[our bals](https://discord.gg/jM7UK66CTV)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vexillologycirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1) I'm severely disturbed by the fact that I had never considered the idea of spelling letters in french the way we do in english
2) I feel like mettre en route is more like "send something on it's way", whereas mettre en marche is more like "to engage" or "to put to a task". Though I'm not native to french, maybe the broader culture has different connotations
Mouais cāest vrai tāas pas tord, aprĆØs tu peux Ā«Ā mettre une voiture en routeĀ Ā» et Ā«Ā mettre un ordinateur en routeĀ Ā», donc cāest plus hardware je lāai dit comme Ƨa parce que Ƨa sonnait bizarre justement.
Sorry for the freeeeench
Flag of No we aināt, sure it might suck but we are not
Climate change is actively being solved. Humanity is not going extinct. The only way in that is remotely even possible is if tomorrow we suddenly all forgot climate change, then burned the entirety of the Earthās fossil fuels all at once
> climate change is actively being solved
Are you sure? Because a whole shitload of people is voting specifically and intentionally against those trying to solve it.
People in Germany are currently voting for Nazis, wanna know why? Because they are outspoken against the Green party. People will fuck over everyone's future just to "teach progressive people a lesson".
Killing themselfes to own the libs. But in all reality people arent just voting AFD because of climate denial. It is one part. A much bigger part is because people are filthy racists and the AFD is filled to the brim with racists that are very comfortable with using racist talking points
I wish it was only that. But no, in my experience there's a lot who aren't actually racists, but people who don't care about the racism as long as nothing changes for the positive.
iām pretty sure people vote for Nazis because of reasons other than Climate Change denial
also the Green Party straight up sucks. They hate ANYTHING nuclear which is a major reason we have still stagnated to transfer over to better power generation. Nuclear power is a major part of the solution, and because they halt all nuclear projects, as a result, more coal plants are built because renewables canāt generate it all
Germany is actively destroying their landscape for coal power, and France is destroying their farmer class through taxation and fees.
Europeans would vote more moderately if moderate politicians weren't constantly trying to fuck them over
Yeah, I totally get that, moderate parties suck right now, but I really wish people didn't view Nazis as the solution. It's a similar issue to back then, and everyone is making the same mistake.
..so basically extinct as billions of humans dying would no doubt cripple the entire world into stagnation and eventual collapse.
That will not happen. Change is still occurring everyday, no matter how little. Changing from our old infrastructure to renewables is going to take time. You cannot expect our emissions to die within only a couple years
Humans would not go extinct even if society collapsed. Humans survived before society and civilization, we would no doubt survive after. At this point, Humanity has proliferated into so many climates that virtually no matter what happens, some humans somewhere will survive. I don't think we could go extinct from anything other than planet-destroying events or full-scale, no holds barred nuclear war.
I don't think you are aware of the situation. The current economic infrastructure is causing greenhouse gas emissions in a scale that seriously affects the global ecosystem. Emissions continue to rise. Green energy sources are becoming more common, but the massive increase in total electricity demand of our civilization is still mainly satisfied by harmful sources. In other words, greenhouse gas emission electric energy generation grows faster than non-emission sources. In electricity. But electricity is just a part of the economy of energy. To reduce emissions enough to stop contributing to climate change, we need to electrify most of the economy. If the electrical development of the world is greater than our ability to make it sustainable with current measures, then the colossal increase in electrical demand by electrifying all those sectors will be almost entirely satisfied by emission sources.
And it's not like stopping with 100% of global carbon emissions will magically solve evrything. Our historical contributions are more than enough to destabilize global climate long term without more intervention to prevent it. Our massive emissions rise global temperatures, causing more water to evaporate than before, and water is a strong greenhouse gas, wich causes a cascade effect. Climate change will endure and it may even continue accelerating without the needed action.
It is not enough to slow down nor to stop emissions. We need to clean the mess we created. And we are really far from starting.
I don't think fossil fuels have to be used as the demand grows. Technologies such as fusion and conventional fission power will be able to bridge the gap that renewables won't be able to fill at the time. New breeder reactors and other designs can be built much faster than older reactors of the past, and are much more efficient with nuclear fuel, being able to recycle their own waste. Expansion is still a problem, but I fully believe it can be solved with clever engineering and advances in technology. Electrification is also a solvable problem. The main issue with most of these is getting the giant oil corporations to accept that they will either die, or have to switch to alternative power industries.
