Anonymous #2 8w

Agreed. It was initially just “boomers” but I wanted to make it clear that I’m referring primarily to the Epstein Class. (W Bush, Clinton, Biden, and Trump all born in 1946)

26

Anonymous OP 8w

Oops, Biden was 42 mb.

12

Anonymous #3 8w

Yeah. Crime rates go up when it’s hot. productivity, sleep, the ability to retain information, most metrics of ability, all drop off dramatically as you start to hit the 95-105 degrees (F) range. Mortality rate rises, particularly in the developing world. That means more people we can’t feed, and a bunch of other things if you’re an immigrant hatemonger-type. This should concern you.

18

Anonymous OP 8w

Yeah I’m all for blaming boomers when possible but this is a case where there must be credit given to the pioneers who were sounding the alarm fifty years ago

12

Anonymous OP 8w

I’m very much spooked 👻👻👻

-6

Anonymous #3 8w

keys without the e

7

Anonymous #2 8w

That’s not a very nice thing to say to someone. You should learn how to be kind to people. I think you would feel better about yourself and the world if you did 👍

-5

Anonymous #4 8w

listen I hope ur right, man. I just cannot imagine anything else happening in the event thing accelerate within the next five years. it might be more realistic to fear this in about 20 years time, or so. we are definitely in the finding out portion, however, having allowed our predecessors to thoroughly fuck around. not that “we” let them do anything, my ass was zygotic for the al gore-bush election.

23

Anonymous #4 8w

It’s all very spooky 👻👻👻

-3

Anonymous #5 8w

Again, I’m not trying to be rude or nitpicky or anything but climate science is a huge deal to me and I would rather people not accidentally spread misinformation that gives climate change deniers fuel for their “arguments”

6

Anonymous #5 8w

And what I mean by that is the local temperatures will fluctuate, not that we do not see them actively rising already. Weather patterns that change yearly can give places colder summers or winters than they usually have, these patterns and fluctuations will only become more severe with climate change

6

Anonymous #5 8w

Nah, I appreciate your input. I obviously dunno what I’m talking about regarding the shit that actually goes down in the troposphere. I do think that this distinction is one that, for a lot of climate “skeptics”, enables them to continue living in blissful ignorance. Global temperature increases will obviously fuck us all over, in the end, but I think it’s a far less compelling argument to lament to an American chud about rising temperatures in the Sahel than what they can directly feel at-home.

5

Anonymous #5 8w

i mean it is an image in an internet meme format so it’s kind of intended to be abrasive and hyperbolic in nature. however, my state’s average temperature has risen approximately 5°F since 1970 causing tornadoes to become more common in the area. the image isn’t supposed to be taken at face value but more to be provocative tbh. always appreciate a fellow STEM paragraph guy tho 🩷👍🏼

5

Anonymous #1 8w

In the same boat. I’ll never give up hope, but I’m so heartbroken.

7

Anonymous #2 8w

It’s not so much capitalists as it is the lack of necessary regulation

-4

Anonymous #2 8w

well it all started in the boomer generation, those are the ones who have created our current world order 🤖

3

Anonymous #9 8w

also, the chickens we have are normally good layers. Previous summers they’d slow down because of the stress heat causes, but this summer they’ve pretty much stopped altogether. 20 hens and we were getting no eggs for a majority of the summer. It’s scary thinking that this could get worse. And not just worse for small farms, but for the big farms that produce the food for the entire country. I think we’ll be seeing that scarcity become the norm in the next few years.

6

Anonymous #7 8w

I’d argue it is. After all, who is responsible for paying the lobbyists ans donating to campaigns to prevent regulation? The capitalists

15

Anonymous #3 8w

if you weren’t such a “nothing ever happens” apathetic sack of shit, maybe you wouldn’t have people saying such things to you. you should take your own advice instead of projecting those insecurities of yours.

1

Anonymous #11 8w

Victim blaming is kinda crazy

4

Anonymous #4 8w

lmfao what was that phrase you used yourself? ah yes. “holy exaggeration batman”

1

Anonymous #11 8w

Bro, why the hell are you typing like a Reddit mod

1

Anonymous #11 8w

Ah yes 🤓☝️

1

Anonymous #4 8w

that’s the best you could come up with? “Reddit mod” and a set of emojis? come on, you could do better than that. put a little effort into it and get those brain cells churning (I know, they’re not used to much effort, but I believe in you!)

