575
submitted 5 months ago by Five@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 80 points 5 months ago

Yeah, this I can get behind. Fuck those guys painting Stonehenge, but this? Yeah, go ahead.

[-] k110111@feddit.de 80 points 5 months ago

Controversial opinion: whats the point of stonehenge if there is no humanity? Its not like it fosters some ecosystem or smth for other species, its a historical piece which holds sentimental value to us humans.

If we continue to use oil, we will for sure fuck up humanity. The act was controversial but the message needs to be looked at

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

What's the point of destroying Stonehenge if humanity survives as a cascading result of stopping air travel? Defacing or destroying Stonehenge is not the lynch pin that solves or even moves the needle on climate change.

Worse, if it WORKS it means the next cause that is perhaps not existential is going to come and destroy something else that belongs to humanity. Weirdly, when nation states destroy heritage sites it's considered a type of war crime, but when it comes up for raising awareness for climate change fuck yeah everyone's in!

[-] Glytch@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No one destroyed Stonehenge. They covered it in ~~wheat-based~~ cornstarch-based dye that washes off in the rain (something England gets a lot of). Calm your tits.

[-] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Last time it was cornstarch.

And the stones are covered in lichen that protect the stone

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

While you are correct (and while I said destroy OR deface), the two different posts about this both contain people advocating for actual destruction for the same reasons.

Please read the other posts and alarm your tits to the reality / tenor of the discussion.

[-] Glytch@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Okay "alarm your tits" is a genuinely funny turn of phrase.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] someacnt_@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago
[-] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago

What's the point of being alive if you're just gonna die one day?

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

Yeah but that is the problem. These people keep on trying to destroy art and historical sites just to get the point across.

I know the point, we all know the point and there is NOTHING we can do about it. It's ll in the hands of politicians and wealthy assholes. Destroying beautiful things or historical artifacts isn't doing anything to further the cause, it's not doing a single shit to teach humanity (or better, those politicians that actually can stop climate change). It's the same as those protests that stop traffic. You only piss people off and cause ambulances to not arrive in time at hospitals.

You're doing it wrong.

load more comments (25 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago

The guys doing Stonehenge at least tried. They used a powder they thought would just come off in the rain.

[-] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 11 points 5 months ago
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

The Stone Henge people are saying that the water, lichen, and powder would have reacted badly. I do not have the education to know if that's true or not.

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

Strangley, 2 days ago they said they'll have to get the experts out to have a look at it, before they can tell.

What a very quick turnaround that, apparently, was......

[-] Crikeste@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago

They’re probably just a bunch of upset babies blowing everything out of proportion, of course they would go to the most unlikely and extreme outcome.

Meh.

Their job is to defend stonehenge at all costs. They wouldn't let people look at it if they could get away with it.

Of course they're going to say that the powder is reckless and could potentially upset the lichen or something.

It's hard to believe that this stunt could have any measurable impact in another 10 years or so.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] frazorth@feddit.uk 14 points 5 months ago

It hasn't rained yet.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
575 points (96.3% liked)

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

5244 readers
331 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