this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2025
50 points (96.3% liked)

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

5646 readers
564 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
50
Climate misinformation is rife on social media – and poised to get worse (theconversation.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
1 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.vg 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Crowd-sourced debunking is no match for organized disinformation campaigns in the midst of information vacuums during a crisis. The conditions for the rapid and unchecked spread of misleading, and outright false, content could get worse with Meta’s content moderation policy and algorithmic changes.

sigh

Crowd-sourced isn't going to work well. The crowd is too small; anyone who's been dealing with the false skeptics of climate science for decades knows this, and it's only escalating now with rising popular conspiracy theories bolstered by social media algorithms and engaging formats (like short videos).

The whole premise of this crowd-sourced debunking is based on the idea that there are a lot of smart people out there with a lot of free time. Of course, getting paid would add another layer of problems to it as it look like a conflict of interests.

We need to demand moderation and "clean information" like we demand clean water. If the providers are failing to deliver, they need to face serious legal threats for it. And if that means shutting down social media platforms, then that's the rational thing to do.

edit: And if the problem is that the providers are providing "for free", then we need to make sure that this business models faces the consequences. Get them to pay users for the information if the business is based on monetizing information. In that case, they won't want "more engagement" and "more users" so much. If not, well, systems for more safe and secure subscriptions should help.