But they did it specifically to downplay concerns that they purposefully misrepresented to be about total collapse, when even the parent comment merely and correctly expressed concerns about the current being altered, perhaps as it was when Europe was plunged into the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago causing terrible famines and extreme cold. To attempt to reframe those concerns as being only about 100% shutdown of the current is an egregious and fallacious strawman of the argument.

But even aside from that, as I said, their own references do not support their implication that the concerns are not appropriate for generations. Just because a study is three years old doesn’t mean that the cause for concern it might raise can be dismissed. There is a clear scientific consensus that thermohaline cycle disruption is a real threat to humanity, with potential for catastrophe well before 2300, and yet reading only the comment I critiqued, one would never know that. That is extremely problematic in a discussion like this one, and I stand by my critique.