3 ms·

What? How could you even arrive at that conclusion? It's not at all what the article says and the wording is pretty unambiguous.

isthisthingon99 4y ago
> In addition, as ice continues to melt as a result of global warming, the findings suggest hikers—and researchers—may want to keep their eyes peeled for even more remarkable finds like Ötzi. They are explicitly saying global warming which is the term du jour.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > They are explicitly saying global warming which is the term du jour. Global warming is the old term. Climate change is the new one.
  - robin_reala 4y ago
    “Climate emergency” or “climate catastrophe” or “anthropocene boundary extinction event” are newer.
- neolithicum 4y ago
  Your first comment sounds like it is saying something different than what the quote says. The quote just says: Ice melts due to current global warming, things get revealed in the ice. Where is the ambiguity?
  - less_less 4y ago
    I think @isthisthingon99 is objecting to an implication that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the sole or even primary cause of things in the ice, such as Ötzi's corpse, being exposed. The new research suggests that the corpse was exposed several times over the millenia, obviously predating AGW, so why does the article tie exposure so closely to AGW? But I don't think how the article is framing it is problematic. AGW has greatly increased the net rate of ice melting in most of the world. I'm not an archaeologist, but I would suspect that means things buried in ice are being exposed much more frequently now. So while other causes (eg non-anthropogenic or local warming) would have driven previous exposures, AGW might be the primary cause these days. If that's true, then laying it out like the article does makes complete sense: AGW-driven melting is exposing what's under the ice, and the new research suggests that there may be more interesting remains under the ice than previously thought, so hikers might find some interesting stuff over the next decades.
mc32 4y ago
I think they’re saying that scientists said that the mummy had been exposed to air multiple times (followed by being frozen in ice) in the past (presumably not attributed to Climate Change) but the last exposure which resulted in its discovery is attributed to climate change. The implication is that either lower case climate change is a periodic thing or else something doesn't follow.
- isthisthingon99 4y ago
  Yes, I just wish they would have used a less loaded term. They also could have said "the climate has changed in the past, and today is no different". But perhaps that would get them cancelled...

isthisthingon99 4y ago

> In addition, as ice continues to melt as a result of global warming, the findings suggest hikers—and researchers—may want to keep their eyes peeled for even more remarkable finds like Ötzi. They are explicitly saying global warming which is the term du jour.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> They are explicitly saying global warming which is the term du jour. Global warming is the old term. Climate change is the new one.
- robin_reala 4y ago
  “Climate emergency” or “climate catastrophe” or “anthropocene boundary extinction event” are newer.
neolithicum 4y ago
Your first comment sounds like it is saying something different than what the quote says. The quote just says: Ice melts due to current global warming, things get revealed in the ice. Where is the ambiguity?
- less_less 4y ago
  I think @isthisthingon99 is objecting to an implication that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the sole or even primary cause of things in the ice, such as Ötzi's corpse, being exposed. The new research suggests that the corpse was exposed several times over the millenia, obviously predating AGW, so why does the article tie exposure so closely to AGW? But I don't think how the article is framing it is problematic. AGW has greatly increased the net rate of ice melting in most of the world. I'm not an archaeologist, but I would suspect that means things buried in ice are being exposed much more frequently now. So while other causes (eg non-anthropogenic or local warming) would have driven previous exposures, AGW might be the primary cause these days. If that's true, then laying it out like the article does makes complete sense: AGW-driven melting is exposing what's under the ice, and the new research suggests that there may be more interesting remains under the ice than previously thought, so hikers might find some interesting stuff over the next decades.

mc32 4y ago

I think they’re saying that scientists said that the mummy had been exposed to air multiple times (followed by being frozen in ice) in the past (presumably not attributed to Climate Change) but the last exposure which resulted in its discovery is attributed to climate change. The implication is that either lower case climate change is a periodic thing or else something doesn't follow.

isthisthingon99 4y ago
Yes, I just wish they would have used a less loaded term. They also could have said "the climate has changed in the past, and today is no different". But perhaps that would get them cancelled...