this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
36 points (100.0% liked)

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

5222 readers
547 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
[email protected]
36
Disasters Forced 2.5 Million Americans From Their Homes Last Year (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jax 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

::))

My coworker thinks Trump is just a silly guy and doesn't mean all of the things he says, takes Ivermectin (not kidding, dude says his family swears by it), and thinks that there's a conspiracy amongst scientists to blow climate change out of proportion for profit.

I think it's about time we start calling Conservatives what they are. That being said, what exactly is the name for someone who commits a crime against humanity? Let's avoid using words like sinners, and I'd rather not let Conservatives have the word 'conservative' anymore.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Traitor? Traitor to humanity. Traitor to democracy. …to science…to women… the list goes on… But that word almost doesn’t seem evil enough. Scum?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm partial to "terracide". Pair it's adjective(?) form, terracidal, with "maniac", "profiteer", or "tyrant" and you've really got something.

If we're looking for an overarching ideology, "terracidalism" works for me, giving us the companion word "terracidalist".

Writing this out, I have to say I like the sound of "Trump: terracidal tyrant." It's short, descriptive, easy to grasp, and even has that sweet, sweet alliteration, so useful in slogans, signs, etc. Replace the ":" with "is a" and you have a nice chant.

I'm a Canadian. We still frequently refer to our Conservative party as Tories. That gives us "Tories: terracidal tyrants." The chant would use "are" instead of the colon.

[–] Jax 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I'm for it, for people like Trump. I don't think it captured the stupidity of someone like my coworker, though. Terracidal has the implication of intent, it seems, but my coworker is just old and conservative (so dumb). Like he, unironically, declared he's in support of better stewardship of the Earth and in the next sentence was praising Trump.

There needs to be a term for someone too stupid to be alive. Belligerent is one word, but this is stupidity to the degree of self destruction.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah, I don't know how to describe that. My personal opinion is that being stupid or negligent doesn't mean that "terracide" isn't appropriate in the same way that "homicide" doesn't imply intent in law, but that doesn't necessarily translate to common speech.