Dying Polar Bears

You see this polar bear?

That polar bear is on his last limbs. And it's all because of you.

No amount of Coca Cola will save him now

But it's not just polar bears that are being affected. No, it's closer to every living organism on this planet. *cue scary music*

Alright, so maybe that was a bit dramatic.

Now for the actual post

Quick! Is global warming a myth?

If you answered "Yes!!!1!11!" then congratulations, you can't science! Climate change (it sounds cooler and makes more sense than "global warming") is a legitimate phenomena. If you don't think so, then you either: A) have your head shoved up your own ass, B) are a member of the Republican party, or C) actually don't know what it is. Oddly enough, that last one applies to most people who deny it. Luckily, your friendly neighborhood Kyle is here to explain and bring you into the light!

Honestly, I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain climate change to people in the last week. It was four, actually, but people still don't seem to get it. So, let's go down the list, shall? First thing's first with everyone's favorite politican:

Al Gore

Holy shit, Al Gore the man whose name is synonymous with really bloody video games -- and global warming. But there's this thing about Al Gore. How do I put this? Well...

He's.

A.

Fucking.

Lunatic.

Simple as that. This is the man who was cereal and invented the internet; he's not to be cited as a professional on anything. But, for one reason or another, deniers love to put him up as the cover girl for all things involving climate change and then insult him (the equivalent of burning a straw man). Absolutely no one who has any sense when it comes to climate change cites Al Gore as a source. Al Gore never was a legitimate source. So can we just drop Al Gore? Where did he even go anyway? Like, he just died off and no one's said anything about him. Strange.

What it actually is (as copied from a post I made) 

Next, let's get down to what the core of climate change theory really says: that humans are having an impact (mostly of the negative variety) on their environment. The majority of this impact is due to the rapid release of carbon (i.e. carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and some others) into the atmosphere.

These gases, it has been shown, trap and absorb heat. Basically, they're molecules that can hold a lot of energy and not radiate it back out as quickly. After all, heat is just molecular movement.

This heat and subsequent rising of global temperature was never stated (or at least isn't now, since more data has been gathered), to rise as much as Al Gore said/might have said. He was just a politician who undoubtedly manipulated the facts to fit his purpose. Before you think that's some sort of pass to hate on Democrats, stop now. One man does not represent a whole group, and it's idiocy to think so.

In fact, the temperature predictions have only shown an increase of a degree or two. The majority of this warming is happening in the ocean, where the majority of carbon is absorbed.

Why it's cold as balls

Pertaining as to why there's so much cold running around like a lunatic with scissors, that can be explained with the phenomenon known as Arctic Osculation. I could go in depth on how that works, but the basics are this: normally the Arctic is an area of low pressure, and -- since air moves toward areas of low pressure -- most air masses/weather stays in the general area. However, occasionally, the Arctic switches to a phase of high pressure. This high pressure pushes all the cold air masses down and into the rest of the northern hemisphere. If there's enough pressure, it could possibly force air masses down into the southern hemisphere. Cold air + precipitation = snow/ice/frozen water.

"But Kyle!" You attempt to retort, "The temperatures are record low! That means global warming must be a myth!"

If we want to talk record temperatures, then I'll point out that the summer of 2009 was tied for the second hottest year on record. Believe it or not, these extremes are actually together.

But of course, something like this can't be validated through such a short term cycle. Large amounts of data over a large period of time are required. Fortunately, ice cores can be taken. These ice cores can tell us just how much carbon was in the atmosphere at the time a layer was created (like I said, water traps carbon). An increase of carbon in a layer designates an increase of carbon in the atmosphere/ocean. These increases correlate with periods we know when significant warming happened.

It's the sun!

Holy shit, I can't believe people actually say that.

Of fucking course the sun plays a part in this! That's where we get the majority of the heat on our planet from. You see that? I didn't even provide a link; that's just how common sens something like this is.

But the sun doesn't have anything to do with increased carbon amounts on our planet, now does it? Not only that, but increased solar activity wouldn't even begin to lead to rising temperatures in the deeper part of the oceans.

