07-07-2017, 10:47 AM
In regards to people saying that they've noticed their locations getting colder, not warmer, the reason people are freaked out about global warming is because the theory, as far as I understand it (and I'm not a scientist, so don't go quoting me
) is that global warming melts the ice caps, creates disturbances in natural sea levels, then fucks with the local weather, creating drastic changes (either hot OR cold). The big fear around global warming is that global warming will actually potentially lead us to another ice age--don't know how this works, but my limited understanding is basically that again, as the ice shelf in the poles gets smaller, and sea levels rise, climate, wind, cloud coverage, ozone coverage, air density, et cetera et cetera all becomes turbulent, and all hell breaks loose.
The thing is that the science is pretty solid. If you believe in science, global warming isn't up for debate. It's happening, it's been happening for a long time, we're all gonna die, no questions about it.
The big debate is whether or not we as human beings have any noticeable impact on global warming, and if there's actually anything we can do to change it or stop it from happening altogether. One side says yes, we need to implement restrictions on factories and on citizens to stop them from wasting energy, from abusing power, and generally decrease the "Carbon footprint" (basically a single person's negative impact on our natural environment) globally to stop this mega-disaster from happening. The other side says there simply isn't enough proof on whether or not humanity is responsible for global warming, and that there's no point to panicking and essentially taxing and restricting the shit out of families and corporations, which leads to less familial income and less overall job opportunities. Basically, is global warming solvable by conserving energy, and if so, is it worth restricting the day-to-day finances of the average family to drastically make a difference in saving the environment.
That's my basic understanding of it. I might be wrong in some areas of this post, and if so, feel free to point em out.
![Tongue Tongue](https://subliminal-talk.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
The thing is that the science is pretty solid. If you believe in science, global warming isn't up for debate. It's happening, it's been happening for a long time, we're all gonna die, no questions about it.
The big debate is whether or not we as human beings have any noticeable impact on global warming, and if there's actually anything we can do to change it or stop it from happening altogether. One side says yes, we need to implement restrictions on factories and on citizens to stop them from wasting energy, from abusing power, and generally decrease the "Carbon footprint" (basically a single person's negative impact on our natural environment) globally to stop this mega-disaster from happening. The other side says there simply isn't enough proof on whether or not humanity is responsible for global warming, and that there's no point to panicking and essentially taxing and restricting the shit out of families and corporations, which leads to less familial income and less overall job opportunities. Basically, is global warming solvable by conserving energy, and if so, is it worth restricting the day-to-day finances of the average family to drastically make a difference in saving the environment.
That's my basic understanding of it. I might be wrong in some areas of this post, and if so, feel free to point em out.
Like snowfall, you cry a silent storm
Your tears paint rivers on this oaken wall. . .
-- Agalloch, The Mantle
Your tears paint rivers on this oaken wall. . .
-- Agalloch, The Mantle