Return to the
Welcome Page

   Detect the Behaviour Patterns Driving Popular Symbol Uses of Our Time.



Return to  Update Page






Study the following list of uses of vital symbols. Some are used to invoke images of the nature of energy and power in general. Others are used to evoke images of the nature of climate processes in particular.

Be mindful that words (spoken or written) are symbols, as are music, pictures, dance, perfumes and all other means of communication. We respond to symbols in ways that are almost unfathomable. This is because they evoke a combination of intellectual and primal emotional responses in us. Often the general response as measured by the resultant activity is very different to the articulated response i.e. the walk does not match the talk. 

So when reviewing the impact of the following words it helps to be mindful that a person’s response to the symbol use will be the sum of their experiences and associations with the symbol. They will experience a wide range of emotions as vital symbols such as energy, power, change, greenhouse, climate etc register on their universal sensibility. 

Similarly a person’s choice of use of a symbol reflects in large part their dominant emotions. These may vary from respect and awe to fear and doubt.

*Identify the common emotional response(s) the following symbol uses generate in you. See the list below.

Do you believe a large number of people experience a similar response?

Does this list of symbol uses feel like it is science?

*The Conservation of Energy Principal states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed and it is constantly being transformed. In other words, energy forms are constantly coming and going and still the total quantity of energy remains constant. It is helpful to be mindful that the total quantity of energy is as bounteous as the universe(s).

Are these symbol uses in harmony with the Conservation Principle?

If you discern patterns of use in conflict with the Principle, attempt to identify the prime emotions driving such behaviour.

*Four properties of air that are vital for human existence are:

  • It has a high capacity for thermal convection.
  • It has a low capacity for thermal conduction.
  • It contains oxygen (approx 21%) and this enables combustion.
  • It contains trace gases. Their combined total constitutes less than 0.1% of the atmosphere). These trace gases have an enhanced capacity to retain thermal energy. Without them the average surface temperature of earth would average about 33°C cooler i.e. about minus 18°C. Without air the surface temperature would average about minus 18°C i.e. 99.9% of the atmosphere retains very little thermal energy.

Do these symbol uses evidence belief in these properties? 

If you discern patterns of conflict with these properties, attempt to identify the prime emotions driving such behaviour.

*Can you provide a list of uses of these symbols that are in maximum harmony with the Conservation Principle and the properties of air?

Enjoy and know there is a far more magnificent vision of the nature of energy than these symbol uses evoke. Eventually all symbol uses will link to questions you may wish to use when reflecting on the potential impact of symbol use  . 


cooling = cooling down = cooling


warming =  warming up = warming


global warming = bad= global warming


climate change = anthropomorphic driven changes to our climate 


climate change = bad = climate change


greenhouse = enhanced air/thermal convection


greenhouse =bad = greenhouse


atmosphere=suppressed air/thermal convection=blanket= greenhouse


greenhouse gases = greenhouse gases


the dominant greenhouse gas = carbon dioxide


trace gases =                                              !?


The Warmer Trace gases =                           !?


energy = energy forms= energy


energy = fuel = energy


fuel = combustion =fuel


energy = Bulk-generated electricity = energy


power = Bulk- generated electricity = power


energy = tradeable activities only = energy


energy conservation = conservation of energy


humans can create, destroy and conserve energy =energy can be neither created nor destroyed and is conserved.


renewable energy =energy that is renewed = energy


nonrenewable energy = energy that is not renewed = non-energy


sustainable energy = energy that is sustainable = energy


unsustainable energy = energy that is unsustainable = non-energy


energy efficiency =using less energy = deprivation


energy crisis = resource use crisis =energy crisis


the energy market = wise use of energy




Return to Update Page

Return to the Welcome Page

Questions re. warming =warming up = warming

Do I employ science (honesty, reflection, time, inclusiveness, collegiality, care etc)?


We read in the Wiki article on the global warming controversy:


“The basic scientific description is in greenhouse effect and global warming.”

We follow the global warming linkand read

“Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades.

The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 degrees Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4  degrees Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" ”

Which symbols have the greatest immediate impact in the sentence defining global warming?

Which symbol (word) is the most critical to the communication? If it was not highlighted, why not? Could it have been? If so, why not?

Is it credible or science to state that humans are now responsible for most of the warming of the surface of planet Earth? What has been the role of our sun in the last 50 years? How has solar output (warming) changed in the last 50 years?

Read the NY Times quote and its use of the global warming symbol.

The Energy Challenge | Exotic Visions

"How to Cool a Planet (Maybe)

In the past few decades, a handful of scientists have come up with big, futuristic ways to fight global warming: Build sunshades in orbit to cool the planet. Tinker with clouds to make them reflect more sunlight back into space. Trick oceans into soaking up more heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

Their proposals were relegated to the fringes of climate science.

.......But now, in a major reversal, some of the world's most prominent scientists say the proposals deserve a serious look because of growing concerns about global warming."

Does it make sense to me?

If the quote makes sense to me: what is it about global warming that I must fight? Why am I concerned about global warming? What is wrong with global warming?

If my answer is no, why am I uncomfortable with the frame or contents of the message?

What is my understanding of the warming process?

I know that wherever there is movement there is heat. All atoms of the universe move and retain thermal energy to some degree. This thermal energy is constantly being transferred from warmer areas to cooler areas. Do I know a single example where the reverse is true?

I know that any collection of atoms or body (a human, a room, a planet) will tend to cool down if placed in surroundings that a colder than the body. It requires constant incoming energy to balance the constant outgoing energy to prevent the body from losing heat and movement? Is this not how our universe works?

When incoming energy matches the outgoing energy of a body what happens to its temperature? What do I call this process if I do not call it warming?

