Rhythmaster
128668
1726
23
Source is
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/no-the-oceans-are-not-empty-of-plankton/
TL DR:
This study had too small a sample size, has not been peer-reviewed and is essentially rubbish.
Climate change and ocean acidification is still a very real threat and if we want to avoid actually having all the plankton die (and us along with it, plankton produce 70% of earth's oxygen) we must change course away from fossil fuels as soon as possible.
N0S4A2
Pre-print is not much more than an opinion, until vetted by peers in the field. Media and conspiricunts love pre-print shenanigans.
Rauca
About as stupid a piece as the headline the other day saying that on Tuesday, the UK was hotter than 99% of the planet.
whitefoxkei
See, right here's the main difference between science and conspiracy bullshit. When someone is wrong in science, THAT SHIT GETS CORRECTED.
tarquinious
"A survey of plankton"? Who have them the tiny little pens to tick the boxes on the form, or was it online?
FuzzyWolfy329
Remember kids, if it’s peer reviewed, it should be viewed. Don’t ‘do your own research’ with anything less.
LastoftheLillyCreatures
the small sample size wouldn't be a problem, it's that there's doubt it's representative of the rest of the ocean that makes it unreliable.
Villosopher
The number of tabs you have open on safari is concerning, but still…nice
TheAlviss
Some people really do believe it's alright to lie if it's for the right cause. It is not. It just makes people not want to trust the truth.
redexodus
so we can just keep fucking up the ocean then nice
Viper3232
If anything you read makes you feel something strongly, please double check the information. Do not just read headlines. Its unhealthy
Varenvel
plankton not yet , but coral reaf yes https://www.secore.org/site/corals/detail/why-coral-reefs-need-our-help.23.html
HansImaginationStar
Take scoop of sea water: there are no large mammals in sea any more!
RazalasTwen
Tin foil hat time- Big Oil is changing tactics. Create studies that get it wrong and overestimate the effects of climate change. 1/2
RazalasTwen
Have the studies be discredited and point to them as “proof” that climate scientists are wrong.
Blackfinity
Vineheart01
Considering how much life feeds off plankton alone, I imagine we'd die off verrrrry quick if this was true.
Rhythmaster
Extremely fast, yup. Also plankton generates 70% of earth's oxygen.
simplefishy
…..yet
HankMardukus
69 tabs...nice. But close some good damn tabs!
Rhythmaster
Never!
Mrbuzzyfutt
69 tabs open nice
bannedagain80
i wonder what other articles are complete bullshat
Rhythmaster
It's very easy, all you need to do is google [article title] + "snopes" or "debunk". The issue is ppl wont do that unless already skeptical.
Rhythmaster
Once these bullshit articles gain traction there is usually many scientists or science literate people raising alarms, seek them out.
FuckmotheringxVampire
Real tl: the oceans are fucked, but not because of this
Vydrach
More like the oceans are fucked, but not *this* much, ***yet.***
maststick
The oceans are fucked, but the guys disputing how fucked the oceans are, isn’t going to tell us how fucked they are*
awesomecat42
A lot of science journalism is super sensationalist even when they're basing their articles off of proper papers. You know how so (cont)
awesomecat42
often we see headlines about amazing new breakthroughs, then never any followup? There's no conspiracy, it's almost always just that (cont)
awesomecat42
they were reporting on research in very early stages that didn't pan out. Results in mice that didn't carry over to humans, success (cont)
awesomecat42
with sample size of 20 not replicated in a sample size of 2000, etc. Low scientific literacy + clickbait = fewer people trusting science.
INeedMoreGifMeMoreJustOneMore
Not only that, the guy is linked to a company that makes (industrial) water filtration systems. So the entire paper is a sales pitch.
PedroBenecol
Is this true?
INeedMoreGifMeMoreJustOneMore
https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/w13qij/five_ways_the_world_is_actually_doing_better_in/igk0t2g debunked
INeedMoreGifMeMoreJustOneMore
As in, complete debunking of the original 'study'
parabolic000
50% over the past 70 years is still so apocalyptic I have a hard time even conceptualizing it.
SilverNicktail
Bear in mind that's the same source.
Bonsaipanda
A reliable source states that 60% of *all* wildlife has vanished since the 1960s
parabolic000
it's corroborated by the WWF's Blue Planet Report, which claims a 49% decline in average marine life populations from 1970-2012.
Heavenissize17socks
Still, losing 50% of all marine life since 1950 is still pretty alarming.
judomedic2012
It’s more of like a “…yet” scenario
Bonsaipanda
and 60% of all wildlife since the 1960's
Rhythmaster
Yes, yes it is.
LifeIsADanceOfMinds
For those who care - Follow the scientific method - and do the peer review
TheAnswerWasAlwaysMoreLube
I think the third or 4th comment debunked it when it was posted here.
astrangehop
The most annoying phrase I see on this site is "science says". You don't just get a call from the red science phone!
maststick
Annoying that they have an opposing view from “Continuous Plankton Recorder” (wrong title by journalist) but they don’t tell you what it is
tobs3n89
btw, this IS a form of peer-review, although after the fact: scientists making sure that other scientists don't just publish bs.
