this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
137 points (98.6% liked)

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

5310 readers
455 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
 

This was the one soup-throwing which did any damage at all; in this case to the frame.

The penalty is appreciably worse than for minor violent attacks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The worse part is that they started with a plain wrong argument, this is not to attract the attention of billionaires, altough it can too. This is to catch the attention of everyone, to create a higher mass that is needed to change something, and tbh they are making more people aware of the issues, even if they get some stupid arguments against them when they are really doing no real harm as far as im aware.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Okay, and who hasn't heard of climate change by now? Who has been living under a rock that doesn't know that Big Oil is bad?

"Create a higher mass," ffs... You sound like a Christian justifying buying those "He Gets Us" Superbowl ads, as if nobody in the US has heard of Jesus before.

And no real harm? I guess we can just destroy history and artifacts, because who needs to learn from that shit amirite?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What's the point of preserving artifacts if there's no one to look at them anymore?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

There’s people (and children, who don’t need this bullshit) standing right there.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Which artifact was damaged? Because even in your link the article says:

"The New York Times’ ran an article titled “Climate Activists Throw Mashed Potatoes on Monet Painting,” further describing it in the subtitle as “the latest attack on widely admired art.” However, it is not until the fifth paragraph that the article notes that “the food did not cause any damage to the piece.” This raises the question, does the public differentiate between “damaging pieces of art” and “pretending to damage pieces of art” in their views of these non-violent, disruptive protests?

Also comparing having to make people understand the degree of damage we get from climate change vs christianity, its just an amazing analogy lol, what can i even say after that?. Have a nice day, i think you really need it.