Assuming the answer is zero change to temperature of the body, do I feel it is it a good thing or a bad thing that, on balance, the average temperature on Earth’s surface temperature remains a constant 15°C?

What would happen to Earth’s surface if it were not subject to constant warming i.e. what would happen if the sun did not rise one day? Do I welcome the global warming process in my mind, in my bones, in my cells, in my primal being, in my soul?

If the amount of incoming energy of the body is greater than the outgoing energy of the body what happens to the temperature?

Assuming my answer is that the body retains extra thermal energy causing the temperature to increase/ go up, then how do I describe this process that has two levels of change?

If I describe this process where the temperature goes up as “warming”, does this not confuse people about the situation where change occurs but the temperature remains unchanged i.e. where there is only one level of change?

How will this use of the warming symbol not confuse people? What difference would my addition of the up symbol make to my communication?

If I can understand that the simple addition of the up symbol makes all the difference when describing thermal change that result in changed temperatures, what’s going on? If I can understand that saying warming = warming up generates nonsense, why do climate scientists, “energy experts”, the media and educators persist with the use and choose to confuse people? What does it say about their primal beliefs and attitudes to energy, change, transformations, mortality and life in general?

Is it possible that any confusion and conflicted use of the warming symbol by “scientists” et al is deliberate? Could it be they have a need to deny the existence of change at some primal level even as they call for change in other people? How does such a conflicting call promote sustainable change?

Is it possible that this generation of confusion extends to their use of other keys symbols - see list?

What is it about global warming that is bad and what we are supposed to fight?

When the Environmental Education industry says global warming is “real” and it is “happening” what are they saying about our solar system before the advent of humans?

If I find difficulty using the up symbol when I am referring to states where the temperature increases, what challenges me?

If I teach that warming= warming up, how will this impact on our children’s awareness that life is constant change and we need sustain the thermal balances that enable our existence?

Is there a correlation between the growth of the Environmental Education industry and the use of the equation warming= warming up

How does Enviroschools, the dominant product of New Zealand’s Environmental Education industry, confront potential nonsense re. warming= warming up?

Which merchant bank, industrial or other sectors might benefit short term from any confusion generated by the conflicting use of the warming symbol?

Is my use of warming= warming up science?

Return to list

Questions re my use of the Principle of Conservation.

Do I employ science (honesty, reflection, time, inclusiveness, collegiality, care etc)?


What does the Principle of the Conservation of Energy state? 

Do I believe this to be true?

If not, can I provide one instance where a human being has created a perpetual motion machine or become immortal or has conserved energy?

If I believe the Principle, which states energy is bounteous as the universe(s), then why need any person save/conserve energy? How can anyone conserve that which by its very nature is conserved on such a scale?

Who benefits from confusion about the Conservation Principal and the sense of deprivation/exclusion that comes with learning energy is not bounteous? (Think emotional manipulation by the PR industry using  “energy crises”, “energy collapses”, “energy failure”, “energy breakdowns”, “energy droughts” and allied mechanisms such as  “black outs”, “power cuts” “power failures” etc)

Why do certain business sectors spend billions of dollars defining themselves as energy and re-engineering the energy symbol in general and the energy conservation symbol in particular?

What would I do if I were their PR company promoting the short term interests of these sectors?

In general, what framework am I establishing when I tell children that humans and/or our devices can save/conserve energy and who are the principal beneficiaries of the framework?

Is it possible to better sustain science when discussing conservation of valuable energy forms? For instance, when describing lighting devices that transform electricity into light more efficiently,  I ask is it possible to describe their enhanced efficiency without all the attendant risks from evoking the Bulk-gen Electricity sector’s use of the energy symbol? If so, what have I got to lose by using alternative and less risky symbols (terms, words, illustrations etc)?

Do I employ science?

Return to list

Questions re energy efficiency

The Conservation Principle states that energy cannot be created or destroyed and is constantly transformed. Do I subscribe to this principle?

If I do not subscribe to this principle, then what do I consider the nature of energy to be? What would energy efficiency be in that context?

If I subscribe to it, do I accept that I cannot alter the quantity of energy in existence? If I do, then am I not limited to using and conserving forms of energy?

Do I remain mindful of the range of energy forms that exist?  If not why not? What is it in me that denies the existence of many energy forms (optional resources)? What industry groups work to obscure my awareness of the full range of options that exist?

Why does the Bulk-gen Electricity industry and other such sectors/agents tell me that energy efficiency is about using less energy? Why would they confuse energy use with use of energy forms?

What happens to my worldview if I am filled with a sense of deprivation and what sectors most benefit from my reduced state?

Is it possible to use less energy in an activity and increase the risk of damage to environmental balances that sustain us? 

Is it possible to use more energy in an activity and decrease the risk of damage to environmental balances that sustain us?

Does it matter how much energy I use if my use of energy forms (resources) does not impact in a destructive way on the environmental balances that sustain us?

If I use 1000 kWh installing a window that enables me to generate 20,000 kWh of heating for sunlight, does it matter that I use more energy than if I had used a fossil fuel burning appliance that used 15,000 kWh? 

If we live in an ever-changing world do I re-evaluate the impact of my use of a resource on a regular basis? 

Do I accept the fact that what may be considered an efficient  (wise) use of resources on minute may be considered an inefficient (unwise) use of resources the next minute as my knowledge of my impact on environmental balances and technology changes?

(SEE Definition of twin co-evolving concepts of bonusjoules-junkjoules generation)

Do I enjoy compassion so that I am freed to constantly evaluate my use of resources with greatest honesty and integrity?

Do I employ science?

Return to list


Return to Update Page

Return to the Welcome Page