"This is the first recorded incident of a widespread breeding failure of emperor penguins that is clearly linked with large-scale contractions in sea ice extent."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00927-x
Published and peer-reviewed. But according to you it is clickbait?
A significant portion of peer reviewed papers are biased, poorly backed claims making junk.
It also seems extremely likely that such things vary wildly by field, journal, etc.
Which is to say that throwing the whole thing out in preference to a completely unsourced and anonymous comment on HN seems, frankly, idiotic.
Even within the same publication.
Nature has historically proven to be one of the top journal. Not taking that away from them. But being published by nature and peer reviewed does not mean such article cannot use a clickbait title and/or be non scientific.
I took some precaution and made sure to not mention an estimate of what that portion represents. I think it fair to call it significant given it isn't breaking news.
Blame me for not providing references proving it is based on some interpretation of reality not only I, have.
As if that meant nature or the title couldn't be a clickbait, or the conclusion/claims dubious. They can be, that's all I called out.
it was found to be subjective and unsupported.
I guess someone "peer reviewed" all his papers
Great call. Thanks for really bringing up the level of discourse.
So, yes, clickbait.
“Not a single emperor penguin chick survived” seems unsupported.