This was misleading & needs some caveats
(See annotations here)
Rejected by peer reviewers, who called for "major revisions"
But you need to read carefully and critically. Is there new science in this, or is it re-analysis? And what do experts make of the analysis?
Stop, check & verify - then retweet.
Six scientists reviewed the coverage of it in IFLScience - which took the same headline as the VICE article, "New Report Warns "High Likelihood Of Human Civilization Coming To An End" Within 30 Years"
Amber Kerr, UCal Davies:
Their job is to make you click on shit, and they do that through SHOCK!!! and FEELINGS!!! and flat out lying to you, as required.
(PS don't blame the journalist, they're probably pissed off too)
We'd set up a snazzy website & write reports about "probable futures", complete with whizzy diagrams: a Cone of Possibilities; many 2x2 matrices… Have footnotes & citations
It'd look 'real'
This is bc I'm a bitch with the opposite of imposter syndrome. But you should try it.
Why do people look for more extreme scenarios than those offered by the World Bank or IPCC? Because "lots of climate policy analysts agree that the IPCC is too optimistic."
"Many analyses of climate change — including the report Vice based its article on — treat the deaths of a billion people and the extinction of humanity as pretty similar outcomes." But they're not.
Gah! She's so good.
A thing I see often is a sort of 'stacking' of probabilities: assuming that ice sheets will collapse AND methane in permafrost AND topsoil will erode AND oceans acidify AND AND AND, each one the worst case scenario.
This needs proving.
Working on the basis that every feedback loop is positive (accelerating) & systems will inevitably be wholly coupled. No! These are guesses.
"Not one Inuit guy in the High Arctic, hunting rats and jellyfish?"
"No, he's dead too."
It has a long theological history. It offers some perverse narrative or psychological consolations: Justice, for one. Punishment for sins. Resolution. Meaning.
...and generating a stream of shocking, highly emotive content to the profit of your fame, reputation & bank balance.)
We do it - and ourselves - justice by facing that head on. It does not need hyping, it does not need catastrophising; clickbait will not change the world.
It doesn't need to be any more serious before we act