🧵 Become knowledgable about environenmental probelems
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:10:06 UTC No. 16589003
What papers do I have to read to understand the current state of the climate change, topsoil depletion and resource scarcity? What books do I have to read to understand the papers in first place? Is it possible to get a surface level understanding of this stuff in a year in self-study it, just by being a NEET interested in the current state of this stuff? I'm tired of being uninformed and only being able to rely on others for this. What are the common go-to papers people refer to when they state "experts say this about climate change/the environment"? It's probably to a large part just liars referring to something nobody will check anyway, but I want to check the sources and make my own mind about this, at least on a surface level.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:39:58 UTC No. 16589462
https://www.ipcc.ch/
this is the UN's climate change science assessment arm
it has a huge amount of science information. it also has summaries for policy makers which is easy to understand for laypeople. all conclusions are given a confidence rating to indicate how certain or uncertain the conclusions are to being correct
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:59:32 UTC No. 16589478
>>16589003
>knowledgable
>environenmental
>probelems
Maybe read a dictionary first?
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:01:18 UTC No. 16589482
>>16589478
Proper english spelling if for FAGGOTS
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:43:57 UTC No. 16589759
>>16589482
Based
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:02:42 UTC No. 16589882
>>16589462
Thanks, I will look into it.
>>16589478
I know I am shit at writing, but what do you recommend then? It really feels like you wanted to make fun of me without actually being helpful. How exactly do you read a dictionary? That's not very helpful advice, I would say. Most likely I am just too low IQ to have proper spelling, lack the needed education to be good at English and it's not my first language either. I get reading the texts of an imbecile is annoying, but you are not very helpful.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:45:45 UTC No. 16590585
>>16589003
who is this? she is cute
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:04:22 UTC No. 16590610
>>16589003
>Is it possible to get a surface level understanding of this stuff in a year in self-study it,
the wikipedia article on climate change is a good start and condenses enough information to make you more well-informed than most laymen who would like to talk about climate change
it's one of the most well-edited articles on the entire site.
from then on out, you can expand your knowledge through this site that compiles real-world examples and gives extensive yet digestible explanations by way of comparing contemporary claims relating to climate change with the current understanding of climate science
https://science.feedback.org/review
if you're still interested in the topic and want something heavier, read andrew dessler's "introduction to modern climate change", it strikes a great middle ground for laymen and generalists in terms of complexity and detail
>What are the common go-to papers people refer to when they state "experts say this about climate change/the environment"?
wikipedia's article on the hockey stick condenses a various studies into very digestible sections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hocke
wikipedia generally provides great resources on all topics climate related, so you can keep consulting it for explanations and available studies
scroll to the bottom and expand the purple "climate change" panel
>It's probably to a large part just liars referring to something nobody will check anyway
nonsense, climate change has been independently corroborated by climate scientists globally and has a very strong consensus
climate change detractors don't usually do their own research, they pick and choose articles (that disagree with them) and nitpick details that are easy to misinterpret by laymen to fuel an anti-academia narrative
>>16589882
>but what do you recommend then?
pic-related
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:19:05 UTC No. 16590632
>>16590585
Seconding this
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 22:12:45 UTC No. 16591889
>>16589003
Daily reminder that I need to know who this artist/character is because she's cute
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:41:13 UTC No. 16593116
>>16590585
this
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:13:53 UTC No. 16593682
>>16590585
Probably just an artist OC, you can find the tweet on SauceNAO
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 05:12:33 UTC No. 16595943
>>16593682
I am going to kidnap the artist.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 05:13:34 UTC No. 16595945
>>16595943
i have chaned my mind because kidnapping is illegal (I forgot at the time)
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Feb 2025 02:22:26 UTC No. 16597010
>>16589003
>What papers do I have to read to understand the current state of the climate change, topsoil depletion and resource scarcity?
Certain European Universities put up their curse curricula for free on the web including literary sources they structure their courses around. You should check there. I think Copenhagen has one that does this, what you're looking for is "Environmental Science" and maybe some "Environmental Engineering" at bachelor levels.
>Is it possible to get a surface level understanding of this stuff in a year in self-study it, just by being a NEET interested in the current state of this stuff?
Yes, if you're into it and have some basic knowledge of chemistry.
>What books do I have to read to understand the papers in first place?
Chemistry, Statistics. Need to know the basics.
>What are the common go-to papers people refer to when they state "experts say this about climate change/the environment"?
IPCC mainly
>It's probably to a large part just liars referring to something nobody will check anyway, but I want to check the sources and make my own mind about this, at least on a surface level.
I can assure you, while there may be some charlatans, must of the environmental scientists and engineers and such are not liars. It's a problem for them too you know? They say "This or that is happening because of X", and the journalist twists it into "SCIENTIST SAYS WE'RE ALL DOOMED"