this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
10 points (100.0% liked)

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

5189 readers
359 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
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, this I can get behind. Fuck those guys painting Stonehenge, but this? Yeah, go ahead.

[–] k110111@feddit.de 4 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Controversial opinion: whats the point of stonehenge if there is no humanity? Its not like it fosters some ecosystem or smth for other species, its a historical piece which holds sentimental value to us humans.

If we continue to use oil, we will for sure fuck up humanity. The act was controversial but the message needs to be looked at

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

Yeah but that is the problem. These people keep on trying to destroy art and historical sites just to get the point across.

I know the point, we all know the point and there is NOTHING we can do about it. It's ll in the hands of politicians and wealthy assholes. Destroying beautiful things or historical artifacts isn't doing anything to further the cause, it's not doing a single shit to teach humanity (or better, those politicians that actually can stop climate change). It's the same as those protests that stop traffic. You only piss people off and cause ambulances to not arrive in time at hospitals.

You're doing it wrong.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

With that attitude we can just about go ahead and kill ourselves, what's the point, right?

My point is that trying to destroy stonge henge and art just to get attention to your cause is doing the cause a disservice. If anything it gives oil producers ammonto say "see how idiotic they are? They don't know what they're doing, climate change isnt real"

Stop punishing all of humanity for what is caused and controlled by a select few. Destroy rich assholes airplanes, that I can get behind. Leave art and historical sites alone.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

What's the point of destroying Stonehenge if humanity survives as a cascading result of stopping air travel? Defacing or destroying Stonehenge is not the lynch pin that solves or even moves the needle on climate change.

Worse, if it WORKS it means the next cause that is perhaps not existential is going to come and destroy something else that belongs to humanity. Weirdly, when nation states destroy heritage sites it's considered a type of war crime, but when it comes up for raising awareness for climate change fuck yeah everyone's in!

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No one destroyed Stonehenge. They covered it in ~~wheat-based~~ cornstarch-based dye that washes off in the rain (something England gets a lot of). Calm your tits.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If we're assuming that humanity will go extinct, then sure there's no point to stonehenge. But then there's also no point to a protest either.

If we're assuming humanity isn't going extinct, then there is a point to preserving stonehenge and there's also a point to having these protests.

Seems like there's a logic fail happening here where there's no point to preserving stone henge for the future but there is still a point to a protest about preserving things for the future.

[–] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah but protesting has a lot better odds at improving that future than Stonehenge I'd argud

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There's zero chance that protesting Stonehenge will improve the future, they're just rocks.

Protesting an oil refinery might have better odds tho.

[–] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Zero change is pretty damn impressive confidence intervals, and oil refineries are much easier to cover things up/rewrite the story at

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Even easier to rewrite history when someone is attacking something like Stonehenge. "Just a bunch of idiots that don't really care about the problem, they're just trying to get attention for themselves." And is that all that far from the truth? IT is 100% about getting attention the only thing that's debatable is whether it's attention for the cause or attention for themselves.

The problem isn't that people don't know global warming exists, the problem is they don't care. Sure, being an asshole gets you attention, but it doesn't influence anyone to help with a cause. So whatever their intent, these kinds of actions are just selfish attention seeking.

[–] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

So you want them to break into a secure facility and probably get federal charges instead of some rocks?

Cause these rocks are special rocks to you?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

We're not going to die from climate change. Screw up the environment? Sure. But humans have the capability to literally live in space, on the moon, and soon enough, mars.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

*while supported from Earth.

We don't have second Earth to be supported from.

[–] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

Best of luck when earth is slightly less viable for crops and a couple billion starve.

But no we can temporarily not kill 4 or 5 people so we must be unkillable from anything

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The guys doing Stonehenge at least tried. They used a powder they thought would just come off in the rain.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The Stone Henge people are saying that the water, lichen, and powder would have reacted badly. I do not have the education to know if that's true or not.

Meh.

Their job is to defend stonehenge at all costs. They wouldn't let people look at it if they could get away with it.

