The other day, I heard two guys arguing about “global warning [sic]” (in the voices of a cocky nay-sayers) at a coffee shop. They claimed that global “warning”/climate change was a cyclical phenomenon—it happens every few hundreds of years. We have nothing to worry about because if “global warming” was real, then why is there so much snowfall? Why have we been getting record low temperatures?
I found myself in one of those moments when you hold your tongue from saying, “You fucking idiots, CLIMATE CHANGE IS WHY IT’S SO COLD AND WHY WE HAVE SO MUCH SNOWFALL!” The world is in the shape it’s in because of asshats like these guys. Jeez!
Okay, let me break down the most redundant arguments that the Deniers have. 1. There has been record cold and precipitation lately. 2. The world climate has ebbs and flows—meaning that the earth warms and cools over a period of time no matter the circumstances.
Let me say that I agree that the earth does cool and warm more for a period of time over a number of years. But that’s where I’ll stop conceding. When you have a few points of data, you have a extremely little to go on, especially when you consider the lifespan of the earth so far. For instance, if you check your thermometer every day for the summer, you can easily tell how hot your summer was on average for that season. However, if you track EVERY season for oh … I don’t know … for 140 years, then you have a trend. A telling trend that clearly shows that the Earth’s surface is heating up. When I put a pan on the stove, I don’t need to keep my hand on its surface to know that it’s getting hot. I can watch over a period of time and see the smoke begin to rise.
So what about the scientists who deny climate change? Not to sound cynical, those who want to be recognized or need money for whatever research they are pursuing could really stand out if they were on the short list of scientists who oppose, and it could be very lucrative to be on the side of companies like BP and Shell. What’s the upside of climate change acknowledgers? Super hero status for trying to save the world. But, that’s my humble opinion.
Now, don’t be a fucking idiot! If you were to look up global warming, you’re looking up a 90’s definition of what is now called climate change. The old research on global warming—like most hypotheses—has evolved over the last decade or so. Opposers keep referring to an old, outdated definition for validation, but don’t understand or like change. I mean, we used to think that women got pregnant from sharing the same toilet seat. We now know that sharing a glass of water is the culprit of the recent spike in teenage pregnancies (okay, neither of those facts are true.) If you’re one of the people who look at the snow on the ground and can’t understand its correlation to how climate change works, you need to slap yourself and one or both of your parents for not being more involved in your education.
Let me break it down. Change is defined as: (v) to pass from one state to another; to make or become different. Climate is defined as: (n) typical weather in region. Weather is defined as:state of atmosphere, meaning, what it looks like outside your home right now. Climate is the weather over an extended period of time. Opposers, if you want to know whether it’s real or not, you can look at the data—not your window.
Now, let’s say I’m wrong. Let’s say climate change is a nonexistent phenomenal buzz phrase. It’s a hoax. Doesn’t it still make sense to ensure the air is clean? Wouldn’t it make better sense that we ensure our children have the same cleanish air we have had growing up? Why be so resistant?
I recall a person once saying to me, “Car emissions aren’t dangerous. It’s CO … the same air we breathe out.” I asked him if he really believed that—knowing that he was mistaking carbon dioxide for carbon monoxide? He said yes. Then, I asked him what would happen if he locked himself in the garage with a running car. He thought for a second. “You’d die,” he replied. I kindly reminded him of the earlier comment he made about CO not being harmful, and I asked him to think of all the cars on the road right now. Even If I conceded that climate change was a hoax, doesn’t it make sense to reduce gases in the air that could kill you? Needless to say, he had something to chew on.
How do we remedy this problem? I have two fundamental things we can do. One, we vote in some competent leaders to Congress. These effing morons are as useless and unwanted as an asshole on your forehead. I don’t need to explain the vetting process of voting in a person who actually cares about the environment.
The second thing we could do to diminish violent storms in three words: big freakin’ dehumidifiers. I recall, from my science classes and my trolling of the Internet, that the severity of the storms is due to the amount of energy the water can hold in the atmosphere. Because there is so much water evaporating and staying in the Earth’s atmosphere, the storms are more violent and produce more rain and snow fall. I was in my basement, and it hit me. Why don’t we make huge humidifiers to suck this water out of the sky? Consequently, we could reduce the latent heat in the atmosphere. I hypothesize that it will reduce the severity of the storms. We all know I’m never wrong, America. Make it happen!
To summarize, we should read more. We should all admit that taking care of the planet is more important than some pissing contest between ideologues. And, we learned I’m always right. But, for now, everyone just do your part to educate your peers and reduce your carbon footprint, so I can commute an hour one-way in my hummer a little more guilt-free.