this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
35 points (87.2% liked)

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

5468 readers
406 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
35
Musk Believes in Global Warming. Trump Doesn’t. Will That Change? (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 2 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

IMHO, probably not; musk seems interested in his own finances, and on pitting people against minorities so that they don't see him stealing from them.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] _bcron_@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The problem with people like Musk is that they have this wild abundance state of mind in terms of technological advances to the point that they may be concerned about something, but more convinced that we'll be so advanced that we'll have something to deal with it later, so it becomes some moot point to them, basically a gamble.

"Can't we deal with it in 50-100 years when we'll have even more tools to deal with it?" basically, but yeah if we don't reach that point we're very much fucked

[–] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I've heard this called "soft climate denial", and unforntuately it's widespread.

People like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi say that they believe in climate change. But let's imagine that we're roommates and you told me that there's an out of control wildfire a few miles away and the governor has told us all to evacuate. One roommate says that they don't belive it and they're staying. And I say 'Shame on you for denying this! I firmly believe in the wildfire. It's urgent that we act now, which is why I've ordered travel maps on Amazon so we can begin plotting our evacuation route as soon as they arrive.'

Would you characterize this is accepting the crisis, or being in a state of soft denial?