The solution is of course to persecute trans people.
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
202 points (95.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5393 readers
208 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
Don’t forget about deporting entire families if just one of them is here illegally.
Demographic Collapse? Never heard of him!
you misspelled "the burgeoisie"
Meanwhile, history shows that periods of instability and crisis can provide fertile ground for rapid, positive change. This is the other side to derailment risk.
The conditions for doom loops also provide opportunities to accelerate virtuous circles. For example, out of the crises of the interwar period and the devastation of the second world war came legal protections for human rights, universal welfare systems and decolonisation. More recently, the first Trump administration spurred new waves of climate activism.
Great positive message.
“When the world is actively murdering us, maybe we’ll finally see some positive change for a few select oppressed groups.”
The world isn't actively murdering us.
source: IPCC AR6 - https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
You just kinda linked to the IPCC website. Care to expand on what you’re hoping I get from that
I linked the AR6 report since you haven't read it.
lol okay
So tell me: is this the one scientific paper about the effects of climate change that somehow found the rise in global temperature as we continue to release co2 and methane into the air doesn’t increase the drought conditions, extreme heat, more powerful and deadly storms, loss of crops? Because you being so smart having read this study, it must be something new, right? Not exactly what scientists have been saying for decades? This one study on this subject must be completely groundbreaking and not relaying the information that has been found in all the other studies, correct? I mean, obviously it is, because it’s found that extreme weather events, sea level rise, and a dying planet bringing acidified oceans and untenable land and drought (and the concurrent famine) aren’t the results of our actions…right?
Are you refering to IPCC AR6 as "one scientific paper"?
... and getting upvotes?
I mean. Peak stupidity.
Jeezus. You’re really trying to argue semantics instead of defending your position? You know “AR6” stands for “sixth assessment report,” right? They accumulated a bunch of papers, and made…a report on the findings.
But since you’re clearly so much smarter than everyone and read so much more than us, why don’t you enlighten us all on these brand new findings that you know everything about? Did they or did they not find that human emissions are causing increasingly dangerous conditions? So please, pass your infinite wisdom to us peons. Grace us with your genius! Because you seem to be implying that they didn’t—more than that, you’re straight up claiming that they didn’t. Are you sure you read it?
IPCC AR6 is the scientific consensus regarding climate science, and no, it does not support your doomism.
You've never read it.
Not OP and I've never read it. Can you expand on the point of the paper and it's content?
lol and yet you refuse to expand on it. I’m really starting to believe you’ve never read it.
Here’s the synthesis:
- Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850–1900 in 2011–2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals."
- "Continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increasing global warming, with the best estimate of reaching 1.5°C in the near term in considered scenarios and modelled pathways. Every increment of global warming will intensify multiple and concurrent hazards (high confidence). Deep, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a discernible slowdown in global warming within around two decades, and also to discernible changes in atmospheric composition within a few years (high confidence)."
- "Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health (very high confidence). There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all (very high confidence)."
Note that last bullet point. The words may be different, but trying to tell me that human caused climate change is not an active and increasing threat to human life is beyond absurd. “There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable…future.”
Do you know what they’re saying? Why are you trying to dampen the reality of the threat or continued emissions? Are you literally just some shitty shill to say we’re all fine and nothing is happening?
lol
You're the one that claimed stuff not supported by the IPCC reports. Now trying to pin your random hallucinations on me won't cut it.
The world is not actively murdering us. That was your claim. If we don't cut emissions we will get into problems with changing growing regions for crops, need to move away from current sea level infrastructure and most of all we'll see wars raging when we don't allow people to move with the changing climate zones due to national borders.
Try reading the appropriate Working Group section instead of the summaries. You might even learn something.
“When the world is actively murdering us, maybe we’ll finally see some positive change for a few select oppressed groups.”
This is all over an off-the-cuff joke. About how in the future, “when the world is actively murdering us” we’ll see a modicum of positive change for some groups of people.
And you’re trying to say this is not something that is increasing in likelihood because the IPCC says it’s not going to happen? Like…are you alright? You still haven’t shared a shred of data that supports your claim. Jesus, I shared more from the report than you have. And you’re like, “no. Not that part.”
lol wat
That rapid change can be caused by or result in massive upheaval and damage.
Just like it mentions WW2. It’d be great if that didn’t have to happen, though.
Honestly, let's wrap this shit up. I am exhausted.
It's not too late to start Project Sundial
Blow a hole in the atmosphere, set half the planet on fire, and if anything miraculously survives, nuclear winter's older sibling will wreck their shit.
Beginning??
Yeah, they must be new here.
Always has been
“The conversation, were different”
Proceeds to dish out slop for the doom scrollers
The science shows the current predicament and the fact that any "good things" are based on the idea of massive reforms (or even revolutions) occurring. This makes it very easily to estimate how bad the situation is based on what's not happening.
As the climate chaos gets worse, it's reasonable to expect more bad news, not less.
It always reasonable to expect bad news from the popular press .
I wish you were correct, but the popular press is usually loaded with optimism, especially techno-optimism.
So this is wrong then ?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10192715/
There is clear evidence that the prevalence of negative media reporting has increased substantially over the past years. There is evidence that this negative reporting adversely affects social interactions, and thereby also health and well-being outcomes. Given the wide reach of negative media reporting and the contagion of such reporting and the resulting interactions, the effects on health are arguably substantial.
Your drawing a false equivalency. Just because there is an over-reporting of negative stories does not mean that all negative stories are false.
While climate change news is A popular target for doom scroll fodder, I think in this case it is accurate, and I think it is important to understand the situation well, even if it's not good news.
Apart from the fact I’m not drawing any equivalence and I never said the story was false.
Yeah, but how you gonna win internet points if you're not overly cynical to the point of hyperbole? /s
I appreciate you pointing out the obvious negative bent of most current news media. It's why I don't bother with them anymore; they don't care about an accurately weighted story, they want clicks and subscriptions.
It always reasonable to expect bad news from the popular press .
This It implies that they're only reporting it because it is bad news. Which has a whole other host of implications and make sure you're aware of it.
Perhaps I read too much into it, but I don't believe that's the case.