this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
468 points (84.7% liked)

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

5197 readers
867 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -5 points 10 months ago (10 children)

It would be easier to take this seriously if any one that questioned it wasn't bombarded with personal attacks like yours.

This tells me you have made an emotional decision that you have backfilled with science and can therefore be ignored.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Again, claiming that anything you don't like is illogical because emotions are at play is a highly emotionally argument. If you don't think the science is rigorous, show scientific reasons why, because as In sure you are liable to say; the science doesn't care how you feel about it, its either factual or it isn't. You have no contradictory evidence, so you resort to, I feel this must be wrong because I don't like it. That's 100% emotional.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You are adding the emotions to my comments. I don't give a fuck if you choose not to eat meat, you on the other hand have a problem with my choice.

The fact that the article has an agenda does not require me to rigorously dismantle every part of it. The agenda automatically disqualifies the science.

The argument you're using is the same one that religious people use where they demand atheists disprove the existence of god and claim atheism is a religion.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Its also funny how you chose to infer how I feel about your choice to eat meat, which I actually never addressed. That's just how YOU feel about what I said. What's funny is that you are the one appealing to emotion, with your strawman argument about religion. In reality, this article makes conclusions based on a body of peer reviewed science. You claim you don't like their slant and expect everybody to come along with you, when frankly nobody asked your opinion and in reality that is closer to what religions do in demanding atheists disprove god. This article actually demonstrates proof of facts with cited science. You claim those studies must all be wrong because they don't prove your argument without so much as offering an alternative demonstrated by anything we can verify. So you're essentially appealing to the idea of meat eating as an infallible diety for which you will accept no proof that contradicts its divinity. Again, its 100% emotion. Its just hilarious at this point. I'm having fun. You?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)