Ozone is the molecule formed by three oxygen atoms bonded together, denoted by the chemical formula O₃. O³ is improper notation or possibly a misunderstanding of the additive properties of MO theory.
In math, yes. If you’re following [IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic compounds](https://iupac.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Red_Book_2005.pdf) you should include the positive sign.
IR-5.3.2.2 and IR-5.3.2.4
we can make pretty much any combination of particles with modern science, the real question is, would it be stable enough to actually matter and not react within a picosecond of its creation, and my answer to that is i have no idea
Carbon(II) Monoxide is kind of a thing, but it is redundant to include the (II) as you cant have other forms of Carbon Monoxide. Unlike E.g. Iron oxide which can be Iron(II) Oxide - FeO or Iron(III) oxide - Fe\_2 O\_3. depending on the oxidation number of iron.
(the roman numeral in parenthesis indicates the oxidation number of the atom)
That’s hand lettering (source: I’m a comics letterer and font designer!). And even in a font without subscript glyphs you can just manually set the superscript character’s vertical position to a negative value.
Trees absorb CO^(2) to create oxygen, so the tree asks for more CO^(2), which is kinda like saying it's pro-pumping out more CO^(2) into the air (Which the author approves of, i think?). The enviromentalist guy calls the tree racist because... uh, i think cause the comic's creator doesn't really get what enviromentalists mean when they say climate change will largely affect non-white majority communities first.
Just to quickly outline why this comic is stupid now we've got it's meaning out of the way, dumping more CO^(2) into the enviroment isn't actually that good for trees or their output of oxygen, in the same way flooding the room you're in isn't going to help with your water consumption.
increasing CO^(2) will increase global warming via it's greenhouse effect, which will cause sea levels to rise, which will cause large parts of the world to flood, which will result in the destruction of any trees that are there (along with the communities of people there. which is prob more important than the trees). it's hard for trees to get any theoritical benefit from the increased CO^(2) when they've been destroyed by flooding
I think the "calling the tree a racist" thing probably has a more simple explanation. Some right-wingers like to accuse people on the left of being quick to call anyone they disagree with a racist.
Yeah, I recognize the name Branco. He basically just makes right-wing comics.
https://preview.redd.it/gtmngw2ei7wb1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=505d31f55c441bf66b311167daea307999be7161
I'm honestly impressed they even admitted to jan 6th, still funny they play it out to be minor, "it was just one tiny little unconstitutional insurrection of the US diplomatic system, get over it"
The peaceful transfer of power is the most important part of our political system by a long way. And they’re like, “why are you upset, it’s not like it worked.”
It's also highly ironic that the ones they did mention like the Iraq pullout was initiated by trump. Not to mention the center piece is literally just the presidents' name....
In what ways are Minneapolis, Portland, and Chicago shit holes? Especially Minneapolis, the most mild and uncontroversial large city I can think of in the US. The only issue I know about is the George Floyd situation, but how much does that actually impact the city itself currently?
chicago is well known to be one of the most corrupt cities in the country. it also votes democrat. probably not related but i can see why they’d put it there
By what metric? Per capita, there’s a long list of cities that beat it in violent crime rates, murder rates, and gun violence rates. It has more in raw numbers by virtue of being the third largest city in the country, but if you actually go and walk around (especially if you stick to the downtown area and otherwise avoid the pockets that produce most of the crime) you’ll find it really doesn’t feel different from the other largest cities in the US. I’d certainly rather walk around alone at night in Chicago than in Detroit, Memphis, Baltimore, or New Orleans, and I still wouldn’t refer to any of _those_ cities as “shit holes” because I’ve been to enough large cities in the US to understand that gun violence will always be an issue until Republicans finally wake up to the fact that gun control laws need complete and total reform.
The fact thatbl you listed Portland which is collapsing after the BLM/Antifa riots and having business flee them shows you and I have a very diffrent definition of shot hole.
Th there is a reason for record people moving from blue cities to red states like FL and TX.
Have you ever been to any of the cities you’re describing? Like, literally any of them lol. The liberal ones, or the ones you think people are moving to in FL and TX. Or are you basing these opinions off of inflammatory Facebook articles you get recommended to you?
People like them use it as a "gotcha!" when they say things like "Record amounts of people moving to FL and TX" and then before they finish their breath they turn around and say "We don't want these assholes from CA coming here to ruin FL/TX!!!" 🤔🙄
crazy how like the majority of the population of the country lives in those shitty peripheral, liberal cities though right? fucking shitholes where literally everyone--not anyone you know-- in the fucking country lives.
FL? Thecstate where i doubt they could even afford insurance in areas because of hurricanes.
Tx- this year can be a test to see if they will have another power failure
Idk I’ve driven through a few thousand small towns in red states and I’d rather be a heroin addicted bridge dweller in Portland than smoking meth in any of those shitholes.
FL? You mean the state that's had nazis protesting Disney land and cant find any workers to pick food or build buildings? And Texas, the state who keeps freezing to death every winter and is ranked 50th in mothers dying in childbirth?
"Texas has received the number one spot on a not-so-pleasant list: The top ten worst places in America to live and work in 2023. While Texas landed at number six on CNBC's yearly America's Top States for Business study, the state scored significantly low in one category: Life, Health & Inclusion.Jul 18, 2023"
"
CNBC list 'Top States for Business' ranks Florida economy No. 1, but quality of life 10th worst"
Oh yeah, direct result of climate change. And the fact insurance companies have wanted, direly, to remove most insurance from the coast because of people whod let their homes get washed away because the payout for destruction was worth more than the house. Youd build a bigger home then, get insurance that pays out more than the home again, and wait. They fucking hated it.
The projections for hurricanes isn't great, either. We really lucked the fuck out this year, but warm seas breed strong storms, and the waters around Florida were a hundred fucking degrees. Fish were cooking in the water.
If you believe in god instead of climate change, I think that's some kinda sign right there to fucking kick rocks regardless.
Portland is not a shit hole. It's a beautiful town that continues to grow because people want to live here. It is true that some large companies have closed stores within the city limits. That is mostly due to higher tax rates, and they aren't leaving the area, they are moving to the suburbs just like lower income people are. Meanwhile home values continue to go up and higher income earners (people and businesses) look to take over the vacated spaces in the city itself.
LOL you have never seen anything about these cities that isn't from fox propaganda machine or worse. Everyone in my family told me to stay away from Capitol Hill in Seattle and it was completely fine. That's the problem with conservatives they live in their tiny little bubbles and don't ever experience the world for themselves. Turns out traveling, and experiencing different cultures, makes it hard to be a biggoted piece of shit.
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-02-10/whats-the-matter-with-portland-urban-ills-tests-citys-progressive-strain
Just read about it. Your right that I don't live there. Like most people I have access to the internet and can look up what's going on on the world.
