this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
297 points (99.7% liked)

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

6442 readers
677 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
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Its unfortunate if you dont support good journalists.

Most corporate media is crap. Its important to follow and support the work of good journalists.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Bring the down votes.

Life long New Yorker. Used to work near Wall Street. All the top decision makers read the New York Times. They read it because it promises to give them the information they need.

Is it pro-capitalist? Yes. Does it give voice to right Wing folks? Yes.

It isn't perfect, but it's where I start when I need to know something.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 3 points 17 hours ago

Fortunately the US has much better news outlets that aren't puppets for corporations

[–] wordcraeft@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Journalists and influencers are two very different things, friend. Any jackass with a YouTube channel or Instagram account can be an influencer. Journalism requires education, investigative and literary skill, and vetting.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No, journalists are influencers. You can make a distinction between types and quality of influencers (people with platforms and followers who they influence with the content they publish), but dont condemn all influencers.

[–] WetBeardHairs@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, journalists are not influencers. Influencers are just advertisers in human form. They'll do and say anything if it pays them money. They share more in common with prostitutes than they do journalists.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Journalists are influencers.

We've had influencers for thousands of years. Jesus Christ was an influencer.

[–] WetBeardHairs@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Journalists are truth tellers. Influencers are false-tellers. Yellow journalism is written by influencers, not journalists. See the distinction?

[–] FlyingSpaceCow@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm learning a new language right now and I find myself reflecting more and more about the strengths and weaknesses of English.

English is really good at a lot of things including humour and poetry. But it transforms overtime depending on region, culture, demographics, economics, marketing, and politics... which makes miscommunication happen ALL THE TIME.

I say this because you're both right, and it's frustrating because it limits our ability to have a meaningful conversation.

[–] wordcraeft@slrpnk.net 1 points 16 hours ago

If you want to look at a fun language that relies far more heavily on context than English, search for Toki Pona. It's a neat "toy" language!

[–] wordcraeft@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Perhaps this is an argument over semantics, rather than anything substantive.

When I say "influencer," I'm referring to a class of people whose lives revolve around producing performative content on social media that does not meaningfully add to society.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Journalists are influencers.

We've had influencers for thousands of years. Jesus Christ was an influencer.

[–] wordcraeft@slrpnk.net 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

We're using the word "influencer" differently here. You're using it the literal way - "one who influences." The version I'm using is narrower in scope.

But if you insist on using your terminology, then I'll refer to them not as "influencers" but rather "social media attention whores." Does that make you feel better?

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Sure. Or you can say "bad influencers" or "the influencers who spread misinformation"

[–] wordcraeft@slrpnk.net 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

There are also influencers who care only about themselves, like those who like to stomp around in other people's gardens without permission in order to get a "good photo" for their followers.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 16 hours ago

OK, so "asshole influencers"

But I dont understand how that would influence anyone.