Xtrix is interfering with a discussion

This is part of the discussion:


"For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries. That means glaciers come back down and cover Chicago. It means the UK is under a sheet of ice. This was disturbing news when it was first discovered, and we now know quite a bit more about how it works, what the trigger is, and so forth.

We don't presently know if increased CO2 will cause us to miss the trigger, or if reglaciation will begin anyway. There are aspects of the question that we don't even know how to model right now.

No, it's not simple."

The topic is not just the general subject but the focus of the OP. The topic question concerns whether it is too late to stop climate change. If you're not focusing on that argument but talking about climate in a more general way, you are off-topic.

Quoting Baden

The topic question concerns whether it is too late to stop climate change

I was talking about climate change. The OP is: Climate Change (General Discussion)

?

Reply to Tate

Were you addressing the focus of the OP? Because it is an argumentative OP that is specifically focused on the question I mentioned. Did you attempt to answer the broad or specific questions in the OP?

For example, I could start an OP asking if Napoleon's invasion of Russia was his greatest strategic blunder. If you answer with general information about Napoleon that doesn't address that specific question, you are off-topic.

Quoting Baden

Were you addressing the focus of the OP? Because it is an argumentative OP that is specifically focused on the question I mentioned. Did you attempt to answer the broad or specific questions in the OP?

The conversation evolved such that a poster had commented that climate change is easy science. I brought up the fact that we're in an ice age to explain some of the complexity. Honestly, if you deleted every comment that wasn't directly addressing whether it's too late, most of the thread would be gone, including many of Xtrix's comments.

C'mon. Be reasonable.

Quoting Baden

For example, I could start an OP asking if Napoleon's invasion of Russia was his greatest strategic blunder. If you answer with general information about Napoleon that doesn't address that specific question, you are off-topic.

Do you think that's a fair assessment of what I did?

Reply to Tate

I didn't mod the thread. I'm just trying to clarify what being 'on topic' means. There's some flexibility there but that's the general thrust of it.

Quoting Tate

Do you think that's a fair assessment of what I did?

Quoting Baden

I'm just trying to clarify what being 'on topic' means

For informational purposes.

Quoting Baden

I didn't mod the thread. I'm just trying to clarify what being 'on topic' means. There's some flexibility there but that's the general thrust of it.

I'm pretty sure I understand. He has since ceased the aggressive posts. We can drop it for now, and let this be taken back up the next time he does it.

Quoting Tate

I don't know what you're talking about.

Okay, then I'll gladly explain.

Making this comment:

Quoting Tate

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed.

Without quoting anyone or referencing anything, in the climate change thread, is irrelevant. When asked about it, you stated the following:

Quoting Tate

Stating "we're in an ice age" in this context is still odd to me, and I fail to see the relevance.
— Xtrix

It's a fact about the climate. We're talking about the climate. Problem?

You then go on to talk about how we don't know whether CO2 levels will affect whether nor not we hit another ice age.

So, to recap:

(1) You made a statement out of the blue about being in an ice age, without explanation.
(2) Declared that it's relevant simply because it's a "fact about the climate."
(3) Speculated about future ice ages.

You're disrupting the thread with irrelevancies.

Quoting Xtrix

Making this comment:

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed.
— Tate

Without quoting anyone or referencing anything, in the climate change thread, is irrelevant. When asked about it, you stated the following:

No, I said this:

"A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. That's not true. Factors as far flung as the present shape of the Earth's orbit are involved in predictions. The fact that the onset of another glacial period is due in the next few centuries is another issue compounding the complexity."

And then I said,

"For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries. That means glaciers come back down and cover Chicago. It means the UK is under a sheet of ice. This was disturbing news when it was first discovered, and we now know quite a bit more about how it works, what the trigger is, and so forth.

We don't presently know if increased CO2 will cause us to miss the trigger, or if reglaciation will begin anyway. There are aspects of the question that we don't even know how to model right now.

No, it's not simple."

And then I said:

"Models show that at present levels of CO2, reglaciation will begin somewhere between 500 and 3000 years. If we burn all the available coal, it becomes a near miss. In other words, we don't know for sure, but it looks like we would miss this trigger, and it would be around 40,000 years before another trigger arrives.
— Tate"

And this was mentioned:

"If we change the earths atmosphere composition even more, we can exit an ice-age significantly (lose all year-round ice in the arctic) or even completely.
— boethius

It's possible. If we burn all the coal we can access it will become more likely. That would take around 200 years."

