40% of animals on Planet Earth are gone thanks to us

[spurraider21]

Errbody chill out. God has this. Humans will never cease to exist. It's in the Bible.

its all encoded in the banana

[z0sa]

-_- whatever man. Like I said, a dishonest response cannot be countered with an honest one. You say I don't know the meaning of pseudoscience, yet you make the very pseudoscientific prediction claiming the earth will be fine regardless of what happens (again, while probable that all life won't be extinguished, this is contrary to scientific fact both ecologically and astronomically speaking). You say we should lower carbon emissions, yet you also made the claim that we should "keep things in perspective" - apparently, keeping things in perspective means being indifferent to the destruction of most of life on earth, including ourselves, which defeats the purposes of lowering carbon emissions. To attempt to avoid this fate, which we can control, isn't even altruistic in your eyes, which borders on the either sarcastic or cynical. You don't look or sound like any scientist.

[Chinook]

-_- whatever man. Like I said, a dishonest response cannot be countered with an honest one.

You've given no honest answer, just attempts to look cool with zingers. You perhaps just got what I was saying, and now you're backpedaling.

You say I don't know the meaning of pseudoscience, yet you make the very pseudoscientific prediction claiming the earth will be fine regardless of what happens (again, while probable that all life won't be extinguished, this is contrary to scientific fact both ecologically and astronomically speaking).

I never questioned you're understanding of the word "pseudoscience".

Anyway, you haven't provided a single bit of evidence to support your side, only hints that the evidence would support you if you provided it. That IS a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority.

You say we should lower carbon emissions, yet you also made the claim that we should "keep things in perspective" - apparently, keeping things in perspective means being indifferent to the destruction of most of life on earth, including ourselves, which defeats the purposes of lowering carbon emissions.

Perhaps you should rethink your interpretation of the bolded part. Then you'd see a consistent view instead of a contradiction like you're currently assuming is there.

To attempt to avoid this fate, which we can control, isn't even altruistic in your eyes, which borders on the either sarcastic or cynical.

Guess I'm a meanie then. Not going to apologize for suggesting that we stop treating conservation as a voluntary, moral thing and instead make it a mandate.

You don't look or sound like any scientist.

How the do you know what I look like? Do you even know what a scientist sounds like? They're all different types of people who have dramatically different world-views. Maybe you should stop trying to put people in boxes.