339
Collapse of critical Atlantic current is no longer low likelihood, study finds
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
339 points (99.1% liked)
science
21370 readers
404 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pretty critical to a decent percentage of it though.
And I don't know about you but generally I'd like to thrive rather than just survive.
The person I'm responding to said "nature will wipe us and adapt." That implies that they're expecting extinction as a result of this.
Yes, it'll be harmful to a decent percentage of humanity if the current fails. That's not even remotely on the same scale of concern as human extinction.
As a result of this alone? Maybe not. As climate change as a whole? Likely.
Considering the amount of misinformation, sanewashing, and outright bullshit that comes with any climate change discussion I'm past the point of caring about linguistic pedantry.
Their point is valid, your point is pedantic.
This thread is about AMOC, not about climate change as a whole.
This is a science subreddit. I would hope that not every thread that's remotely related to climate change would immediately devolve into a generic "oh no climate change is going to doom us all" mess, and would instead talk about the actual subject at hand.
Right, but if you read the article it's not "remotely related" but directly.
This is an article about climate change. And your comment comes incredibly close to the MAGA sanewashing we see regularly. I'm glad after this discussion to see you're not a nutter, but the need to call your comment out still felt necessary.
It's been a peeve of mine for many years - decades, probably, as long as I can recall - for people in discussions like this to equate the end of their comfortable familiar current lifestyle with the literal end of the world, or the end of the human species. And then when I point out that those things are not equivalent, to flip immediately to "oh, so you're saying there's no problem at all?"
It's all or nothing, black or white, absolute catastrophe or life without a care. Neither extreme is useful. How are we supposed to accomplish anything without recognizing nuance? That's not "sanewashing", that's trying to be rational.
That's fair. Nihlism and accelerationists are very irritating in a scientific setting. But I would also say Lemmy is not likely to only have logic and reasoning behind most comments.
Seems like a shame that it is so difficult to get past the assumption that someone is representing a generic political agenda by deploying empty rhetoric rather than raising a disagreement with the specific thing they said they object to from their own perspective.
This is not a subreddit
Alright, it's a science community. Does that typo change anything?