And also:

"And if reglaciation is going to happen in the next few centuries, why worry about warming or stop CO2 emissions?
— boethius

I would say because of the unknown, something unforeseen. Suppose some super disease appears because of climate change,and we don't survive it?"

Quoting Tate

Making this comment:

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed.
— Tate

Without quoting anyone or referencing anything, in the climate change thread, is irrelevant. When asked about it, you stated the following:
— Xtrix

No, I said this:

"A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. That's not true. Factors as far flung as the present shape of the Earth's orbit are involved in predictions. The fact that the onset of another glacial period is due in the next few centuries is another issue compounding the complexity."

No, you said exactly what I quoted -- without context, without the quote function, without the mention function. It was irrelevant and off topic.

Quoting Xtrix

No, you said exactly what I quoted -- without context, without the quote function, without the mention function. It was irrelevant and off topic.

No, I said:

Quoting Tate

"A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. That's not true. Factors as far flung as the present shape of the Earth's orbit are involved in predictions. The fact that the onset of another glacial period is due in the next few centuries is another issue compounding the complexity."

Reply to Tate

No, you said the following:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/722391

Very easy to look it up.

Wait. Who deleted my last comment?

Xtrix is modding the feedback thread.

He is modding the feedback thread and modding a discussion he's taking part in. He's making ridiculous demands.

I'd like a read from the mods please.

He's just deleting whatever he wants.

Reply to Tate

As I've explained several times, the comments on the climate change thread are off-topic and will be deleted if continued. You're free to take it up with anyone else you like, including the administrators, if you feel this is unfair.

Quoting Xtrix

As I've explained several times, the comments on the climate change thread are off-topic and will be deleted if continued. You're free to take it up with anyone else you like, including the administrators, if you feel this is unfair.

I think you should check in with another mod before you proceed.

Quoting Tate

I think you should check in with another mod before you proceed.

Appreciate the feedback.

Reply to Xtrix :up:

He's continuing to delete perfectly normal posts of mine. What the heck?

PSA – fyi folks, the last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago and the Earth is currently 1/10th of the way through an estimated 100,000 year interglacial cycle that scientists refer to as the Holocene. A few centuries ago the northern hempisphere, specifically pre-industrial Europe had experienced what is now referred to as a "Little Ice Age" when average global temperatures had dropped; this does not mean, however, we are "currently in an Ice Age". In the last 150 years the Earth (mostly the northern hemisphere, due to accelerating, industrial greenhouse gas emissions) has warmed 1°C and continues to rise due to human activity. The average global temperature difference between Ice Ages and interglacials is 6°C and currently we are trending towards 4-6°C above this differential average. It is simply factually incorrect to claim "the Earth is currently in an Ice Age" when, in fact, glaciers and polar sea ice and permafrost everywhere are melting with corresponding methane releases and sea-level rise as well as increasing frequency and intensity of heavy storms / precipitation, flooding, wildfires and droughts.

:point: Concept of the Day: radiative forcing :fire:

https://climate.nasa.gov/ :victory: :mask:

[quote=Niel deGrasse Tyson]That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works.[/quote]

Quoting 180 Proof

, the last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years

That was the last glacial period of a large scale ice age, during which the climate swings between long glacial periods and short interglacials. There have been several of these larger scale ice ages in Earth's history.

Quoting 180 Proof

the Earth is currently 1/10th of the way through an estimated 100,000 year interglacial cycle that scientists refer to as the Holocene

That's one view. There are others. The more common view is that we should head back into glaciation some time in the next 10,000 years. We're near a trigger point now.

Quoting 180 Proof

A few centuries ago the northern hempisphere, specifically pre-industrial Europe had experienced what is now referred to as a "Little Ice Age" when average global temperatures had dropped; this does not mean, however, we are "currently in an Ice Age".

Interestingly, that cold spell was identified by comparing grape crop records from French monasteries to weather reports from the British Admiralty.

Quoting 180 Proof

It is simply factually incorrect to claim "the Earth is currently in an Ice Age"

It's proper usage. Note to the point: whether it's true or false, is it relevant to global warming? If for no other reason than that it provides fodder to deniers, I'd say yes.

