this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
46 points (100.0% liked)

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

5095 readers
811 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
46
Government drops appeal over climate activist who held sign outside UK court | Judge had thrown out case against Trudi Warner, sign told jurors they had a right to acquit 'according to conscience' (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

From what I've seen and read, the judiciary system is much more opposed to it here in the UK, judges have more ways to bully jurors, but if a jury makes a decision and only explains it by saying that they've complied with the judge's instructions, there isn't much the judge can do.

[–] ____@infosec.pub 1 points 1 month ago

My understanding in the US (generally, given all our various types of jurisdictions) is that the concept cannot be discussed by a jury/juror, at risk of a mistrial.

Considering how many ancient laws are still on the books but “generally understood” to be not enforced, and how many rabid DAs we have, in some cases nullification is the best shot at a fair trial.

Appeals are useful, but take significant time and money. So much simpler to have the jury come to an understanding that the law is ridiculous on its face and from a bygone era.

The UK variant on a Constitution has always intrigued me, being ~unwritten, but I’ve never had the time and energy to delve too deeply into the underlying ideas.