this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2026
16 points (90.0% liked)

Climate

8897 readers
441 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
16
Alexandra Fasulo says she’s protecting farms and wildlife. How much of her rhetoric is actually true? (heated.world)
submitted 1 week ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NamedUser@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

TLDR: Article seems shady. Article claims she doesnt support solar at all, one of the linked references ironically shows her supporting solar, instantly debunking articles own claims..

This article needs more scrutiny than the bare minimum i could provide. Its well written in the way it presents its logic, ill give it that. ——- After giving it a thorough read, theres something off about this article.

It rightfully makes an attempt to make a sketical case about fasulo and shows that she was a Q follower, but that shouldnt make anyone close the book and view her as guilty.

The article it doesnt seem to use anything thats current which supports the writers claim that shes against solar.

In fact the writer claims that Fasulo does not support solar at all but the very same reference piece to her website shows Fasulo in support of “smart solar” as she describes putting solar on buildings, freeways, parking lots, anything that seems to already be in place and to spare farmland or forests.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago

Which is to say she doesn't support any utility-scale solar, which is necessary if we are going to stop burning fossil fuels