Sorry, this is off topic, but the relevant difference between the particular were you are using and are isn't one of tense but of mood. The were is a past subju

Sorry, this is off topic, but the relevant difference between the particular were you are using and are isn't one of tense but of mood. The were is a past subjunctive form, where "past" is there more as part of the name of the form than a description of its meaning. The are is present indicative. The part described with were isn't in the past relative to the part described with are, thus it is not a distinction in tense. The were part is counterfactual and the are is factual, a distinction in mood. I will probably be voted down for saying this, but I am a linguist, specifically a semanticist, and I find the association between "past"* subjunctive forms and counterfactuality fascinating. * Note, there are some constructions where the "past" part is semantically past as well, but this isn't one of them.