@Tate fyi, I was just thrown off by 180proof's substantive climate post above and as a result thought we were still in the climate change thread and accidentally deleted your comment immediately above it, thinking it was feedback on moderating in the regular climate change thread. I've asked if it could be put back but this can take some time (if possible).

Reply to Benkei Man, you tend to delete in a hurry.

Quoting Tate

it provides fodder to deniers

Is that what you are trying to do?

Whatever the truth is, if an ice age coincides with global warming, we'd all havta cry out "perfect timing!" @Wayfarer might wanna comment about how earth is a spaceship [re spaceship earth theory]. Maybe it's part of the plan, oui? A super-advanced environmental control system is what this looks like to me! Just like how we turn up the heat when its winter! :snicker: Woah!

Quoting Tate

He's continuing to delete perfectly normal posts of mine. What the heck?

Typical marxist censorship. You are just asking for a black bag over your head. :death:

Reply to Agent Smith what is this earthspaceship theory?

Quoting Merkwurdichliebe

what is this earthspaceship theory?

Spaceship Earth

The sun is hurtling through space at around 80,000 km/s, dragging along with it the planets, including the earth. The solar system's a self-contained interstellar vessel/craft with its own power source - a fusion reactor, the sun - and there's a reserve fleet of planets we can move to as the sun evolves into a red giant.

Remember the perfect/ideal spaceship (self-sustaining biosphere with a reliable, long-lived power source) is just a scaled down version of a solar system with a one/more planets in the habitable zone and a few backup planets to take into account stellar life history. :snicker:

Reply to Benkei
I was wondering if you could comment on the feedback OP:

Quoting Tate

Is it appropriate to talk about the climate in a thread about climate change? Xtrix doesn't think so.

The issue was the effect of climate change on events related to the present ice age.

Why is this problematic? Could someone explain?

If I were a Mod, I would make it a personal rule not to moderate threads I myself have started.

Its akin to a someone being both a boxer and referee. It would take a saintly disposition to referee without bias

Im surprised its not an unspoken rule.

Quoting Yohan

Im surprised its not an unspoken rule.

It is. As far as I can tell, Xtrix avoided, or tried to avoid, modding in that thread for this exact reason, but there were no other mods around at the time.

Quoting Jamal

It is. As far as I can tell, Xtrix avoided, or tried to avoid, modding in that thread for this exact reason, but there were no other mods around at the time.

Could you explain why moderation was needed? The only explanation I got from Xtrix was that my post was irrelevant.

Quoting Jamal

but there were no other mods around at the time.

That's not true. Xtrix continued deleting my posts after I opened this thread and Baden was present.

Quoting Tate

Could you explain why moderation was needed? The only explanation I got from Xtrix was that my post was irrelevant.

You posted a completely uncited claim without even describing how it related to the argument. You refused to provide any citation when asked. You continue to do so in the same thread.

The topic is a scientific one (albeit the philosophical implications). We ought to expect citation. It's standard practice. We're not interested in what you 'reckon' is the case with regards to climatology.

If I were mod I would have deleted considerably more. I think @Xtrix behaved with some degree of composure given the provocation.

Quoting Isaac

You refused to provide any citation when asked.

That's not true. I provided two citations in spite of the fact that my knowledge is primarily from textbooks.

Quoting Tate

That's not true. I provided two citations in spite of the fact that my knowledge is primarily from textbooks.

You provided one citation of an article investigating the natural 100 000 year cycle (in the past) and the mechanism of glacial retreat, which does not have anything to do with climate change today which is not caused by orbital mechanics but a radical increase in man-made CO2 emissions.

The next "citation" you offer is a wikipedia "failed verification" tag to a statement that, again, has no relevance to the discussion if it was true or false, did not contradict what you said it was contradicting, and does lend weight to any position in the thread whatsoever.

Quoting Tate

That's not true. I provided two citations in spite of the fact that my knowledge is primarily from textbooks.

Apart from the fact that your citations do not support the claims you made, you provided them after several pages of repeated requests from at least three different posters, and more importantly, you did so after the provoking discussion with @Xtrix. They can hardly be expected to moderate on the basis of something you're about to do, can they?