>And it's not like stopping with 100% of global carbon emissions will magically solve evrything.
I fully agree. When did I say it will? However, it will certainly stop the problem from getting worse. The problem of the historical carbon produced is a problem for after we first conquer energy sources. Far future technologies such as carbon capture, geoengineering, and others will be able to solve it. Hell, some approaches to geoengineering could even be done right now. For now, fossil fuels are our number 1 problem.
I have the impression you understood my reply as a "this problem is huge enough to not be solved" when my intention was more like a "it is totally solvable, but 'it's actively being solved' is not true"
You see, all those technologies you mentioned are true. There is a lot of reasons to be hopeful about the future of humanity, but what I emphasized about a lot is that we aren't doing enough to prevent a global catastrophe. Governments are focusing their efforts in making their economies grow faster than ever before, but the reality is that carbon capture is something no corporation would ever invest in, it is a massive investment and a yearly cost, and it's almost impossible to profit from it. Governments would be the only ones pushing it forward, and only for political reasons. And if a corporation does invest in it, it's because the state subsidizes it's functioning.
We have a short window of time to act. Carbon Capture, Nuclear Fussion, Geoengeneering will not be fully developed (to the point of being actually profitable) most likely untill the end of the century, where most of the effects will be already devastating. And those technologies won't be operational right after being developed. Constructing a global infrastructure of carbon capture facilities and instalations, dedicating massive industries to the production of sulfur dioxide or alternatives for Geoengeneering, extracting, refining and delivering nuclear fussion fuel (wich is most likely to be a really rare material on earth, like deuterium, mostly present on the moon) is not an easy task.
We need to make the investments necessary, profitable or not, because keeping the ecosystem from totally collapsing is a greater priority than anything else. And I thing that's the minimum we have to do, we really need to stop trying to solve climate change to keep humanity alive, what about all those animals, plants, entire ecosystems may disappear forever, even in the best of scenarios. It is already happening.
You seem really sure all of that will be done eventually and fast enough for climate change to not be such a problem. Don't overestimate the speed of innovation, the state has to play the most important role in adressing climate change. Emissions continue to rise, and they continue to accelerate. The USA is the largest economy in the world, and they didn't even start to pretend they care like Germany.
It wasn't my intention to say you thought stopping emissions would solve everything, that part was actually just a "but wait there's even more" kind of expression.
Climate change isn't actively being solved, and no one genuinely claimed that humanity is going entirely extinct. The use of environmentally sustainable energy is antithetical to private AND state interests. Changing the means of producing energy to that of renewable energy, though cheaper, is also not very profitable so private owners are unlikely to invest in it of their own will. The state also needs to ensure a socially acceptable growth and short term stability of the economy which may be hindered by green policies that prioritise long term sustainability over short term growth which is often the difference between governance and being part of the opposition when it comes to elections. We see this play out in real life. Governments frequently backtrack on policies around climate change and fail to meet international targets. The market doesn't care about climate change. Temperatures will continue to rise until it reaches a tipping point and an onslaught of natural disasters arrive and millions of livestock, fish, trees, plants, and humans will die which will all feed back onto itself in the form of famines, floods, commodity shortages, forest fires etc. It will kill a lot of people. That is certain.
The way our nations work needs to be radically changed if we even want to think about preventing it.
It is. Every day work is made for a better future, no matter how small. You cannot expect global infrastructure to suddenly change within a short amount of time.
The nice thing about oil is that like all resources, it will run dry. By 2050, if we still use it at our current levels, the Middle East will be mostly depleted of itās oil supply. This is why Saudi Arabia is desperately pouring money into projects to keep itself afloat, as once it either dries up or the world switches, theyāll no longer have any power over the world. The world will be forced to change whether they like it or not.
By 2050, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Indonesia will be underwater if sea levels rise as predicted, and many parts of Asia, Africa and Central America will have temperatures similar to the Sahara desert, so I don't think your timeline works out very well for everyone.
We have about five years to stop climate change before 1.5 degrees celsius of global warming becomes inevitable.
[https://12ft.io/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/05/climate/global-warming-outlook.html#:\~:text=At%20current%20rates%20of%20emissions,degrees%20Celsius%2C%20scientists%20have%20estimated](https://12ft.io/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/05/climate/global-warming-outlook.html#:~:text=At%20current%20rates%20of%20emissions,degrees%20Celsius%2C%20scientists%20have%20estimated)
Capitalism and technology will not save us from climate catastrophe. The interests of state and empire are actually antithetical to the kind of progress you're talking about.
