Well said. Ask a math or physics teacher what the weather will be on this same day 5 years from now. Meteorologists can’t answer that with any educated certainty. I’m not saying climate change isn’t real, isn’t a concern, or to not trust scientists- but I certainly agree that this logic doesn’t support their intended conclusion. And... let’s not forget that sometimes those spaceships crash or blow up on lift off- so even in their own field the best experts we have don’t always get it right.
Actually, as written there is a for case it is not a joke. A joke is a thing which is said to cause amusement or laughter and relies on intent as much as results. We might be able to classify this as humor. In theory we could classify it as figurative language, as we COULD say it uses hyperbole to imply the feat of landing on another planet is so large that in comparison the concept of climate change is rudimentary. That minds capable of the former fear would by default be capable of the latter. In this sense the hyperbole could be classified as humorous- being used to make a point but without coming off as directly as if one spoke without figurative language as a diffuser.
However- if the statement was made in earnest, it would not be classified as humor because the only humor is in exaggeration- which if said in earnest there wouldn’t be exaggeration, it would be a straight forward statement to read as: anyone who doesn’t believe in climate change is ignorant. This would still be a device of language but not a joke or humor in itself.
In common use it would be off putting to examine most forms of figurative language- although that too can be humor- observational humor, and be an actual joke. For instance the classic phrase “I eat pieces of crap like you for breakfast” has often been turned upon examination as: “you eat pieces of crap for breakfast?” Now turning the examination of figurative language into a joke using observational humor. However if one says “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse...” it is generally considered “missing the joke” to say something like “a human beings stomach can’t actually hold a horses worth of meat...” although that too could be a “fun fact” or a form of “meta humor” it is a clearer example of missing a joke.
But with that said- figurative language CAN be humorous unintentionally, and it CAN be deconstructed in standard conversations normally. For instance- if a person uses a mixed metaphor such as “well that’s an awfully thin soup to hang your hat on...” it would be understandable that the intent or overall language wouldn’t be understood- and your only hope of understanding would be to either ask/discuss, or attempt to analyze both the statement and the context. In fact, you’d likely intuitively begin to analyze it as your mind wouldn’t easily reconcile the statement and would need to further deconstruct and process it.
In this case- myself and others upon reading this have come to the conclusion that the use of language is flawed. Wether it’s a joke or not- the “punchline” doesn’t make sense to its purpose. In that regard if it was intended it could be some sort of surrealist humor or something- but that’s a stretch to say. Not all people will reach this same conclusion and they do not have to. Often times humor is in the eye of the beholder. Many times things not intended as humorous are found humorous and vice versa. That’s life I suppose.
Likewise, I noticed it was moderately warm out today, therefore we're all gonna fry and die from Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Oh, wait ...
Oh, wait ...