the article offers multiple possible explanations for this and what their effects might be. it acknowledges those derivative outcomes are speculative.
Not once is a greening planet painted in a positive light in this article. Its as if the writer is afraid to say something positive about CO2 emissions.
This was done by the natural processes of the Earth, so recently even humans were alive during the Ice Age. Some scientists even say that we are due for another ice age, that we may be otherwise avoiding due to climate change.
Which is a quantitative statement. Altered conditions will not benefit every local species equally.
> Context matters
Hmm, apparently the answer depends!!!
What I believe is "healthier", e.g., for (1) my being informed or (2) click-bait headlines, eyeballs, ad revenue????
But, now, for
> the facts and list the pros and cons.
there is a possibility, that is, from some changes from the Internet:
First, the basic ideas of click-bait, etc. go way back in the history of many decades of journalism publishers. They needed a lot of revenue: Printing plants, trucks to deliver literally tons of news print or magazines, ..., radio and TV studios, etc. were expensive. The number of publishers was constrained: Each major city had just two main newspapers, morning and evening. There were a few national magazines. Then, the number of large radio stations, TV stations, were similarly limited. Un, click-bait that works in one major city stands to work everywhere which creates the constraints on the number of national click-bait publishers.
> easily digestible value judgment and tell you how you should think
Well put. For the big publishers, that is what dominated.
For a good review and explanation going way back, see the ~1941 movie Meet John Doe.
Second, now the decades, 100+ years, of such journalism is also being attempted on the Web sites of the Internet -- thus, your well put objection.
BUT ...!!!! For an audience and a publisher for
> the facts and list the pros and cons.
they no longer need be so expensive. A single tower case computer can send, what, 100+ Web pages a second?
Sooo, now the mass audience can have subsets.
Some simple arithmetic:
Assume 1 ad per Web page sent, revenue of $1 per 1000 ads displayed, sending a 24 x 7 average of 50 Web pages a second. Assume pre-tax earnings are 50% of revenue.
Then annual earnings would be
50 * 3600 * 24 * 265 / ( 1000 * 2 ) = 572,400
dollars.
Assume the business is worth 100 times annual earnings, and get
100 * 50 * 3600 * 24 * 265 / ( 1000 * 2 ) = 57,240,000
dollars.
A possibility for
> the facts and list the pros and cons.
is the economy: A lot of data is available. Could present it in largely some simple X-Y graphs can do routinely with, say, Excel in Microsoft's Office.
Another possibility: For COVID, start with the crucial data in the report of the Phase III trials in
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389
COVID and medicine more generally are good subjects for
> the facts and list the pros and cons.
Follow, say, common high school standards for term papers, e.g., careful references, hopefully to credible primary sources.
Get an audience that values credibility.
Then get a brand, a growing audience, and a successful business.
Hmm, yup, I have a related startup -- Web site code running as intended. Should go live this year.
Must an observation have an easily digestible value judgement and tell you how you should think about it, or can it just be allowed to present the facts and list the pros and cons.
which one do you think leads to a healthier media environment
Did you yourself not also include a portion of your comment to respond to article based on its data with your own "it depends" based on other data?
> The tone suggests they're afraid of the change
What do you think they lay person would immediately think about 'the earth is greening' and would it be appropriate to address those initial perceptions.