380

fixed it (slrpnk.net)

submitted 5 months ago by not_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/memes@slrpnk.net

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

archived article https://web.archive.org/web/20251003055905/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8645jxyee2o

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 2 points 5 months ago

billions?

[-] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 27 points 5 months ago

I think you're going to get yelled at and I apologize in advance.

It's a fair question, there's a lot of reckless claims made these days.

That being said, depending on how bad things get, yeah. Some incredibly populous places will be directly and heavily affected (1.21 billion currently in sub Saharan Africa alone.) Add in the conflicts over diminishing resources (think crop failures, droughts etc) as well as knock on effects (eg, increased range/spread of malaria.)

Heck, climate change has barely gotten started and I'd bet we're into millions dead already (compared to a non warning world) consider how many thousands have been lost to extreme events like floods, fires and heat waves.

[-] reactionality@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Since we can't observe the counterfactual, meaning "had climate change not happened", the amount of deaths directly linked to the current severity of the climate change effects cannot be established for sure.

We can extrapolate, but we can't compare against a reality that did not happen.

[-] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 7 points 5 months ago

Sure, just like literally everything comparing reality to the counter-factual this involves estimates. Not a particularly profound or useful observation.

[-] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

You don't understand how science works. It's been proven with full certainty that climate change is fully caused by humans. Any nay saying to that is just pretending otherwise; there's far and away enough evidence to prove it