this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2025
174 points (93.1% liked)

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

5452 readers
197 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
[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean, it’s relative, isn’t it? An anchors job is to remain composed and in control, leading the show. When they lose that control and a guest is making them look like a fool because they can’t hold the basic position they’re taking in a discussion, panic realistically sets in. She looked panicked to me. Because she was clearly getting bested in a discussion, and her hypocrisy was laid bare. When it’s apparent she’s being spoken to in her ear about her performance (which I would say was very apparent), and she’s looking all over the studio as this guest concisely dismantles what she’s said? And she couldn’t answer a simple question—and that question was very much the punctuation on his entire argument, and she tripped over it and landed on her face—I’d say that shows panic.

“Panic” for an anchor doesn’t look like panic in a burning building. Panic for an anchor is being flustered, having that turn into cascading failure, tripping over your words, having zero conviction in your voice because your entire argument has been torn apart, having nothing to say but the clearly two pronged offense (which has already been dissected and laid bare) so when stumped, clearly only going back to repeating the same question even though it was shot down the first time?

That’s panic in an anchor.

[–] rah@feddit.uk -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

it’s relative, isn’t it?

No.

She looked panicked to me.

She never looked panicked to me.

Panic for an anchor is being flustered

I disagree. I would say that panic for an anchor is being in a state of panic, as for anyone else. I'm not sure why you're moving the goal posts just because the person in question is a TV news anchor.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

lol that’s not “moving the goalposts,” that’s discussing an amorphous impression being relative. Because it is. Emotions are relative. I can’t believe I’m having to explain that. And expressions are relative. When you’re anxious at home, you pace, maybe cry, try to shake your arms to let out your anxious energy. If you’re on stage, waiting to give a presentation in front of an auditorium full of people and you’re anxious, you’re sitting there, trying to remain outwardly composed, but you’re probably looking around, fidgeting, all while trying to remain presentable.

So you’re saying the latter can’t be anxious because they’re not pacing around, crying?

Absolutely ridiculous logic.

[–] rah@feddit.uk -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So you’re saying the latter can’t be anxious because they’re not pacing around, crying?

I'm not saying that.

Absolutely ridiculous logic.

Indeed.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

So you’re not making any other point because you realized you’re wrong now, right? Because if you realized the latter can be anxious while not showing the same signs as the person in private, you’re basically saying an anchor can be panicked by showing the much more subtle signs I pointed out before. And that’s the entire point of the conversation.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

So you’re not making any other point because you realized you’re wrong now, right?

No.