Quoting Isaac

Apart from the fact that your citations do not support the claims you made, you provided them after several pages of repeated requests from at least three different posters

This is a lie. Why are you writing this?

Reply to boethius Reply to Isaac

Basically what you're both saying is that you disagree with me. Neither of you has shown that what I posted was irrelevant. In fact, that you follow me to this thread to argue about it indicates that it's pretty on point.

Quoting Tate

Baden was present.

For as long as it took to write those posts and then I wasn't. I may have showed up online because the tab is open, but it pretty much always is. Online doesn't mean available.

Anyhow, we tend to defer, within reason, to an OP writer's analysis of what is relevant in their discussion, whether they are a mod or not. And I don't get why it means so much to you to focus on the ice-age angle in a thread where the point is of such questionable relevance.

Quoting Baden

Anyhow, we tend to defer, within reason, to an OP writer's analysis of what is relevant in their discussion,

As I said, if what I wrote was irrelevant, then probably the majority of that thread is irrelevant and
subject to bring deleted by Xtrix.

If that's how we want to do it, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks for attempting to answer my concern.

Reply to Tate

No. It's about simple discussion protocols. If you want to contribute to a thread you should make your case (not just state facts) and cite the support for your claims.

If you're actually a climatologist, it would be a different matter and there might be more scope to just state what is the case (as you see it).

This is a discussion forum, not a blog, not an 'infowall' of useful snippets. If you don't want to take part in the discussions then you might just be in the wrong place, that's all.

Reply to Baden
He also deleted my posts in this feedback thread where I posted his PM's to me. I guess that's ok too?

Reply to Tate I raised the question with moderators whether you were trolling the thread or not. Particularly that decontextualised comment about being in an ice age and others should get up to speed, triggered that. So I thought your comments were at least low quality and wanted other moderators opinion on that.

Quoting Benkei

I raised the question with moderators whether you were trolling the thread or not.

Really? Somehow I've been completely misunderstood. :grin:

Anyway, would you hang around a forum where your opponent deletes your posts?

That's just crazy.

Reply to Tate Who are your "opponents"?

Quoting Benkei

Who are your "opponents"?

Whoever disagrees with you

Reply to Tate So your argumentation is about winning instead of edification? Good to know, I guess. Must be why you don't want to discuss with @boethius anymore since you were losing that one.

Quoting Tate

would you hang around a forum where your opponent deletes your posts?

If you consider @Xtrix your "opponent" that somewhat undermines your entire argument that your ice age comment just...

Quoting Tate

brought up the fact that we're in an ice age to explain some of the complexity.

Quoting Tate

He also deleted my posts in this feedback thread where I posted his PM's to me. I guess that's ok too?

I checked and the deleted post was a PM telling you that further off-topic posts in the climate thread would be deleted. If a mod PMs you something egregious or insulting, I think it makes sense to quote it here. Otherwise, I don't see the justification for posting a routine private message from a mod. Maybe just paraphrase it.

EDIT: To clarify, if you really must post a PM from a mod, you can. In this case though I don't see the need to resurrect the deleted post because the content is routine.

Reply to Baden Not to defend @Tate's crypto-denialism, but it is true that some mods can be a bit overbearing...

Quoting Baden

To clarify, if you really must post a PM from a mod, you can.

So you agree that this was abuse of mod power. How about the posts he deleted out of the climate thread. Can you review those and explain why they needed to be urgently deleted?

Quoting Tate

So you agree that this was abuse of mod power.

I do... ?

Quoting Tate

How about the posts he deleted out of the climate thread. Can you review those and explain why they needed to be urgently deleted?

No. I accept the reason given that it was due to them being off-topic. If another mod deems this worthy of further investigation, I have no objection. But I don't see why you must post in a way that an OP writer says, apparently with some justification, isn't on topic.

Quoting Baden

So you agree that this was abuse of mod power.
— Tate

I do... ?

He deleted posts out of a feedback thread that was about him. You said I should have been able to post that.

Quoting Baden

Tate

No. I accept the reason given that it was due to them being off-topic. If another mod deems this worthy of further investigation, I have no objection. But I don't see why you must post in a way that an OP writer says, apparently with some justification, isn't on topic.