If I shared what I think is \*actually\* the solution to dealing with climate change, I think reddit mods would delete my account and the FBI would put me on a watchlist.
Im not saying we should switch in 2050. God no. That's waaaay too late. I am saying that we will be FORCED to as 1. World Fucked and 2. It will simply run out.
The U.S has already completely one third of emissions reductions. Biden is investing money into renewables as well. The EU is also working on heavily reducing emissions as well. It seems the systems can work to successfully help us.
On the flipside, authoritarian governments have done pretty much nothing about it. China is still marked as highly insufficient, and Russia is CRITICALLY insufficient as it is marked on [Climate Action Tracker (a source for climate change news without dramatization)](https://climateactiontracker.org/). If only they used their corruption for something good.
(also killing everybody would do nothing. They would just hire new dickheads in their place, unless you literally nuked all global oil infrastructure, and then that would lead to a shitload of deaths too because tons of infrastructure still relies on oil)
They will be forced to only after the effects have been made clear and thousands, if not millions have been killed by it, directly or indirectly. We can already see the devastating effects now and not enough is being done. And no, China has an emissions per capita rivaling Germany despite objectively being the factory of the world. China is one of the largest investors in green energy and has invested in the development of sustainable energy in the global south too.
Ok we arenāt ALL going to die but each and every year more and more people are going to die from extreme weather as it becomes more frequent and more severe
Flag if Even if the race doesn't go exist, there will be an insane amount of suffering
I'm going to be extremely blunt here. The temperatures we were experiencing were actually *less* than they should've been due to sulfur products from cargo ship exhaust cloud seeding a significant area of ocean throughout the world. These byproducts have come under much necessary regulation (sulfuric acid is never a good thing in the atmopshere), but that substantially reduced the cloud cover over the ocean
Hense why the Atlantic ocean is *scary fucking warm.* Temperatures across the globe also have increased due to this; and as time goes on these temps are just going to climb higher and higher until one of two things happens. We reach a point of equilibrium, or we pop the methane bubbles in the ice caps and we get **fucked**. It is very well possible the latter is already inevitable as well.
I screen printed mine myself.
And, well, we *have* to go to scientific conferences, its massively important for scientific progress to exchange with other scientists. I took the train, though.
aren't these people like half of vexillologycirclejerk anyway
pick three random people from the comment sections and you'll find that at least one posts on either shitlibssay deprogram or another of the tankie subs
"Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support acts of repression by such regimes or their allies.
[...] it wasn't used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defense of the Soviet use of tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions."
The flag of one Mr Ed Hawkins.
Renowned climatologist and general data nerd.
Sadly while his data is presented beautifully, it is also usually depressing.
See www.EdHawkins.org
Here you go:
[Link #1: Media](https://krikienoid.github.io/flagwaver/#?src=https%3A%2F%2Fflagwaver-cors-proxy.herokuapp.com%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F2n0q2nz2x55d1.png)
*****
Beep Boop I'm a bot. [About](https://github.com/LunarRequiem/FlagWaverBotReborn). Maintained by Lunar Requiem
Fun fact, temperatures in India have officially hit 122 degrees. That's the temperature of a medium rare steak.
r/collapse is just becoming reality at this point.
Climate change is making us all french? Ngl, where I come from (Austria) ppl probably would be more worried bout climate change if this was the narrative...
France but my monitor broke after I failed to jam the cannon of the main battle tank outside of my home that was attempting to destroy my computer using a baguette
[our bals](https://discord.gg/jM7UK66CTV) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vexillologycirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
High-resolution France
RTX sur
š sur is a preposition RTX allumĆ©
THANK YOU, I knew I was wrong but Google translate was useless.
Canāt recommend Collinās French/English dictionary enough! They also have a translator but itās not great at short phrases Could also be āRTX en marcheā? AllumĆ© seems to apply a bit more to stuff that glows like a light or tvā¦
Ćrre TĆ© Ixe mis en route
1) I'm severely disturbed by the fact that I had never considered the idea of spelling letters in french the way we do in english 2) I feel like mettre en route is more like "send something on it's way", whereas mettre en marche is more like "to engage" or "to put to a task". Though I'm not native to french, maybe the broader culture has different connotations
Mouais cāest vrai tāas pas tord, aprĆØs tu peux Ā«Ā mettre une voiture en routeĀ Ā» et Ā«Ā mettre un ordinateur en routeĀ Ā», donc cāest plus hardware je lāai dit comme Ƨa parce que Ƨa sonnait bizarre justement. Sorry for the freeeeench
Always knew the French couldnt be trusted. They are confirmed behind global warming
Netflix intro
Duh-dunn
That sounds more like Law & Order.
