They're predictions. How do you want them to be framed?
Anyway, if you prefer more certain terms, just click through to the Audobon study[0]: "The results are clear: Birds will be forced to relocate to find favorable homes"; "By stabilizing carbon emissions and holding warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, 76 percent of vulnerable species will be better off, and nearly 150 species would no longer be vulnerable to extinction from climate change."
My comment/retort would be that there is no shortage of 'may' predictive articles arguing just about anything you can think of. It would be easy to find a counter 'may' article arguing the opposite of this one, but who has time for that...
Is the hypothetical contradictory article that you assume exists, but can't be bothered to find, also backed by an extensive report from a well-regarded environmental science group?
I sort of give a shit. But I'm not ready to agree to a huge drop off in my standard of living, especially when there is no guarantee the developing world won't just accelerate their usage to counterbalance our cuts.
And a lot of the scare stories aren't that scary. Oh in a 100 years, half of Miami will be underwater. Okay not good. But 100 years ago Miami barely existed.
15 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 43.6 ms ] threadAnyway, if you prefer more certain terms, just click through to the Audobon study[0]: "The results are clear: Birds will be forced to relocate to find favorable homes"; "By stabilizing carbon emissions and holding warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, 76 percent of vulnerable species will be better off, and nearly 150 species would no longer be vulnerable to extinction from climate change."
[0] https://www.audubon.org/climate/survivalbydegrees
Not that many people care about the environment.
We just don't give a shit.
And a lot of the scare stories aren't that scary. Oh in a 100 years, half of Miami will be underwater. Okay not good. But 100 years ago Miami barely existed.