this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
421 points (99.5% liked)

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

5208 readers
919 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7
421
Climate protesters are taking action against Big Oil. UK courts are handing them prison terms akin to rapists and thieves (www.cnn.com)
submitted 1 month ago by silence7 to c/climate
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's called bias, it doesn't have to be intentional to exist and be pervasive.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I get and understand the concept of what you’re trying to say, but it’s more than a bit of a reach to say it’s in play here, I think. Not fitting in the complicated history of untested rape kits and leniency in sentencing based on the rapists’ backgrounds and the socioeconomic backgrounds and skin color of the victims into a headline about climate protesters having the book thrown at them isn’t bias. It’s just kinda superfluous information in regards to the topic at hand.

I get it, it’s a massive problem. And one that desperately needs to be addressed. I just don’t think it extends to this article. Bias can be subtle and often is. And I understand that trying to point it out can be like trying to catch smoke in a butterfly net. But the subtlety of it cuts both ways, and I just think you happen to be on the wrong side of that divide. Just my opinion, though. That’s the great thing about subtlety and nuance, it’s up for discussion.