Gulf Stream current could collapse in 2025, plunging Earth into climate chaos: 'We were actually bewildered' - eviltoast

Researchers have predicted the collapse of the AMOC could happen any time between 2025 and 2095 — far sooner than previous predictions, although not all scientists are convinced.

=====

What if…

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wouldn’t dismiss an article just because a fact check website down rates it.

          In this instance, though, it’s not far off. “The famous scientists at the Newsweek lab got things wrong a few decades ago, so all scientists today must be wrong.”

        • Umbra@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          36
          ·
          1 year ago

          They are not far right, just right. And very credible. I’ll look for another source I guess.

          • rusticus1773@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            “And very credible.” Lol. These are opinion pieces you are linking to. Let us know when you have a scientific article (ie Science, PNAS, Nature) to support your climate denial.

          • masquenox@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Just right” is no more credible than “far right.” Right-wing politics is a pack of lies and absolutely nothing else.

            • Umbra@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              19
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ring wing news sources actually value the truth, unlike establishment and left wing news sources.

              • masquenox@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Right-wing ideology only exists to protect power and privilege, Clyde - it exists to hide the truth and nothing else.

                But hey… maybe all that ivermectin you’ve been drinking will actually start working one of these days instead of slowly killing you, eh?

                • Umbra@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Hey, ivermectin worked for Rogan. And as a right wing unvaccinated gigachad I certainly don’t need it. Got through 4 COVID infections with just basic flu medicine.

          • Melpomene@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Bias Rating: RIGHT
            Factual Reporting: MIXED
            Country: USA
            Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
            Media Type: Magazine
            Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
            MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

            Overall, we rate the New American Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to rejecting the consensus of science and poor sourcing techniques. (7/19/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 01/17/2023)

            https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-american/

        • Melpomene@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          “There were people in the 1970’s (around half a century ago) who didn’t have a clear picture of the global climate changes because they didn’t have a way to accurately track weather and climate trends, so OBVIOUSLY all climate change science is bullshit!” -That Article, which I had the displeasure of reading all the way through.

          • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Are you okay now? I had to sit down after about six paragraphs. Metaphorically, of course; I wouldn’t stand up to read a dissertation on climate denial.

            • Melpomene@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’ve been on the Internet long enough to be used to it, but I feel like I need a palate cleanser.

          • Umbra@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            1 year ago

            There are much newer wrong predictions as well. Point is though, that you can’t find a correct prediction.

            • krashmo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              Most predictions are generalized statements like “the world as a whole will be hotter” or “extreme weather will be more common”. I’d bet good money that you could verify both of those predictions using only your own personal experience and that of the people you know. You’re not being honest with yourself if you say the climate isn’t changing at all. If your point is that predicting the future is hard and therefore there’s no point in trying to understand what’s happening then that’s an idiotic point of view that shouldn’t require a rebuttal.

              I can tell from the way you’re speaking that you have your mind made up and none of these responses will make any difference to you but they may help someone else reading them.

              • nexusband@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The funny thing is, with that sentiment, when the AMOC stops, the average temps are going to plummet.

              • Umbra@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                I meant more specific predictions. But you also saw the predictions about global cooling.

            • Melpomene@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              You mean, the ones through 2023 that show land ice / glaciers on a downward trend, Arctic ice steadily declining, weather patterns becoming unpredictable? It’s easy to cherry pick data to support a politically driven opinion.

      • Einar@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not exactly a news source known for it’s unbiased and trustworthy reporting.

        Even if it were credible, the article is almost 10 years old.

        You need to do better than use a far-right organization’s outlet. Go to the true scientists, not reporters with a political agenda.

        Reputable sources such as NASA, the United Nations, and the National Geographic Society, which base their conclusions on scientific evidence and rigorous research are much more reliable.

        It is understandable to feel unhappy with the current reality. However, ignoring the situation and trying to find evidence that it is not real will not benefit anyone. In fact, it may even cause harm. As the saying goes, it is better to be safe than sorry.

        It is important to face the reality and take appropriate actions to improve the situation. How else will a difference ever be made?

        Edit: I named American websites (apart from the UN), because I assume by your source that you are American. This is a global issue, though. European reputable institutions:

      • A7thStone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That article was the epitome of the old saying “figures don’t lie, but liars can figure”. They cherry picked studies and statistics to support the conclusion they wanted to reach, absolute garbage “science”.