Mother Nature: What Do I Have to Do Here to Convince You That Global Warming is Real?
Please note that the following article is intended as SATIRE. It is not intended to be a factual statement. Please enjoy. Or don't.
Article excerpt follows:
Mother Nature: What Do I Have to Do Here to Convince You Assholes That Global Warming is Real?
By Molly Schoemann
June 2, 2012
Mother Nature released a statement this week expressing frustration with the increasingly poor treatment the earth has been subjected to at the hands of its human inhabitants.
Environmental activists were stunned by the release of the statement, which is believed to be the first of its kind.
“Seriously, folks,” it began. “What do I have to do to get your attention here? Do you want me to melt the polar ice caps into the shape of a giant frowny-face? Should I strike down a couple thousand starving polar bears so that their prone bodies spell out the words ‘turn off your f*cking air conditioner’ or maybe ‘stop driving six blocks to work in your damn Hummers’?”
Many scientists believe that the growing human population, coupled with modern man’s increasingly destructive and rapacious consumption of dwindling natural resources, have contributed significantly to a number of serious environmental issues, with global warming at the forefront.
However, many political conservatives continue to ignore mounting scientific evidence that climate change is an issue, insisting instead that the gradually warming temperatures across the planet are part of a larger, natural temperature cycle.
Mother Nature’s statement appeared to address this controversy head-on.
“You want a few more ninety-degree days in January up in Minnesota?” it asked. “Did you like those? Did they feel right? And what about that earthquake in D.C. last year? Did you somehow think that was a good sign? Can I maybe send a few more devastating tsunamis your way? Just tell me what kind of natural disaster you’re going to have to experience in order to finally stop destroying a hundred different species every single day, and I’ll get right on it.”
Mother Nature then went on a tangential rant in which she apologized for her attempt to destroy British Petroleum, which had unfortunately “backfired really badly”, and noted that Morgan Freeman’s voice-overs for several recent nature documentaries were “impeccably done” and “really some of his best work.”
“Anyway, please let me know what it’s going to take to get you to cool it with the hydraulic fracturing already,” the statement concluded. “I thought the byproduct of flammable water would be a pretty clear indication that fracking was a bad idea, but I guess I was wrong there too.
“I’ve tried every way I can think of to send a message to you, but apparently we’re just not speaking the same language anymore.
“Stay cool, guys,” the Mother Nature said ominously in closing, adding, “Don’t say I didn’t warn you.”
As of press time, Mother Nature was unavailable for further comment, and it was an unusually hot 94 degrees in Boston.
Read More: http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/06/02/mother-natu...
Top Opinion
-
Icarus 2012/06/11 15:34:35
Those who are living in denial about anthropogenic climate change because they think its a political/egotistical Gore issue should consider googling the Libertarian scientist Michael Shermer's ESkeptic site for information.
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth ..... And Mother Nature saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagining of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And Mother Nature repented that she had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him in His heart. And Mother Nature said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping thing and the fowls of the air, for I repent that I have made them.” But Noah found grace in the eyes of Mother Nature. The earth also was corrupt before Mother Nature, and the earth was filled with violence. And Mother Nature looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And Mother Nature said unto Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make thee an ark of gopherwood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt cover it within and witho...
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth ..... And Mother Nature saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagining of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And Mother Nature repented that she had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him in His heart. And Mother Nature said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping thing and the fowls of the air, for I repent that I have made them.” But Noah found grace in the eyes of Mother Nature. The earth also was corrupt before Mother Nature, and the earth was filled with violence. And Mother Nature looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And Mother Nature said unto Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make thee an ark of gopherwood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt cover it within and without with pitch."
You probably have heard the rest of the story.....
Like your story, my story is full of fictitious characters. I know the characters are fictional because those who claim the characters are real don't believe it can happen and are the biggest proponents of the continued abuse of this earth. If they believed in God, Mother Nature, or Intelligent Design, they would know that every design has limits to its tolerances. When you push a system outside of its limits, only God can help you and God is notorious for abandoning humanity when they mistreat God's earth.
The surface weather station record:
(Click on the graph to enlarge it.)
The weather ballon launch time record:
(Click on the graph to enlarge it.)
The satellite Microwave Sounding Unit, or MSU, record:
(Click on the graph to enlarge it.)
The first thing that needs to be done is to change the concept from "global warming" to climate change.
All areas of the planet are not going to experience warming but changes in weather patterns is a FACT.
Historical studies of the jet streams shows that they are being forced poleward (http://www.agu.org/pubs/cros...
This is a post at http://www.wunderground.com/b... from Dr. Jeff Masters, PhD. and co-founder of the Weather Underground.
"Climate change is forcing the jet stream higher and closer to the pole in both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, according research published this April in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. In their paper, "Historical trends in the jet streams", researchers Cristina Archer and Ken Caldeira of Stanford's Carnegie Institution of Washington analyzed data from 1979-2001, and found that the Northern Hemisphere jet stream moved northward at approximately 125 miles per decade (270 miles during the 22-year period of the study). The jet moved higher by 5-23 meters during this period, and the wind speeds decreased by about 1 mph. Archer and Caldeira's study confirms other research showing a poleward movement of the jet stream in recent decades (Fu et al., 2006; Hu an...
The first thing that needs to be done is to change the concept from "global warming" to climate change.
All areas of the planet are not going to experience warming but changes in weather patterns is a FACT.
Historical studies of the jet streams shows that they are being forced poleward (http://www.agu.org/pubs/cros...
This is a post at http://www.wunderground.com/b... from Dr. Jeff Masters, PhD. and co-founder of the Weather Underground.
"Climate change is forcing the jet stream higher and closer to the pole in both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, according research published this April in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. In their paper, "Historical trends in the jet streams", researchers Cristina Archer and Ken Caldeira of Stanford's Carnegie Institution of Washington analyzed data from 1979-2001, and found that the Northern Hemisphere jet stream moved northward at approximately 125 miles per decade (270 miles during the 22-year period of the study). The jet moved higher by 5-23 meters during this period, and the wind speeds decreased by about 1 mph. Archer and Caldeira's study confirms other research showing a poleward movement of the jet stream in recent decades (Fu et al., 2006; Hu and Fu, 2007). All of these changes are consistent with the behavior of the jet stream predicted by global warming theory. For example, Lorenz and DeWeaver (2007) found poleward shifts of the jet stream by 2100 in the forecasts of 15 climate models used to formulate the "official" word on climate, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) report. However, the authors were careful not to say how much of this shift in the jet stream was due to natural causes versus human-caused climate change. It is unknown if the jet stream has natural decades-long changes in its path that could account for the observed poleward shift."
http://thinkprogress.org/clim...
Just for the record, it isn't.
http://www.skepticalscience.c...
So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus pos...
http://www.skepticalscience.c...
So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).