Most countries do not do this. In fact, from what I have seen the Internet lines to talk about how bad the economy is, even when it seems to be doing well. There’s always someone pushing the negative spin on economic news.

China is one of a very few that blocks and takes down Internet content for merely disagreeing with their message.

Actually: warm warm warm warm warm

The thing is that even with catastrophic global warming, earth would still be tons more habitable than Mars. Any structure that could allow survival on Mars would also allow survival on this hypothetical future earth.

We either fix it or we are screwed. So we are probably screwed. Anyone seeking to build a Mars colony as an “escape” would probably fare better building similar stuff in earth deserts, or something somewhat different underwater. Still not the most sane places to go for, but more sane than Mars if the goal is “most survivability”.

The chart could stand for some clarification, but it looks like the mean and standard deviation refer to statistics covering all the years from 1982 through 2011. However, it does not explicitly state the dataset over which the standard deviation is calculated, but it seems reasonable to assume that the same aggregate cited for the mean is also the same aggregate used for the standard deviation.

Each line in the graph represents a single year of data. It’s kind of messy and only two of the years are actually labeled, 2023 and the partial data for 2024. So that bottom-most line represents some unspecified year that was consistently 1.5 to 2 standard deviations below the mean for the 30 year analysis.

The data is at https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/json/oisst2.1_world2_sst_day.json, but alas, I’m too lazy to try to reproduce this sort of analysis to verify my guesses.

I will say it’s a peculiar approach and visualization. Including a subset of the data in the mean/standard deviation and then plotting the entire data. Also impossibly jumbled line graph visualizations of most years instead of something easier. I’d imagine you could convey the point with each year consolidated to a single data point and have a much easier to follow graph.

Lubricating oil isn’t quite so bad (extracting and refining is bad, but so too for a lot of minerals).

Breaking up the hydrocarbons leaking CO2 is a big problem, as is leaking methane.

It isn’t, but some data are a negative multiple of standard deviation away from the mean.

The standard deviation is not negative, that data was just that many standard deviations below the mean. Think “this data point is below the mean by 0.5 standard deviations” not “the standard deviation is 0.5”. They are using standard deviation as a unit rather than, say, degrees Celsius.

The point is that a lot of folks, even if they would want to can’t, in good conscience, have children because they lack the resources (time or money) to do right by those children.

So to say “just have children already” does nothing for those that aren’t having children. If the society truly feels they have a problem, then they need to address the factors that prevent people from properly raising children. Free services for care and feeding of children, housing for families, labor regulations to make it so parents actually have some flexibility to take care of the needs of their children.

Parenting may be very rewarding but a lot of people who would be appropriately responsible are responsible enough to not inflict a bad childhood when they know they can’t make it work without changes.