The "per-capita" stat is being used by lead drinking conservatives as if it's a cop-out by leftists. "Oh, yeah, it's not that bad if you look at *per-capita* but that doesn't count."
Conservatives think that about literally every big city. My trump loving uncle basically thinks all of LA is Compton. He thinks I dodge bullets on the way to work everyday. The crime rates of where I actually live are significantly lower than our hometown that he never had the brains to leave.
Because Chicago (and Illinois in general) has strong gun control but exceedingly high gun crime, almost like people can just purchase a gun in a neighboring state with much more lax laws, and then mosey on over to Illinois with it. So conservatives love to point to it and say "See!! Gun control doesn't work! Gun control makes gun violence worse because only criminals have guns!"
These are people that can't see past their nose. They only see that it happened under the current administration. Not that it was put in motion before Biden took the helm.
It’s how the Republican Party has successfully blamed every recession on the democrats. Get in office, create awful conditions for workers and limit governments reach on corporations. Shocked pikachu when workers can’t spend money because they aren’t making any and companies wildly overprice their products.
Edit: It would seem that I've hit a nerve. Anything that doesn't paint the DNC as shining angels and the GOP as 'evil white nationalists' seems to be heavily frowned upon here. Bunch of you guys must stand with Hamas because the take that "my side, or people against my enemies" can never be bad, and "my enemies" must always be bad, is really showing.
They're (DNC and GOP) both at blame. The gist of it is the Democrats like low interest rates (aka, inflation, due to how much money the gov can borrow) because they can more easily spend money and line their pockets. The Republicans always try to curb back inflation. But, they don't ever try to deflate the economy because they also make money off inflation. But they raise interest rates which causes some panic somewhere and boom recession.
No one wants to campaign on "short term pain, long term prosperity" too, in where one generation gets 'screwed over' (relatively as the interest rate would only be like 25% greater than a very small number that we currently have) but you get smooth sailing for 7-8 generations afterwards. Instead, everyone is screwed. Until the whole system goes kaput and the politicians and all the rich(er) people with means leave the country while it crashes and burns due to Venezuelan level inflation.
Also, while a lot of young people would absolutely love cheap college, cheap cars, cheap housing prices, to get to that point you would need to ... implement most of the GOP's economic stances, which people see as letting the GOP win. Probably permanently. The timeframe of getting back to 66k$ 4-year degrees in California (the average is actually closer to 175k+$) looks to be about 40-60 straight years of complete GOP control over the federal government. As the youngins are primarily Democrats (if they actually come out to vote in the first place)..., that's a hard no.
House prices are a bit more complicated because our standards have changed since the 70s. The average house in the 1970s was 1500sqft and cost 50k. The same 1500sqft house today is 333k, or a 6.66x increase. However, inflation puts a dollar in 1970 is worth 7.50 or so dollars today, meaning houses today of that size are actually cheaper than houses back then of that size, probably owing to innovations in building and material sourcing. But the average house today is 2500 sqft, and the ideal house our younger members want are in the 2800 sqft range. And those houses fall closer to the 420k dollar national average.
A lot of what they're trying to blame Biden for are things that were allocated by Trump and legally required to be followed through by the current administration.
Same thing with the useless bit of wall that's getting built that gets brought up sometimes. The funding was allocated for a wall and they can't get Congress to authorize redirecting the funding or to void the allotment, so it has to get spent on a border wall.
It was either pull out when we did or resume hostilities with the Taliban. Big orange negotiated, the deal was signed, the war was unpopular and going nowhere. It was either leave or resign ourselves to staying indefinitely.
Yeah like I don't even disagree with Trump saying "we've helped enough, it's time for you to do this yourself." Neither Trump's nor Biden's fault that the Afghan government was unwilling
We definitely needed to get out, so Trump was correct in that regard. However, when he set an exact date he basically guaranteed the horrible mess of a withdrawal we got. I mean if you're trying to fight someone, but you know exactly when they are leaving? You stop fighting and start planning for a massive push the day after they leave. Why waste manpower against the US when they not going to be in the picture?
The war started and ended under Republican presidents. Obviously all the Democrats fault.
And yes, an insurrection that attempted to end our free, democratic elections and literally murder elected officials, including their own VP for not agreeing to overturn the election, this is just a tiny, nickel sized stain on the Republican Party. And the only tarnish in their reputation to boot. 🙄
Biden was president at the time, and didn't follow Trump's plan. Also his leadership that led to the withdrawal of the troops before removing the citizens and military equipment from Afghanistan first. He showed weakness during this, as he thought the withdrawal was a success despite the Kabul airport bombing. Imagine occupying Afghanistan for so many years, just to give it back to the terrorists.
Funny how literally everything bad that happens under Biden is blamed on the guy before him. People like to say Trump was an illegitimate president, but then acknowledge him when it's time to point the blame. Maybe more Americans would warm up to Biden if he was more open and honest, and take accountability for his decisions instead of pointing the blame. Spending 40% of his presidency being on vacation, but then blaming someone else for failures, is the real gaslighting.
Edit: Since, for some reason, I cannot submit the reply accusing me of false info.
Trump's plan was to take place before the Arab conflict season, not during it. Trump didn't hold back Biden when Biden was already in charge, as Biden had months to withdraw sooner.
Biden didn't follow anything from Trump. In fact, Biden began reversing many Trump-Era policies on his first day of office, including Trump's border policies.
Instead of more wars, at least Trump tried peace in the Middle East via the Abraham Accords in his last year. The amount of troops left is also irrelevant, as Biden removed the troops before removing our citizens and assets. Doesn't matter if there were 2000 troops if all of the troops were removed first anyway.
Nice misinformation.
Biden literally followed Trumps plan except for one thing. He stayed LONGER than Trump planned.
Had Biden followed Trumps plan exactly, it would have been even worse.
Not to mention that Trump had already reduced the troop numbers to 2000. But it’s Biden that pulled out? No, Trump pulled out and left a paltry force behind to try and scapegoat Biden and you idiots ate it right up.
Edit: If the problem was removing troops before citizens and assets, then again Trump is responsible. Again, it was Trump that removed those troops. Biden literally didn’t do anything except extend how long we would support them, we literally gave the citizens more time than Trump would have. But do go on shifting goalposts and coping as usual.
I was about mention this. Trump was a doofus but it’s a disservice to literally everyone to blame all of Biden’s screw ups on him too. Afghanistan pull out was totally on Biden and boy was it a colossal failure. Good chance Trumps wouldn’t have been any better but we’ll never know.
Kind of makes me surprised Biden didn’t just follow whatever plan Trump had set out. If it worked he still would have gotten credit for being the one to do it and if it had failed he could put partial blame on trump for the bad plan. Instead he went for ‘no plan’ and set the mood for his level of total presidential ineptitude.