Of course they're going to say that the powder is reckless and could potentially upset the lichen or something.

It's hard to believe that this stunt could have any measurable impact in another 10 years or so.

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee -1 points 4 months ago

They’re probably just a bunch of upset babies blowing everything out of proportion, of course they would go to the most unlikely and extreme outcome.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Tried what?

Give rich oil producer execs something to laugh at and say "See how silly they are? THAT is supposed to show climate change is real? It's all nonsense, pass the coke"

You want to get attention AND piss on the right people? Then go after their big toys. Go after their airplanes. That's something humanity could get behind, not you trying to destroy priceless art, or historical sites.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Nobody cares what the oil executives think. A protest isn't going to make them stop producing and selling oil. And if they tried the system would dump them and bring in the next guy. Protests like this are about raising the public's awareness and you seem pretty aware now.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

It's literally rocks. You're valuing human life less than rocks, I think that says more about you than them.

[–] AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Problem with this argument that you can justify all kinds of crap with this. Vandalising artwork? Its just paint, you're valuing human life less than paint? Burning a few buildings? It's just propety bro you're valuing some planks over human life?

It kinda smells like the eu chat analysis law whatever where they're pulling the classic "you're valuing privacy over children?". Though I guess they would frame it more like "you're putting paedophiles over children?!".

Nah, I don't like this direction.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No you can't. It's literally rocks, all uncarved aside from historical graffiti/vandalism. Ruining a painting that is not open to the elements and easily repaired by simply letting it rain is not the same as rocks that are.

[–] Soulg@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Just remember, you took time out of your day to seek someone out and act twatty. Good job, keep it up.

[–] Soulg@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, I read a dumb comment and spent a few seconds saying that it was dumb. Nice try though.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's still taking time out of your day and finding something to be a douchebag about, contribute to the conversation or keep your mean bully bullshit to yourself.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

How is this dangerous to human life in any way? They did this to the plane while it was in the ground. Presumably someone is going to clean it before attempting takeoff, and I doubt a new paint job is going to severely impact the safety of the airplane regardless. I mean I guess if they somehow clogged all the static ports it would be a problem, but that's not particularly likely and only really a deadly situation if you take off at night or with less than competent pilots. Those are supposed to be checked before every flight regardless.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

You got my point backwards boss. The climate protestors care, the people bugging about rocks don't care about human life, they care about rocks that have historically been vandalized to make a point literally hundreds of times.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You might want to go and tell that to the people down voting your comment. Clearly people are not understanding what you put, an edit might be in order.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm not particularly bothered by down votes, to me it sorta weeds out bad faith actors anyway.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is a case of you failing to communicate though. Not bad faith actors or whatever.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It makes perfect sense.

"It's literally rocks.." Whats just rocks? Stonehenge!

"You're valuing human life less than rocks, I think that says more about you than them."

What are the protestors protesting for? Climate change.

Ie. If vandalizing Stonehenge is a bigger issue to you than climate change then you're valuing human life less than rocks.

It could not be any more clear and I think that's pretty evident based on the lack of offering a better wording.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It sounded like you are comparing the stonehenge protest to the one with the planes, not with climate change. Safety is critical in aviation, so it might sound dangerous to people that the planes were painted. I would instead say something like "they are valuing literal rocks over the lives of people claimed by climate disasters". Then it's clear you are talking about climate change in the second instance, and not the people flying the plane.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

How? Are planes just rocks? Are people?

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

No. You still don't get it. People think you are comparing stone henge (just rocks) to human lives (potential air disaster from painting a plane and damaging something). Rather than the human lives being lost from climate change.

I legitimately can't tell if you are legitimately struggling to understand or you are one of the bad faith actors you talk about.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

How?! Neither I nor the comment I replied to mentioned planes the only way you could make that jump is if you didn't bother to read the chain and instead jump to conclusions based on limited context and the title of the article.

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee -1 points 4 months ago

They’re rocks as well. They’ll be fine. A little paint doesn’t destroy them like temperatures do to the planet.