With the current cold snap freezing most of the nation, you can find no shortage of Right-wingers making comments about "sure would like to see some global warming here" or similar bits of snark.
Yeah, yeah. All the jokes really show is that (a) they don't understand the distinction between "climate" and "weather" and (b) they are idiots.
Imagine, if you will, that you have walked into a casino and you are observing a slot machine. Some old grandmother is sitting there, feeding nickels in. Over a short span of time, you see granny hit a few payouts, one or two of them which spill coins onto the floor. She seems to be doing pretty well at the machine. Yet if you were to watch for an extended period of time, you would see that the machine takes in more coins than it pays out.
Atmospheric conditions over a short span of time, like the short-term payouts of the slot machine, are "weather". Very long term conditions are "climate". You can live in a fairly wet climate area and still have periodic spells of dry weather, even a drought or two. It can get hot where it is normally not so hot and freezing cold in Florida; that is weather.
So make your jokes and betray your own stupidity at the same time. Think of it as a two-fer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
You're right. "Weather" is "Gee, it's cold outside." "Climate" is "Gee, we seem to have had a whole bunch of record-breaking winters in the Northern hemisphere over the last fifteen years, and they seem to be getting worse."
Oh, and "Wingnut" my ass.
I see that I have apparently hit a nerve.
When the discussion is about *global* climate change, then the scale that needs to be considered is a global one.
On a global scale, the `90s were very warm and the `00s are on track to be warmer still.
Here is a link Which I suggest is worth watching. In our quest for knowledge an open mind is key.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zeGY8zbzc8&feature=related
OK, TW, riddle me this:
If climate change is a hoax, to what end? To what end would thousands of scientists and governments around the world perpetrate such a hoax?
Yes. Global Warming means the Globe, not just the location where your butt is planted. 2ºC doesn't seem like much, but when you translate it to a global scale, that is a heck of a lot of energy. 2ºC is the lower bound that we're looking at right now. Depending on the model used, we could be looking at 6.4ºC (about 11ºF) increase in temperature by the end of this century. Read up on Gas laws (not petroleum, but Boyle's and Charles's Laws), and you may get the idea of the problem.
Humans have been burning fossil fuels for about 150 years.
The geological record is packed with proofs of paleoclimatological bounces stretching back for tens and hundreds of MILLIONS of years.
Are humans contributing to the warming climate? CERTAINLY. Can humans stop climate change? NO WAY. It'll happen no matter what we do, but we can mitigate it, maybe a little bit. (And that's a BIG "maybe" because nobody really knows for sure.) Just maybe.
Now that we're on the other side of peak oil (Google "peak oil"), I think this problem will be self-correcting across the spectrum of Earth's natural systems as the oil runs out and/or becomes "too expensive" to get out of the ground. I use "too expensive" in quotes because it's an economic term of art, an artificial construct, signifying little in terms of the fate of the natural systems of the Earth. The most interesting part of the whole carbon credits and greenhouse gas emissions canards is WHO gets to regulate and control those markets. (Hint: New boss, same as the old boss.)
I find the arguments against anyone who denies anthropogenic global warming are very similar in tone and intensity to the arguments used against those who weren't TOTALLY INTO Barry O. for preznit -- almost religious in their ferocity.
The end of oil will kill capitalism. Humans are contributing to the climate change, but that, too, will be self-correcting eventually.
Keep calm and carry on, people!
"When the discussion is about *global* climate change, then the scale that needs to be considered is a global one."
Keep in mind that climate does not only occur in a PLACE, but across TIME. Big places and across big spans of time. Geological expanses of time.
Look into paleoclimatology and this won't be so scary, people.
Ooga-booga.
The definition of "Very long term conditions" in not met by decades of measurements. Try 10,000 years.
Twenty-one thousand years ago, there was two miles of ice over the Adirondack Mountains in the northeastern United States.
I'd say conditions are much improved now, eh?
This issue fascinates me in that the right's talking points are so homogenized and prevalent. I can only assume that some of the deniers aren't actually paid spokespeople, which leads me to wonder how they reason in this way:
One side of the argument: Vastly wealthy people who stand to get vastly wealthier if we keep burning dead dinosaurs.
The other side of the argument: People who have devoted their lives not to earning money, but to studying a subject.
And the conclusion they reach is that the scientists must be in it for a buck!
Wingnuts never seem to consider:
1) Scientists smart.
2) Science is the worst route in the world to money.
3) Scientists are aware of 2. (See 1.)
So, they don't consider that the captains of industry might want to fuck the world over so they can keep making a buck. (Which is good and capitalist and American of them.)
But the scientists have developed this scam to make money (which is EVIL of them.)
Wingnuts are fucknuts.
I still come back to the old question of the homicide cops: "Who benefits?"
I know who benefits from saying that "global warming is false".
I don't know who benefits from saying that "global warming is true", other than maybe the handful of companies that make solar products and wind turbines.
Furthermore, assume that side A is wrong and yet we did what side a wanted.
If the "global warming is real" side is wrong and yet we do what that side would dictate, what is the harm?
If the "global warming is a hoax" side is wrong and yet we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, then the harm seems rather evident.
Deniers are just like creationists. They like to pretend they have scientific backing, but the science is not how they reached their opinion.
I have not yet met a denier who didn't think Albert Gore was a sanctimonious know-it-all long before they ever heard of anthropogenic global warming.
Right now, the fossil fuel people and their useful idiots are making the bank deposits; in the future, it will be who controls and regulates and decides under what conditions fossil fuels will be used that get fabulously rich; those trading and controlling trade in carbon offsets will be the new tycoons. There is a chess game being played for the world's natural resources and man-made global warming is just the pretext to divide and get people to go along willingly. "Some of you will have to be satisfied with LESS than you've had in the past because the planet needs your sacrifice." Meanwhile, the rich will stay rich and have all they've always had and much much more.
Follow the money. Look at the entirety of the paleoclimatological record.
Should have guessed, it's the conspiracy theorists driving the denials.
Post a Comment