tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post6449046255309779171..comments2023-10-15T08:15:46.205-04:00Comments on Mike's Eyes (Spotted By): Unearned Guilt via EnvironmentalismMichael Neibelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-18038942877341478572007-11-14T22:08:00.000-05:002007-11-14T22:08:00.000-05:00Burgess:You're right. I misunderstood your idea on...Burgess:<BR/>You're right. I misunderstood your idea on climate and average. sorry bout that.<BR/><BR/>I agree that environmentalism will some day pass but I think there may be convulsions first. There are too many people and too much money invested in it for the movement to go quietly.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, thanks for the support and keep up your efforts to bring knowledge of Aristotle and his ideas to our culture.Michael Neibelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-42240807898685300622007-11-14T07:25:00.000-05:002007-11-14T07:25:00.000-05:00Mike said: "But I don't think you can have an aver...Mike said: "But I don't think you can have an <B>average mean climate</B>. You can have an average rainfall, ave. temp., ave. cloudiness etc., but those are weather averages. I don't see how you could have an <B>average mean climate</B>." [Bold added]<BR/><BR/>Perhaps we are having a miscommunication. I don't recall saying we could have "an average mean climate." The phrasing I used was "average (or mean)" and, unless I slipped up in typing, I certainly would not have said "average climate" or "mean climate" because those phrases would have been redundancies (a "climate" <I>is</I> an averaging <I>or</I> calculated mean of particular weather numbers such as temperature).<BR/><BR/>Beyond that, I think we are in agreement.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the article. It helps laymen like me to clarify my limited understanding of the issues. Unfortunately, there is little I can do except, as a student of history for more than 50 years, watch the lunacy spread. <BR/><BR/>Environmentalism, as a movement, is a great success in terms of influencing behavior, just as alchemy and astrology were during the Renaissance. It will pass, I hope, with time and the persistence of all those, like you, who fight it, just as the occult "sciences" lost favor gradually in the centuries after the Renaissance.<BR/><BR/>Burgess Laughlin<BR/>http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.comBurgess Laughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865479709475171678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-3669112508132868002007-11-14T00:44:00.000-05:002007-11-14T00:44:00.000-05:00Burgess:I think your definitions are pretty much c...Burgess:<BR/>I think your definitions are pretty much correct. It's always been my understanding that climate is the wider context into which weather is integrated. <BR/><BR/>You say "What differentiates "climate" from "weather" is time." I would add range or as you mention, geographic space. So climate then is the sum total of all the weather forcings in a geographical range and in a given time span. But I don't think you can have an average mean climate. You can have an average rainfall, ave. temp., ave. cloudiness etc., but those are weather averages. I don't see how you could have an average mean climate. I don't have a problem with these definitions. My problem is that these are not the meanings being conveyed to the public by the media, pols, and some scientists.<BR/><BR/> When someone says we must stop climate change, I want to ask "Which climate?" "Whose climate?" I want them to admit they want to prevent all climates from changing, for they are what exist in reality. Seen in that light, the goal of preventing climate change becomes rediculous.<BR/><BR/>The same is true for global environment. I can't count the times I've heard the phrase "We must protect 'the environment'" Again, I want to ask "Which environment?" "Whose environment?" I want them to admit they are really talking about everyone's environment and in the process trying to make everyone responsible not only for their own environment but for everyone else's too. And that's wrong.<BR/><BR/>I am responsible for my environment. I keep my yard and street clean. When I go to a park or go fishing, I leave no trace of me there. But I am not responsible when others don't behave the same way say in another park or fishing hole, especially when their mess is now included in the meaning of "the environment" for which I am to be held responsible. That is exactly what concepts like "climate change" and "the environment" are designed to accomplish.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps an anology is in order. Ayn Rand once correctly pointed out that the concept 'society' does not refer to an entity that exists in reality, but rather is a figure of speech we humans use to better visualise a number of individuals living in a given geographical area under the same government. Despite this truth, we still see intellectuals treating society as a real entity which incurs costs as a result of us exercising our right to life, liberty and property requiring the government to regulate how we do it. This is wrong of course.<BR/><BR/>That is what I see happening with "global climate" and "the environment." These two concepts are just figures of speech to help us visualize a number of climate and environmental aggregates. They can be used honestly as I suspect some scientists do. But I want to warn other laymen like myself to beware of the dishonest use of those concepts. That purpose is to throw a guilt trip on them. I don't want them to fall for it. <BR/><BR/>In closing, I want to thank you Burgess, for what I consider a positive comment and apologize for not making myself clearer the first time.Michael Neibelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-36952238958358746382007-11-13T08:09:00.000-05:002007-11-13T08:09:00.000-05:001. "... there is no such thing as a global climate...1. "... there is no such thing as a global climate, only local or regional ones, so ..."<BR/><BR/>I don't follow this point. Isn't "climate" usually the name of a certain generalization; and doesn't it usually mean the average (or mean) of particular weather conditions over an extended period of <I>time</I>, perhaps one human generation or more?<BR/><BR/>What differentiates "climate" from "weather" is <I>time</I>. "Global," "regional," and "local" identify another line of differentiation: geographic <I>space</I>.<BR/><BR/>2. "... the same is true for the concept global environment."<BR/><BR/>Is "global environment" really a concept, even a pseudo-concept? It is certainly an idea, but isn't it a "qualified instance of a concept" (as Ayn Rand describes in <I>Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology</I>, pp. 23, 71, and 177), rather than a concept?<BR/><BR/>In other words, isn't "global environment" two concepts, one ("global") qualifying the other ("environment") by describing the geographic extent (as you have done with "local" and "regional")?<BR/><BR/>It is true that sometimes individuals (mistakenly) use two words to name one idea, but that doesn't seem to be the case here, as the qualifiers "global," "regional," and "local" suggest. In fact, "global environment" is usually used as an identifier of a particular fact, just as "east coast of the U.S." is used -- almost as a proper name, but without the capitalization.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your analysis of environmentalist ideas. The scientific issues are very complex and the science is in its early stages, The environmentalists, however, are not scientists, no matter how much they might cite some scientists. They deserve the most rigorous scrutiny from laymen.<BR/><BR/>Burgess Laughlin<BR/>http://aristotleadventure.blogspot.comBurgess Laughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865479709475171678noreply@blogger.com