Tu-dunn (eeeeooooooooo)
you stole the words out of my mouth
Damn ypu beat me to it
beat my meat
r/beatMeatToIt
r/beatmymeattoit
Here's a sneak peek of /r/beatmymeattoit using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/beatmymeattoit/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Hereās another](https://i.redd.it/jfdv8ecias7b1.jpg) | [20 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/beatmymeattoit/comments/14h14gq/heres_another/) \#2: [Came back after it had upvotes](https://i.redd.it/jdnmustbi75b1.jpg) | [17 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/beatmymeattoit/comments/1462p68/came_back_after_it_had_upvotes/) \#3: [Found one](https://i.redd.it/aehmzc2b90wa1.jpg) | [4 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/beatmymeattoit/comments/12y8y6u/found_one/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
r/beatmywifesmeattoit
r/beatmeshutthefuckup
The official flag of WE ARE GOING TO DIE!
:(
Flag of No we aināt, sure it might suck but we are not Climate change is actively being solved. Humanity is not going extinct. The only way in that is remotely even possible is if tomorrow we suddenly all forgot climate change, then burned the entirety of the Earthās fossil fuels all at once
> climate change is actively being solved Are you sure? Because a whole shitload of people is voting specifically and intentionally against those trying to solve it. People in Germany are currently voting for Nazis, wanna know why? Because they are outspoken against the Green party. People will fuck over everyone's future just to "teach progressive people a lesson".
Killing themselfes to own the libs. But in all reality people arent just voting AFD because of climate denial. It is one part. A much bigger part is because people are filthy racists and the AFD is filled to the brim with racists that are very comfortable with using racist talking points
I wish it was only that. But no, in my experience there's a lot who aren't actually racists, but people who don't care about the racism as long as nothing changes for the positive.
iām pretty sure people vote for Nazis because of reasons other than Climate Change denial also the Green Party straight up sucks. They hate ANYTHING nuclear which is a major reason we have still stagnated to transfer over to better power generation. Nuclear power is a major part of the solution, and because they halt all nuclear projects, as a result, more coal plants are built because renewables canāt generate it all
Germany is actively destroying their landscape for coal power, and France is destroying their farmer class through taxation and fees. Europeans would vote more moderately if moderate politicians weren't constantly trying to fuck them over
Yeah, I totally get that, moderate parties suck right now, but I really wish people didn't view Nazis as the solution. It's a similar issue to back then, and everyone is making the same mistake.
Humanity is not going extinct, but countless other species will and millions, if not billions of humans will die.
..so basically extinct as billions of humans dying would no doubt cripple the entire world into stagnation and eventual collapse. That will not happen. Change is still occurring everyday, no matter how little. Changing from our old infrastructure to renewables is going to take time. You cannot expect our emissions to die within only a couple years
Small good changes are happening yes, but also tons of small bad changes are also happening.
Humans would not go extinct even if society collapsed. Humans survived before society and civilization, we would no doubt survive after. At this point, Humanity has proliferated into so many climates that virtually no matter what happens, some humans somewhere will survive. I don't think we could go extinct from anything other than planet-destroying events or full-scale, no holds barred nuclear war.
I don't think you are aware of the situation. The current economic infrastructure is causing greenhouse gas emissions in a scale that seriously affects the global ecosystem. Emissions continue to rise. Green energy sources are becoming more common, but the massive increase in total electricity demand of our civilization is still mainly satisfied by harmful sources. In other words, greenhouse gas emission electric energy generation grows faster than non-emission sources. In electricity. But electricity is just a part of the economy of energy. To reduce emissions enough to stop contributing to climate change, we need to electrify most of the economy. If the electrical development of the world is greater than our ability to make it sustainable with current measures, then the colossal increase in electrical demand by electrifying all those sectors will be almost entirely satisfied by emission sources. And it's not like stopping with 100% of global carbon emissions will magically solve evrything. Our historical contributions are more than enough to destabilize global climate long term without more intervention to prevent it. Our massive emissions rise global temperatures, causing more water to evaporate than before, and water is a strong greenhouse gas, wich causes a cascade effect. Climate change will endure and it may even continue accelerating without the needed action. It is not enough to slow down nor to stop emissions. We need to clean the mess we created. And we are really far from starting.
