There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Ancient sea sponges at centre of controversial claim world has already warmed by 1.7C

Findings in leading scientific journal that globe has breached key warming milestone challenged by climate science experts

Between 30 metres and 90 metres below the surface of the Caribbean Sea, an ancient sponge species that grows a hard skeleton has been quietly recording changes in the ocean temperature for hundreds of years.

Now those sponges are at the centre of a bold and controversial claim made in a leading scientific journal that, since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the planet may have already warmed by 1.7C – half a degree more than estimates used by the United Nation’s climate panel.

Several leading scientists urged caution, saying the research had “over-reached” and questioned whether such a bold claim could be made based on one sponge species from a single location.

But Prof Malcolm McCulloch of the University of Western Australia, who led the research published in the journal Nature Climate Change, said the results were robust.

Tolstoshev ,

Arguing over deck chair placement on the titanic.

Harvey656 ,

This is interesting, I’d love to see some follow-up papers and more investigation.

theodewere ,
@theodewere@kbin.social avatar

until someone finds a reason why this method might be unreliable, it isn't controversial.. it's a scientific fact with implications..

Blueberrydreamer ,

That is absolutely antithetical to the scientific process. Nothing is considered ‘fact’ until rigorously proven. This is interesting evidence that absolutely warrants criticism.

RedAggroBest ,

Yea, why is it “one scientist said so despite their claim disputing the current standard! Fact now”. This paper needs independent verification and follow up studies to confirm they didn’t just massively fuck up their numbers or something else

theodewere , (edited )
@theodewere@kbin.social avatar

you've obviously never read a scientific paper.. if you understood anything about science, you would see that this method of determining sea temperature changes produces a dataset that is much more reliable than the data we have been referring to..

Apollo ,

That’s good it means this experiment should be easy to reproduce.

Blueberrydreamer ,

One published paper is never sufficient to claim anything as fact. To suggest otherwise is purely ignorance.

theodewere ,
@theodewere@kbin.social avatar

that's exactly how science comes into existence.. one study and paper at a time.. whoever taught you otherwise was lying or stupid..

Blueberrydreamer ,

No is arguing otherwise.

One paper does not make a “fact”. Years of established research and widespread consensus barely justifies labeling a subject as a “fact”.

Have you already forgotten the room temperature superconductor claims from last year?

Let me be absolutely clear. I am in no way trying to discredit this paper. I see no reason to question their findings, it’s good science and absolutely should be followed up on. However, I take strong exception to people jumping on any half decent study and treating it as gospel.

ieatpillowtags ,

He’s clearly trolling and arguing in bad faith.

theodewere ,
@theodewere@kbin.social avatar

the scientific process is demonstrated in their paper.. if you can find fault in their methods, then there is controversy, otherwise their findings are fact.. "criticism" in science is done with research, not comments on the internet or to news outlets..

ech , (edited )

The scientific process requires repetition, ie “rigorous proving”. One paper == “fact”, even if no obvious fault can be found in the surface. And to be clear, the lack of repetition doesn’t mean they’re wrong, just that there’s more to be done.

theodewere ,
@theodewere@kbin.social avatar

you're just making shit up, you have no idea what you're talking about

stratosfear ,

Ahh yes, the very scientific Ad Hominem method…

haui_lemmy ,

We‘re checking the idea of detecting llm usage on lemmy since the number of trolls seems to be steadily increasing. In case anyone with coding/dev experience is interested, lmk.

theodewere ,
@theodewere@kbin.social avatar

you go ahead and do your checking, little fella.. be sure and let me know what your code has to say..

theodewere , (edited )
@theodewere@kbin.social avatar

i didn't say you were naturally stupid, just that you are using a stupid argument.. it's just a fact.. if you don't want me to point out the stupidity of your arguments, you shouldn't use stupid argumentation..

maybe you're a little defensive because you're full of shit

stratosfear ,

rif.org genius, you were never talking to me

Blueberrydreamer ,

Holy fuck what a stupid response.

Here’s some recommended reading, hope it helps: kids.kiddle.co/Hypothesis

rbesfe ,

And you do?

BreadOven ,

We did it. We found the clearly non-scientist. I wouldn’t claim a certainty 100 % on the papers I’ve published myself. There’s always new research and one paper could only be looking at one very specific thing.

But overall: there is a climate crisis, there is no doubting that.

lolcatnip ,

Hey, have you noticed how everyone is saying you’re wrong and nobody is upvoting your replies? Maybe take a moment to reflect on why that might be.

theodewere , (edited )
@theodewere@kbin.social avatar

there are a lot of trolls, and they like to congregate.. they hope that by bullying someone they can make bad facts disappear..

but it's pretty obvious none of them have even made a serious trip to a university library

these new numbers clearly are now the best estimate we have

lolcatnip ,

You really think everyone else here is a troll?

theodewere ,
@theodewere@kbin.social avatar

facts don't care about your feelings

set_secret ,

lol so funny people can’t read a paper and reactively downvote anyone who contradicts what they feel reality should be. You’re correct until we find a way to disprove this (eg somebody repeats it and finds it flawed) obviously robust study we need treat it as fact.

Piafraus ,

You really need to calm down and reflect.

I have a PhD and a dozen of published and recognized papers.

You are misusing the term “fact”. Just because you think something is fact, does not make it so.

YeetPics ,
@YeetPics@mander.xyz avatar

Do you always jump to conclusive thoughts when reading research?

UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT ,

To anyone reading this comment thinking it makes a kind of sense on the surface (I’m no scientist) - keep reading. This comment is clearly meant to be just a bit of shit stirring

emergencyfood ,

Different parts of the world are warming at different rates. So while it might be true that a part of the Caribbean warmed by 1.7 degrees, that doesn’t tell us much about the Earth as a whole.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •