this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
41 points (100.0% liked)

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

5183 readers
680 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
41
An Exxon-funded scientist speaks out | “There are definitely ways that [fossil fuel funding] can influence the research," she tells HEATED, as the fight for university divestment heats up. (heated.world)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7 to c/climate
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

That’s why Grekin and five other graduate students signed their names to an Oct. 5 letter proposing new rules that would force a much stricter standard for fossil fuel funding for Stanford’s research.

The letter focuses on Stanford’s industry “affiliate” research programs—meaning that for a membership fee, corporations can contribute to research at Stanford—and proposes to “eliminate financial sponsorship” from any company that “does not provide a credible transition plan.” It also proposes to block funding from any company that has obstructed climate policy in the last five years.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KeraKali 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Maybe a dumb question but how does funding from fossil fuel companies influence the research? Does it not just get sent to the college to use as they see fit?

[–] bananaslug4@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago

Even if the funding is applied with no strings attached, there's the implication that if you upset the sponsor they won't donate in the future.

[–] silence7 4 points 1 year ago

In general, industry grants have strings attached:

  • The company chooses which topics they fund, so for example you see the fossil fuels industry paying to study methane from agriculture
  • The company chooses which researchers to fund, with the implicit understanding that the publication of unfavorable results will mean that you don't get the next grant

Government grants could technically do the same, but tend to be handled by a committee looking at interesting research topics, rather than commercial advantage

[–] Ater@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I will give you money to research something. If the results are favorable to me, I will be able to give you more money to continue researching the thing. If they are not favorable to me, you will be required to find new sources of funding.