I wrote this one for the Lode, but my esteemed opponent didn't want to do global warming this week. Well, I had already written this so I decided just to post it anyway. I'm sure I'll need to clarify later, but try to enjoy it anyway.
I once read somewhere that global warming can cause global cooling. This is certainly curious. I wonder if drinking causes sobriety, or if it really is possible to eat yourself thin or starve yourself to obesity. Anyway, the weather has exhibited rather perplexing patterns as of late, but the real question is whether or not humans factor in these trends.
In dealing with the subject of temperature it is pivotal to understand this rock we call Earth. While even a very crude history of said planet could not be contained in point counter point, there is one fact that must be noted. Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. Although there are disagreements, it is generally believed that human beings have been on this planet for a grand total of 200,000 years.
If we treat the earth's existence as the history of major league baseball, there have been about 124 seasons—excluding playoffs—and the human expansion team debuted in the last game of the last season. We started collecting stats—keeping track of weather—with two outs in the bottom of the tenth. Based on that, we've determined that if the trends that were starting to develop at the end of the last pitch continue, we'll never win the World Series and probably end up dead.
The analogy is comical and probably a bit absurd, but it demonstrates a clear truth. The fact that the weather has been weird lately is irrefutable. The fact that humans are to blame is less clear. But when any change in temperature is deemed to be the fault of humans, is it any surprise some of us can't take global warming all that seriously? Someone get me a drink, I need to sober up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
There is a significant difference between simple statistical analysis (how warm it was vs how warm it is) and scientific modelling, which takes into account known variables (the known physical reaction between gasses and the atmosphere, the known quantities of those gasses).Man caused atmospheric is not simply taking results such as melting glaciers and hypothesizing backwards ( a common claim by the Chamber of Commerce crowd, mostly conservative). You can in a laboratory create an atmosphere which will melt ice and verify the factors.If people need more "proof" than that it is a frightening example of denial.Even if scientific consensus is not 100% a precautionary principle is certainly a wise one to follow.
that should say atmospheric change.
It is all about profit, once again.
I agree we need to use caution. This doesn't mean we should all pollute as much as we can because it doesn't matter, but I'm not going to argue with people who are going to be unreasonable.
Yes, it is about profit. We're not going to trade in our lifestyle, even for the prospective health of the planet, which is pretty telling. We'd rather have money today than a planet tomorrow. Good ol' capitalism.
One other point if I may. I read an article in the Pioneer Press that said that if trends continue we're going to have average temperatures that are 18 degrees higher in 100 years. If that's the case, is there even anything we can do about it?
When it comes down to it, I don't think anyone is telling the truth on this one. The environmentalists believe humans are parasites and the conservatives don't care at all. If there is an objective source on this one I haven't found it.
Post a Comment