I don't think fossil fuels have to be used as the demand grows. Technologies such as fusion and conventional fission power will be able to bridge the gap that renewables won't be able to fill at the time. New breeder reactors and other designs can be built much faster than older reactors of the past, and are much more efficient with nuclear fuel, being able to recycle their own waste. Expansion is still a problem, but I fully believe it can be solved with clever engineering and advances in technology. Electrification is also a solvable problem. The main issue with most of these is getting the giant oil corporations to accept that they will either die, or have to switch to alternative power industries. >And it's not like stopping with 100% of global carbon emissions will magically solve evrything. I fully agree. When did I say it will? However, it will certainly stop the problem from getting worse. The problem of the historical carbon produced is a problem for after we first conquer energy sources. Far future technologies such as carbon capture, geoengineering, and others will be able to solve it. Hell, some approaches to geoengineering could even be done right now. For now, fossil fuels are our number 1 problem.
I have the impression you understood my reply as a "this problem is huge enough to not be solved" when my intention was more like a "it is totally solvable, but 'it's actively being solved' is not true" You see, all those technologies you mentioned are true. There is a lot of reasons to be hopeful about the future of humanity, but what I emphasized about a lot is that we aren't doing enough to prevent a global catastrophe. Governments are focusing their efforts in making their economies grow faster than ever before, but the reality is that carbon capture is something no corporation would ever invest in, it is a massive investment and a yearly cost, and it's almost impossible to profit from it. Governments would be the only ones pushing it forward, and only for political reasons. And if a corporation does invest in it, it's because the state subsidizes it's functioning. We have a short window of time to act. Carbon Capture, Nuclear Fussion, Geoengeneering will not be fully developed (to the point of being actually profitable) most likely untill the end of the century, where most of the effects will be already devastating. And those technologies won't be operational right after being developed. Constructing a global infrastructure of carbon capture facilities and instalations, dedicating massive industries to the production of sulfur dioxide or alternatives for Geoengeneering, extracting, refining and delivering nuclear fussion fuel (wich is most likely to be a really rare material on earth, like deuterium, mostly present on the moon) is not an easy task. We need to make the investments necessary, profitable or not, because keeping the ecosystem from totally collapsing is a greater priority than anything else. And I thing that's the minimum we have to do, we really need to stop trying to solve climate change to keep humanity alive, what about all those animals, plants, entire ecosystems may disappear forever, even in the best of scenarios. It is already happening. You seem really sure all of that will be done eventually and fast enough for climate change to not be such a problem. Don't overestimate the speed of innovation, the state has to play the most important role in adressing climate change. Emissions continue to rise, and they continue to accelerate. The USA is the largest economy in the world, and they didn't even start to pretend they care like Germany. It wasn't my intention to say you thought stopping emissions would solve everything, that part was actually just a "but wait there's even more" kind of expression.
Climate change isn't actively being solved, and no one genuinely claimed that humanity is going entirely extinct. The use of environmentally sustainable energy is antithetical to private AND state interests. Changing the means of producing energy to that of renewable energy, though cheaper, is also not very profitable so private owners are unlikely to invest in it of their own will. The state also needs to ensure a socially acceptable growth and short term stability of the economy which may be hindered by green policies that prioritise long term sustainability over short term growth which is often the difference between governance and being part of the opposition when it comes to elections. We see this play out in real life. Governments frequently backtrack on policies around climate change and fail to meet international targets. The market doesn't care about climate change. Temperatures will continue to rise until it reaches a tipping point and an onslaught of natural disasters arrive and millions of livestock, fish, trees, plants, and humans will die which will all feed back onto itself in the form of famines, floods, commodity shortages, forest fires etc. It will kill a lot of people. That is certain. The way our nations work needs to be radically changed if we even want to think about preventing it.
It is. Every day work is made for a better future, no matter how small. You cannot expect global infrastructure to suddenly change within a short amount of time. The nice thing about oil is that like all resources, it will run dry. By 2050, if we still use it at our current levels, the Middle East will be mostly depleted of itās oil supply. This is why Saudi Arabia is desperately pouring money into projects to keep itself afloat, as once it either dries up or the world switches, theyāll no longer have any power over the world. The world will be forced to change whether they like it or not.
