this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
339 points (99.7% liked)

Climate

8179 readers
577 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
339
Washington Post gutting its climate team | Clean energy dies in darkness. Courtesy of Jeff Bezos. (www.climatecoloredgoggles.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] dumnezero@piefed.social 15 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Like the NYT, they weren't that reliable on it either way.

In general, if journalists took climate change seriously, most of media would be about it; most screens would be half about it, with tickers and banners constantly on it. The anti-alarmists are the half-assers who took the air out of it.

[โ€“] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago

A big joke about these mainstream publications is how quickly they'd open their pockets to accept fossil fuel industry native advertisement money. WaPo, NYT, WSJ, The Economist, et al - they'd always have some kind of AEI industry flak or Heartland Institute goober or Saudi stooge pen an Op-Ed about how fossil fuels are inescapable and alternatives don't work / cost too much / have a secret downside orders of magnitude worse than O&G.

It was the same "We Report, You Decide" bullshit that FOX News played out in big bold letters for their rube base. The fishwrap editions just knew how to play their cards closer to the chest.