If you have complaints about the article's accuracy, spell them out instead of knee-jerking from the headline.

3-4% in 2100 if things continue is NOT "the ocean running out of oxygen"

If that has an extremely adverse effect on ocean life, it most certainly is "running out of oxygen".

Given that we've been in a cold period for the past 10 million years, and that glaciation is rare on earth I'm guessing that's not a huge issue.

Warmer temperatures can be survived. It's the rate of change that's going to be the killer. Living things can adapt to change but not suddenly.

EDIT: Source for the downvoters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

And discussion from a world-class geologist: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/28/who-cares...

That doesn't mean it's running out of oxygen.

"It's not about feeling good, it's about accuracy"

So....what's inaccurate about the reporting? You've strangely yet to mention any, though you did add your own invented "we only have 12 years left" bit for whatever reason (neither the article or report say anything of the sort).

But yes, we aren't going to get on the same wavelength, clearly. Your original post claimed that I "missed the point", when I clearly replied to someone's specific points, then you injected yet another narrative. This is a tactic as old as time for baseless rhetoric -- just constantly spin around the topic, adding just enough noise that you hope it disrupts the conversation.