this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
74 points (94.0% liked)
Science Communication
885 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to c/SciComm @ Mander.xyz!
Science Communication
Notice Board
This is a work in progress, please don't mind the mess.
- 2023-06-14: We are looking for mods. Send a dm to @[email protected] if interested!
About
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Be kind and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
Resources
Outreach:
Networking:
Similar Communities
Sister Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
Plants & Gardening
Physical Sciences
Humanities and Social Sciences
Memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tell them that none of the scientists are suggesting they're going to die from climate change, that's coming from laymen repeating stuff with their own flair and farming engagement from them on tiktok.
It's a global emergency and will have negative impacts, but anyone who acts like it's going to turn into mad max in their lifetime is just a doomer.
The review: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/16/6074
That figure is slightly misleading without context.
The billion deaths are total premature deaths. It's analogous to the total covid death toll. Have millions of people died due to covid? Yes. Were the deaths uniformly distributed across the world's population? No. The majority of premature covid deaths were concentrated in specific groups of people.
The climate change death toll is similar. People who are living in already precarious situations will be disproportionately impacted.
I think lots of people see that billion deaths number and imagine tornados, hurricanes, and heat waves destroying western cities. In reality, it will largely be the sick, young, and elderly in developing nations prematurely dying due to resource scarcity.
Obviously still a major problem, but the context is necessary to develop effective responses and solutions.
Could be argued it's also misleading because it's a conservative estimate by a full order of magnitude.
That's all true and it's good to put the statistic into perspective, but even with that context it refutes the comment they replied to.
This is straight up false.