Really disappointed in this kind of response to an article about a worrying ecological change which is undisputedly due to climate change.
How is climate change still such a contentious issue?
You are shifting the purpose of the article from informative news to something that suits your agrnda; via shaming I might add, very weak style of argument to make in this group I imagine.
> Quite why the sea-ice platform on the edge of the Brunt shelf has failed to regenerate is unclear. There is no obvious climate signal to point to in this case; atmospheric and ocean observations in the vicinity of the Brunt reveal little in the way of change.
“But the sensitivity of this colony to shifting sea-ice trends does illustrate, says the team, the impact that future warming in Antarctica could have on emperor penguins in particular.”
“Research suggests the species might lose anywhere between 50% and 70% of its global population by the end of this century, if sea-ice is reduced to the extent that computer models envisage.“
And then they follow up with basically saying this proves that rescinding ice does affect the Penguins, so 'future' (not current, as they haven't detected any changes) could affect them.
I.e, it's speculation.
Which is not related to this particular incident. Thanks for proving my point again.
Personally, I find BBC "Have your say" comments generally more depressing than YouTube comments on anything to do with the Apollo program!
In my estimation, the 2017 was the high watermark of climate change worries. Recall how AOC's recent Green New Deal went down with little support beyond lip service, and note how the current Extenction Rebellion protests in London gets only moderate media coverage.
What kind of sourcing are we talking about here? Articles published in renowned journals and based on sound research or...?
You are asking objective trustworthiness here. People's perceptions are more complex. On one hand we can't reliably know the objective trustworthiness (or objective truth for that matter) in a timely manner. OTOH we are evolved to use heuristics to deal with insufficient information and information overload.
Cliche as it may be, "the optics" aren't currently on the side of over-arching, globe-spanning climate action.
Contrast that with examples: ozone layer hole, smog in cities, polluted rivers, whale hunting, and many other similar issues - specific items that got popularized and solved more or less permanently in our lifetimes. There are several other specific issues considered pressing (like drug resistant pathogens, garbage in the oceans, overfishing, honey bee population collapse) that people support major efforts towards solving. There are other issues that recently came to attention as potentially pressing and requiring rapid research and again major efforts towards solving (like microplastics, insect population collapse).
We will solve the specific issues.