this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
296 points (99.3% liked)

Climate

8624 readers
547 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
296
A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later | Al Gore’s famous documentary has mostly stood the test of time. (yaleclimateconnections.org)
submitted 1 day ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yenahmik@lemmy.world 12 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I could be wrong since it's mostly a vague memory at this point, but I recall reading at some point that Bush brushed off some reports in the handoff from the Clinton admin about Islamic terrorism.

So maybe 9/11 would have happened anyways and we just would have seen a different response, or maybe Gore could have acted on those reports and caught the perpetrators before 3000+ people were killed.

[–] Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 hours ago

Bin Laden was #1 on the FBI's most wanted list for years. Everyone knew he was a threat. And 9/11 wasn't the first time that al qaeda trained militants attacked the World Trade Center... it was bombed during the Clinton / Gore administration. Years later they attacked US Embassies, and instead of sending troops in to try to get Bin Laden, instead they launched missiles at an al qaeda training camp. Then all qaeda attacked the USS Cole, and again the US government under both Clinton / Gore and Bush did little to nothing as a response. Clinton/ Gore had 8 years to go after all qaeda and did very little... Bush had 8 months.

The issue wasn't that the US government (under either administration) didn't take it seriously, the issue was that the FBI, NSA and CIA weren't communicating the information they had... and that's what the Department of Homeland Security was supposed to help resolve. The mission of DHS was good... the (lack of) guardrails, was not.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 0 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Its also possible they would indeed stop 9/11 but that doesnt stop them from trying again later and maybe they blow up a sports stadium full of people instead.

Stopping one thing by no means means stopping future things.

Edit: just to be very clear here, stopping 9/11 short of taking out Bin Laden and the leadership would have just resulted in them planning something else amd trying again. They weren't ever going to stop trying. We might have had intel about 9/11 but that doesnt mean we'd have Intel on the next thing.