4 ms·

The article is scarce on details but the first part: "Climate change is already affecting oceans, fisheries, and the livelihoods that depend on them. Some local

The article is scarce on details but the first part: "Climate change is already affecting oceans, fisheries, and the livelihoods that depend on them. Some local fish stocks are declining, while other fish populations are shifting their distributions, forcing fishers to travel farther to make their catch." Already has me thinking that they are blaming the effects of over-fishing on climate change. A nice way to shift the blame.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
The crux of the article seems to be explaining the difference between a 1.5C rise and a 3.5C rise, so they are making an argument to decrease global warming to get a better yield each year. The best case scenario for them then would be that we don't do anything about global warming and they can go "well, clearly it's the temperatures fault" instead of over-fishing? They are prepping us for projections that may or may not happen, and they hope they do, otherwise they have nowhere to hide the overfishing? And don't you think after a 3.5C increase we would have bigger fish to fry (pun absolutely intentional)?
happytoexplain 8y ago
Are you saying that the effects of climate change are negligible compared to those of overfishing, or just that the article should talk about both causes?
SiempreViernes 8y ago
Uh, you object that the anthropocene magazine concentrates on climate change?
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  Anthropocene as a term focuses on the human-shaped nature of Earth in general. Overfishing qualifies as a component.
mistermann 8y ago
It's articles like this (and people using them as "proof") that has made me become extremely skeptical of any "the science shows" claim, on any topic, because when I do the legwork to hunt down "the science" behind claims I read, at least half of the time it's not actually saying what is being subsequently claimed, or lacks certainty, etc. It would be interesting to know how much of broad society's decrease in trust of experts (so they say) is related to this phenomenon. Not much I imagine.
tony_cannistra 8y ago
That's a good point, and totally worth questioning. If you're interested in a scientific analysis supporting that claim, there's a great research paper [1] (disclaimer: my advisor wrote it) on this subject. [1]: https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1958 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1...

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago

The crux of the article seems to be explaining the difference between a 1.5C rise and a 3.5C rise, so they are making an argument to decrease global warming to get a better yield each year. The best case scenario for them then would be that we don't do anything about global warming and they can go "well, clearly it's the temperatures fault" instead of over-fishing? They are prepping us for projections that may or may not happen, and they hope they do, otherwise they have nowhere to hide the overfishing? And don't you think after a 3.5C increase we would have bigger fish to fry (pun absolutely intentional)?

happytoexplain 8y ago

Are you saying that the effects of climate change are negligible compared to those of overfishing, or just that the article should talk about both causes?

SiempreViernes 8y ago

Uh, you object that the anthropocene magazine concentrates on climate change?

drak0n1c 8y ago
Anthropocene as a term focuses on the human-shaped nature of Earth in general. Overfishing qualifies as a component.

mistermann 8y ago

It's articles like this (and people using them as "proof") that has made me become extremely skeptical of any "the science shows" claim, on any topic, because when I do the legwork to hunt down "the science" behind claims I read, at least half of the time it's not actually saying what is being subsequently claimed, or lacks certainty, etc. It would be interesting to know how much of broad society's decrease in trust of experts (so they say) is related to this phenomenon. Not much I imagine.

tony_cannistra 8y ago

That's a good point, and totally worth questioning. If you're interested in a scientific analysis supporting that claim, there's a great research paper [1] (disclaimer: my advisor wrote it) on this subject. [1]: https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1958 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1...