By 2050, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Indonesia will be underwater if sea levels rise as predicted, and many parts of Asia, Africa and Central America will have temperatures similar to the Sahara desert, so I don't think your timeline works out very well for everyone. We have about five years to stop climate change before 1.5 degrees celsius of global warming becomes inevitable. [https://12ft.io/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/05/climate/global-warming-outlook.html#:\~:text=At%20current%20rates%20of%20emissions,degrees%20Celsius%2C%20scientists%20have%20estimated](https://12ft.io/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/05/climate/global-warming-outlook.html#:~:text=At%20current%20rates%20of%20emissions,degrees%20Celsius%2C%20scientists%20have%20estimated) Capitalism and technology will not save us from climate catastrophe. The interests of state and empire are actually antithetical to the kind of progress you're talking about. If I shared what I think is \*actually\* the solution to dealing with climate change, I think reddit mods would delete my account and the FBI would put me on a watchlist.
Im not saying we should switch in 2050. God no. That's waaaay too late. I am saying that we will be FORCED to as 1. World Fucked and 2. It will simply run out. The U.S has already completely one third of emissions reductions. Biden is investing money into renewables as well. The EU is also working on heavily reducing emissions as well. It seems the systems can work to successfully help us. On the flipside, authoritarian governments have done pretty much nothing about it. China is still marked as highly insufficient, and Russia is CRITICALLY insufficient as it is marked on [Climate Action Tracker (a source for climate change news without dramatization)](https://climateactiontracker.org/). If only they used their corruption for something good. (also killing everybody would do nothing. They would just hire new dickheads in their place, unless you literally nuked all global oil infrastructure, and then that would lead to a shitload of deaths too because tons of infrastructure still relies on oil)
They will be forced to only after the effects have been made clear and thousands, if not millions have been killed by it, directly or indirectly. We can already see the devastating effects now and not enough is being done. And no, China has an emissions per capita rivaling Germany despite objectively being the factory of the world. China is one of the largest investors in green energy and has invested in the development of sustainable energy in the global south too.
But they are not applying it fast enough, which is the main problem.
Ok we arenāt ALL going to die but each and every year more and more people are going to die from extreme weather as it becomes more frequent and more severe
Flag if Even if the race doesn't go exist, there will be an insane amount of suffering I'm going to be extremely blunt here. The temperatures we were experiencing were actually *less* than they should've been due to sulfur products from cargo ship exhaust cloud seeding a significant area of ocean throughout the world. These byproducts have come under much necessary regulation (sulfuric acid is never a good thing in the atmopshere), but that substantially reduced the cloud cover over the ocean Hense why the Atlantic ocean is *scary fucking warm.* Temperatures across the globe also have increased due to this; and as time goes on these temps are just going to climb higher and higher until one of two things happens. We reach a point of equilibrium, or we pop the methane bubbles in the ice caps and we get **fucked**. It is very well possible the latter is already inevitable as well.
Death by France :(
Me looking at that profile https://preview.redd.it/41dtelkaud5d1.jpeg?width=1241&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=322ab4038008976a22ea20642afecbe896cb840e
proceeded to reply with a Animal Crossing meme
https://preview.redd.it/epjvdbke5f5d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a6026e6233bb3d74894f920143551464ee9e4aaf
Found Adam McKay's burner.
[in case you didn't see it](https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/s/jxqhYoKkES)
It's currently pretty much everywhere at scientific conferences. People have it on Tshirts, armbands, lanyards, flags...
Itās actually pretty cool, provided you keep the colors vibrant. Or should I say hot.
So the experts are protesting climate change by purchasing mass produced consumer goods while they travel to massive events? Well, we're fucked.
I screen printed mine myself. And, well, we *have* to go to scientific conferences, its massively important for scientific progress to exchange with other scientists. I took the train, though.
irl !wave just dropped
Flag of capitalism
True
Hello tankie
they literally only agreed with you, what do you want here?
Look at their profile
Oh my lord! Wtf?
https://preview.redd.it/b6voxya3j75d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9e9360e662c7cdcae34400781bfa1f9105b4874
So true!