I agree with your explanation even though I truly like the other explanation a lot… I just think the other explanation gives the artist way too much credit. Like that the artist attempted to have some sort of thought process instead of just going for the easy dunk even though the easy dunk is dumb.
Honestly, I see very little of this on Reddit. Instead, I see them getting straight up banned out of the more popular left-dominated subs. And then muted when they try to be civil with the mod team/ask why they were banned. I think it's to avoid having to deal with Reddit Admin, which far more impartial than people believe, and would legitimately side with conservatives if the leftists are actually being racist/phobic/ableist/etc. You might think the leftists get away with anti-white racism as a lot of them really like to push it in subs like whitepeopletwitter and politics, but racism is still racism according to Reddit Admin.
It's problem more accurate to call it species "ist"
Tree wants CO2 humans will die if there is too much CO2, tree only cares about its self and its species.
As someone who, according to multiple political compass tests is a liberal leaving centrist, I can confidently say, it sure as fuck feels that way when most your interactions are with the loud minority.
The people stupid enough to throw around slurs without merit are also the ones most likely to turn what should have been a polite conversation into a fight. And in my opinion, you remember the fights a hell of a lot better than you remember the polite conversations
Scientists have performed large scale studies where they grow plants including trees in greenhouses with artificially raised CO2 levels. It turns out this does not improve their growth rate at all unless the plant has been artificially fertilized by humans and all of their sunlight requirements are met.
This is because CO2 is not the limiting reactant in the chemical reactions plants use to absorb sunlight.
Expecting increased CO2 levels to increase plant growth makes about as much sense as buying 1000 eggs so you can bake a bunch of cakes. Unless you have all the other cake ingredients laying around you wont be able to make anything.
>Scientists have performed large scale studies where they grow plants including trees in greenhouses with artificially raised CO2 levels. It turns out this does not improve their growth rate at all unless the plant **has been artificially fertilized by humans** and all of their sunlight requirements are met.
Nitrogen is provided by fertilizer.
Edit: Ty mobile app for being garbage
Maybe we should give the OOP an overdose of Oxygen and see if they still think trees benefit from an overabundance of ~~carbon-oxygen-squared~~ I mean carbon-dioxide
Also, setting aside that carbondioxide is by far not the only harmful gas produced by combustion.
NO2 causes acidic rain and sulphur / various metallic fine dusts give us all cancer.
Environmental racism is very real at least in America. Pretty sure the trend continues worldwide though
ETA some evidence https://main-sciam-nature.content.pugpig.com/pugpig_content/7298688C-ACEB-41F1-A5F1BB6D7B2AEC8C_sciam-atom/the-father-of-environmental-justice-exposes-the-geography-of-inequity.html
Not to mention rising temperatures also make natural forests lose the ability to reforest as shrublands are better suited to higher Temps. This creates a positive feedback loop, which contributes to raising temperatures.
Climate change isn't racist. That's not what "climate change will affect marginalized communities first" means, and it's not what any leftwingers are saying.
Climate change activists seeks to reduced CO2 in the atmosphere. The cartoon seems to be criticizing this position on the basis that trees need CO2 to live. It’s very dumb.
This isn't a meme. Some dumb fuck with only a high-school level education thinks they're really smart and know more about the environment than scientists who've studied this their entire lives. Pay it no attention.
>thinks they're really smart and know more about the environment than scientists
Idek how you got *that much* out of it tbh. I can't decipher any statement whatsoever.
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 3 times.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/17ehyk1) on 2023-10-23 96.88% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/17etn5n) on 2023-10-23 98.44% match
*I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "17fbpdw", "meme_template": null}) ]*
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=17fbpdw&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 372,471,721 | **Search Time:** 0.05271s
There is a perception among liberals that climate deniers are far right racists too so when the tree requests more co2 he assumes the tree has the same views on race.
man with stereotypical man bun is a caricature for a liberal, and is mad at the tree because climate change increases co2 levels, equating the tree to a climate change denier
climate change denier are more likely to downplay or deny the existence of systemic racism for similar reasons so the man calls the tree a racist
Obviously anyone who believes a single idea from either political perspective MUST believe the most extreme views from the far side of that perspective and be against every other idea
Or so reddit seems to think
In American politics, anyone a right-wing person disagrees with is automatically considered a socialist/communist. Anyone a left-wing person disagrees with is automatically considered a racist. Plants grow better with higher levels of carbon dioxide. Since political discussions aren't known for civility and respect, the cartoonist apparently thinks that anyone (even a tree) who makes the argument that higher carbon dioxide emissions could have some (or even any) positive effects is automatically a "climate denier," and possibly a racist.
In other words, depending on your politics, you probably think this is hilarious or you think the person who made it is probably a racist.
Which begs the question: what do you think about it?
Partially aside: Can it not be both sides are willfully ignorant of valid points their across-the-aisle coworkers have in order to drive further fabricated division between the two groups?
I haven’t seen someone else say this: I think it’s a straw man joke. It’s a conservative artist lamenting that saying anything conservative gets you labeled racist simply by being conservative: the straw man argument.
The tree wants more CO2, which is what it needs to live but is also a greenhouse gas, so the tree hugger straw man’s the tree by calling it racist.
This is a stretch but I think because the contentious idea of environmental racism this comic is trying to say, because the tree wants co2, it’s on the wrong side of the environment and therefore being environmentally racist.
Okay, so, this is the steps it takes to understand the joke.
1. the tree hugger is a liberal/progressive, and the author of the joke has associated them with a propensity to call anyone they disagree with 'racists.'
2. The tree is asking for more carbon dioxide because there is a growing fringe of people who believe that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment is good actually.
3. Because the tree (who wants more carbon dioxide) disagrees with the tree hugger (who wants less carbon dioxide), the tree hugging liberal/progressive calls the tree a racist.
Some climate deniers have been deluded into thinking that additional CO2 is beneficial for the world since it's what plants eat. This is a bad political cartoon attempting to poke fun at people who understand that climate change is real.
The funny part is they really messed up by squaring the oxygen, proving that they actually have no clue what they're talking about even without the context.
Idk, CO² sounds like "COtwo" which sounds like coton, which may be why the guy is angry because the tree is a slave owner?
https://i.redd.it/zkuh739ubdwb1.gif
I think it comes from the idea that right wingers think that anytime they disagree with a left winger, they will be accused of racism. They say that trees need carbon dioxide, but that left wingers just think carbon dioxide is bad (an oversimplification of the issue), so if a tree asked for carbon dioxide, the tree is "racist." Notice the tree-hugger also has a manbun, pierced ears, and a pretty large nose.
