Global Warming Explained

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,963
Reaction score
4,961
Location
Michigan
OK, I can see that we're all having some trouble here, so I thought I'd take a moment and break it all down for you.

In the beginning, there was the earth. And it was very, very, hot. But eventually it cooled off some, and green stuff started showing up. Then critters came along and they ate the green stuff and other critters ate the critters that ate the green stuff, and pretty soon, there was a whole what-you-call ecosystem going on.

Occasionally, stuff would happen. Sometimes, the earth would burp up a bunch of hot stuff and smoke and it caused problems for the critters and the green stuff. Things would heat up; or cool down. Sometimes it killed off great gobs of the critters and the green stuff. And then sometimes, big things from outer space would smack into the earth and that would also kill off lots of critters and green stuff.

The heating and cooling developed into cycles; some lasted for a long time and some lasted for a short time. Some repeated over and over again, and some eventually ended and new cycles took their place. The shortest ones were called 'weather' and the next shortest were called 'seasons' and the longest ones were called 'climate'.

Eventually, the critters developed the ability to make things out of the parts of the earth, and they began to change things in a way that other critters and all the green stuff had mostly not. They turned solids into liquids, liquids into gasses, and basically just set things up to suit themselves. Sometimes the changes they made caused other critters and green stuff to die off. The earth didn't care much, and mostly the critters didn't either. But the tool-making critters sometimes wished they hadn't done whatever it was they did that caused things to change. But others were happy, they liked the things they made, like internet pr0n and MTV and microwave burritos.

Eventually, some of the thinky-critters started looking at the cycles that the earth went through. They tried to apply principles to the cycles, starting with the weather. They called it predicting the weather, and they were occasionally right.

Some of these folks who thought they could predict the weather applied some of the same principles to climate. And some of them thought that perhaps the changes the thinky-critters had made were affecting the climate. Things were getting hotter before they would have done if left to their own devices. This warming trend might eventually cause the thinky-critters to die off, just like the other critters and green stuff had done before them.

Or it might not. It was hard to predict the weather; it was harder to predict the climate. The people who thought that there might be changes were unsure. Some thought it would be worse. Some thought it would be minor. Some didn't think it would happen at all. Some thought the changes were happening, but that they were not significantly different from the changes that would have happened anyway. And of course, the earth had not stopped burping, and rocks might still crash into it and set things back again, just as they had so many times in the past.

But the thinky-critters who had decided that the other thinky-critters had in fact set in motion changes that would eventually kill off the other critters and green things had a lot invested in their theories. It got them elected to high office. It got them money to do more studies. It got them dates with Hollywood stars. And they called it 'Global Warming'. They called anyone who disagreed with them 'deniers' and they did their best to make it seem as if anyone who even had a question about their methods or motives was a 'denier' and they even tried to make sure that 'deniers' didn't get jobs in the climate-predicting industry.

And so they proposed that Something Must Be Done. This 'something' was a bit mushy around the edges; no one was quite sure what it entailed. But mostly, it was thought, that since messing up the earth had been relatively fun and easy, fixing it would have to be difficult and painful. It would have to involve lots of the thinky-critters giving up their things and their money and living as their pitiful ancestors had, for long periods of time. And this was not guaranteed to fix things, but it might.

Some thinky-critters objected to this; they lived in countries which had not yet had their turn at having fun messing up the earth, and they resented being asked to help fix it. They were called 'emerging nations'. So the thinky-critters decided that the emerging nations would not have to put themselves in hardship to fix the planet. But the other nations would have to.

Now, this voluntary privation would cause the 'developed nations' to not be competitive with the 'emerging nations', but the thinky-critters who felt that the earth was broken by the agency of other thinky-critters didn't care. They wanted something to be done, and they didn't much care if it caused great hardship or if it caused nations to no longer be great, powerful, or wealthy.

Fortunately, some of the thinky-critters were not fooled. They knew that the 'Global Warming' might indeed be real, and that some of it might even be caused by the agency of thinky-critters, but they also thought that given how well the weather was predicted, the chances of climate being predicted was even less of a science; and that even if it was accurate, there might or might not be anything thinky-critters could do to fix things, and even if they could fix things, the chances were low that the things they would do would the right things. And that giving up huge amounts of money to fix things that might or might not be a problem, and which they might or might not even be able to fix, while giving up their economy and letting the 'emerging nations' take over instead, was not really something that they wanted to have happen.

