this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
-26 points (30.9% liked)

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

5395 readers
231 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] federalreverse@feddit.org 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Why all the downvotes? I admit, the piece takes a very negative view, the bit about Gaza may be a bit of a distraction (from an environmental pov), and also the piece may be damaging to the Democratic bid for the presidency. But overall, it appears to be based in fact.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 9 points 4 months ago

The problem is facts don't tell stories. Facts don't tell you what they mean when put together (or omitted). A narrative based in fact can still be misleading you.

The author is intentionally crafting a narrative, even going so far as to go beyond facts and cast Walz as some nefarious political operative, working in the shadows via cloak and dagger. Just because the article has facts doesn't mean it's not shit, biased writing.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Anything critical of Harris/Walz/Democrats means you support Trump. Supposedly.

[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 months ago

ugh, /c/politicalmemes is leaking.

[–] symthetics@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I agree. Lemmy isn't as progressive as it thinks it is generally. Just like other social platforms, the concept of a nuanced discussion is mostly (not always) an alien one.

People want things split neatly into 'good' and 'bad' or 'us' and 'them' and melt down when anything challenges those neat little boxes. We all do it to some degree, and I get the appeal of it.

But if we want things to ever really get better, we need to be able to have better discussions about important issues and accept things are very rarely binary.

Placing Kamala or Walz on some pedestal as if they're perfect is just as blind as doing so for Trump.

I'm not in the US, and yes I would vote for Kamala, but I think it's important to be aware they are not perfect and the fight for a better society/world won't be over if they win.