Imagine you're debating a topic and your opponent deletes your posts. He subsequently states that your posts were off topic. Does that sound good to you? Do you think it might undermine discussion on the forum if a moderator is doing that?

Xtrix simply disagreed with me. The post he deleted was about information one would learn in a freshman class on global warming. It was on topic and non-offensive in any way.

Your position on this isn't making a lot of sense.

Perhaps Xtrix could post what he deleted and explain further.

Quoting Tate

Imagine you're debating a topic and your opponent deletes your posts. He subsequently states that your posts were off topic. Does that sound good to you? Do you think it might undermine discussion on the forum if a moderator is doing that?

Xtrix simply disagreed with me. The post he deleted was about information one would learn in a freshman class on global warming. It was on topic and non-offensive in any way.

Xtrix only deleted them after I raised the issue that I thought you were trolling. The only reason I didn't delete them is because I wanted others to look (because I'm on holidays) into whether this was a general issue or just in the climate thread. Because I raised it Xtrix felt comfortable deleting the posts another moderator (eg. me) already flagged.

Quoting Benkei

Tate

Xtrix only deleted them after I raised the issue that I thought you were trolling. The only reason I didn't delete them is because I wanted others to look (because I'm on holidays) into whether this was a general issue or just in the climate thread. Because I raised it Xtrix felt comfortable deleting the posts another moderator (eg. me) already flagged.

I'm surprised you didn't explain this earlier.

One of the posts he deleted was one where I mentioned the content of a freshman class in global warming. Did you flag that? If so, why?

The following post:

Quoting Tate

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed.

Is irrelevant and off topic. Not to mention rather snarky. Easy to go back and look up.

Apparently you were responding to -- without quoting or mentioning -- Olivier5, who did not once mention ice ages. No one could possibly know that from your post, and I'm only now assuming it because of what Olivier5 has said in that thread.

Reply to Xtrix I don't think you deleted that one, did you?

The issue is that you disagreed with what I said and subsequently deleted my posts.

Also you deleted posts out of the feedback thread that was about you.

These kinds of actions are a detriment to robust discussion. Do you see why?

Reply to Agent Smith that is awesome! I've always wanted to ride in a spaceship :nerd:

Quoting Tate

The issue is that you disagreed with what I said and subsequently deleted my posts.

I deleted your posts because they were irrelevant, and explained why. Nothing to do with "disagreement."

The post deleted in this feedback thread was because you posted private correspondence in public, for no good reason. I've since found out that, since I'm a moderator, this is generally OK. If you wish to post them publicly again, feel free. I personally think it's tacky, but that's your business.

Reply to Tate I did: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/723090

Quoting Xtrix

I deleted your posts because they were irrelevant, and explained why.

Do you remember the content that you deleted? I was simply saying that information about ice ages can be shocking, but it's taught in classes on global warming. It's basic climatology.

Why would you need to delete that?

Reply to Tate

You were "simply saying" it after you were told that it was off topic. Furthermore, the fact that "information about ice ages can be shocking" says nothing whatsoever about why that comment was made to begin with, and is therefore just as irrelevant and off topic as stating, out of the blue, that "we're in an ice age guys."

Honestly, I thought just raising the flag about the abuse would be enough to end it. This has gotten ten times more dramatic than I thought would be necessary.

Quoting Xtrix

You were "simply saying" it after you were told that it was off topic. Furthermore, the fact that "information about ice ages can be shocking" says nothing whatsoever about why that comment was made to begin with, and is therefore just as irrelevant and off topic as stating, out of the blue, that "we're in an ice age guys."

If you have a concern, how about throwing it to another moderator to look at? I advised you to do that and you said "Thanks for the feedback."

Don't moderate a thread you're engaged in, especially after you're getting insulting and aggressive.

Quoting Tate

If you have a concern, how about throwing it to another moderator to look at?

That was done.

Quoting Tate

Don't moderate a thread you're engaged in, especially after you're getting insulting and aggressive.

If necessary, I will continue to do so. Especially when one makes off-topic remarks and continues to after being asked not to. I'd gladly hand it over to others, as is my usual protocol; none happen to be around at the time -- as was already explained to you. Also, I didn't once insult you.

Next time, don't make off-topic remarks.

Quoting Tate

These kinds of actions are a detriment to robust discussion. Do you see why?

