this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
148 points (95.1% liked)

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

6631 readers
253 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
 

A reminder folks: people engage in this kind of radical protest because it works:

Results of two online experiments conducted with diverse samples (N = 2,772), including a study of the animal rights movement and a preregistered study of the climate movement, show that the presence of a radical flank increases support for a moderate faction within the same movement. Further, it is the use of radical tactics, such as property destruction or violence, rather than a radical agenda, that drives this effect. Results indicate the effect owes to a contrast effect: Use of radical tactics by one flank led the more moderate faction to appear less radical, even though all characteristics of the moderate faction were held constant. This perception led participants to identify more with and, in turn, express greater support for the more moderate faction. These results suggest that activist groups that employ unpopular tactics can increase support for other groups within the same movement, pointing to a hidden way in which movement factions are complementary, despite pursuing divergent approaches to social change.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Although there is little empirical support for negative radical flank effects, a number of correlational studies support the positive radical flank effect hypothesis (11, 13). But other empirical tests find no evidence that radical flanks increase or decrease support for moderate factions within the movement (14). Thus, the radical flanks literature has yielded inconsistent findings.

From your paper.

So the author and I agree that this is theoretical at best.

[–] drkt@scribe.disroot.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This debate tactic of ignoring most of what I said, nitpicking a portion of it, and making me defend it, when it was you who was asked a question, isn't going to work on me.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why don't you show me hard empirical evidence that it works?

[–] drkt@scribe.disroot.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How many must die to climate change before you’re personally willing to accept the idea of a harmless but disruptive protest?

It's a silly question that assumes that harmless but disruptive is in any way useful.

So, no I won't answer it because you haven't proven it's a valid question. You might as well ask me my opinions of flying carpets vs. transporters.

[–] drkt@scribe.disroot.org 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The question was

What is your solution?

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee -1 points 1 week ago

Vote for the best possible candidate who has a reasonable chance of winning.

Back in the day, Frederick Douglas had a chance to support an abolition candidate with no chance, or Abe Lincoln.

Lincoln wasn't running on abolition, but Douglas felt he was the best they could get.

Also, thanks for admitting the other question was nonsensical.