this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2025
268 points (97.9% liked)

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

7350 readers
321 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 62 points 3 days ago

Charlie Kirk worked for the billionaire class, and got paid to convince people to accept their agenda. The entire thing was always a grift.

[–] rimu@piefed.social 39 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Meh, the whole GOP is a fossel fuel industry plant. Their money is everywhere.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

See the TV series, Landman. I like the acting and script, but they preach falsehoods about sustainable energy every episode.

I kind of thought Billy Bob Thornton and Jon Hamm had more spine.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You forgot to mention the Democratic party too

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The problem with people from the Democratic party is some believe in a fantasy known as renewable energy.

If God had intended us to gather free energy in the form of solar, wind, geothermal, or tidal then he wouldn't have killed the dinosaurs off so we can suck up their death juices millions of years later and use a complex and dirty process to convert it into energy.

So the fact that dinosaurs existed pretty much disproves most of the liberal and leftist belief system. If you don't believe me, just ask you local fascist paleontologist!

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Who is the equivalent to the Koch brothers in the Democrats?

There's corruption, I just don't know who could be compared to the Koch brothers. Like if you look at what they fund, their reach (and as a result, fossil fuel interest) is in just about every well known Republican organization.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Brothers

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What do you mean? The Koch brothers is the equivalent to the Koch brothers for the Democrats.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Koch brother. One died. No one knows because it's impossible to give a shit.

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So who are the individuals within the democratic party that are taking Koch money? It would be good to know names of who to point the finger at.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago

Why does it matter? Almost every candidate in the Democratic party are serving the agenda of the Koch by not banning fossil fuels.

[–] 0ndead@infosec.pub 27 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And soon he’ll be actual fossil fuel. Fitting.

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 3 points 2 days ago
[–] Corelli_III@midwest.social -3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Bullshit. He wasn't a plant, he was a paid shill. Without his rizz and his ability to create a platform out of their astroturf garbage, they would have been leaning on Crowder.

don't mischaracterize him, his reputation has been through enough and its disrespectful

you don't have to spit on men who died with libel on their lips

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He wasn’t a plant, he was a paid shill.

Those are the same thing.

[–] Corelli_III@midwest.social 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Just hoping you are good faith here.

No they aren't. Charlie Kirk was a really important fascist platform creator, he wasn't a plant, he created the platform and then sold it. It is important to understand the enemy.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

He was either being funded since the beginning or started being funded when he became popular. The difference is immaterial.

load more comments
view more: next ›