"Climate Change" has become a cultural mantra that has turned into a product as a questionable, essential, subject to breakdown, and just the greatest thing around since peanut butter as the internal combustion engine automobile. First, it must be a constant, or the whole idea is something like trying to understand what infinity means. Thus, we have developed the idea that climate change can be solved only by reaching a desired singular, ideal climate that fluctuates only within a low, single-digit range of temperature, and a low, single-percentage range of atmospheric content, and, forgetting that the Earth, even without a single human on it to cause aberrant fluctuation, has not one, but a multiple of "ideal" climates.
That said, the idea that climate change has become a taxable concept that is so akin to the idea of indulgences as a means to redeem humankind from sin, it is amazing that proponents of the idea rankle at it being called a religion. No one said this idea made sense, except those who espouse it. To me, that's religion, in a nutshell.
So, what is this marvelous solution to the question of the meaning of climate change? A clock. Not digital, because most of the digits involved in that model change too quickly to see them change; it's a blur. This image actually helps the idea: climate change is happening so precipitously quickly, it's a blur. That cannot be a good thing. No, my model is the analog clock. The fastest thing in that model is the second hand, and the slowest things, the digits, which don't move at all. That's kind of the point of the model. Think of the separate digits as the Earth, herself; a complete system whose moving parts are, in fact, observable over time, a questionable concept of its own, but we'll ignore that wrinkle. See, all systems have wrinkles, even CLIMATE CHANGE.
If your clock is large enough, we see the minute hand, the longer one, you know, move, advancing in little ratchet-moments through an entire minute. Watching the shorter hand, the hour hand, actually move is more difficult, but it clearly does move. There, boys and girls, is your erfect model of climate change. Some changes are relatively rapid. Like changing cloud formations. Some changes are observable, but happen too slowly to make a habit of focus only on that one thing. Like the sun rising at setting very day, and we note, eventually, that its rising and setting are somewhat synonymous with the passage of twelve hours on our clock; the complete single rotation of the hour hand, and that it does so twice in 24 hours.
Such is the nature of climate change. It does so, slowly in some respects, more quickly in others. The point is, it is a cycle. It is not in stasis, even an ideal one. Man can effect, but is not the ultimate mover-shaker of the system. You, who espouse the precipitousness of change, just happen to take a five-minute segment of the whole cycle, and say, "See? It's changing!" And you act like Paul Revere. Well, buy a copper pot from him, and let him move on. He is a capitalist, after all, and his warning of impending war has some reason, but it's no reason to think we're doomed. Maybe we'll win the war, and, because we are defending hearth and home, we probably will.