Why a Basic Understanding of Geographical Principles is a Vital National Security Interest

In a comment to one of Prof. Smith’s recent Orthosphere articles, I wrote the following:

Back in the mid-’90s I was recruited to travel to Portland, Maine with a group of local yokels to serve in a supervisory capacity on an oil spill cleanup expedition. I was hired on as a “supervisor” because I had all the qualifications necessary for the job – confined space entry training, first responder training, etc. At the time it seemed like the trip would be a fun distraction from the “daily grind” back home, so I agreed to go along in that capacity. This was in October, abt. 1996-7, and I was traveling with a crew of about 8 or 9 guys ranging in age from a year or two younger than me, to twenty-five years my senior.

We flew from OKC to Boston, then boarded a bus to Portland from there. We finally arrived at the Portland bus station at around 8:00pm local time, just as the managers of the station were locking the place up. When we left Oklahoma, the temp. was a balmy 85 degrees or thereabouts; when we arrived in Portland, the temp. was a chilly 40-45 degrees. I quickly learned upon arrival at the Portland bus station that not a single one of my “teammates” had carried any sort of cold weather gear with him on the trip. Not even as much as a light jacket. When I inquired of them as a group, “y’all did know we were traveling to Maine, did you not?,” they all answered, “yes,” with a puzzled “what of it?” look on every face. It then dawned on me that, beyond its being one of the fifty states, they had no clue whatever which of the fifty states Maine is, geographically speaking. Fortunately for them, I had carried along one entire bag filled with cold weather gear of various sorts. What portion of it I got back on return home three weeks later wasn’t worth keeping, so I threw it all away.

I thought of that story partly because you mentioned Columbus, and our little group of geographical ignoramuses was in Maine during the Columbus Day festivities that year. Which was, as I recall, a pretty big celebration up there at the time.

If I’m lying, I’m dying; every line of that story is true, and then some. And the point of course is that there was a grand total of one person in that entire party of eight or nine individuals who knew where he was going when he boarded the plane in OKC, as well as where he was when he arrived that fateful evening at his final destination. Geographically speaking, I mean. There was also a grand total of one individual in that group of local yokels who possessed a tolerable understanding of basic geographical principles back then. And I would venture to guess that that ratio hasn’t changed much, if at all, during those twenty-five or so intervening years. Indeed, I’d be willing to lay down good money on the proposition that not one in ten Americans currently living possesses a tolerable understanding of basic geographical principles, irrespective of his or her “intelligence” or level of “education.” Any takers?

When I invoke terms like “geographical principles,” I’m talking about “scientific geography,” or, “natural philosophy,” as the Maurys, the Guyots, and the von Humboldts of old would have denominated the discipline. It is important to possess a basic understanding of geographical principles because, as the story above-related indicates, you might freeze your hindparts off otherwise, among other equally undesirable outcomes. One such principle it is important to understand may be easily explained (without putting too fine a point on it) in the following terms: for every thousand feet in elevation gained, an average of three (3) degrees Fahrenheit in temperature is lost. For example, if you’re planning to climb to the top of a 10,000 ft peak and the temperature at its base is 70 degrees, you’d best be taking a jacket along because, all things else being equal as it were, the ambient temperature at the top is going to be about 40 degrees. Count on it.

Similarly, there is an average ratio you can apply and pretty well rely on when it comes to traveling from a given parallel or degree of latitude within the so-called temperate zone, northward towards the arctic region. This is generally figured in 15 degree increments of angular measurement since 15 degrees in angular distance on this mortal coil of ours equals roughly 1,000 miles (25,000 miles divided by 360 degrees = 69 miles x 15 degrees =). I’m rounding numbers in those parenthetical figures because, well, only the Rain Man cares about the decimals, if you smell what I’m stepping in.

So far, we have two separate but related factors to take into consideration when determining the probable climate of a given place we might be traveling to. Namely, (1) elevation above sea level, and (2) degree of latitude north or south of the equator. But there is more. A lot more!