Deleting unargued, un cited, and un related content promotes robust discussion, it is not a detriment.

If you want to join in robust discussion, post relevant, argued and cited positions.

Reply to Isaac Isaac, how would you feel if I deleted that comment?

Quoting Xtrix

Next time, don't make off-topic remarks.

I think you know they weren't off topic. It's just sad you can't muster the character to admit it.

Reply to Tate

What's sad is that you feel, despite near unanimous feedback from both other moderators and other posters, that the comment "We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed" was anything other than a non-sequitur. But you're free to play the victim and waste everyone's time. I suppose that's a sign of "character" in your view. So be it.

@Tate

Yes, we need to be careful about moderating stuff we're involved in. I haven't been perfect in that area either. But the consensus seems to be that the posts were off topic. So, I don't see any further action being required here.

Quoting Baden

Yes, we need to be careful about moderating stuff we're involved in. I haven't been perfect in that area either. But the consensus seems to be that the posts were off topic. So, I don't see any further action being required here.

I think you're making a mistake, but ok.

Quoting Merkwurdichliebe

that is awesome! I've always wanted to ride in a spaceship :nerd:

We, collectively, have been and are on a spaceship (earth). William Shatner (Capt. Kirk) is unaware of this! :zip: Shhhhh!

Reply to Agent Smith Pro tip: We live on the surface of the Earth which is not navigable body in space whereas astronauts live inside a navigable spaceship; ergo, inapt metaphor – Earth is not a "spaceship". :nerd: LLAP.

Quoting 180 Proof

Pro tip: We live on the surface of the Earth which is not navigable body in space whereas astronauts live inside a navigable spaceship; ergo, inapt metaphor – Earth is not a "spaceship". :nerd: LLAP

It's on autopilot! :grin:

It is even possible that we will rendezvous with a wormhole somewhere in the future. Galaxy-hopping solar systems! :cool:

Quoting Isaac

The topic is a scientific one (albeit the philosophical implications). We ought to expect citation. It's standard practice. We're not interested in what you 'reckon' is the case with regards to climatology.

No offense, but this is bullshit. Citation is only accepted here if what you're saying is relevant and/or accepted by thread participants -- sadly. Anyone could give a citation.

But I'll give my opinion to the conflict happening in this thread and the climate change thread. Tate went it and blew some crap out of the water by stating "We are in an ice age, guys." He is wrong and makes a good point all at the same time. In fact, we're in interglacial period. Which means, sooner or later, we're going to enter the ice age. But not yet.

The climate change thread in question is only talking about the man-made increase in CO2 for a very brief period in the natural history of the Earth, not the whole epoch of climate change to warrant bringing in the glacial/ice age period. Context is important here. If we're talking about the period between 1800 to 2021, this hardly warrants talking about the ice age. (You don't want the thread to turn into a comical exchange between "like-minded" people, do you?) Hence, even mentioning "are we turning the Earth into Venus" is laughable.

Over indulgence in a pet thread is a vice.

Quoting L'éléphant

No offense, but this is bullshit.

What is bullshit? That we should expect citations, or that it's standard practice? Your comment only goes on to describe the situations in which citation is accepted (though is unclear on how you measure this). My comment, however, is about what ought to be the case, not what is the case.

Quoting L'éléphant

In fact, we're in interglacial period. Which means, sooner or later, we're going to enter the ice age. But not yet.

That is not happening: the ice caps are fast melting. The Artic one will be history soon, by 2040 or so. Then, in the absence of the moderating factor that the artic ice cap represents, summer temperatures in the northern hemisphere will most certainly shoot up.

Antarctica is a bigger piece but all models predict that summer ice there will be gone in a few centuries.

Tate's "ice age" (defined by the presence of ice caps) is ending. Because of us.

Reply to Olivier5 :100:

Reply to L'éléphant It's odd to me that people universally assume I'm a climate change denier because I brought up the fact that we're in a large scale ice age. I actually brought it up to explain why climate science is complicated, but people latched on to a certain narrative and decided to be vomit their angst at me.

Anyway, I started a potentially doomed thread in the topic. We can close this thread now, I think

Reply to Tate This is not about everybody else but you just writing really bad posts. If everybody interprets it a certain way, you're going to have to work on how to better convey what you actually mean.