A climate-concerned friend told me about some neat research today.
An infographic summarising its main findings is freely available (the full paper is presumably paywalled somewhere).
Under the heading The Lasting Impacts Of Climate Change, the authors list:
5. Hundreds of species of marine life to die off because they’re too weak-willed and pathetic to handle a little ocean acidification.
6. Nation’s Brad population to begin going shirtless as early as March.
7. Constant warfare over earth’s dwindling resources not so bad once you get used to it.
What struck me, and will probably strike you, is the almost tongue-in-cheek, not-totally-literal approach the authors appear to have taken in communicating some of their conclusions.
(Then again, after studying the most deadly-serious, harrowing subject matter possible for 26 years straight, couldn’t climate scientists be forgiven for seeking a quantum of comic solace in the occasional in-joke or ironic wink at their colleagues?)
I wasn’t sure, initially, how credible the study was, so—in the spirit of actual skepticism, as opposed to “skepticism”—I sniffed around the parent site for a bit. I must admit I hadn’t heard of The Onion before, but they’re clearly a bona fide organisation and not something run out of a guy’s garage.
*cough* OISM petition *cough*
More importantly though, http://www.onion.com is nowhere to be seen in Sharman14, the authoritative map of the 171 known vectors of climate disinformation. (By the way, if you’re surfing the climatosphere without your own up-to-date copy of Sharman—at less than the cost of 10 cups of coffee—you’re practically asking to get scammed.)
Still, one can never be too skeptical, so I also wrote The Onion asking if they can confirm that the science behind this is, indeed, legit (albeit expressed in a somewhat droll style). I’ll keep you posted on their response.
Meanwhile, as a representative of “the Brad population,” I wanted to ask readers: do you belong to a minority that’s been specifically studied by climate science? What did the science say: the impacts your group can expect, its prognosis under various mitigation scenarios, things like that? How did this make you feel?
As a science communicator, I’ve long believed that demographically-targeted impacts research is an approach all climate scientists should consider taking. Again and again and again, people complain that the science doesn’t “speak to” them.
But you won’t hear me saying that.
Or any other Brad.