[ccjnsn]

As I post this almost all top thread comments are dismissing this article.

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?

[misterhtmlcss]

I don't believe you read the article, because if you had I believe you would have noticed that they nearly all but dismissed this as climate change related. Scientists did that not, HN commentors.

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.

[ekianjo]

Funny you attribute this to climate change when the article clearly mentioned this incident had nothing to do with climate change. Did you even read it?

> 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.

[abalone]

From the article that you allegedly read:

“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.“

[ekianjo]

> “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.”

Which is not related to this particular incident. Thanks for proving my point again.

[abalone]

You made up the “which is not related to this particular incident” part (which is why you couldn’t quote it). They said they couldn’t point to an “obvious” cause in this case, which you eagerly mischaracterized as meaning “it has nothing to do with global warming.” But that’s not what they said. They said they didn’t deeply study and understand the cause in this case. But we know with great certainty that sea ice is on a rapid decline due to climate change, just half of what it was in the 80s.[1] Thus the article notes studies that project this event will happen with greater frequency due to climate change, ultimately killing off more than half this species by century's end.

[ApolloFortyNine]

It reads like the current fact is that they don't know why the ice didn't regenerate now.

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.

[arethuza]

Well, if you are disappointed in the comments here on HN then don't read the comments on the article on the BBC site!

Personally, I find BBC "Have your say" comments generally more depressing than YouTube comments on anything to do with the Apollo program!

[wkavey]

I think I lost some braincells trying to reason through the plethora of logical fallacies in that comment thread

[soperj]

2015-2016 in Antarctica had one of the biggest sea ice extents on record. Way above the average (for the 40 years or so of data that they actually have)

[revx]

Yeah, it's weird. Seems like there's definitely a specific viewpoint being pushed in the comments here.

[growlist]

It's possible to question without being a paid shill - overpopulation is relevant yet taboo, we are bound to an economic model that worships inexorable economic growth despite likely consequences for the planet that cannot be solved by innovation alone, the rich and powerful are disproportionate creators of CO2 and in unique position to influence yet apparently most show little true inclination to change matters, we are kept in the dark about the true scale of the changes required (which would leave our lifestyles unrecognisable compared to now - forget cars, forget flying, forget imported goods, forget cheap clothes, forget meat) and there are myriad other environmental issues that to my eyes are conveniently ignored in favour of the 'push global warming at all costs' directive. I care about the planet and want to see global warming tackled, but look past the rhetoric and there are discrepancies galore.

[dexen]

Cheer up, outside of SV & academia, it's not all that much contentious anymore. People moved on, we are dealing with issues that we consider timely and well sourced.

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.

[Cyph0n]

> well sourced

What kind of sourcing are we talking about here? Articles published in renowned journals and based on sound research or...?

[dexen]

>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.