Years of English classes, reading books and articles, writing newsletters and reviews have taught me a few lessons. The most important of these is how to grab your audience’s attention and hold it. In this age of instant gratification and hyper attention deficits, the faster you get to your point the better. I look at informational websites and grade them according to this scale: 50% brevity, 40% relevance, and 10% articulation (or art). Brevity is paramount: I want a concise explanation, the idea expressed in as few words as possible. Relevance ranks secondary, and almost as high as brevity: I want this explanation put into a relevant context, preferably as close to my situation as possible. Finally, I want articulation, because how the information distinguishes itself factors into its retention and usability. Better language, artful and skilled presentation, mean less chance that I will forget or dismiss it. Jakob Nielsen, usability guru, has an interesting article on web users’ reading habits.

My scale changes when grading fictional work. I am guessing that brevity will scale down and articulation will rank much higher. I base this on the assumption that fiction readers’ primary objectives are pleasure and entertainment.

After recent conversations with friends over the political debate over global warming, a report came out just recently from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (whew a mouthful there) attributing that climate change is “very likely” caused by human activity.

Thank goodness, an “official” report that verifies something that we already know! Well, okay, maybe most of us already know. But I’m not here to add my two cents on an already-polarized debate.

I am rather baffled by some peoples’ opinion that global warming is only “theory”. Perhaps to blame for this is the politicization of the term. When “global warming” is mentioned in casual conversation, I believe people aren’t just thinking about the scientific data at all. They get caught up in the politics and drama surrounding the term. So I set out to research and investigate this.

Googling up “define: global warming” reveals 27 entries attempting to describe the term. More than 20 of these entries discusses the possible causes, problems and cures. Therein lies the confusion.

Global warming in itself describes an increase in the global average temperature supported by observable detailed set of data compiled over more than a century. This data is uncontestable. It is recorded history since about 1850, when instrument-based records began.

Global warming is also suggested by proxy records given in historical accounts, geological and biological evidence and studies in paleoclimatology. These are estimates, inferences, examinations and extrapolations based on almanacs and various human records, tree rings, geological activities, etc.

Global warming may have gained its negative reception when opinion, politics and science collided. I suspect that global warming became a “theory” the moment people began to dispute its factors. Perhaps to ditch the unpleasant disagreements over the words “global warming”, “climate change” soon became adopted. Ironically enough, the theory of “global warming”, encompassing causes and effects, is also the theory of “climate change”, minus the drama and political baggage.

Actually, some may argue the point that climate change refers to not just global warming, but global cooling. Or more specifically, it refers to all climatic changes, not just increases in temperature. This standpoint is validated by the syntax and literal definitions of the words global warming (which defines a one-sided observation of temperature increasing), whereas climate change seems to be a blanket term for not just fluctuations in climate and temperatures, but also the theories, references and observations behind them.

Whichever term you prefer–global warming or climate change–when discussed, needs a context. The most popular context debated today is its reference to modern climate change, specifically the Earth’s warming trends over the last century, and the factors contributing to climate change, whether natural or human-influenced.

It is here where the terms diverge, or perhaps, get more specific. “Climate change” may be argued to be a neutral and expansive term, perhaps because it explores the entire spectrum of causes and effects without proposing specific responses to those factors. The term “global warming” has been circulated in the media for more than 20 years and has attempted to identify culprits (humans and industry), predict futures (damage/destruction of the environment), and mitigate effects (political/social reform and economic legislation). This accretion of politics, economics, and socio-environmental opinion has transformed global warming into a negative term, and has fallen into common public use or abuse.

Therefore, it is important to be specific. Are you discussing the facts of global warming (incontrovertible evidence shows an apparent rise in global temperatures over the last century) or are you discussing the issues surrounding the theory (who or what is to blame and how do we address it)?  A little explanation will serve to abbreviate any arguments that may arise and will hopefully propel us toward speedier solutions.

I am not alone in looking forward to a better year; 2006 was a bitterly hard year. It had crests and it had falls. I miss my pups, and I miss the people no longer a part of my life. I am thankful we survived many near-tragedies. I am thankful for my friends and their well-being. I am thankful I still have a job and a roof over my head. I am thankful for my hubby. I am grateful for all the simple things. I am happy with our accomplishments and I am looking forward to next year’s goals.

I am reminded at this moment that if the wind blows fierce, I should bend with it so that I will not break.

Goodbye, 2006. Hello, 2007.