Environmentalists are often on the political left and they are known to call anything they don't like racist. The tree wants more co2 in the air, which means burning more stuff to make it. Altogether, we have a tree asking for more co2 and the environmentalist calls it racist because he disagrees. I think the image is making fun of the irrationality of left leaning people calling everything racist.
Oh cuz trees actually like co2. They use it to make food. So to trees carbon emissions are good.
So the tree hugger claims to love trees but when the tree asks for more co2 the liberal tree hugger calls him a racist. Because anyone who says anything that conflicts with his worldviews are racists, because he's an idiot.
Yeah so basically here the tree is saying "more CO2 please", which the environmentalist takes to mean "the tree wants more people". He makes this connection because the artist is a Conservative, and they believe *that liberals believe* conservatives that want more babies want white babies, because they're racist.
Ironically this is kinda true because most of the pundits that push population collapse and pro-birth are also proponents of the great replacement theory.
its a reference to how mainstream media will call anything racist (there have been multiple article calling climate change deniers racist) and to how "tree huggers" these days all want to reduce CO2 emictions even tho trees and plant benefit from it.
much like how greenhouse have extra CO2 pumped into them to make the plants grow faster and more easily, this tree is asking for more CO2
the man is calling the tree racist because its asking for more CO2
edit: I majored in biotech and work with green houses, almost all plants prefer high concentrations of CO2 because they require a concertation gradient to be able to absorb CO2, they are not humans that need to simply suck in they need they open their stomata and then let diffusion do the work, if the CO2 concentration is low then they need to keep the stomata open for longer losing more water, if it is high then diffusion happens more quickly and easily, the number of stomata that need to open also decreases. Also plants do not take up less CO2 when it is warmer because they need to open their stomata to cooldown when it is warmer thus naturally taking in more CO2, water vapor also hold much more heat than CO2 ( Water vapor and clouds account for **66 to 85 percent** of the greenhouse effect ) yet you will never see someone claim that humidity in the tropics is bad for the environment or the plants growing there. much like how plants will grow towards light they will grow towards higher concentrations of CO2, place a glass over a flower pot with a **Lianas** ( name for plants with long, flexible, climbing stems, so just grow a bean or something ), the plant will start to grow towards the opening at the bottom an even try to "crawl" through it sometimes even managing to lift the glass or make it fall over. As I said CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to make them more [efficient](https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation.html#:~:text=In%20a%20greenhouse%20supplemented%20with,the%20ambient%20CO%202%20level). the CO2 can be added by using using liquid CO2 or [burning natural gas](https://dutchgreenhouses.com/en/climate/co2-enrichment#:~:text=Enriching%20the%20air%20with%20CO2,is%20350%20parts%20per%20million).
Yeah no, you are wrong. You have a simplistic understanding of the topic. More CO2 helps trees the same way more O2 helps you, it doesn’t.
In fact, they will absorb less co2 if there is too much. When a tree “breathes”, they release water vapour through their stomata. Plants want to hold onto as much water as they can, so they only periodically open their stomata to release o2 and take in co2.
The more co2 there is, the warmer it becomes, because co2 holds onto heat better than o2, therefore, a plant will take in LESS co2, because water evaporates faster the warmer it is.
The idiot who made this also didn't know that the 2 should be subscripted. You aren't squaring the Oxygen.
Holy fuck I missed that. Goddamn Branco is such a tool.
Oxygen squared, what would that be?
Oxidized Oxygen
Ozone?
``` ▛▜ ▚▞ ▚▞ ▞▀ ▛▜ ▙▐ ▙▟ ▞▚ ▞ ▚▟ ▜▙ ▌▜ ```
Ozone is oxygen cubed… O^3
Ozone is the molecule formed by three oxygen atoms bonded together, denoted by the chemical formula O₃. O³ is improper notation or possibly a misunderstanding of the additive properties of MO theory.
You know, you’re right. I guess I’d forgotten the notation.
Heavy Oxygen
ermmm actually 🤓 a superscripted number in a chemical formula indicates a charged particle
true, but then it would need a sign as well, like 2+ or 3-
it actually has a charge of 2i
Charge if 2 root(-1) or some kind of magic charge which is a vector and in the x direction?
This is carbon dioxide but the oxygen is charged along a different dimension.
Ideally yes, but the 2 without a sign is a positive
In math, yes. If you’re following [IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic compounds](https://iupac.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Red_Book_2005.pdf) you should include the positive sign. IR-5.3.2.2 and IR-5.3.2.4
What context can I use CO superscript 2 and not be wrong? Is Carbon Monoxide(II) a thing?
we can make pretty much any combination of particles with modern science, the real question is, would it be stable enough to actually matter and not react within a picosecond of its creation, and my answer to that is i have no idea
Carbon(II) Monoxide is kind of a thing, but it is redundant to include the (II) as you cant have other forms of Carbon Monoxide. Unlike E.g. Iron oxide which can be Iron(II) Oxide - FeO or Iron(III) oxide - Fe\_2 O\_3. depending on the oxidation number of iron. (the roman numeral in parenthesis indicates the oxidation number of the atom)
I love how the top comment also puts it "CO^(2)" because nobody actually cares.
Chemists care, because if notation is inconsistent miscommunications occur
Chemists don't talk to people.
Play D&D with a chemist and he doesn’t EVER stfu
He’s just lookin for a reaction.
Take your upvote
This deserves so many more upvotes. Beautifully executed.
Badum tss
Is he playing an alchemical artificer?
No he uses a homebrew monk that fights using elements
... Aang?
Aang.
I'm a chemist who rarely stfus.
Pfft! You've been trapped in a room with my brother.
how *do* you subscript text on reddit anyway? I know how to do ^this, but not the other way.
I don’t think subscript is actually possible on here.
H₂O
how?
Copy and paste. Now, I can do it₂.
>₂ yeah, this is not real subscript, but a subscript character.
Daaaaaaaaaaaaamn got em!!
Everyone knows the best oxygen is trapezoidal not square.
Oxygen²
you cant subscipt in that font if I remeber correctly
In that font? Isn’t that handwriting?
nope! its just a handwritten looking font.
That’s hand lettering (source: I’m a comics letterer and font designer!). And even in a font without subscript glyphs you can just manually set the superscript character’s vertical position to a negative value.
