this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2025
58 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

7386 readers
958 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
58
Why climate professionals are often held to unrealistic standards (theconversation.com)
submitted 3 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Whether intentional or not, holding climate professionals to unrealistic standards is a tactic which delays effective climate action. It slows down climate action by redirecting responsibility and foregrounding low-impact solutions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

And conservative media has convinced half of America that all politicians are corrupt, and liberal politicians are more corrupt than conservative politicians, so that the left has no moral basis to accuse the right of corruption.

I believe this was the whole (or most of) the explanation at one point, but here in Trump's second term I simply don't believe it. The evangelicals who support Trump have long since simply made their peace the hypocrisy - he is God's instrument no matter how personally flawed. Much of the rest of his base see hypocrisy as a sign of strength - yeah we condemn stuff and then do it ourselves , and we win anyways. Wtf are you going to do about it loser?

Your whole explanation seems like a post-hoc rationalization based on the increasingly untenable assumption that most people are genuinely good if you just get past all the noise. Evidence suggests that people will gladly vote for a wretched person like Trump if they think it means they'll pay $50 less in taxes, all else be damned.

Trump is the culmination of long-festering sicknesses in American culture, not just the result of a media scam that just happened to bear fruit now.