Anonymous #1 23h

The evidence has existed for over a CENTURY and in that time nothing significant has ever been done under global capitalism. People wanna fence sit, ignore, deny, act like it doesnt affect them while somehow not being able to internalize the fact that this is real and will inevitably impact EVERY SINGLE LIVING BEING ON THIS PLANET

16

Anonymous OP 22h

this!!! scientists have been sharing evidence for a long time that we are in the middle of a 6th mass extinction event and we are the cause of it. UN has warned that we’re rapidly reaching the point of no return regarding irreversible damage to our planet and people are still turning a blind eye like this won’t affect them (and everyone else) at some point 🫩

17

Anonymous #3 21h

You’re a threat to all humanity

12

Anonymous OP 21h

And you see yourself as the one saving it?

-2

Anonymous #3 21h

Youre the one helping destroy it

6

Anonymous OP 21h

Do you see yourself as helping to save it from climate change and the people destroying it?

-4

Anonymous #3 21h

I think that Im more aware of whats going on than most people so as a regular citizen the main thing I can do rn is to try to learn as much as I can and then try to tell others as much as I can so that they in turn can do the same and if we do that a whole lot then just maybe we will have enough people who understand the severity of what we are going through and are willing to fight for the cause, Im not tryna paint myself as some hero but youre clearly a villain bud

9

Anonymous OP 21h

Well how much of what you’ve learned have you verified as true with your own experience and personal studies? I’m not implying you haven’t, I too am trying to learn as much as possible. When I was in a similar position (perhaps as an undergrad) I bought off on what was “true” far too much. Once I got out into my field I found a mountain of evidence contradicting the consensus. That might not be the case for your field.

-4

Anonymous #3 21h

Ok well for one. Since the second half of the 19th century, countless people who have dedicated their entire careers to science and have had nothing to gain monetarily from lying about climate change have come out and warned us about climate change. As someone who is not a scientist, just like every politician in the Trump cabinet (even the scientists arent scientists) as well as every big corporation CEO ever, I believe their claims shd at LEAST be given more thought than those of anyone else.

8

Anonymous #3 21h

Maybe check who sponsored the research that led to that “evidence contradicting the consensus.”

9

Anonymous OP 21h

My field is environmentalism. There are substantial climate spikes on the horizon. The source of which, was skewed for political/financial gain. I don’t imagine they will release a report about what’s actually happening for quite some time due to the sheer embarrassment of being so wrong and demanding so much from regular people. Although I did hear NPR start talking about an uptick in geothermal activity and studying volcanos so… perhaps sooner than people think.

-2

Anonymous OP 21h

That said. I can see real changes in front of me that are indicative of climate change. When I was little it used to snow every Christmas where I live but that hasnt happened in probably at least 10 years. Summer days never used to consistently be above 100 degrees but they are now. Flooding in my city has become a much bigger problem than it ever was before. And Im lucky because some places are getting it a lot worse. My personal experience further supports the idea that climate change is real

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

We faced what the social sciences call “the werewolf problem” (I think they call it that) where an informed minority will always outperform an uninformed, or worse, misinformed majority. So carbon credits and going all electric might even make it worse. The issue is not in the air. It’s coming from the air…. Used to be the atmosphere but now we emit the energy spectrum near surface, cracking plates, water seeps in, cracks more, very difficult to measure. (Hence the ocean levels only rising 1/2

-1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

2/2 minimally. But the real issue the people planning these things will deal with is earthquakes. (This year we saw Venezuela, Columbia, few places in SE Asia) and that informed minority can’t capitalize on earthquakes to sell us anything. Heck, they can’t even predict when or where they will hit without drilling and hastening the problem.

-1

Anonymous OP 20h

Every hurricane that hits the US is more catastrophic than the last, literal islands in the Pacific are slipping underwater, places in southern Asia are sitting at 120 degrees Fahrenheit all the time and its too hot to do anything, even Europeans are dying from heatwaves because they were too arrogant to ever install AC. Maybe I haven’t witnessed these things with my own eyes but real humans are suffering through them, but Ig you can choose to believe the ppl profiting from all this instead

4

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

The cracks start extremely subtle. But we are currently emitting 1x10^15 EMR from the surface of the earth since the start of the Industrial Revolution. (Used to only be stars and atmospheric storms) Think of roads that crack due to winter ice, but deeper.

0

Anonymous #3 20h

Besides being what allows for oil accumulation. What does drilling have to do with the topic at hand? There is absolutely change currently occupying in the atmosphere and you’ve done nothing to point to an alternative explanation.

