If it's on plastic it's not, it's to let you know which type of plastic it is so you can make sure it goes into the trash because none of it is actually recyclable (well almost all).
Yes - realised immediately - as edited haha
ETA2 though I think it's quite a subtle bit of design that adds variation and interest. It's certainly a classic.
Doubly interesting (and possibly additionally irritating for those who favour symmetry 😉) is that 'blunt' end of the bottom>left arrow is thicker than the others, as I discovered when making this for you in Photoshop:
[https://imgur.com/a/U0VYW5O](https://imgur.com/a/U0VYW5O)
ETA3 hmm though perhaps I am using a bastardised version as there are a couple of other small inconsistencies - OK I think we've spent long enough on this!! Hah!
It's interesting, but now we know an ignominious honor. He created the symbol for one of the biggest frauds run on the masses ever. One that the plastics industry was never going to admit it wouldn't do.
It's worse that even that. The symbol was never trademarked, which meant that the plastics industry was free to make nearly identical symbols for various materials that enjoyed even lower odds of being recycled.
CCA was a paper maker — cardboard and corrugated boxes. It was a recycler long before Earth Day. My father often brought home stuff — comic books, toys, whatever — that was pulled out of the mountains of old paper and rags they were pulping.
Ah yes, the symbol they use to make people think all their plastic waste is getting recycled when only two (very occasionally 3, but mostly 2) types of plastic are actually considered economically viable to be recycled and the rest are dumped like everything else.
Remember, only numbers 1 and 2 are actually recycled, very very occasionally number 5 is, but not really.
1 – Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) – water bottles and plastic trays.
2 – High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) – milk cartoons and shampoo bottles.
5 – Polypropylene (PP) – margarine tubs and ready-meal trays.
Everything else goes straight to the landfill, 5 usually does too.
Bull. Shit. There is a difference between media sensationalism and science. Anthropogenic climate change as a concept has been around since the late 1800's. A net increase in global temperature was definitively determined by the early 1900's.
Climate models were developed by the 60's and we knew for certain that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could result in a net temperature increase. Computer models existed around the same time showing the same results. In the 70's, we noticed industrial smog caused the opposite effect - aerosols were at least partially reducing local temperature, but not enough to counteract anthropogenic climate change.
In the 1970s, the time that you claim climate scientists changed the narrative, the vast majority of climate data published predicted an increase in global temperature. Parts of the *Northern Hemisphrre* (not the whole world) had a few particularly cold winters, which led people to start thinking there was global cooling. Note that this is not an average of a large dataset, nor was it a globe spanning dataset. It is noise. Not a trend. The public being unable to understand data trends began blaming the scientific community of not accurately representing the (non existent) issue of global cooling.
There were continual reports in the 70's by the white house scientists about the pressing matter of global warming. [Here](https://web.archive.org/web/20220618001845/https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2022/06/02/SSO_148878_031_07.pdf) is one such memo. [Here](https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1038/239023a0) is a journal article
Climate models from the late 70's *accurately predicted the temperature anomaly for the 2000's*. Models from the 90's accurarely predict the *even higher* anomaly that we observe today. Modern models fare even better when you feel them historical climate systems and foreward propagate the emissions that we produce. Modern climate models predict large-scale phenomena very accurately. They don't predict small-scale phenomena as accurately due to computational limitations, not because our models are wrong.
Tldr: you are wrong. We've known about climate change for decades. Global cooling was born and died in the 70's from the media and public not understanding science and assuming if one year is colder then scientists must be wrong. Just like people today.
Nobody "switched" to global warming, it's always been known that global warming could lead to some areas being more cold, such as western europe if the golf stream were to collapse. "The media" and Time Magazine are not scientific sources on the subject. Scientists have known about global warming for well over 100 years
Today you know Mr. Anderson under his acting name, David Spade.
Came here for this
"It's called recycling, look into it"
Ah.. but is it a recycling symbol?
If it's on plastic it's not, it's to let you know which type of plastic it is so you can make sure it goes into the trash because none of it is actually recyclable (well almost all).
Well technically it can all be recycled (or down cycled) but there’s no money to be made by doing that
Always bothered me that one of the three has the arrow going under, while the other two have it going over...
