That’s right. I now know how to use ‘succinct’ in a heading. (My three readers applaud.)
One day I’ll also use it appropriately in
my weekly column even though my stories and succinct have little in common.
While waiting for me to respond to his last email concerning our ongoing exchange Lorrie Goldstein checked out my blog.
(He never takes a day off. As for me, I was in the workshop preparing more bird houses for Curiosities Gift Shop in Wortley Village. Got birds? And they’re homeless? Call me - have I got deal for you.)
Then he wrote a short email with more information about weather and climate, topics we all need to know more about, and soon:
Gordon:
Just saw our exchange on your blog.
Good blog, by the way.
You were quite fair and I thank you for referring people to my original article in full, which alas, not all bloggers do.
Plus your grandson is a cutie.
As for your reader, Sean Hurley, I'm afraid I'm at a loss.
I refer to the section of his comment where he says I don't understand that "climate and weather are two different things."
I suggest he might want to read what I actually wrote in the piece he's presuming to criticize.
Particularly sentence six where it says:
"Relax. Weather isn't climate..."
I have highlighted the reference in the full editorial for easy reference below.
I'm afraid I can't do much when people don't read what I write before pontificating on what they incorrectly think I don't understand.
You could also tell him there's an easier way to explain the difference between weather and climate than going on about marbles in bowls and averages.
It comes from a gent at Environment Canada.
Weather determines whether you take an umbrella to work in the morning.
Climate determines the kind of wardrobe you buy.
See? Simple.
Cheers,
Lorrie Goldstein
For context, read Mr. Goldstein’s editorial below, as it appeared in The London Free Press, which was helpfully included in his email and Sean Hurley’s comment that follows.
Plus, take a peek at my grandson Ollie in the right hand margin. He IS a cutie.
Column: Editorial -
A hot summer doesn't mean we're doomed Monday, June 9, 2008
BY LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
News flash: Environment Canada is predicting a hotter-than-average summer.
Please try to remain calm.
Back in the good old days, before global warming hysteria took hold, Canadians pretty much had the seasons figured out -- summers hot, winters cold, fall and spring variable.
Alas, not any more.
You can bet that climate hysterics, having been relatively silent during our just-completed colder and snowier than normal winter, will be out in full force as the mercury rises, preaching apocalyptic doom in the name of Al Gore and carbon taxes.
Relax. Weather isn't climate. One hotter than normal summer, or colder than normal winter, says nothing about climate change.
Hysteria aside, just about everyone agrees the Earth has been in a long and gradual period of warming for many years.
As Environment Canada senior climatologist David Phillips notes, 19 of the past 25 Canadian summers have had higher-than-average temperatures.
Most climate scientists believe man-made greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are contributing to an abnormal rise in global temperatures.
But there's much we don't know and many natural factors affect climate as well -- the sun, the natural greenhouse effect, which keeps us from freezing to death, ocean currents, clouds, the tilt and orbit of the Earth.
Regardless, conserving energy and finding ways to wean ourselves off fossil fuels is sound public policy. It's good for the environment, global security and, as today's skyrocketing energy prices indicate, the status quo isn't an option.
That said, it would be foolish and dangerous to tear our country apart by recklessly punishing say, Alberta, for developing the oilsands, which is contributing to our nation's wealth. One National Energy Program was enough.
Rather, we must approach the issue of global warming with good judgment and common sense and not be panicked into reckless decisions by the doomsayers.
Oh ... and have a nice summer.Sean commented to
my post re the above column by sharing his own views about weather and climate and certain writers by saying:
The problem for Mr. Goldstein is that he doesn't have a clue about the topic over which he is ranting. He is an ideological denier rather than a scientific denier. There is a difference.
A denier who rejects that climate change is real and is happening due to human activities on the basis of science, can, presumably, be persuaded otherwise with additional scientific evidence. An ideological denier, such as Mr. Goldstein, will never be persuaded because it runs counter to his ideological world view.
As evidence that Mr. Goldstein does not understand his topic, I point to his argument over weather. Climate and weather are two different things although the ideological deniers can't seem to separate them.
A very good analogy I recently read is to think of climate as a marble in a bowl rolling down one side and up the other and repeating. And imagine the speed and energy of the bowl is increasing and the marble climbs higher up each side of the bowl each time coming closer and closer to the edge.
When we speak of weather we tend to think in terms of averages - average temperature, average rain fall, etc ... but it is the extremes that form those averages we need to think about.
So, for example, we may get the same average rain fall in a year, but we may get it all at once. We may get the same number of storms, but they will be more intense. We may get the same average temperature, but we will have periods of extreme heat and extreme cold.
In other words, it is the height the marble climbs the side of the bowl we ought to be concerned with and not where it passes at the bottom of the bowl.
And of course, there is the question of what happens when the speed and energy of the marble is enough to cause it to fly out.
As much as I appreciate your efforts to persuade ideological dinosaurs such as Goldstein, your efforts are wasted. He can't and won't be persuaded and neither will those who turn to his words for reinforcement of their own ideological slants.
For those who do and can follow the science and for whom debate and knowledge is critical to learning and understanding rather than defending a dogmatic position, it is important we move past the endless nonsense of deniers like Goldstein as it detracts us from the serious work that needs to be done.
For those who recognize the reality of climate change, as well as energy depletion, we need to learn how to clothe, house, and feed ourselves in a world where we no longer can take for granted today's conveniences.
As for Lorrie Goldstein, well, he can eat his words.
***
I know this has been a long read, with differing views about weather and climate, but occasionally that’s how things work best around here.
In my opinion, a full-hearted response to man-made causes of climate instability is critical. The best book I've read so far on the topic is The Little Green Handbook by Dr. R. Nielsen; see Recommended Reading in right hand margin. Two feet below Ollie.
Click here for
a much succincter post entitled Live Small. It even comes with a tiny cartoon.
.