4

Anonymous #3 20h

What infrastructure are you even referring to here? Power plants, farms, what?

12

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

Spectrum includes most EMF between Thermal IR (really radio) up to microwave. Wasn’t horrible when we were just sending telegraphs and playing music, but the timeframe of WIFI, Satcom, IOT etc, it ramped up in sequence with when the water levels were supposed to start rising. That water is going somewhere and the leading theory is all those micro fissures in the earth are no longer micro. Can’t drill to get a map/grid without hastening the issue, thus, studying geothermal spikes via volcanos 1/2

0

Anonymous #3 20h

2/2 seems to be the best way, (for now) to understand what’s happening. I should specifics the microwave EMR is of particular concern. Thats what I was referring to when I mentioned historically, pre-industrial revolution, it came from atmospheric storms and stars. But if you emit a ton of it on the surface of the earth, and you do that persistently, you’ve essentially turned all of earth into a kitchen microwave. (That’s a simplified metaphor. Metal isn’t going to start arching light)

0

Anonymous #3 20h

Specify*

0

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

But you might appreciate the nature of my question pancake fan: climate change technically is in the room with us since we are sending these messages via the microwave spectrum of EMF.

0

Anonymous #3 20h

Are you schizophrenic - I have a degree in earth and climate science

5

Anonymous #1 20h

Then you’re in for a wild wide.

-1

Anonymous #3 20h

Ride* (multitasking)

1

Anonymous #3 20h

No, I'm not, you're insane and climate change is anthropogenic and an actual crisis

1

Anonymous #3 20h

I genuinely have no idea how to respond to these seemingly utterly disconnected replies.

8

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

I think this person has pills that they're told to take but haven't

5

Anonymous #1 20h

Time will tell. You’re welcome to save this thread. Or don’t and let your hubris potentially bury you… similar to what will happen if you deny an earthquake is building.

-1

Anonymous #3 19h

It's not that you're wrong (you are), I'm much more confused on what you're even talking about

6

Anonymous #3 19h

I believe in earthquakes. I’m no geologist or related researcher so I can’t comment on earthquakes increasing in frequency. But I can comment on how completely irrelevant your findings are to anthropogenic climate change.

6

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 19h

BTW earthquakes are increasing in many regions due to wastewater injection, mining, and isostatic rebound from previous/melting glaciers.

11

Anonymous #1 19h

The other stuff I don't understand wtf you're trying to say

5

Anonymous #1 19h

Sadly, I’m not surprised. Thank you for a concise, yet highly informative explanation.

1

Anonymous #1 19h

Me or #3?

1

Anonymous #1 19h

How are you able to conclude that I’m wrong if something is confusing you? What part are you confused by? I’ll try to create clarity. (I have to explain similar concepts at work so this will help people outside of just you and I and the pirate who likes pancakes)

0

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 19h

Pirate think bigger please. Everything affects everything. Nothing exists in isolation. Especially anything science, engineering, etc.

0

Anonymous #1 19h

👆 okay. What number one is saying. Now scale that up.

-1

Anonymous #3 19h

Yeah but you literally said that the issues pertaining to climate change “is not in the air. It’s coming from the air.” And we’re rightfully questioning WTF you mean could mean by that statement, with little explanation in response.

6

Anonymous #3 19h

You do not have any experience in this field you're likely a schizoid chud that's done random readings of pseudosxience

7

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 19h

I say that because of the focus on CO2. We had govt appointed leads who couldn’t tell you the partial pressure of gas mixtures for one atmosphere spending billions of dollars focused on it. I still remember one guessing 5% and the other guessing 8%. It’s (0.04%) the issue causing change is not the air. It’s what is moving through the air, and time/distance that’s changed for that EMR spectrum.

-1

Anonymous #1 19h

I was once called “pseudo intellectualism’s final boss”. Now I sign work emails with that. Anyone who knows anything about my work experience get’s the joke.

-1

Anonymous #3 19h

Dude, it is the greenhouse effect caused by the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation (heat) re-radiated from earth. The problem is CO2/water vapor/methane.

4

Anonymous #1 19h

I am not a dude. What’s a more efficient solution, removing the CO2, water vapor, methane (which has always been there, likely before humans and is like fighting nature itself) or reducing the sources of radiation? We aren’t going to get rid of the sun… but there are other options.

-1

Anonymous #3 19h

We're not even on the same conversation anymore

0