0

Anonymous #11 8w

Like how you put effort into responding by deflecting and quoting something irrelevant? Im confused

1

Anonymous #4 8w

I mean I agree, your responses are quite irrelevant. (did you not realize that I was quoting you?)

0

Anonymous #11 8w

This guy is a bot

3

Anonymous #4 8w

LMAOO do you call anyone who shits on you a bot?

0

Anonymous #11 8w

Bro what do you MEAN, do you really think you’re shitting on me rn?

1

Anonymous #11 8w

“Victim blaming is crazy” Ermm yeah well you said op was exaggerating earlier lmao REKT

1

Anonymous #4 8w

mate, you’re practically digging your own grave. at this rate, shitting on you would be a favor.

-1

Anonymous #11 8w

Mate? Eww you’re British too this is the worst

1

Anonymous #4 8w

do you genuinely need me to hold your hand and explain every step of this interaction, both before and after you decided to comment and join? or are you ready to stop making yourself look like a fool?

-1

Anonymous #10 8w

Capitalists can just as easily introduce environmental regulation, but as you said the lobbyists are ruining it. IMO ban lobbying and things would be much better

-3

Anonymous #11 8w

Can’t believe I was fooled into an interaction with the British person

1

Anonymous #4 8w

see how every single comment is you attempting some desperate ad hominem since you have no capability of actually addressing what’s being discussed? no, I’m not a bot; and no, I’m not British. maybe if you stopped trying to “win a debate”, and instead had an actual conversation, we could get somewhere. instead, you seemingly feel the need to resort to desperate ad hominem attacks every other comment.

0

Anonymous #11 8w

wait, do you think I’m British for solely using the word “mate”? this is what I get for watching some non-American media and adopting rhetoric; dipshit fellow Americans trying to secure a “gotcha moment”

0

Anonymous #11 8w

Could you please point to where you addressed my comment of you victim blaming? Or where you engaged in a conversation about what I said

1

Anonymous #11 8w

Being a debate bro is lame and cringe, that being said “put a little effort into it and get those brain cells churning (I know, they're not used to much effort, but I believe in you!)” is ad hom btw

1

Anonymous #11 8w

“ Dip shit fellow Americans” is also ad hom

1

Anonymous #4 8w

I addressed it by calling it bullshit, using your own words against you. 3 is not a victim. 3 chose to come into this post and chose to begin spreading a message of climate denialism, despite the documented danger of the anthropogenic climate crisis. 3 merely sought attention, and got a different type of attention than they sought out. 3 got what they explicitly came here for: attention. hence why I told them to take their own advice and stop projecting their insecurities.

-1

Anonymous #7 8w

They *CAN*, but only in the most technical sense of the word. The highest goal of a capitalist is the accumulation of capital. If there is no profit incentive, they will not do it. In the case of big oil, it threatens their industry, so they actively oppose it. Since the state is the mechanism which makes capitalism go smoothly, the state follows suit. In the event that democracy threatens capitalist interests, democracy will be abandoned

12

Anonymous #11 8w

If we’re being technical, my own words were that it was an exaggeration. Being that someone did tell them to off themselves, I fail to see where the exaggeration is

1

Anonymous #4 8w

you are engaging in the same exact behavior, I might add. attention seeking via the downplaying of the anthropogenic climate crisis. hence why you’d rather fixate on jumping to the defense of 3, instead of contributing anything meaningful to the conversation in the first place. additionally why you had to engage in any attempt at desperately disparaging my messages or my character. you’re unserious, and you’re not here to meaningfully engage aside from distracting from the main topic.

0

Anonymous #11 8w

Wow that’s a very rude statement to make. If you talk to strangers like that you won’t make many friends! Swearing doesn’t make you cool and it makes people really not want to hang out with you. You should try to be kinder to everyone, especially yourself 👍

1

Anonymous #4 8w

the exaggeration is calling them a victim. they received the attention they sought out. climate denialism is not harmless, and climate denialists should not be treated as harmless. as 3 would’ve said: “it’s all very spooky👻👻”

0

Anonymous #4 8w

are you seriously upset that I responded to your repeated attempts at ad hom with ad hom?

0

Anonymous #3 8w

“I’m so very spooked👻👻👻”

1

Anonymous #11 8w

“ desperately disparaging my messages or my character” and your second response was literally saying I lacked brain cells. Is the hypocrisy intentional I’m confused

0

Anonymous #1 8w

It’s pretty bad for nuclear too. Drier seasons and less rain means a lot of the rivers and lakes used for plant coolant are too low for pumps to work effectively. Take what’s going on with the Danube and how Hungary and Romania have been impacted.

