this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2025
41 points (100.0% liked)

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

7103 readers
546 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
41
Why climate professionals are often held to unrealistic standards (theconversation.com)
submitted 2 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Whether intentional or not, holding climate professionals to unrealistic standards is a tactic which delays effective climate action. It slows down climate action by redirecting responsibility and foregrounding low-impact solutions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] hsr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

A lot of time is wasted on arguments made in bad faith that have already been debunked ten times over, trying to get through to a reactionary for the 11th time is unlikely to work. Maybe there should be more emphasis on the overarching mechanism of disinformation which you describe, and how it's intended to stop people from taking any action at all. I feel like this educational approach will be a more friendly for people who are still capable of changing their mind.

99% of conservative arguments on climate boil down to:

Washing your hands is pointless since it only kills 99,9% of bacteria, you should incinerate yourself to remove 100%. Oh, you don't want to do that? Hypocrite much? Might as well not wash your hands then.

There is no reason to it, pointing out the absurdity and nihilism of this might be more effective.

[โ€“] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Exactly. My strategy is to focus is less on the whatabouts, and show that every change in the direction of desirable progress adds up, rather than allow deficiencies from an impossibly high or constantly moving goal-post standard of true progress serve as barriers.