this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026
155 points (97.0% liked)
science
25800 readers
838 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
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
It's impossible to test, so we substituted Carbon Dioxide for other elements at random and made some meaningless calculations. 'Science'
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.
The paper is pretty clear about the chemistry and why they measured what.
The tagline is bullshit. When I see bullshit, I shouldn't even open the article.
You put science in air quotes and didn't bother to look at the 'science'
This couldn't be more on brand
They called the abstract a 'tagline'
'the attention grabber'
i had high blood pressure. i only managed to understand the following.
CARBON DIOXIDE OVERLOAD TOXIC ATMOS FEAR IN 50 YEARS-
50 years from now is uncharted territory. Chemistry has limited prediction power.
That's not what an abstract is.
And just because you failed to understand something doesn't represent an inadequacy on the article's part.
It's quite demonstrable that atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing over the decades, and that the increase is accelerating rather than slowing down.
Data that concrete can easily be extrapolated. "If we continue polluting at the current rate, the air will be unbreathable in X amount of years" is not a wild claim.
And changes in blood chemistry that are correlated with atmospheric CO2 level increases are a valid means of studying how much pollution humanity can tolerate before it has catastrophic effects.
It's not 'at random.'
Aw, did someone get their fe-fees hurt?