3

Anonymous #11 8w

Bro that’s a lot of in between the lines for a bunch of goofy ghost emojis

1

Anonymous #11 8w

It is spooky 👻👻👻😝

1

Anonymous #11 8w

How very silly 😛😛😛

0

Anonymous #11 8w

Do I need to paste the definition of hypocrisy for you to understand?

1

Anonymous #4 8w

and what was that comment responding to? surely it wasn’t one in which you began the ad hominem attacks, right? also, do I need to remind you that I actually put the effort into explaining how you are wrong, discussing 3’s (and your) attention-seeking behavior? or was ignoring that out of convenience?

1

Anonymous #4 8w

Bro you should stop talking to this dude. He’s clearly leading you on for fun

1

Anonymous #11 8w

How is your behavior not also attention seeking and unserious ? If you’re doing the same thing

6

Anonymous #4 8w

maybe if you posted the definition of ad hominem you’d understand it. (ad hominem is an attack on the person to avoid addressing the actual topic of discussion; you fail to realize that I actually addressed the topic of discussion as well, unlike yourself.)

1

Anonymous #4 8w

“this person accusing me of this must also be guilty of this this” did i come to the defense of the climate denialist? odd, I don’t remember that. it’s interesting how you’re repeatedly avoiding the climate denialism topic.

1

Anonymous #11 8w

If #3 denies or believes climate change. Do you genuinely think anything happens?

1

Anonymous #4 8w

dude (since mate was apparently too “British” for you), we have known about the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change for over 60 years, and companies have conditioned and propagandized people for decades to avoid having to change. on an individual scale, people denying the existence of anthropogenic climate change provides cover. it provides justification for the industries refusing to adopt the necessary changes.

1

Anonymous #11 8w

refusing to acknowledge the climate crisis perpetuates the plausible deniability that the richest among us use as justification for not changing their behavior and actions. it perpetuates the false justification that allows for the crisis to worsen day by day. ultimately the majority of fault for this lies with the industries that conditioned the public for decades, but we need to dismantle the dogma somewhere, and we won’t mitigate or solve the issue until we do

1

Anonymous #4 8w

like I understand what you mean but we’ve officially reached a point where we do not have the luxury of time where we could have that debate of “well is climate change real? Well what’s causing it? well etc etc etc” yk? We had that luxury for decades and that time is up. we need to be putting action into trying to solve this issue, and we can’t do that until the vast majority of the planet is on board given the type of action that’s actually required to fix this.

1

Anonymous #11 8w

like we’re talking about a long-winded crisis that, if left unchecked, has the capability of resulting in the extinction of our species and the majority of life on this planet. this isn’t something for us to be playing around with, it’s something that should be inspiring us to grow and work together; not only for our own sake but for the future of our species (think children, grandchildren, great great great grandchildren, etc)

1

Anonymous #7 8w

so it's capitalists

7

I fucking wish it was fearmongering. take a look into the data that the IPCC reports; the ice caps are already melting and we’ve already hit 1.1 C degrees of warming post-industrial revolution, estimated to reach 1.5 around the 2030s; it’s even estimated that we might surpass 3.0 C by the end of the century (if not sooner).

6

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #3 8w

last i heard some parts of the Danube were only 23cm of water depth…

1

Anonymous #10 7w

If it got to that point there would have to be a regime change but in capitalism you have to and many countries do maintain the balance between profits/growth and the environment. However, because the #1 country pumping out carbon emissions has a heavily socialist/communist government, that shows that those economic systems aren’t solutions to destroying the environment

-1

Anonymous #7 7w

I would first say there is no balance between profits and emissions. If there is profit to be made, the capitalist will go with that option. If you’re referring to China’s greenhouse gas emissions, I will assume they have the most of any country. However, this is to be expected: they do have a billion people, after all. Per capita, though, they have less greenhouse gas emissions than the United States. In addition, they are actively investing in solar, nature reserves, tree planting, etc.

4

Anonymous #7 7w

The last thing I will address is your phrase “If it got to that point”. I’d say it’s already at that point. Companies have their slimy mitts in our congress. Our president routinely flouts the constitution. Even when a president obeys the law, the powers of government are wielded for the advancement of capital interests. We elect a democrat or republican government, which changes things, true, but the underlying structure of the system remains the same. This cannot be changed electorally

4

Anonymous #7 7w

it’s *far* past that point. like what do you mean?

1