I have a problem with all this “Climate Change” baloney, in particular as regards the old pantheon of “Global Warming”.
First let us start with some definitions:climate is the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area. <Dictionary.com> a region with particular weather patterns or conditions the usual weather conditions in a particular place or region <Merriam-Webster> the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. <Definitions.net>
Okay? Notice anything in common? The word region. Or area. Climate is the pattern of weather in a particular region or area.
Except of course for NASA:
Off of their webpage @ http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
Nice to know how scientific our scientific agencies are, is it not? And, just in passing mind you, does it not give one the warm fuzzies about how neutral and unbiased this agency is? Obviously there is no bias here.
But I digress.
(Alas, a common occurrence for me.)
Weather. What is it? Easiest way to say it is: Weather is what is happening outside your window right now.
the state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture, pressure, etc.<Dictionary.com>
the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness <Merriam-Webster>
Weather is the condition of the climate in a particular place at a particular time <Yourdictionary.com>
Okay, it seems to be agreed that weather is a short term description of the outside conditions. Climate is a long term description of weather in a particular area or region.
What about Environment?
the complex of physical, chemical, and biotic factors (as climate, soil, and living things) that act upon an organism or an ecological community and ultimately determine its form and survival <Merriam-Webster>
the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences; surroundings; milieu
Notice that most definitions of the environment do not reference weather directly. Environment is the sum total of all that surround an individual. It can include the environment inside as well as outside. Outside, weather would be a part of the environment, obviously.
Now what am I getting at here? There are alarmists which would have you believe that mankind is changing the climate, that by burning fossils fuels man is putting more and more co2 into the atmosphere and this is causing the climate to change. My problem with this? They are using sleight of hand, like a magician does, in order to press home their viewpoint.
There is some truth to the fact that man changes the climate. For example, think about a new subdivision built in or near a city. Paved streets. Grassed-in yards. Rooftops of various materials, often dark colored. The climate in this area is going to be changed by all the houses there. If it is in an otherwise dry area, piping in water, irrigating all those yards, planting trees, setting aside areas for parks and other green areas, and so on is all going to change the climate in that local area, that small region. (Look again at the definition of climate: Climate is the pattern of weather in a particular region or area. Nothing in it about size of the area or region.)
Still, if you look at it in general terms, most anyone will probably agree that the climate of a large city is going to be different within the city than it would be in unaffected terrain nearby.
Now look at some other areas. A farmer affects the land. Acreage under cultivation is going behave differently than raw wilderness. A tree farm is going to add growing trees to the environment. An open pit coal mine is going to disrupt grassland and leave raw soil exposed for a time. Yes, these kind of things and more is going to affect the climate at those places.
The problem is that the alarmists are quick to point out all the bad ways that man affects the climate without ever recognizing or admitting that some of the ways are to the good. This is point one.
Point two. They speak as if climate change is global. Yet, by definition climate is localized, regional, and limited in area and there is good reason for that. Climate is not universal. From wherever a person is, they can travel a few miles, a few hundred miles or a few thousand miles and be in an area with an entirely different climate than where they started. A person can change climates simply by driving out of the city into the country.
Those things which affect the weather in a particular area change from location to location. Climate is the pattern of weather over a long term in a particular area or region or place. It is folly to pronounce loudly and definitively that anything man does is going to affect the weather of all places in equal measure all over the face of the world. There is no such thing as universal climate. Climate varies depending upon the environment at a particular location. It varies by latitude, by longitude, by the presence or absence of large bodies of water, by elevation and by the presence or absence of alterations to the landscape done by man. And by nature. Who can argue that the climate is not going to be different in the immediate area around a volcano than that around the local fishing lake?
So, by converting from the phrase “global warming” to “climate change” there is an effort made to deliberately obfuscate this issue. For a good long period, a number of people were convinced that increasing the amount of co2 would cause a massive rise in the average global temperature on the surface of the earth. Now we have gone approximate;y two decades of increasing co2 without any corresponding increase in temperature. That breaks this correlation / causation chain rather remarkably so now the switch is to a concept which is more difficult to argue against: man changes the climate. Yes, what man does affects the climate. This is something which is foolish to deny. But what the “global warming alarmists” are doing is extending this to all climate everywhere on earth, which is simple fallacy. Climate has changed continuously as long as the earth has existed. There is no universal climate, there is no “one size fits all” climate. There are so many factors which affect the weather at any given location, there is no way to single out any one issue which may affect it, adversely or favorably in the fashion the alarmists wish to.
Spending untold trillions of dollars in order to deflect something which exists only in the minds of a fevered few is foolish beyond description. No where is there any viable, incontrovertible evidence that levels of co2 in the atmosphere has had any measurable effect upon the overall environment of the earth. As far as burning of fossil fuels goes, there is no demonstrable, incontrovertible evidence that continuing as we have will in any way adversely affect the overall environment of the earth in measurable ways that are beyond efforts of remediation and/or to a degree that poses hazards to mankind.
From my perspective, it is simply a matter of wondering how long the alarmists can continue to flog a dead horse. Or mule, since they have now changed labels. Blame everything on climate change. Something that happens all the time anyway.