this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
40 points (97.6% liked)

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

5461 readers
630 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
40
How to take climate change out of the culture wars (grist.org)
submitted 1 month ago by Joker@sh.itjust.works to c/climate@slrpnk.net
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

What if the resistance to climate science is not really about science at all?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] solo@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I find this article to be to the point. Copy pasting a part of it.

Yet even as fires, floods, and heat waves become noticeably worse, Democrats and Republicans are further apart on the science of human-caused global warming than almost any other issue. Some observers have noted that the resistance to accepting climate science might not be about the science at all, but what attempts to fix the problem might entail. An experiment in 2014 found that Republicans who read a speech about the United States using environmentally friendly technologies to fuel the economy, versus a speech about enacting stringent environmental regulations and pollution taxes, were twice as likely as other Republicans to agree with mainstream climate science. In other words, it might be easier to just ignore a problem if you don’t like the proposed solution.

“When you make this shift from having an opinion to understanding the concern that underlies the opinion, it’s really a different kind of conversation,” Barish said.

The approach is reminiscent of “deep canvassing,” an outreach method developed by LGBTQ+ advocates that involves listening to people’s worries without judgment and helping them work through their conflicted feelings. Personal conversations like these have been shown to change people’s minds, with lasting effects.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

As long as the polluters control the political process, they'll keep polluting. This is not a discussion of effective ways of convincing people who have good faith. This is a question of raw political power.