Scope of Proposed Climate Change
First off, what do we really mean by "Climate Change"? Well, the simple definition, according to Wikipedia,[4] is:
"Climate means the usual condition of the temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, and other meteorological elements in an area of the Earth's surface for a long time."
In simple terms "climate", in these terms, is the average condition for several decades.
There are several types of climates: Tropical, Desert/dry, Temperate, Polar, Mediterranean. By the way, "Climate" and "Weather" is not the same thing. Weather is the day-to-day conditions in the atmosphere. However, you could say that "weather" is the base unit, the variability and continuity of which forms the basis of climate.
And what do we mean by "Change" in this connection? Here again, Wikipedia comes to our aid:
"[Climate] Change means the difference in the Earth's global climate or in regional climates over time."
Wikipedia adds the helpful note that: "Climate change is now a major global concern." It is not evident, however, that the only way to change the climate is in consistently changing the short-term weather conditions.
So now we have two problems: Which of the "usual conditions" of climate do we want to change? And which of the "types of climate" is it that we want to change? (Both sets cited earlier.) Let's assume the first are: "temperature, wind and rainfall" and the second are "Desert/dry and Polar" and both sets presumably for a long time.
The reasoning for the first set, usual conditions, is because if the temperature and wind are too high and the rainfall too low gives conditions that are subject to extensive wild bush fires causing great public distress. Or, if the rainfall is too high, then severe flooding occurs with similar consequences. The reasoning for the second set, types of climate, is because if the climate (at least locally) is just too dry, nothing will grow or prosper, or if the polar areas get too warm, ice will melt and, to some indeterminate amount oceans will rise.
While the selections we have made here are arguable, we do begin to see that amongst these objectives there are several contradictions. That is to say that solutions in different parts of the world have to be different, even opposing. In other words, the solutions have to be regional. One size does not fit all.
Given these findings, it would appear that each area of the world has to find its own solutions. However, it will be quickly argued that the sources of the alleged problems are not the same as the areas affected (which may or may not be true). Hence a concerted effort by the whole world is necessary. Politically, that is interpreted to mean the "Western World" because that's where the money is (or at least was.)
4. Wikipedia is generally a very reliable source.
| 
Max's Response
