rhetoric that anyway hardly affects OpenAI‘s ability to collect the publicly available data we post here.

blond hair and blue eyes

Yes, I‘m sure it‘s their hair and eye color rather than the obvious fact that refugees from war torn countries in the Middle East have endangered public security here. It‘s not groups of Ukrainians that have quite literally raped and killed children in my country.

That all refugees are equal sounds like some lefty thing, in reality they obviously are not. Turning a blind eye to reality and accusing those that do not of racism isn’t going to win any elections. That’s why I doubt any efforts that would help more refugees come to Europe would be politically successful.

For what it‘s worth I am sorry for the refugees. I don’t know how we can help the situation without risking our own safety. Crying racism isn’t going to do it. We would need to convince voters that a solution does not threaten safety here.

I‘d imagine that if we want to implement stronger sea rescue operations, we would need a legal basis for bringing the rescued to another location, rather than settling them in Europe while we start years long asylum processes that can never realistically be fair. I doubt voters are going to approve otherwise.

I wonder what people who upvote this are thinking, obviously the point is moot unless you are also vegan. And who upvotes someone going “meat is murder” in the comment section.