Popular Mechanics Unhinged: “Scientists Are Mapping the End of the World”

Essay by Eric Worrall

But we can save the world by reducing meat consumption.

Scientists Are Mapping the End of the World. And Maybe, Just Maybe, a Way Out.

Positive climate action can have cascading effects.

BY DARREN ORF PUBLISHED: AUG 08, 2025 9:30 AM EDT

Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story:

  • Scientists are aware of planetary boundaries—a series of climate change thresholds that, once crossed, could cause a cascade of negative environmental effects.
  • Now, scientists are developing a methodology to discover “positive tipping points”— a series of actionable green energy goals that could similarly compound in benefit once crossed. 
  • While we’re already well on the way to reaching some of these tipping points—i.e. lowering the cost of wind and solar energy—there’s still lots of work to be done to stay within the two degrees Celsius range stipulate by the 2015 Paris Climate Accords.

To live in an era of anthropogenic climate change is to be constantly reminded of the warming threat to our planet. One way scientists illustrate this threat is by using climate tipping points, also known as planetary boundaries, which showcase around nine critical ecological thresholds that could have devastating effects for life on Earth once crossed. These include things like biosphere integrity, ozone depletion, ocean acidification, and a relative newcomer known as “aquatic deoxygenation.”

Although these thresholds are discussed with deadly seriousness, scientists wonder if the reverse of these doom-and-gloom thresholds—positive tipping points, if you will—could help encourage people, communities, and countries to adopt more aggressive green policies. In a new study, published in the journal Sustainability Science, experts from the University of Exeter in the U.K. explain these positive tipping points would be moments in society’s adoption of green technologies or behaviors that could perpetuate a cascade of positive outcomes.

“Other transformations—such as a major shift away from meat consumption—might also be more likely than they appear,” Steve Smith from the University of Exeter said in a press statement. “In other sectors there is little sign of approaching tipping points and in a few, such as nuclear power and concrete production, we should not expect there to be tipping points at all.”

Read more: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a65616655/positive-tipping-points/

No mention of the 1.5C target. I guess it’s a bit embarrassing to talk about 1.5C these days, given we hit 1.5C and nothing bad happened.

As for the rest of the claims, there is zero risk global warming will have a major negative impact on oceans, even if several degrees of global warming were to occur, because last time the world experienced 5-8c of global warming, the biosphere and the oceans were fine.

Monkeys also did well during the PETM – which implies humans would also prosper in such conditions.

Stories like this make me seriously question the sanity of the people who write them. I mean, 5 minutes research could have turned up the fact that fish thrived during distant past extreme warm periods, that the entire biosphere thrived. Visiting hot climates to catch big fish is a major tourist industry in places like Florida and Australia’s far North.

Temperatures drop substantially as you move further from the equator. Any species which felt uncomfortable in a warmer climate would just relocate. All species are continuously adjusting their range, seeking out the best possible habitat, probing the edges of their habitable range.

So why write such nonsense? Why would anyone believe such outlandish claims? I wish I knew.

4.9 26 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

102 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bryan A
August 12, 2025 11:13 am

Popular Mechanics unhinged: “Scientists Are Mapping the End of the World”

O-Kaaaay

Lets fix that hedline…

Popular Mechanics: “Unhinged Scientists Are Mapping the End of the World”
Now THAT makes more sense

Candy Hall
August 12, 2025 1:32 pm

Why sould PEOPLE stop eating meat?? Why don,t we start by killing all non-human animals, including all pets and wild animals. Wait three years and see if it has any effect on CO@>

Bryan A
Reply to  Candy Hall
August 12, 2025 6:40 pm

In the US “Pets” include …
Cats, Dogs, Rats, Hamsters, Guinea Pigs, Snakes, Lizards, Turtles
ALL of which are considered FOOD in numerous countries in…
SE Asia, South America, Africa.
Some Rural US families even keep Pigs and Goats (especially Pygmy Goats and Pot Belly Pigs) as pets. Even Horses are kept as pets (I had a pet horse growing up)
At least one person has a Bison as a pet.

Meat is a Higher Quality protein source requiring lower bulk consumption than plants for the same protein benefit.

Meat is also generated through the animal’s consumption of plants so beef is more like Second Hand Veganism. Save a Tree, Eat a Cow. ✨ 😄 😇

So, you go ahead and eat whatever you like, I won’t force omnivorism or carnivorism on you, I don’t have the right to, just like you don’t have the right to force your veganism on me

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Candy Hall
August 13, 2025 1:16 pm

You unintentionally, I am sure, omitted a /sarc marking.

Bob
August 12, 2025 3:30 pm

These people are really getting desperate, I have no problem with that but they need to stop wasting my money in their frantic last chance grasp for more power and control.

Louis Hunt
August 12, 2025 3:33 pm

“Other transformations—such as a major shift away from meat consumption—might also be more likely than they appear,” 

No one has been able to explain to me how less meat consumption would make a noticeable difference in the level of CO2. If we slaughtered all the large animals on our planet, what would happen to the vegetation they no longer eat? Wouldn’t the uneaten plants either decay or burn and produce CO2 or methane anyway. It just happens quicker in the stomach of animals. Animals are not consuming coal or oil that has been sequestered for millions of years. They are part of a sustainable, yearly cycle. They consume plants and release CO2. That CO2 in the atmosphere then encourages more plant growth that animals can consume. This cycle does not increase the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere year over year. It is in balance. I get the impression that vegans want to force everyone to live like them, and they and others who wish to control us will lie and deceive the public to achieve this goal. Am I wrong?

Louis Hunt
August 12, 2025 3:33 pm

“Other transformations—such as a major shift away from meat consumption—might also be more likely than they appear,” 

No one has been able to explain to me how less meat consumption would make a noticeable difference in the level of CO2. If we slaughtered all the large animals on our planet, what would happen to the vegetation they no longer eat? Wouldn’t the uneaten plants either decay or burn and produce CO2 or methane anyway. It just happens quicker in the stomach of animals. Animals are not consuming coal or oil that has been sequestered for millions of years. They are part of a sustainable, yearly cycle. They consume plants and release CO2. That CO2 in the atmosphere then encourages more plant growth that animals can consume. This cycle does not increase the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere year over year. It is in balance. I get the impression that vegans want to force everyone to live like them, and they and others who wish to control us will lie and deceive the public to achieve this goal. Am I wrong?

Rod Evans
August 13, 2025 12:15 am

“Why do they write such stuff”?
It is what I call the Garry Glitter approach to life for climate alarmists.
His most famous offering other than his sexual predilections (maybe that should read peadelictions) was; ‘My Gang’
The climate alarmists like to stick together no matter what. Do you want to be in my gang, my gang my gang? oh yeah!
So it is either that, or they are just money grubbing opportunists.