Thursday, February 28, 2019

Climate ... something

Well, isn't this fun?  For anyone who's been around for any length of time, we know that topic of our environmental status has been debated, changed, manipulated, and lied about for decades.

First in my lifetime was a looming ice age. (More on that later.) Then, a mere 20 or so years later, it was Global Warming.  When a 7-year trend of cooling occurred, though, the narrative had to be changed.  So, the never-wrong phrase of "Climate Change" became the mantra.

What does that mean? And why is it a bad thing? 

Not so long ago, it was getting colder each year.

So, how can we be so close to killing ourselves now due to getting to hot?

Global warming was a problem less than 30 years after "the little ice age" was predicted.  The glaciers that were about to over-run northern countries were now going to melt and flood ruin coastlines for miles inland.

Now, with a few record-breaking winters in the Northern Hemisphere, "warming" doesn't fit the narrative.  So the new term, "climate change" has been adopted.

The climate is changing. Just as everything else is changing. It's usually termed "weather." Every season, every month, every day, the climate changes.

Yet the people who call this bad would say that it's all because of people and their nasty inventions like the internal combustion engine.

But doesn't that term sound vague? Doesn't it sound like a term that can never be wrong? 

How about we go with "climate entropy" ... oh, wait. Many don't know the definition of entropy.  So - (this site is about words, remember)


  • Thermodynamics . (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
  • (in statistical mechanics) a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. Symbol : S
  • (in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message.
  • (in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death) .
  • a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration.

In this context, probably the most appropriate definition may be the cosmology one.  But explaining a catch phrase doesn't really play well.

So I think what these people who want to "fix the problem" should really use is "climate chaos."  For it is control that these people really are talking about, isn't it?


  • a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.
  • any confused, disorderly mass:  a chaos of meaningless phrases.
  • the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe.
  • (initial capital letter ) the personification of this in any of several ancient Greek myths.

Chaos is what's happening here - and I'm not talking about tornadoes. Chaos is the movement.  The so-called experts cannot agree what's going on - warming, cooling, more rain, drought, too much ice, too little ice, etc.  How is anyone to make sense of it? By becoming so disorganized about the message, the messengers can now say just about anything and say that it supports the argument.

I'd love to hear other options for the phrases you think best describe things? Leave them in the comments below.

So WHY is it so hard to figure out what's going on? Let's take a look at the culprits that these so-called environmentalists point to as evidence of the problem ...

The culprits?

Each of these will have articles of their own with more details.  


Cutting down trees rids the planet of its natural "filtration system" for air-borne gases, in particular CO2 (see below).  As humans breathe, they take in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.  Plants do the opposite: they take in carbon dioxide as fuel and give off oxygen.  This provides the wondrous balancing act created on this planet.  By having plants AND animals, the planet sustains itself automatically.


Carbon dioxide is the enemy of all land animals life.  (Well, all animals, but let's leave the fish alone for now.)  Animals require oxygen to feed their bodies through respiration.  When exhaling, the O2 molecules are reconstituted into CO2 molecules.  

But as noted above, plant-life works as the filter for carbon dioxide. Wouldn't an "easy" solution be to grow more plants instead of trying to drastically cut the emissions? Perhaps a balance of the two solutions? 

Air-born gases

Yup - the "farting cows" argument.  Methane and other -ane gases are replacing the air which we breath.

But methane ... is a fuel?  Hmmmm...


This can be looked at as the start of all these arguments.  For pollution is really a man-made item.   We've created things that don't "go away" on their own.  A plant rids itself of leaves every year and the leaves shed become compost on which the plant's roots feed on.  But Man has created plastics and combined metals to don't decompose in a timely fashion. 

But it's also true that climate change has now been blamed on pollution ... not only are we going to pile up things around us that will never go away, we're poisoning all those places to destroy the balanced ecosystem.  

We have now been fighting pollution for longer than we've been causing it. (Based on the first "plastics" being mass produced in 1923.)  Filters for cleaning waste gas and recycling (as inefficient as it has been) have made a dent in how much (the US at least) continues to bury.

Perhaps, just perhaps ... there are other solutions that don't have to be a brand New Deal?

No comments:

Post a Comment