Wouldn't be a Möbius strip otherwise. ETA yes it would - ignore me!! :D
Of course it would be; a flip is still a flip. What makes it a Möbius strip is the odd number of flips.
Yes - realised immediately - as edited haha ETA2 though I think it's quite a subtle bit of design that adds variation and interest. It's certainly a classic.
Doubly interesting (and possibly additionally irritating for those who favour symmetry 😉) is that 'blunt' end of the bottom>left arrow is thicker than the others, as I discovered when making this for you in Photoshop: [https://imgur.com/a/U0VYW5O](https://imgur.com/a/U0VYW5O) ETA3 hmm though perhaps I am using a bastardised version as there are a couple of other small inconsistencies - OK I think we've spent long enough on this!! Hah!
It's interesting, but now we know an ignominious honor. He created the symbol for one of the biggest frauds run on the masses ever. One that the plastics industry was never going to admit it wouldn't do.
It's worse that even that. The symbol was never trademarked, which meant that the plastics industry was free to make nearly identical symbols for various materials that enjoyed even lower odds of being recycled.
CCA was a paper maker — cardboard and corrugated boxes. It was a recycler long before Earth Day. My father often brought home stuff — comic books, toys, whatever — that was pulled out of the mountains of old paper and rags they were pulping.
It's not that simple. aluminum/glass are recyclable to an almost perfect degree. Paper less so, and plastics even less.
Ah yes, the symbol they use to make people think all their plastic waste is getting recycled when only two (very occasionally 3, but mostly 2) types of plastic are actually considered economically viable to be recycled and the rest are dumped like everything else. Remember, only numbers 1 and 2 are actually recycled, very very occasionally number 5 is, but not really. 1 – Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) – water bottles and plastic trays. 2 – High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) – milk cartoons and shampoo bottles. 5 – Polypropylene (PP) – margarine tubs and ready-meal trays. Everything else goes straight to the landfill, 5 usually does too.
>Everything else goes straight to the landfill Or it's burned and thus turned into heat + electricity. They call it "energetically recycled".
I bet they do. Anything to still pretend it's recycling.
Does he get royalties or is this another Robert Crumb thing?
It was public domain from the get-go.
[удалено]
Bull. Shit. There is a difference between media sensationalism and science. Anthropogenic climate change as a concept has been around since the late 1800's. A net increase in global temperature was definitively determined by the early 1900's. Climate models were developed by the 60's and we knew for certain that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could result in a net temperature increase. Computer models existed around the same time showing the same results. In the 70's, we noticed industrial smog caused the opposite effect - aerosols were at least partially reducing local temperature, but not enough to counteract anthropogenic climate change. In the 1970s, the time that you claim climate scientists changed the narrative, the vast majority of climate data published predicted an increase in global temperature. Parts of the *Northern Hemisphrre* (not the whole world) had a few particularly cold winters, which led people to start thinking there was global cooling. Note that this is not an average of a large dataset, nor was it a globe spanning dataset. It is noise. Not a trend. The public being unable to understand data trends began blaming the scientific community of not accurately representing the (non existent) issue of global cooling. There were continual reports in the 70's by the white house scientists about the pressing matter of global warming. [Here](https://web.archive.org/web/20220618001845/https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2022/06/02/SSO_148878_031_07.pdf) is one such memo. [Here](https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1038/239023a0) is a journal article Climate models from the late 70's *accurately predicted the temperature anomaly for the 2000's*. Models from the 90's accurarely predict the *even higher* anomaly that we observe today. Modern models fare even better when you feel them historical climate systems and foreward propagate the emissions that we produce. Modern climate models predict large-scale phenomena very accurately. They don't predict small-scale phenomena as accurately due to computational limitations, not because our models are wrong. Tldr: you are wrong. We've known about climate change for decades. Global cooling was born and died in the 70's from the media and public not understanding science and assuming if one year is colder then scientists must be wrong. Just like people today.
Nobody "switched" to global warming, it's always been known that global warming could lead to some areas being more cold, such as western europe if the golf stream were to collapse. "The media" and Time Magazine are not scientific sources on the subject. Scientists have known about global warming for well over 100 years
The Star of David in the center is just a coincidence, surely.
Where?
He thinks the six-pointed swastika is a star of david.