Climate Change­­™

cli·mate

[klahy-mit]

–noun

1. the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
2. a region or area characterized by a given climate: to move to a warm climate.
3. the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest.

—Synonyms
mood, atmosphere, spirit, tone, temper.

I find the synonyms to the word Climate™ to be of particular interest as they all represent emotions or mutable intangibles.

Mood: a state or quality of feeling at a particular time

Atmosphere: this medium at a given place.

Spirit: the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.

Tone: any sound considered with reference to its quality, pitch, strength, source, etc

Temper: a particular state of mind or feelings.

Of course this is all except for Spirit, which is a term contrived by the founders of religions to scare money out of your wallets under threat of eternal damnation...  So then 4 out of 5 times Climate is something that is pre-ordained to be something that can change, and the 5th is something fabricated to screw us out of our money... Hmph. Do they really need to add the word Change™ to the campaign of 'using change to screw us out of money'? Isn't that just redundant? (one of my favorite jokes: look up redundant in the dictionary and it says redundant: see redundant). It kind of makes it the campaign of 'using change screw us out of money by using change'

Would this not also make Climate Change Scientists™: 'people who analyze change to see if it changes'?

Don't get me wrong in this... I do think we are killing off species at an alarming rate (especially the bees), and I also think recycling our precious metals, paper, and carcinogen laced plastics is a fantastic idea. And I think we should probably ride bicycles to and from work more often (I consider electric cars to be a sham that cause more environmental hazards than they fix), which has the secondary effect of reducing the obesity epidemic of Amerika. But I give no credence to the idea that Carbon Taxes™ have any benefits to offer the ecosystem.

The whole checks and balance system of using 'credible data' to report Scientific Evidence™ of Global Warming™ er, I mean,¹ Climate Change™­­² is completely biased.

Point in case: the IPCC chair: Rajendra Kumar Pachauri is a citing greenpeace publication as proof that green energy usage could feasibly be 80% by 2050... The trouble is, HE WROTE THE ARTICLE FOR GREENPEACE AND IS NOW USING IT AS SCIENTIFIC PROOF UNDENIABLE!! How can this even be considered unbiased and scientific? A guy writes something, becomes the head of a committee designated to submit ideas to (read: influence) policy makers, then submits his unchanging opinion for general consumption (read: the taxpayers of the world to pay for it forever). It isn't even citing efficient well-established technologies in renewable energy like Hydro-Electric, but inefficient and expensive technologies like solar and wind. Makes you want to ask who paid for his opinion, doesn't it?

In a business, if you hire a consultant who comes back to you with a proposal that only CompanyA can provide the solution you are looking for and it will cost 10 times more than you thought it would, and only yield a maximum 5% efficiency, you'd be obliged to verify whether CompanyA was owned by the consultant you hired or the big ugly expensive fall-out might cost you your job. Of course I'll cite the obvious fact: Governments are not run like businesses, otherwise we'd likely be in less of a global economic crisis at present.

So to sum up, They no longer call it "Global Warming™" because there's no real proof of such a thing being caused by us rather than increased sun spot activity (which coincidentally is currently in decline and will cause a period of "Global Cooling"), they call it Climate Change™ (aka a changing change of changability for the sake of screwing you out of money). And it is likely sponsored by the Wind and Solar energy consortium, which is rapidly being kicked off of it's government loans and bursaries due to lack of significant performance gains or market penetration.

...And now, I no longer believe in greenpiece, and feel the IPCC must be publicly stoned to death.

Is it possible to unlearn how to read? Reading has been upsetting me a whole lot lately...
¹ Due to the contrary nature of scientifically gathered data in the quest to prove that Global Warming™ is a factor of human activities rather than increased solar activity, Global Warming™ shall henceforth be ambiguously renamed Climate Change™.
² The use of two synonyms is deliberate as it matches all other plots to garner public support for fictitious boogeymen, and has been proven to work in previous attempts like 'War on Terror™'. Due to recent declines in public support the 'War on Terror™' has been renamed 'Kenitic Military Action™

-DIrtyKID©