Please don't use ChatGPT as an authority. That is - it can give you a summary, but not an answer. Especially in more obscure and more "current" research that is yet not "common" knowledge. Treat it as a worse version of wikipedia - as there is even less fact checking, please.

>Catfishing refers to the practice of creating a false online identity

Maybe they ought to rename it into CatGPT ;).

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0278532.g001

And that graph makes it really clear how far the spread of coverage was - with some books doing substantially more.

It also makes clear that the OPs press release mixed up average with mean - which happens so often.

:) Welcome to the nonsense that happens due the the "publish or perish" mantra.

It's still informative in that the average sentences decreased. But you know - that's all it says, and all they checked. Would need to dig into the data for more. Might be that there'll be a follow up study in a couple years. And another, and another, which is when it becomes more of a useful data set.

>If entire chapters are missing why didn’t they say so.

'Cause it's not what they measured. Happy to debate if that was good methodology or not ... but the study just is what it is. :)

I didn't imply that.

>I’m guessing that since there was only 50 sentences on climate change overall there has never been an entire chapter on this in the books they’re talking about.

I responded to this - where you took the average as an absolute. You can't know - from the data - if there ever was an entire chapter on this in the books they're talking about.

You misunderstand the statistics. An average of 50 sentences could mean that one book had 200 sentences and three others nothing. It doesn't tell you anything about the individual books. Which isn't what is important for their methodology.

They wanted to see if, on average, the topic is covered more or less. As climate change has a huge impact on biodiversity but also distribution of species, ecosystems, etc - it's an increasingly important topic to understand what happens out in the real world. If it's covered less across the books used they miss the mark of what needs to be communicated.

As I mentioned previosuly climate change is interdisciplinary. It ought to appear in textbooks everwhere it matters - from the perspective of that discipline. Unless / until climate change becomes a specific seperate subject in the curriculum - but that's evidently not the case, either.

I wasn't talking about offsets. That's greenwashing nonsense. As is focusing on technological solutions.

I am not talking about forests. I am saying we need healthy ecosystems. So - appreciate the comment, but missed the mark of what I was indicating.

We need to alter how we interact with the environment. That's social science and psychology mainly.

There's no one solution how to sequester carbon back out of the atmosphere. But healthy ecological systems are among the most cost-effective and likely to work.

That is to say - biology and ecology are a major, probably the only reliable, way to solve this. All technological solutions are unproven, highly expensive and would require a huge amount of energy.

As others already mentoned there is a huge overlap between the effects of climate change and biologiy - from species distribution to ecology to even what happens to whole strata of species. Small example - some sea turtles gender ratio is linked to the temperature of the ocean and is shifting more and more as temperatures rise - with an increased risk of extinction. There's loads of that interaction.

But Climate Change also is relevant to near any academic topic: From engineering (most of our infrastructure is not climate change ready) to social and political science (it has and will continue to have massive impacts in both areas) to psychology (that we don't act is a psychological issue - not one of the natural sciences) to medicine to forestry to animal husbandry and soil science to ...

There is no area of what is true and factual and real about our world that will not be altered in some way as our atmospheric systems change.

I guess as with most of the topic - different from one to the next. Vegans turn vegan for different reasons - connected to ethics. My main driver is climate change, biodiversity loss, with animal abuse important but a bit further down the list. (i.e. I don't think hunter gatherers were wrong - but they had a clear set of not taking too much and honouring what they killed ... so I am not entirely against, but very much so against the scale and the industrial nature of it; against lab research and against harm to animals). I would eat road kill, if I were living somewhere that'd be feasible - which means I am on a vegan diet, as the same person with stricter rules, but don't follow an absolute vegan philosophy.

[I'd choose wool over an oil-based or cotton wool t-shirt as the latter too are more damaging in relation to my core issues.]

So in this case - I'd want to look at energy costs, what it does to the big picture - i.e. what are the social outcomes. But I also eat vegan as a highly meat based diet just really isn't what we are designed for. And there's an aspect of power behind it, too - who is producing the lab meat and where do the profits go; what do they do with the profits?

I am partly vegan because "conventional" farming also contributes to biodiversity loss - and at least being more vegetable focused reduces, but doesn't eliminate that part. So ... loads a factors to see, observe, think through before I can have a clear ethical stance on it.

Not at the speed right now, and if it weren't for us adding IR reflecting gasses to the atmosphere we would be in a cooling phase.

That is the simple physical effect. Some trace gasses, like CO2, Methane and water vapour (among others) reflect infrared energy but let the rest of the energy spectrum pass. As Sunlight hits the Earth part of the infrared wavelength is reflected back into space. Most of the energy passes through. The Earth reflects some of the sunlight, but in that process the light is shifted more towards the IR - and the more trace gases are in the atmosphere the more that reflected shifted towards IR right bounces between them, staying in the atmosphere for longer, and in that process heating it up, before, eventually, finding a way out to space.

That is - basic energy transfer and quite simple Physics. So far we assume that Eustice Foote was the first to uncover it - so, we understood since about the 1860s. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.4.20210823a/full/

We know it is us as the CO2 added to the atmosphere carries a clear Fossil Fuel signature - the isotopic count of Fossil Fuel emission is different than "fresh" CO2 and - and we tried loads - there's no other source than our action for the type of CO2 thats increasing.

I didn't say everyone thinks that way; nor do I think that is what the original comment was trying to say. I am aware most people think differently.

Seems more like a personal reflection of their unique emotional response. Which is - not really best placed in a discussion of the scientific aspect, obviously. I just expanded on that.