this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
297 points (99.7% liked)

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

6440 readers
642 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
297
Eight of the top 10 online shows are spreading climate misinformation | Often backed by large advertising budgets, a new breed of climate denial is gaining popularity. (yaleclimateconnections.org)
submitted 2 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Journalists are influencers.

We've had influencers for thousands of years. Jesus Christ was an influencer.

[–] wordcraeft@slrpnk.net 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

We're using the word "influencer" differently here. You're using it the literal way - "one who influences." The version I'm using is narrower in scope.

But if you insist on using your terminology, then I'll refer to them not as "influencers" but rather "social media attention whores." Does that make you feel better?

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 0 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Sure. Or you can say "bad influencers" or "the influencers who spread misinformation"

[–] wordcraeft@slrpnk.net 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

There are also influencers who care only about themselves, like those who like to stomp around in other people's gardens without permission in order to get a "good photo" for their followers.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 8 hours ago

OK, so "asshole influencers"

But I dont understand how that would influence anyone.