[18pfsmt]

Here is the link to the actual report:

https://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aax35...

People should try reading the actual science instead of some journalist's cherry-picked take on the science. It's also interesting that Disney ("evil media corporation") now controls NatGeo.

As Bill Gates recently noted, climate alarmists are more of a problem than the "deniers." Here's a story from the BBC this week titled, Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736

This is getting ridiculous. The submitter, in this case, appears to have issues with civility, and is obsessively submitting climate related articles for an account that's less than 60 days.

[sbmthakur]

The BBC story reminded me of Al Gore's 2006 prediction that stated unless nations took “drastic measures” then the Earth "would reach a point of no return within 10 years."[1]

It's weird how the deadline for point of no return is being pushed ahead every few years.

1. https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/annabel-scott/gore-dodges-fact-...

[yread]

So, when do you think the point of no return is now? I've read that even if we stop all CO2 emissions now the heating will continue for quite some time before nature gets the 410ppm back to 350ppm or wherever it needs to be for stable state. So, in a way we're way past the point of no return and we probably were in 2006 already.

Ah yes, looking into it further, here is the claim: "25-50 years are needed for Earth’s surface temperature to reach 60 percent of its equilibrium response"

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/early/2005/04/28/...

[mikeash]

Do you have a link to Gates saying alarmism is the greater problem? I’m curious as to exactly what he said and I can’t find it.

[18pfsmt]

It was from a live stream of a conference/interview that happened at the end of Feb. or March. I did read something about it at the time, but it wasn't the headline, nor am I likely to have gotten the phrasing correct exactly.

PEW put out a practical plan to address the issue a couple months ago that actually goes through the trade-offs, and then makes recommendations.

[skyfaller]

One problem with the current data ecosystem is that often misinformation is free, while hard science (and other reliable sources) are hidden behind paywalls. For example, I can read the abstract, which doesn't seem to conflict with the OP, but if I want to see the full text, I'm SOL.

I even have the Unpaywall extension installed (http://unpaywall.org), precisely to avoid this situation, but unfortunately the extension wasn't able to find a free version of this article.

This is one reason Open Access publishing is so crucially important to the public discourse. "Alternate facts" will win if people can read them for free but must pay to read peer-reviewed science.

Whether or not you think National Geographic has mischaracterized the science in this instance, I hope we can all agree that access to the original source would help everyone get their facts straight.