Another factor you’d best be considering is the geographical position of your destination in relation to large bodies of water like great inland lakes and/or oceans. Since water loses heat a great deal more slowly than does land, the climate of coastal areas nearer the arctic region is generally tempered by their proximity to the bodies of water in question. There is a good (geographical) reason, you see, that North Dakota and Wyoming, say, tend to be a lot colder during the northern winter on average than, say, Washington State or Maine. The former also tends to be a lot drier as well, another geographical principle you’d best be taking into serious consideration. Ever hear the term “Nor’easter?” Ever wonder why there is not a counterpart called a “Norwester?” How about a “Midwester?” Suffice to say that I took a fair amount of rain gear with me on that trip to Maine as well, and happily so. How many of my geographically illiterate compatriots would you guess thought to bring along rain gear? Answer: precisely the number who thought to bring along cold weather gear.

I could go on and on about this (literally), but I’ll close out this little write-up by simply pointing out that, one primary reason possessing a tolerable understanding of basic geographical principles is important is that the climate change loons could never successfully pull the proverbial wool over your eyes as they’ve done were you in possession of those basic understandings. They can yap on and on about, e.g., the so called “cooling” of the Gulf Stream, but yap is all they’re doing, and you’re a fool if you believe a word of what they’re telling you. It is simply (and geographically) impossible for the Gulf Stream to cool any appreciable amount for any extended period of time so long as the laws of nature and nature’s God remain in effect. Now, were the earth’s tilt (relative to the plane of its orbit around the sun) to shift a couple of degrees one way or the other, then, sure, “global warming,” a “melting of the icecaps” and whatnot would indeed happen, and all life would cease to exist almost instantly as a result. But that ain’t ever going to happen, so long as the earth remains, for as the scriptures inform us in no uncertain terms:

While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Gen. 8: 22 (KJV)

Shall not cease, brothers and sisters. Not while the earth remains, at least. In other words, when the earth ceases to be, then seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night (and you and me, and all the cute little animals) will all simultaneously cease to be as well, and not a microsecond sooner. Or, later, for that matter. If you think man can destroy the earth’s economy by burning fossil fuels, by “paving paradise with parking lots,” or by inventing air conditioning, for example, you’re almost as crazy as the “global warming” loons trying to convince you such a thing is scientifically possible to begin with. Not that I favor paving paradise with a parking lot, mind you, but just sayin’.

Global warming loons are worse than flat-earther loons because they’ve somehow managed to convince the masses that the equally nonsensical ideas they’re peddling are scientifically possible and therefore that it is scientifically (and humanly) possible to do something to prevent the impending (global) disaster they’re always yapping on and on about from occurring. But I can yap on and on about this too, and not make a dent in one’s religious convictions contrary to sound reason and scientific fact. In any case, let it simply be asked, whenever graduates of Ivy League Universities know so little of basic geographical principles that they cannot correctly explain what causes the seasons (for goodness sakes!), is it any wonder that the masses fall prey to “global warming” lunacy and its snake oil salesmen? (To say nothing of COVID and its snake oil salesmen!)

Are you beginning to see why I find life so interesting? Here you have a system of “education” that literally darkens the understanding of those under its care rather than enlightening their understandings. And yet, the average Joe can’t get enough of it; he truly believes, in the bottom of his heart of hearts, that whatever of its colossal failings he is personally aware of or takes an interest in, may be cured by “throwing good money after bad.” So long as the money we’re throwing at it isn’t his, that is.

End of rant.

P.S. Be sure to watch that video; it would be funny if it weren’t so sad, and didn’t portend a very bleak future for “Western Civilization” looming on the horizon. I can assure you that the average “uneducated” backwoods nitwit 150 years ago wasn’t nearly that ignorant of basic geographical principles.

By the way, and in case you were wondering, what causes the changing of the seasons is the tilt of the earth on its axis relative to the plane of its orbit, coupled with its position at any given moment on that plane. Simple as that. The reason those Harvard grads in the video didn’t understand it, is simply because their teachers in the public and private schools in America didn’t/don’t understand it, even though the concepts involved are so simple that they can readily be explained and demonstrated to the average third grader.

You might think I’m “making a mountain of a molehill” of this sorry state of things, but if you do, it can only be because you fail to understand the broader implications of imbibing, as those Harvard grads believe, a scientific impossibility such as that they expressed as the reason for the changing of the seasons. I’m not exaggerating when I use strong terms like “scientific impossibility” in this connection, by the way; if their explanations were even close to the way things truly work geographically speaking, none of us, or them, would be here to tell about it. And that’s a fact, Jack!

Okay, end of rant. Really, this time.