So they said "Stuff it, bone heads." And that was the end of that.
 
Can't Rep you presently Bill, so public appreciation of induced chuckles it has to be for you :D.
 
My argument has always been thus. How do we know that this "global warming" isn't a NATURAL process of the earth? Oh sure we farted and polluted the planet and tore a nice big hole in the "ozone" layer and the seas have millions of gallons of crude oil floating around in a convoluted mess. Yet the planet went through not one but TWO ice ages. The second one was not as long or as intense as the first one... but it did happen. Lots of people got their bunwaleas froze off but they survived.
There is still a lot that we don't understand about our planet and it's ecological system. We haven't been on it long enough and while tremendous advancements have been made in the field of meteorology and geology and lots of other "ologies" we still don't have all the answers.
So instead of panicking we should just try to minimize OUR damages to the earth and let the rest take care of itself. Mankind, survived BOTH ice ages and I earnestly believe that we'll survive this global warming. We may have to move away from our ocean front properties but that's life, and the risk that one takes when one builds a house with the ocean a stone's throw from your back porch. Same as the ones who place their houses and towns along fault lines and along areas known to habitually spawn tornadoes annually like clock work during a certain time of the year.
We as a species need to remember that we do not control the planet in any shape or form. If we did Katrina wouldn't have happened. The tornadoes that tore up the south earlier this year wouldn't have happened and the earthquakes in Japan and else where on the planet wouldn't have happened.
As Mr. Miyagi from the Karate Kid said: walk on left side of the road--safe, walk on right side of road-- safe... walk in middle of road--sooner or later *squished* like grape.
 
global-warming-cartoon-705513.jpg
 
Sometimes I think that as humans we are like that little bug buzzying around an adults ear. Soon, when the adult has had enough, it swats and squishes the little bug. I think that mother earth will soon have enough and swat us and bring back balance.
 
Sometimes I think that as humans we are like that little bug buzzying around an adults ear. Soon, when the adult has had enough, it swats and squishes the little bug. I think that mother earth will soon have enough and swat us and bring back balance.

we cannot destroy the planet. We cannot make it uninhabitable for all forms of life. But we can make it uninhabitable for humans.

Mother Earth doesn't just decide that she's "had enough", and cannot deliberately "bring back balance". There is no deliberate will in that sense.

balance develops as a result of many factors interacting, and once balance is lost it can take many thousands, and even millions of years for a comparable balance to develop again. Humans are definitely having a diverse effect on the planet, and we could destroy our own home, upsetting the balance needed for human existence. Even a dog knows not to **** in its food bowl, but that is exactly what Humans do.

Agent Smith said it very well: Humans are a virus.
 
Whether Global Warming exists or not is almost irrelevant. There are far too many pollutants in the enviroment. Pregnant women are now warned against eating fish because of the mercury content. Drinking water contains a Mulligan Soup of pharmaceuticals and industrial products. If the big, bad scary Global Warming doesn't exist we still need to clean up our act and stop dumping poisons into our enviroment.
 
balance develops as a result of many factors interacting, and once balance is lost it can take many thousands, and even millions of years for a comparable balance to develop again. Humans are definitely having a diverse effect on the planet, and we could destroy our own home, upsetting the balance needed for human existence. Even a dog knows not to **** in its food bowl, but that is exactly what Humans do.

Agent Smith said it very well: Humans are a virus.

The operative word is 'could'. I don't spend my money on 'could'.
 
Whether Global Warming exists or not is almost irrelevant. There are far too many pollutants in the enviroment. Pregnant women are now warned against eating fish because of the mercury content. Drinking water contains a Mulligan Soup of pharmaceuticals and industrial products. If the big, bad scary Global Warming doesn't exist we still need to clean up our act and stop dumping poisons into our enviroment.

Fine. Spend your money. Leave my money alone, because I'm not interested.
 
we cannot destroy the planet. We cannot make it uninhabitable for all forms of life. But we can make it uninhabitable for humans.

