I know people will say “we were casual about it and now look where we are”… but looking at this title, I can already see the debatable points before going into the argue… which is going to create that debate, since the majority of people aren’t going to go into the article anyway.
I could be wrong and there is no way to prove or disprove my belief, but I think humanity would be more united working towards a solution if the majority of media stuck to purely facts. Ultimately, it should have the same content and less divisiveness over projected opinions.
Yeah, see I’m not saying that the article isn’t pointing in the right direction, rather that it is generally wrong in its assertions. In doing so, it is actually causing harm by discrediting objective truth with a narrative filled with flawed hyperbole.
It’s long been a thing that “all the ice is going to melt in 30 years” - for the past 100 years that’s been the best estimate scientists could make. Now, it’s actually happening, and scientists are scrambling to make better predictions - but they do so with a solid understanding of the previous predictions.
However this article does disservice to that effort, because it’s just stretching the previous hyperbole as far as it can with the goal of attracting viewership, rather than with the goal of spreading news in the hope that people will be better educated to make better decisions as a society, and as a species.
Any scientist worth their salt wouldn’t be stating so concretely what might happen in 100 years.
I actually agree with you.
I know people will say “we were casual about it and now look where we are”… but looking at this title, I can already see the debatable points before going into the argue… which is going to create that debate, since the majority of people aren’t going to go into the article anyway.
I could be wrong and there is no way to prove or disprove my belief, but I think humanity would be more united working towards a solution if the majority of media stuck to purely facts. Ultimately, it should have the same content and less divisiveness over projected opinions.
Yeah, see I’m not saying that the article isn’t pointing in the right direction, rather that it is generally wrong in its assertions. In doing so, it is actually causing harm by discrediting objective truth with a narrative filled with flawed hyperbole.
It’s long been a thing that “all the ice is going to melt in 30 years” - for the past 100 years that’s been the best estimate scientists could make. Now, it’s actually happening, and scientists are scrambling to make better predictions - but they do so with a solid understanding of the previous predictions.
However this article does disservice to that effort, because it’s just stretching the previous hyperbole as far as it can with the goal of attracting viewership, rather than with the goal of spreading news in the hope that people will be better educated to make better decisions as a society, and as a species.
Any scientist worth their salt wouldn’t be stating so concretely what might happen in 100 years.