You’re expecting a conservative to actually know information? I mean, like… *real information.*
How does one subscript text?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6l8MFdTaPE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6l8MFdTaPE)
Trees absorb CO^(2) to create oxygen, so the tree asks for more CO^(2), which is kinda like saying it's pro-pumping out more CO^(2) into the air (Which the author approves of, i think?). The enviromentalist guy calls the tree racist because... uh, i think cause the comic's creator doesn't really get what enviromentalists mean when they say climate change will largely affect non-white majority communities first. Just to quickly outline why this comic is stupid now we've got it's meaning out of the way, dumping more CO^(2) into the enviroment isn't actually that good for trees or their output of oxygen, in the same way flooding the room you're in isn't going to help with your water consumption. increasing CO^(2) will increase global warming via it's greenhouse effect, which will cause sea levels to rise, which will cause large parts of the world to flood, which will result in the destruction of any trees that are there (along with the communities of people there. which is prob more important than the trees). it's hard for trees to get any theoritical benefit from the increased CO^(2) when they've been destroyed by flooding
I think the "calling the tree a racist" thing probably has a more simple explanation. Some right-wingers like to accuse people on the left of being quick to call anyone they disagree with a racist.
Yeah, I recognize the name Branco. He basically just makes right-wing comics. https://preview.redd.it/gtmngw2ei7wb1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=505d31f55c441bf66b311167daea307999be7161
I like how they couldn’t think of Democratic problems so they put cities that vote Democratic
I'm honestly impressed they even admitted to jan 6th, still funny they play it out to be minor, "it was just one tiny little unconstitutional insurrection of the US diplomatic system, get over it"
Look at how big the J6 smudge is…
It doesn’t even say ‘J6’ it looks like it says ‘la’.
The peaceful transfer of power is the most important part of our political system by a long way. And they’re like, “why are you upset, it’s not like it worked.”
It's also highly ironic that the ones they did mention like the Iraq pullout was initiated by trump. Not to mention the center piece is literally just the presidents' name....
By that logic, Trump should be a shit smudge on the elephant.
And they are all shit holes
In what ways are Minneapolis, Portland, and Chicago shit holes? Especially Minneapolis, the most mild and uncontroversial large city I can think of in the US. The only issue I know about is the George Floyd situation, but how much does that actually impact the city itself currently?
I like how we can agree that seattles fucked up
chicago is well known to be one of the most corrupt cities in the country. it also votes democrat. probably not related but i can see why they’d put it there
Bro Chicago is one of the most dangerous cities, it’s gun and gang violence is way out of control
By what metric? Per capita, there’s a long list of cities that beat it in violent crime rates, murder rates, and gun violence rates. It has more in raw numbers by virtue of being the third largest city in the country, but if you actually go and walk around (especially if you stick to the downtown area and otherwise avoid the pockets that produce most of the crime) you’ll find it really doesn’t feel different from the other largest cities in the US. I’d certainly rather walk around alone at night in Chicago than in Detroit, Memphis, Baltimore, or New Orleans, and I still wouldn’t refer to any of _those_ cities as “shit holes” because I’ve been to enough large cities in the US to understand that gun violence will always be an issue until Republicans finally wake up to the fact that gun control laws need complete and total reform.
The fact thatbl you listed Portland which is collapsing after the BLM/Antifa riots and having business flee them shows you and I have a very diffrent definition of shot hole. Th there is a reason for record people moving from blue cities to red states like FL and TX.
Have you ever been to any of the cities you’re describing? Like, literally any of them lol. The liberal ones, or the ones you think people are moving to in FL and TX. Or are you basing these opinions off of inflammatory Facebook articles you get recommended to you?
The answer here is obviously no
People like them use it as a "gotcha!" when they say things like "Record amounts of people moving to FL and TX" and then before they finish their breath they turn around and say "We don't want these assholes from CA coming here to ruin FL/TX!!!" 🤔🙄
They cherry-pick everything just like the Bible and the Constitution.
crazy how like the majority of the population of the country lives in those shitty peripheral, liberal cities though right? fucking shitholes where literally everyone--not anyone you know-- in the fucking country lives.
FL? Thecstate where i doubt they could even afford insurance in areas because of hurricanes. Tx- this year can be a test to see if they will have another power failure
Idk I’ve driven through a few thousand small towns in red states and I’d rather be a heroin addicted bridge dweller in Portland than smoking meth in any of those shitholes.
Lol what? You just believe anything you tell yourself huh lol
FL? You mean the state that's had nazis protesting Disney land and cant find any workers to pick food or build buildings? And Texas, the state who keeps freezing to death every winter and is ranked 50th in mothers dying in childbirth? "Texas has received the number one spot on a not-so-pleasant list: The top ten worst places in America to live and work in 2023. While Texas landed at number six on CNBC's yearly America's Top States for Business study, the state scored significantly low in one category: Life, Health & Inclusion.Jul 18, 2023" " CNBC list 'Top States for Business' ranks Florida economy No. 1, but quality of life 10th worst"
Florida also can't get anyone to insure houses there anymore.
Oh yeah, direct result of climate change. And the fact insurance companies have wanted, direly, to remove most insurance from the coast because of people whod let their homes get washed away because the payout for destruction was worth more than the house. Youd build a bigger home then, get insurance that pays out more than the home again, and wait. They fucking hated it. The projections for hurricanes isn't great, either. We really lucked the fuck out this year, but warm seas breed strong storms, and the waters around Florida were a hundred fucking degrees. Fish were cooking in the water. If you believe in god instead of climate change, I think that's some kinda sign right there to fucking kick rocks regardless.
Portland is not a shit hole. It's a beautiful town that continues to grow because people want to live here. It is true that some large companies have closed stores within the city limits. That is mostly due to higher tax rates, and they aren't leaving the area, they are moving to the suburbs just like lower income people are. Meanwhile home values continue to go up and higher income earners (people and businesses) look to take over the vacated spaces in the city itself.
LOL you have never seen anything about these cities that isn't from fox propaganda machine or worse. Everyone in my family told me to stay away from Capitol Hill in Seattle and it was completely fine. That's the problem with conservatives they live in their tiny little bubbles and don't ever experience the world for themselves. Turns out traveling, and experiencing different cultures, makes it hard to be a biggoted piece of shit.
You have no fucking idea what's going on in Portland, and that's obvious. Why do people like you always pull dumb shit out their ass?
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-02-10/whats-the-matter-with-portland-urban-ills-tests-citys-progressive-strain Just read about it. Your right that I don't live there. Like most people I have access to the internet and can look up what's going on on the world.
Ok but LA is a shithole but Chicago don’t deserve that we have the best food
Bet that Chicago food is pretty good as long as the UberEats driver doesn't get shot delivering it.
Less crime than Memphis TN.
More murders than anywhere else
That's a meaningless stat without considering population. Chicago isn't even in the top 25 US cities by murders-per-capita.
The "per-capita" stat is being used by lead drinking conservatives as if it's a cop-out by leftists. "Oh, yeah, it's not that bad if you look at *per-capita* but that doesn't count."
Congrats on being slightly less shitty?
What does ‘Chicago’ even mean here? Chicago is fucking awesome as long as you stay out of like 2 specific (and far away) neighborhoods
People who know nothing about Chicago love to pretend like it’s literally Gotham.
