this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
76 points (100.0% liked)

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

5057 readers
267 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
[email protected]
76
Opinion | We Don’t Have Time for Climate Misinformation (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's worth mentioning, they weren't punished for climate misinformation. The consequences were for calling him a child molester and a sex trafficker.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And that libel was part and parcel of their climate misinformation; they were making those claims because they didn't like the hockey stick graph and saw the false accusations as a way to discredit the science.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Right, but they didn't face consequences for making unscientific statements or promoting scientific disinformation. I think they should have, but that's not the justice system we got. The world would be a better place if science denialism was a crime.

They faced consequences for defamatory comparisons to sex criminals. Which is also a crime, and should be a crime. I'm not complaining about that. I just wouldn't count this as a victory for climate science.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You make an important point: constitutionally-protected speech is the strongest link in their defense.

These people almost always have social media accounts, personal website hosting, and other business arrangements. None of this business is constitutionally protected and all of these business partners can be identified and many can be persuaded to cut ties. For years people have been using vague untargeted appeals to decency and it has gotten no results at all. We need to target their business partners with boycots and consumer education in the same way that wish.com became a synonym for low quality.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I am dubious about boycotting, it’s akin to an appeal to decency, and those that are the worst for the environment are so entwined with the goods we consume, that it would take hyper awareness to realize if you were actually following the boycott if that was one’s goal. I think much more extreme measures would be necessary to compel change.