LifeIsADanceOfMinds
I agree - As we gain more knowledge - check the old science hypotheses - if there is a need - redo the processes - and get them reviewed
CapESzed
Any serious scientist knows the proper procedure. If you do not submit your findings to peer review you are hiding something or plain lying.
CapESzed
2/ and a good science journalist also knows this. So giving attention to a non-peer reviewed article as if it is OK, is bad journalism.
Rhythmaster
Yeah this Dryden "scientist" has literally none of his work peer-reviewed. Seems like he's just a poser. Journalist should have known better
maststick
They’re both poor articles, Gitlin doesn’t tell you how far wrong Dryden is in comparison to other data, uses unscientific language
Lynkfox
The money also comes from Water Filtration companies; seems they may have an interest in wanting people to want filters...
maststick
Selling filters for sea water for plankton under 2mm, why?
grapefruitengery
This applies to nearly any reporting. Even without malice involved reporters leave out nuance all the time. Especially for things related/
DukeDarkwood
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2009-08-30
grapefruitengery
To science/law/medicine try and look at a first party source to see if it lines up with what news is reporting
Xedi22
What I find really annoying is when a organization write an article/release for the news that doesn’t properly discuss their own study…
zackfair808
Thank FUCK.
maststick
It’s not reviewed yet* we’re telling you he’s wrong but not how far off he is* we asked around and one woman didn’t like him*
Talligan
The "paper" is dog shite and presents no actual data. And there's some really dodgy science statements in there (my PhD is in colloids)
mt77932
I literally started drinking when I first read that.
MAN9000
Other research says it's not quite that dire yet although 20% now or something like that are dead...
wagnus
"We haven't killed 90% of Plankton. Yet."
DaringSteel
“We haven’t destroyed ourselves in global nuclear war. Yet.”
DaringSteel
“We haven’t created an artificial black hole big enough to destroy the Earth. Yet.”
Noobaliciou5
It was only 89%
DaringSteel
Every world-ending catastrophe you can imagine “hasn’t happened. Yet.” Quit trying to sound ominous.
GriffinMann41
I mean, they're not *wrong*. From the article " which they warn will result in the loss of 80–90 percent of all marine life by 2045.
wagnus
It's a joke homie lol - I'm not trying to suggest anything other than dark humor. Sorry it's not funny. Yet.
drziod
Yet
Piloerection69
Yeet
FvckPoliticalPosts
Yeeton
Anautobiographyinstolenmemes
2045 is when they actually expect it... that's equally scary imo
chefsoda
No, that’s another claim by Dryden, who wrote the wildly exaggerated & not peer reviewed article they’re dismantling.
Anautobiographyinstolenmemes
Ooohhh! Thank you for that, I read it wrong
Spootanany
This sort of shit should be an automatic ban from journalism
UpvoteTotem
Yeah F I you Jonathan! Shoulda done better!
JohnMike64
I see a few news outlets collapsing instantly if that ever happened
mindstorm8191
This journalist is making lots of money from a frivolous story, since ppl are reading it everywhere. The science don't matter to them
pidders
My idea is that the retraction should have to be in the same place and as big for printed Media and published to the home page in header too
ShenanigansForHireExperiencedBeerTasterAndCraicFacilitator
There was an article a couple of years ago that found coliforms in some guy's beard. Clickbait article: "Half your beard is poop!"
TsubakiTragic
Journalists aren't good with science. It was journalists that latched onto a comment describing the Higgs Boson as a god particle, & boom.
ikron8211
So ban every major corporate news outlet?
Tassyr
I mean... would that be bad?
Spootanany
Yeeeep
LaserSalsa
Moolicious
Literally yes
IdiotSavantTinker
Yes? Why not?
HollerinAtTheVoid
Until they act right, yes
Shigbeard
Did he fucking stutter?
Mmbear
“News outlet”. Its why everytime they go to court they argue they are entertainment not actual news so they cant be held liable. Sure there>
Mmbear
Are some real news productions out there but its overwhelmed by pundits and entertainers spewing opinions and bad faith arguments.
Froggie243
Yes! Buhbye!!
Kagenical
Wait, so you're saying I shouldn't get all my science news from science and tech tabloids? Shocked Pikachu!
Rhythmaster
I dunno, its complicated tbh. How else are regular people gonna learn about science, they can't really comb thru the experiment data itself.
alcaray
https://www.sciencenews.org/
3141592pancake
I like sciencedaily.com to look at articles about science research. No comments & there's always references for the study.
Xedi22
Yeah. Articles that don’t cite/link to the study/law/whatever when discussing drive me nuts. I know they don’t want exiting traffic, but…
Rhythmaster
One way or another, we all rely on science journalists to help us understand current scientific findings. But not all science journalists
Rhythmaster
Are always doing their due diligence, so then it falls to us to spot flaws, go beyond the article, dig a little deeper before passing it on.
3141592pancake
Yep. That and thinking about what weaknesses the study itself has and potential bias or data collection flaws that affect the results.
Newfehotep
Nobody wants to read sources anymore. /s
Moolicious
Never has been