I'm not informed enough to make a reply comment, but thank you for adding clarity - it informed me.
This is how we ended up in the situations of enormous ignorance in the climate change and immunization realms, as if scientific rigour, consensus, statistical and foundational fact, etc, are all contentious the moment some random blowhard gives their opinion.
That random comment by a random guy on the internet is adding clarity.
This claim has been made multiple times, and the single example has been a misunderstanding of the English language (e.g. "running out").
"That random comment by a random guy on the internet is adding clarity."
That random comment that inserted non-fact, dismissed essentially the entire report...yeah, no, it added just noise. Oh look now the root comment instead of just blanket dismissing global warming entirely has now listed a small sub-summary dealing just with run-off. This is a classic denialist tactic, just moving the fence posts enough, pretending to actually be considering the science.
The journalist is at the same time lying about a problem where there isn't any and hiding a huge problem that can be solved if people focus on it.
They didn't. They blanket dismissed it, gave their own theory, and expressed how tired they are from this cross they must bear.
https://www.unitgraphics.com/deox/IUCNDeoxreportBOOK15-11-20... (77MB)
There's the actual study. The BBC article is pretty accurate in its summary.
I don't see why a random internet commentator's pet theory (with nothing in the article to support it) should be treated as necessarily better.
[1] as documented by NeedBigTea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21736510