but if you keep declaring a time clock every decade only to reset it for the past 50 years, does it not weaken the point of it ? we should've had an apocalypse by now, we haven't and unlikely to so for quite some time.
why are we so eager and unquestioning of the published narratives going to the length of censoring counter theories?
Yeah the clock turned out to be silly, but if you interpret it as risk level instead of time, it makes sense. Since the 70s we have been at a near-100% chance this would happen.
We've had the apocalyptic climate prophecies every decade and towards the end of each they move the goal post again and again.
Then other scientists offer alternative views that point out that flaw and they are automatically not deemed as science despite the geological history of earth's magnetic poles shifting and recorded climate changes.
The fuel we burn barely makes a dent on the overall climate change effect. You are running out of things to blame so you keep moving the goal posts.
We don't know how much he'll drink before he gets cirrhosis. Now he's 60 and should have had it already. We still think he'll have it despite previously not predicting the timeline correctly.
You seem less interested in whether the analogy is accurate than in making sure or desiring someone is dead by the end of it. I do find it to be weird way to respond to low stakes banter.
and because we've been doomed since the 70s