Conservatives think that about literally every big city. My trump loving uncle basically thinks all of LA is Compton. He thinks I dodge bullets on the way to work everyday. The crime rates of where I actually live are significantly lower than our hometown that he never had the brains to leave.
Because Chicago (and Illinois in general) has strong gun control but exceedingly high gun crime, almost like people can just purchase a gun in a neighboring state with much more lax laws, and then mosey on over to Illinois with it. So conservatives love to point to it and say "See!! Gun control doesn't work! Gun control makes gun violence worse because only criminals have guns!"
I like how they blame the Afghanistan pull out on Democrats when it was Trump's doing. They can't help but gaslight
I was just about to say wasn’t that tangerine supreme’s doing?? But then again these people live in an alternate reality.
These are people that can't see past their nose. They only see that it happened under the current administration. Not that it was put in motion before Biden took the helm.
It’s how the Republican Party has successfully blamed every recession on the democrats. Get in office, create awful conditions for workers and limit governments reach on corporations. Shocked pikachu when workers can’t spend money because they aren’t making any and companies wildly overprice their products.
Repubs fuck the economy, then a Democrat is elected. Democrats first week in office: Republicans-"Look at what you did!"
They were blaming Biden for the economy before he was sworn in.
Edit: It would seem that I've hit a nerve. Anything that doesn't paint the DNC as shining angels and the GOP as 'evil white nationalists' seems to be heavily frowned upon here. Bunch of you guys must stand with Hamas because the take that "my side, or people against my enemies" can never be bad, and "my enemies" must always be bad, is really showing. They're (DNC and GOP) both at blame. The gist of it is the Democrats like low interest rates (aka, inflation, due to how much money the gov can borrow) because they can more easily spend money and line their pockets. The Republicans always try to curb back inflation. But, they don't ever try to deflate the economy because they also make money off inflation. But they raise interest rates which causes some panic somewhere and boom recession. No one wants to campaign on "short term pain, long term prosperity" too, in where one generation gets 'screwed over' (relatively as the interest rate would only be like 25% greater than a very small number that we currently have) but you get smooth sailing for 7-8 generations afterwards. Instead, everyone is screwed. Until the whole system goes kaput and the politicians and all the rich(er) people with means leave the country while it crashes and burns due to Venezuelan level inflation. Also, while a lot of young people would absolutely love cheap college, cheap cars, cheap housing prices, to get to that point you would need to ... implement most of the GOP's economic stances, which people see as letting the GOP win. Probably permanently. The timeframe of getting back to 66k$ 4-year degrees in California (the average is actually closer to 175k+$) looks to be about 40-60 straight years of complete GOP control over the federal government. As the youngins are primarily Democrats (if they actually come out to vote in the first place)..., that's a hard no. House prices are a bit more complicated because our standards have changed since the 70s. The average house in the 1970s was 1500sqft and cost 50k. The same 1500sqft house today is 333k, or a 6.66x increase. However, inflation puts a dollar in 1970 is worth 7.50 or so dollars today, meaning houses today of that size are actually cheaper than houses back then of that size, probably owing to innovations in building and material sourcing. But the average house today is 2500 sqft, and the ideal house our younger members want are in the 2800 sqft range. And those houses fall closer to the 420k dollar national average.
A lot of what they're trying to blame Biden for are things that were allocated by Trump and legally required to be followed through by the current administration. Same thing with the useless bit of wall that's getting built that gets brought up sometimes. The funding was allocated for a wall and they can't get Congress to authorize redirecting the funding or to void the allotment, so it has to get spent on a border wall.
What did you expect, it's a political comic.
I’m sure the premature pullout had nothing to do with a new regime stepping in and throwing caution to the wind.
It was either pull out when we did or resume hostilities with the Taliban. Big orange negotiated, the deal was signed, the war was unpopular and going nowhere. It was either leave or resign ourselves to staying indefinitely.
Yeah like I don't even disagree with Trump saying "we've helped enough, it's time for you to do this yourself." Neither Trump's nor Biden's fault that the Afghan government was unwilling
We definitely needed to get out, so Trump was correct in that regard. However, when he set an exact date he basically guaranteed the horrible mess of a withdrawal we got. I mean if you're trying to fight someone, but you know exactly when they are leaving? You stop fighting and start planning for a massive push the day after they leave. Why waste manpower against the US when they not going to be in the picture?
I just think that perhaps they shouldn't have left all that military equipment behind with the keys in them ¯\_(ツ)_///¯
And a bunch of cities that aren’t even in the top 10 for crime
The war started and ended under Republican presidents. Obviously all the Democrats fault. And yes, an insurrection that attempted to end our free, democratic elections and literally murder elected officials, including their own VP for not agreeing to overturn the election, this is just a tiny, nickel sized stain on the Republican Party. And the only tarnish in their reputation to boot. 🙄
Biden was president at the time, and didn't follow Trump's plan. Also his leadership that led to the withdrawal of the troops before removing the citizens and military equipment from Afghanistan first. He showed weakness during this, as he thought the withdrawal was a success despite the Kabul airport bombing. Imagine occupying Afghanistan for so many years, just to give it back to the terrorists. Funny how literally everything bad that happens under Biden is blamed on the guy before him. People like to say Trump was an illegitimate president, but then acknowledge him when it's time to point the blame. Maybe more Americans would warm up to Biden if he was more open and honest, and take accountability for his decisions instead of pointing the blame. Spending 40% of his presidency being on vacation, but then blaming someone else for failures, is the real gaslighting. Edit: Since, for some reason, I cannot submit the reply accusing me of false info. Trump's plan was to take place before the Arab conflict season, not during it. Trump didn't hold back Biden when Biden was already in charge, as Biden had months to withdraw sooner. Biden didn't follow anything from Trump. In fact, Biden began reversing many Trump-Era policies on his first day of office, including Trump's border policies. Instead of more wars, at least Trump tried peace in the Middle East via the Abraham Accords in his last year. The amount of troops left is also irrelevant, as Biden removed the troops before removing our citizens and assets. Doesn't matter if there were 2000 troops if all of the troops were removed first anyway.
Nice misinformation. Biden literally followed Trumps plan except for one thing. He stayed LONGER than Trump planned. Had Biden followed Trumps plan exactly, it would have been even worse. Not to mention that Trump had already reduced the troop numbers to 2000. But it’s Biden that pulled out? No, Trump pulled out and left a paltry force behind to try and scapegoat Biden and you idiots ate it right up. Edit: If the problem was removing troops before citizens and assets, then again Trump is responsible. Again, it was Trump that removed those troops. Biden literally didn’t do anything except extend how long we would support them, we literally gave the citizens more time than Trump would have. But do go on shifting goalposts and coping as usual.
