this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
130 points (100.0% liked)

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

5387 readers
513 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

This is the end of federal agencies in the US being staffed with expert scientists and most state governments won't be far behind.

The republicans have the supreme court. They will just change the rules until centrists agree (because they are ideologically complete cowards) they have the power to destroy state agencies and authority with a begrudging "well the law is the law".

I am not saying give up prematurely, I am saying understand this for what it is, an ending.

Some researchers think scientists should adapt to this hyper-partisan environment by sticking to unadorned facts, rather than anything that could be seen as campaigning. “We have been come to be seen as just another partisan lobbying group,” said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist.

“I want us to get back to a point where scientists are seen as the establishers of facts rather than arguing for policy. We need to get back to a situation where we have a shared set of facts.”

This is precisely the kind of cowardice that catastrophically enables fascism especially because it falls back on defending science through an appeal to authority when the very reason fascism is gaining power is people existentially don't trust (and actively despise) the authorities controlling their lives.

Fascists made science political, the choice we have is to stop pretending conservatives won't want to hurt us because we completely ceded the narrative to them and actually fight back or continue down the current path and be crushed to pieces.

Defend science as an extension of the right to pursue happiness, the right to ask uncomfortable questions, the right to know and share and the fundamental good that comes from teaching and sharing your knowledge, defend science as much more fascinating and mysterious than the boring barely sketched out fabrications rightwing people are always trying to force down your throat.

For the love of science, people need to shut the fuck up about science being strictly about facts which are undeniable truths dispensed by an authority, this just makes the average person already angry at authority even angrier.

Facts are the residue science leaves behind, the actual science part is anti-authoritarian, radical, disruptive, and driven by a fundamental desire not to just trust commonly accepted narratives or what powerful figures say implicitly without question or critical analysis.

...and yet we have let the decaying carcass of neoliberalism lead the defense of science and I am sure rich oil executives find it hilarious because it is like running Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate when the entire country is screaming out for systematic change... it is a strategic blunder of the largest kind.

Supporters of science let the word "skeptic" be stolen by fossil fuel interests without even a fight, and we can't truly win widespread public support for science until we take that word back.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Ver much agree.

But now we have come so far that it is a (scientific) fact that implementing Trump's environmental policies will lead to the end of human civilization as we know it in the near future. So even if you are a coward and want to stay neutral, please at least communicate this fact.