Mother Earth doesn't just decide that she's "had enough", and cannot deliberately "bring back balance". There is no deliberate will in that sense.

balance develops as a result of many factors interacting, and once balance is lost it can take many thousands, and even millions of years for a comparable balance to develop again. Humans are definitely having a diverse effect on the planet, and we could destroy our own home, upsetting the balance needed for human existence. Even a dog knows not to **** in its food bowl, but that is exactly what Humans do.

Agent Smith said it very well: Humans are a virus.

so much for literary device.
 
The operative word is 'could'. I don't spend my money on 'could'.

well we ARE on a path of pollution which very well COULD lead to an environment that is miserable for humankind, if we don't make some changes.

If we don't make some changes, we WILL create an environment that is miserable, if not outright hostile, to human existance.

I get it that you feel it won't affect you personally, perhaps we won't see full-blown effects in your lifetime, so it doesn't bother you. That message is loud and clear.

I personally suspect that it may be too late anyway. Too much pollution momentum already out there to just turn the train around even if we completely stopped all pollution globally today. I think we are already in for a rough ride, no matter what we do at this point.
 
The operative word is 'could'. I don't spend my money on 'could'.

Of course you do. At least, as long as you have health, car or homeowners insurance, which I assume you do. The question is never "could" vs. "will", but rather competing risk vs. reward weighted by the probabilities of events occurring and intervention doing something about it. That is rational. Demanding epistemological certainty is not rational, because it is not possible, and you don't demand it for things you aren't politically disposed to disregard.
 
Whether Global Warming exists or not is almost irrelevant. There are far too many pollutants in the enviroment. Pregnant women are now warned against eating fish because of the mercury content. Drinking water contains a Mulligan Soup of pharmaceuticals and industrial products. If the big, bad scary Global Warming doesn't exist we still need to clean up our act and stop dumping poisons into our enviroment.

Fine. Spend your money. Leave my money alone, because I'm not interested.

This is really funny. I mean, you are advocating we continue to **** in our own food bowls. Or at least you intend to do so.

OK, so **** in your own food bowl. Leave my food bowl alone, because I'm not interested.
 
well we ARE on a path of pollution which very well COULD lead to an environment that is miserable for humankind, if we don't make some changes.

Except no one knows what changes, and of the available options, what they will do, and again, the operative word is 'could'. Could also means 'might not'.

If we don't make some changes, we WILL create an environment that is miserable, if not outright hostile, to human existance.

Now you went from could to will. And you don't describe the changes. And we don't know if these changes, once described, will work.

I get it that you feel it won't affect you personally, perhaps we won't see full-blown effects in your lifetime, so it doesn't bother you. That message is loud and clear.

I personally suspect that it may be too late anyway. Too much pollution momentum already out there to just turn the train around even if we completely stopped all pollution globally today. I think we are already in for a rough ride, no matter what we do at this point.

I've heard that also. So that's pretty much that. If we can't change the environment, adapt to it.
 
Of course you do. At least, as long as you have health, car or homeowners insurance, which I assume you do. The question is never "could" vs. "will", but rather competing risk vs. reward weighted by the probabilities of events occurring and intervention doing something about it. That is rational. Demanding epistemological certainty is not rational, because it is not possible, and you don't demand it for things you aren't politically disposed to disregard.

Good points. On the other hand, those things you mentioned directly benefit me. Extracting money from my wallet that might fix some problem we might have at some point in the far future...not so much.
 
This is really funny. I mean, you are advocating we continue to **** in our own food bowls. Or at least you intend to do so.

OK, so **** in your own food bowl. Leave my food bowl alone, because I'm not interested.

Works for me. See, I don't insist that you not change the world; go on and change it. I only don't want to pay for it. However, those who do want to change the world seem to want me to pony up for something I am not interested in.
 
Works for me. See, I don't insist that you not change the world; go on and change it. I only don't want to pay for it. However, those who do want to change the world seem to want me to pony up for something I am not interested in.

I'd like for you to stop ******** in my food bowl. Would you please do that?
 
Back
Top