It's just a cycle

This is the point where the deniers turn into to downers. As in, they try to play it down as just something that has happened before an that there's no point in caring about it. I mean, mass extinctions have happened before too, but why worry about our own species dying out? Which, according to the movie Pacific Rim, happened because of giant extra-dimensional mounters. So yeah, let's not bother looking out for those.

It's true that there is a cycle; data has shown us that. That point, however, is not disputed among general science. The point of the whole theory is that carbon affects temperatures and that we're pumping more carbon into the atmosphere than ever. Add that to the fact that it's being removed and converted at a slower and slower rate, and we have an exponentially growing problem.

Everything else

I'm sure I missed something on here. Either because I just can't think of any more at the point of writing (which is the past for you, how mind blowing is that?) or because of the stupidity of this article denying pretty much everything contrary to what a lot of studies show and not even providing evidence for it. Here's a tip: if you ever read an article like that linked one where all the refutations are five sentences long and amount to "this is wrong" without providing any other evidence, stare at it, understand how stupid it is to do such a thing, and then burn your house down because nothing is sacred anymore.

Now, if you have any more questions/comments/insults, post them in the comments and I'll do what I can. That or go to this super cool site that answers a lot of questions about climate change and addresses the arguments made against it. There's even a widget that tells you how many nuclear bombs' worth of heat we've put into the atmosphere in the top right corner!

And now you know.

White Power

With the recent death of Nelson Mandela, thoughts of racism and discrimination have been dancing around in my head more than usual. Especially after finding multiple articles claiming the man to be a Communist and a possible racist. On top of that, some evidence points towards him being part of a (still on-going) genocide. Make of those what you will, as some of the evidence is sketchy at best.

Nonetheless, this leads me to a still oft asked question: Does racism exist? 

Well, quite obviously, it does. Black. Hispanic (or Mexican, since - to every racist - they're all Mexican anyway). Asian (see Hispanic, but replace "Mexican" with "Chinese"). All of them are hated by other races.

But what about whites? 

Often considered the majority, white folk were once the standard (before this magical thing call "equality" was thunk up). However, that standard is quickly changing. What it might become, I couldn't tell, but it's changing regardless. I mean, you can call a white guy "cracker" or whatever the kids are using now a days -- they could really come up with something better too. White racial slurs pretty much suck and aren't actually that offensive, except for "negrophiliac", which should really be used more because that sounds hilarious. However, that's racism in its own right. 

On the discrimination side of things, some people point toward the affirmative action laws, which pretty much tell corporations/businesses/universities/anything else that needs people to work that they have to meet certain quotas of minorities OR ELSE. When they were introduced, they made sense: all the white people were extremely racist and they pretty much had to be forced to change so we could reach what we have today. But are they still needed today? Some (white) people say no. They say it unfairly discriminates against them, causing them to be denied certain things simply because of arbitrary details. Honestly, that'd be pathetic if anyone were denied, simply because there's already enough wang or not enough melanin for the quota.

But the best way to tell is to do a survey. So that I shall do. Sorta. Not the full thing here, but consider this a preliminary.

• Do you consider any of the following groups to be discriminated against:
• Whites
• Blacks
• Hispanics (Browns?)
• Asians (Yellows)
• Native American (Reds)
• Other (because I probably forgot someone)
• Do you think discrimination is increasing against the following groups:
• Whites
• Blacks
• Hispanics (Browns)
• Asians (Yellows)
• Native American (Reds)
• Other
•  Optional: Explain your answers

And that's it. 

And just to make sure you don't end up as some imbecile who can't think for themselves because they've been conditioned their whole life, may I point you to my friend Mr. T:

"I pity the fool who disagrees with Kyle."

See? The T said it; you can't argue now. Unless you want your head to be crushed like one of Gallagher's watermelons in those biceps.

Pictured: your future career if you don't stay in school.
Being an aging man smashing fruit, that is. Not the watermelon.
Though you might be the watermelon. Who knows?