this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
107 points (97.3% liked)

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

6406 readers
791 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
107
PR campaign may have fuelled food study backlash, leaked document shows | Eat-Lancet report recommended shift to more plant-based, climate-friendly diet but was extensively attacked online (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 week ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drinkwaterkin@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ffs, the page you linked: "This Position was approved in January 2025 and will remain in effect until December 31, 2032"

And the page about childhood nutrition: "This position is in effect until December 31, 2025."

Everything that I've cited is still in effect. Seriously, are you delusional?

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And the page about childhood nutrition:

I wasn't reading carefully. I missed this. it doesn't change whether the other paper expired, is the current position of the academy, or whether papers that relied on it should be considered reliable unless they update.

[–] drinkwaterkin@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Dude, the expired paper doesn't matter. It has no relevance. And what do you think dietary authorities around the world are doing, just blindly parroting this one organization? No, they follow their own processes, use their own research, and come to their own conclusions based on what they consider to be the best available evidence.

Like, what are you even trying to accomplish here? You're going so far out of your way just to miss the point, to what, feel like you've won even some tiny crumb of an argument? Get your priorities straight.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 days ago

they follow their own processes, use their own research, and come to their own conclusions based on what they consider to be the best available evidence.

some of that evidence was a paper which has since expired. if those organizations aren't updating their positions at least as frequently as the AND is, then we cannot believe that their positions are any more valid than the expired AND paper that they relied on

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 days ago

the expired paper doesn’t matter. It has no relevance

it's the exact paper linked in the initial comment to which I replied.