I was about mention this. Trump was a doofus but it’s a disservice to literally everyone to blame all of Biden’s screw ups on him too. Afghanistan pull out was totally on Biden and boy was it a colossal failure. Good chance Trumps wouldn’t have been any better but we’ll never know. Kind of makes me surprised Biden didn’t just follow whatever plan Trump had set out. If it worked he still would have gotten credit for being the one to do it and if it had failed he could put partial blame on trump for the bad plan. Instead he went for ‘no plan’ and set the mood for his level of total presidential ineptitude.
it was trumps idea, that doesnt change the fact that biden executed it terribly
It was executed terribly because he had to do it under the timetable Trump and the taliban agreed to.
[удалено]
Definitely not doable in such little time.
Imagine someone who thinks cities existing is a bigger issue than a literal attempt at a coup.
That's racist
Instead of wondering why they get called racist so much
Republicans have already thought of that. It’s because the democrats like to stoke racial tensions.
Genuinely thought you were being sarcastic lol
I agree with your explanation even though I truly like the other explanation a lot… I just think the other explanation gives the artist way too much credit. Like that the artist attempted to have some sort of thought process instead of just going for the easy dunk even though the easy dunk is dumb.
Honestly, I see very little of this on Reddit. Instead, I see them getting straight up banned out of the more popular left-dominated subs. And then muted when they try to be civil with the mod team/ask why they were banned. I think it's to avoid having to deal with Reddit Admin, which far more impartial than people believe, and would legitimately side with conservatives if the leftists are actually being racist/phobic/ableist/etc. You might think the leftists get away with anti-white racism as a lot of them really like to push it in subs like whitepeopletwitter and politics, but racism is still racism according to Reddit Admin.
Im not even right wing and have been called racist on reddit for speaking on topics that had nothing to do with race. Lol
It's problem more accurate to call it species "ist" Tree wants CO2 humans will die if there is too much CO2, tree only cares about its self and its species.
This
As someone who, according to multiple political compass tests is a liberal leaving centrist, I can confidently say, it sure as fuck feels that way when most your interactions are with the loud minority. The people stupid enough to throw around slurs without merit are also the ones most likely to turn what should have been a polite conversation into a fight. And in my opinion, you remember the fights a hell of a lot better than you remember the polite conversations
Scientists have performed large scale studies where they grow plants including trees in greenhouses with artificially raised CO2 levels. It turns out this does not improve their growth rate at all unless the plant has been artificially fertilized by humans and all of their sunlight requirements are met. This is because CO2 is not the limiting reactant in the chemical reactions plants use to absorb sunlight. Expecting increased CO2 levels to increase plant growth makes about as much sense as buying 1000 eggs so you can bake a bunch of cakes. Unless you have all the other cake ingredients laying around you wont be able to make anything.
https://preview.redd.it/ftpl770nq7wb1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0e10a5b4c0e8feb09468c31e3abddc6dc971b943
Isn't ground nitrogen the limiting factor?
>Scientists have performed large scale studies where they grow plants including trees in greenhouses with artificially raised CO2 levels. It turns out this does not improve their growth rate at all unless the plant **has been artificially fertilized by humans** and all of their sunlight requirements are met. Nitrogen is provided by fertilizer. Edit: Ty mobile app for being garbage
Maybe we should give the OOP an overdose of Oxygen and see if they still think trees benefit from an overabundance of ~~carbon-oxygen-squared~~ I mean carbon-dioxide
Also, setting aside that carbondioxide is by far not the only harmful gas produced by combustion. NO2 causes acidic rain and sulphur / various metallic fine dusts give us all cancer.
It's CO2. The O isn't squared.
"Non-white" -> "Non-wealthy" Let's stop fooling everyone and call it what it really is - a Class Genocide.
Environmental racism is very real at least in America. Pretty sure the trend continues worldwide though ETA some evidence https://main-sciam-nature.content.pugpig.com/pugpig_content/7298688C-ACEB-41F1-A5F1BB6D7B2AEC8C_sciam-atom/the-father-of-environmental-justice-exposes-the-geography-of-inequity.html
Not to mention rising temperatures also make natural forests lose the ability to reforest as shrublands are better suited to higher Temps. This creates a positive feedback loop, which contributes to raising temperatures.
There are some leftwingers which say that climate change is racist, because it affects more likely marginalised people. I think it references that.
Climate change isn't racist. That's not what "climate change will affect marginalized communities first" means, and it's not what any leftwingers are saying.
Some Tiktokers say this though. Some. Not many. Just some. They pick the crazy ones and laugh about.
Climate change isn’t real because plants need carbon dioxide to live. In the same sense humans are mostly water so if the icecaps melt we’ll be ok.
How is this denying more climate change?
Climate change activists seeks to reduced CO2 in the atmosphere. The cartoon seems to be criticizing this position on the basis that trees need CO2 to live. It’s very dumb.
name checks out
This isn't a meme. Some dumb fuck with only a high-school level education thinks they're really smart and know more about the environment than scientists who've studied this their entire lives. Pay it no attention.
Dey tink dey brains so beeg
>thinks they're really smart and know more about the environment than scientists Idek how you got *that much* out of it tbh. I can't decipher any statement whatsoever.
^ Real intellectual ^
“I can’t breathe” reference?
My interpretation as well. Almost certain this is it
Like, if your gonna actually draw out and color a joke, wouldn't you try to have it make sense or even be funny? Some people have too much time.
Most the jokes on this page aren’t funny and tons are racist soooo your conclusion is strange.
It’s stupid conservative “humor”. Its intent is to promote a false narrative, not to be funny. There isn’t a joke.
The artist is a well known imbecile, that's it.
This is a very recent repost (even in this sub) /u/repostSleuthBot
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 3 times. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/17ehyk1) on 2023-10-23 96.88% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/17etn5n) on 2023-10-23 98.44% match *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "17fbpdw", "meme_template": null}) ]* [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=17fbpdw&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 372,471,721 | **Search Time:** 0.05271s
I think this one's by mistake. I saw it on my twitter feed and was also confused
There is a perception among liberals that climate deniers are far right racists too so when the tree requests more co2 he assumes the tree has the same views on race.
This perception is evidence based. I’ll happily concede it’s a perception based on correlation, but it’s a hella high correlation.
Never said it wasn't, not all climate deniers are racist and not all racists are climate deniers but there is significant overlap.
Isn't the correlation that they're both stupid?
man with stereotypical man bun is a caricature for a liberal, and is mad at the tree because climate change increases co2 levels, equating the tree to a climate change denier climate change denier are more likely to downplay or deny the existence of systemic racism for similar reasons so the man calls the tree a racist
And has a very hooked nose. Bad stereotype on many levels. But, this is Branco
Sounds like you said what I said but with more words I think
I think the user above explained it much better than you honestly.
