11–20 of 100 posts
Have we ever as a species successfully changed our behavior on a scale needed to address something like climate change and underwater oxygen loss? What would be the closest “we’ve got to change or perish” moment we’ve successfully navigated?
[flagged]
For example, I clicked on the random link in that paper (referenced as a proof of river oxygen decline) — the article was not even based on some actual data log but fucking deep learning model (which may or may not work)
[flagged]
Instead of immediately making this an us vs them with theoretical climate deniers how about we focus on talking about how to improve science communication so that the article isn't something simultaneously dense and vague enough to be easily dismissed. I'll pick on the US, because blaming India and China will incite their little public defenders to bury the thread. The Gulf of Mexico is currently downstream of the US…
As you should. The current administration is partially owned by the fossil fuels industry and is literally paying to destroy existing and planned renewable energy sources.
The agricultural runoff problem is an ecological crime scene. We could solve it if we weren't so corrupt.
[flagged]
Do you think climate change wipes us out before some other natural disaster?
Have we ever as a species successfully changed our behavior on a scale needed to address something like climate change and underwater oxygen loss? What would be the closest “we’ve got to change or perish” moment we’ve successfully navigated?
We did a reasonable job with ozone depletion, but that has much lower costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of immediately making this an us vs them with theoretical climate deniers how about we focus on talking about how to improve science communication so that the article isn't something simultaneously dense and vague enough to be easily dismissed. I'll pick on the US, because blaming India and China will incite their little public defenders to bury the thread. The Gulf of Mexico is currently downstream of the US…
> I'll pick on the US As you should. The current administration is partially owned by the fossil fuels industry and is literally paying to destroy existing and planned renewable energy sources. The agricultural runoff problem is an ecological crime scene. We could solve it if we weren't so corrupt.
There is no hope unless we decide to do things globally. And until you are willing to "compel" countries who don't play along, it's not happening.
So, no, shaming people or telling them to be afraid will not help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of immediately making this an us vs them with theoretical climate deniers how about we focus on talking about how to improve science communication so that the article isn't something simultaneously dense and vague enough to be easily dismissed. I'll pick on the US, because blaming India and China will incite their little public defenders to bury the thread. The Gulf of Mexico is currently downstream of the US…
> I'll pick on the US As you should. The current administration is partially owned by the fossil fuels industry and is literally paying to destroy existing and planned renewable energy sources. The agricultural runoff problem is an ecological crime scene. We could solve it if we weren't so corrupt.
The point is being deranged about the current admin doesn't help the scenario. Every team (political group) fucked up royally, continues to fuck up, and only cares about how much money businesses are putting into their second home or their kid's trust fund.
Issue here is that becomes more common and underwater oxygen loss is approaching an “unsafe space” with impacts likely irreversible within human lifetimes, some of which could persist for centuries.
Coastal “dead zones”, impact of fish food etc.
Can we please snap out of it and use something like if not common sense but at least a Fermi approach? Or did he die in vain?