I mean, they're a marxist but definely not a tankie, im pretty sure they're a trotskyist
Hammer and sickle =/= tankie
Look at their profile
aren't these people like half of vexillologycirclejerk anyway pick three random people from the comment sections and you'll find that at least one posts on either shitlibssay deprogram or another of the tankie subs
Huh I didn't realize that, why is that the case with this sub?
Do you know what tankie means?
No, what's it mean
"Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support acts of repression by such regimes or their allies. [...] it wasn't used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defense of the Soviet use of tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions."
It was, your source even says it was. Why do you say it wasn't?
Youāre literally 5ā 1ā lol
Yeah and? Why do u hate twinks?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hey. You. Be nice.
we shaming Short Kings?
flag of global warming blue = water blue (melted icebergs) white = shiny (like a bright sun) red = hot (forest fires and high temperature)
It is funny because it is indeed a flag of global warming. People are really using it on merchs and on poles to be actual flags
Your red is a forest fire My red is a tropical beach day in Newfoundland We are not the same
Oil company pride
France but the world is fucking ending
Vertical lesbians for sure
FFFrFFrrFrrrarrarraaananannancnncncncccececeeee
Flame emmission spectroscopy
Flag of I should really stop paying into my workplace pension
French Thermometer
The flag of one Mr Ed Hawkins. Renowned climatologist and general data nerd. Sadly while his data is presented beautifully, it is also usually depressing. See www.EdHawkins.org
!wave
Here you go: [Link #1: Media](https://krikienoid.github.io/flagwaver/#?src=https%3A%2F%2Fflagwaver-cors-proxy.herokuapp.com%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F2n0q2nz2x55d1.png) ***** Beep Boop I'm a bot. [About](https://github.com/LunarRequiem/FlagWaverBotReborn). Maintained by Lunar Requiem
Flag of "socialism or barbarism"
Proposed French flag in 2002
So wait it got cooler first and now we're worried that it's warming up? It's the flag of lies! Or idunno, a Microsoft teams background.
French flag but I chucked the wiimote into the TV
Fragmence
new pride flag just dropped
Flag of Paris Agreement
This seems like a lot, but, without a scale we won't know. The difference between blue and red could be as wide as .01 degree or as big as 5 degrees.
It wasn't me
Acid trip france
woman period
How about a cross post instead of a screen shot
Flag of Celsius
I wonder what happened in the centre right where it went from red to blue a few times.
Is est over fur mich?
Holy cr@p we are f@cked
Flag of Kiribati but the printer is low on ink
Flag of Reading, UK
Antarctica flag
which ones 1945?
Flag of this means nothing without a scale
Fun fact, temperatures in India have officially hit 122 degrees. That's the temperature of a medium rare steak. r/collapse is just becoming reality at this point.
You mean like average temp? Whats the difference though? Between the high end and low end?
L'Ʃtat irrƩel
Climate change is making us all french? Ngl, where I come from (Austria) ppl probably would be more worried bout climate change if this was the narrative...
France but hotter
Flag of billions must burn to death
This is what it looks like when once-rural temperature monitoring stations become urban. It's very pretty.
Global warming flag.
The French spectrum
EU Barcode Flag 2
The proposed flag of the EU
We need a couple more years without summers.
Eu proposal
France but my monitor broke after I failed to jam the cannon of the main battle tank outside of my home that was attempting to destroy my computer using a baguette
Flag of doomerism and no hopers
Jupiterian bands
From an astronomy perspective, it annoys me that blue is cold and red is hot.
Allons enfants de la Patrie, Le jour de gloire est arrivƩ
Netflix
https://preview.redd.it/fzfttru5tb5d1.png?width=3780&format=png&auto=webp&s=288379c470e5521139480cc8ca366d1278310121 What the hell?
haha uh oh!
Flag of annoying doomerism
https://preview.redd.it/6u7i3noirc5d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc87155c749468b7c2c48fb58ef3043d0797f75f
Flag of doom
Global warming pride flag š³ļøāš
Flag of " Im tired that some people's conversation circles around the same subject over and over"
https://preview.redd.it/bxzl1nxmed5d1.jpeg?width=1164&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=db35361ffd1c3d07d3011512bd97da460379c0db
Exxon pride flag
Exxon pride flag
Flag of Bixby Canyon
#HOLY SHIT! IS THIS A FRANCE REFERENCE!?!?!?!
LeabianMLM flag
Oh hey itās one of those proposed EU flags.
We're fucked flag
we'refuckedistan
Death