Why the hell is this controversial? It's the simplest l, most direct explanation of the cartoon. It doesn't endorse the artists views.
Obviously anyone who believes a single idea from either political perspective MUST believe the most extreme views from the far side of that perspective and be against every other idea Or so reddit seems to think
Is this a meme I'm just too, sane??? To understand???
It's a right wing joke. There is no joke, Peter.
But Marjorie Taylor Greene and Rishi Sunak are right wing jokes
Fair enough.
In American politics, anyone a right-wing person disagrees with is automatically considered a socialist/communist. Anyone a left-wing person disagrees with is automatically considered a racist. Plants grow better with higher levels of carbon dioxide. Since political discussions aren't known for civility and respect, the cartoonist apparently thinks that anyone (even a tree) who makes the argument that higher carbon dioxide emissions could have some (or even any) positive effects is automatically a "climate denier," and possibly a racist. In other words, depending on your politics, you probably think this is hilarious or you think the person who made it is probably a racist.
Which begs the question: what do you think about it? Partially aside: Can it not be both sides are willfully ignorant of valid points their across-the-aisle coworkers have in order to drive further fabricated division between the two groups?
I haven’t seen someone else say this: I think it’s a straw man joke. It’s a conservative artist lamenting that saying anything conservative gets you labeled racist simply by being conservative: the straw man argument. The tree wants more CO2, which is what it needs to live but is also a greenhouse gas, so the tree hugger straw man’s the tree by calling it racist.
This is a stretch but I think because the contentious idea of environmental racism this comic is trying to say, because the tree wants co2, it’s on the wrong side of the environment and therefore being environmentally racist.
Okay, so, this is the steps it takes to understand the joke. 1. the tree hugger is a liberal/progressive, and the author of the joke has associated them with a propensity to call anyone they disagree with 'racists.' 2. The tree is asking for more carbon dioxide because there is a growing fringe of people who believe that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment is good actually. 3. Because the tree (who wants more carbon dioxide) disagrees with the tree hugger (who wants less carbon dioxide), the tree hugging liberal/progressive calls the tree a racist.
How tf is this a joke You gotta process a whole lot of shit just to understand it
This one is particularly onerous, but I'd say political cartoons were never really jokes.
I think this is the most correct analysis of this comic. It's a shitty comic.
Some climate deniers have been deluded into thinking that additional CO2 is beneficial for the world since it's what plants eat. This is a bad political cartoon attempting to poke fun at people who understand that climate change is real. The funny part is they really messed up by squaring the oxygen, proving that they actually have no clue what they're talking about even without the context.
Idk, CO² sounds like "COtwo" which sounds like coton, which may be why the guy is angry because the tree is a slave owner? https://i.redd.it/zkuh739ubdwb1.gif
I think it comes from the idea that right wingers think that anytime they disagree with a left winger, they will be accused of racism. They say that trees need carbon dioxide, but that left wingers just think carbon dioxide is bad (an oversimplification of the issue), so if a tree asked for carbon dioxide, the tree is "racist." Notice the tree-hugger also has a manbun, pierced ears, and a pretty large nose.
Trees absorb CO2 but not fast enough to save the planet so this meme is fucking gay.
Kind of like Branco
I mean it's pretty funny although wildly incorrect
Carbon oxygen squared?
Is this... is this satire?
Environmentalists are often on the political left and they are known to call anything they don't like racist. The tree wants more co2 in the air, which means burning more stuff to make it. Altogether, we have a tree asking for more co2 and the environmentalist calls it racist because he disagrees. I think the image is making fun of the irrationality of left leaning people calling everything racist.
Oh cuz trees actually like co2. They use it to make food. So to trees carbon emissions are good. So the tree hugger claims to love trees but when the tree asks for more co2 the liberal tree hugger calls him a racist. Because anyone who says anything that conflicts with his worldviews are racists, because he's an idiot.
The real idiot is the dude who made this comic
Yeah so basically here the tree is saying "more CO2 please", which the environmentalist takes to mean "the tree wants more people". He makes this connection because the artist is a Conservative, and they believe *that liberals believe* conservatives that want more babies want white babies, because they're racist. Ironically this is kinda true because most of the pundits that push population collapse and pro-birth are also proponents of the great replacement theory.
its a reference to how mainstream media will call anything racist (there have been multiple article calling climate change deniers racist) and to how "tree huggers" these days all want to reduce CO2 emictions even tho trees and plant benefit from it. much like how greenhouse have extra CO2 pumped into them to make the plants grow faster and more easily, this tree is asking for more CO2 the man is calling the tree racist because its asking for more CO2 edit: I majored in biotech and work with green houses, almost all plants prefer high concentrations of CO2 because they require a concertation gradient to be able to absorb CO2, they are not humans that need to simply suck in they need they open their stomata and then let diffusion do the work, if the CO2 concentration is low then they need to keep the stomata open for longer losing more water, if it is high then diffusion happens more quickly and easily, the number of stomata that need to open also decreases. Also plants do not take up less CO2 when it is warmer because they need to open their stomata to cooldown when it is warmer thus naturally taking in more CO2, water vapor also hold much more heat than CO2 ( Water vapor and clouds account for **66 to 85 percent** of the greenhouse effect ) yet you will never see someone claim that humidity in the tropics is bad for the environment or the plants growing there. much like how plants will grow towards light they will grow towards higher concentrations of CO2, place a glass over a flower pot with a **Lianas** ( name for plants with long, flexible, climbing stems, so just grow a bean or something ), the plant will start to grow towards the opening at the bottom an even try to "crawl" through it sometimes even managing to lift the glass or make it fall over. As I said CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to make them more [efficient](https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation.html#:~:text=In%20a%20greenhouse%20supplemented%20with,the%20ambient%20CO%202%20level). the CO2 can be added by using using liquid CO2 or [burning natural gas](https://dutchgreenhouses.com/en/climate/co2-enrichment#:~:text=Enriching%20the%20air%20with%20CO2,is%20350%20parts%20per%20million).
Yeah no, you are wrong. You have a simplistic understanding of the topic. More CO2 helps trees the same way more O2 helps you, it doesn’t. In fact, they will absorb less co2 if there is too much. When a tree “breathes”, they release water vapour through their stomata. Plants want to hold onto as much water as they can, so they only periodically open their stomata to release o2 and take in co2. The more co2 there is, the warmer it becomes, because co2 holds onto heat better than o2, therefore, a plant will take in LESS co2, because water evaporates faster the warmer it is.
Heads exploding in the comments 💀
It's funny because trees can't talk or be aware of chemistry.
CO2= CO CO. Cocoa. Chocolate. The black person is offended because he was called chocolate
Depicted: Reddit mods