First of all, a declaration: I am not a climatologist...but either are most of you.
Here we go...
When you assume consciousness in the morning and step outside your home what is true to you?
From all you can see, hear, smell, taste and feel...what information, from your unique perspective in the cosmos is, what you would consider to be real?
From all you can see, hear, smell, taste and feel...what information, from your unique perspective in the cosmos is, what you would consider to be real?
Is your belief in color of the sky or your location on the planet based on evidence or faith?
I’m about to say something that many of you are going to find incomprehensibly offensive, but please hear me through. Let it sink in for a minute and I’ll explain why there’s no offense intended:
“Faith is adherence to a belief despite evidence or claims to the contrary. Faith, by nature, requires at least some degree of ignorance.”
Knowledge is an acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles derived from study and investigation. Its is the perception and awareness of fact or truth, and the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
Faith requires confidence. It’s the trust in a person or thing that is not based on proof.
So, when I say that faith requires ignorance, all I’m really saying is that faith does not require proof. I hope you’ll agree with me that there’s no offense intended in proclaiming that.
If you have faith in something, but you have no substantial, repeatable, demonstrable proof; then you’re not talking about knowledge. You don’t know if what you believe in is true, you just feel that it’s true, you behave as if it’s true. And if you’re being honest with yourself, you’ll have to admit that you don’t really care if it’s true or not.
That’s the difference between faith and knowledge.
Knowledge cares.
What we want to believe in can often be very different from what is substantial, repeatable, and demonstrable.
It’s a verifiable fact that there are many people, in my country of the United States of Merika , who want to believe in things for which they have no evidence...UFO's, Chemtrails, the validity of conspiracies about the moon landing, conspiracies surrounding the assassination of JFK, the relationship between autism and vaccines, and the existence of a flying invisible spaghetti monster in the sky…in the US, there are without any substantial evidence and despite the scientific opinion of experts in their field, people who have faith in things they desperately want to believe is true.
Presented with a complete lack of evidence for a wishful belief or, worse...overwhelming evidence that proves a wishful fact is false or wrong...the intellectually dishonest among us will tell us that they "know" that interstellar visitors have come to Earth, because...well' they "just know"...or they saw something strange that they couldn't explain such as lights in the sky or crop circles.
And, when you attempt to use science and reason to explain the phenomenon...they refuse to listen...they stand by their belief and deny the evidence against it.
A January 2015 study published by the PewResearch Center titled “Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society” by Cary Funk and Lee Rainie found that:
- 88% of geneticists say that genetically modified foods are generally safe to eat, while only 37% of the American public agrees.
- 86% of the medical professionals believe that vaccines should be required in childhood, while only 68% of the US public agrees.
- 98% of scientists say they believe humans evolved over time, compared to only 65% of the American public.
- And, 94% of climatologists say that climate change is a “very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem; Whereas only 65% of ‘Mericans agree. And, 87% of those scientists blame global warming on human activity while only 50% percent of the public agrees.
In some cases, intellectually dishonest people are harmless. They find it fun to say they saw a ghost, or can move things with their minds, predict the future or can sense auras, and no one gets hurt.
It's not so harmless when the intellectually dishonest deny their ill children medicine, preferring prayer to therapy...or when religious fanatics harm or kill in the name of their particular invisible friend in the sky.
In fact, it's not only the antithesis of "harmless" when believers of some woo deny evidence, knowledge, science and reality...quite often, it's morally wrong.
Excuse me this brief definition of morality. We all understand what it means to be "moral" of course,
but we should agree upon a clear and standard description here, because it's going to come back to haunt us...if you'll excuse the pun.
The simple definition of morality is that it is a set of principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
If something is said to be "moral" then it's right, just and good. IF you believe in "purpose" to you life, then you must believe in the positive importance of acting morally. Actually, that's true as well to a nihilist like myself...even without purpose you have a responsibility as a homo sapian, a "thinking man" to embrace morality, and to make the world a better place for others.
 |
| Unless you're Donald Drumpf, in which case you're a selfish prick with ridiculously tiny little hands. |
So, let's agree to a basic rule here...if I present to you some simple, easy to remember, "proven by science"-"overwhelmingly accepted by experts" evidence that the mean temperature of the Earth is increasing at a perilous rate and that global warming is real and caused by human intervention...you'll agree that it would be morally wrong to deny the phenomenon.
Is that fair? I really think it is. You might not like climate change, you may not approve of the cost or inconvenience that it will impose upon your grandchildren's lives...but then again, maybe you don't like the color of the sky on a clear summer day...or the way water tastes...you don't have to like it, but you are morally obligated to do something about it...I'm talking climate change, not the sky color or water thing...just deal with it.
That's not a rhetorical question...if you do not believe that it would be morally wrong to deny the overwhelming evidence or, if you accept that global warming is real, but you don't feel a moral obligation to do anything about it...then, please...do yourself a favor. Stop listening to this podcast...now.
Seriously...the next 30 minutes or so is going to be a complete waste of your time: you're not going to learn anything, I'm not going to convince you otherwise and I just can't help you...I'm sorry...but you have to go.
Okay....for those few of you who are left...I'm going to ask you to forget everything you've learned about Global Warming....in fact, I want you to put on your skeptic hats...you do have a skeptic hat, don't you? .agh.okay…here, borrow mine.....clear your preconceived notions...that intellectual honesty you brought in with you? Faggedahboutit......just pretend that you've never heard of Global Warming...clear your minds and lets approach this in a very simple, methodical, straightforward way.
This isn't hard to understand or explain. The intellectually dishonest will try to make you THINK that this is a very complex topic, filled with strange hockey stick shaped graphs, complex variables and complicated chemistry...and yes, there's certainly alot of that you can find out there on the topic of global warming...but, ignore all the mumbo...let's just talk about what we know, and how we know it.
It's not that hard.
It's all about "Simple Facts". Let's start with "1.4 degrees Fahrenheit".
I'm going to focus on the Fahrenheit scale here, because it's what's used in 'Merica. The overwhelming majority of the 35% of climate change deniers in my country who embrace their intellectual dishonesty wouldn't know the difference between a celsius versus Kelvin degree if it froze upon their ass.
If you stepped outside right now and it was 62 degrees Fahrenheit, and after say, an hour, it rose to 63.4, do you think you would notice it? You probably don't think so...but we perceive external temperature via thermo receptors in our skin, which, in response to temperature stimuli, fires a specific neural pathway that carries a representation of thermo sensory activity to the cerebral cortex in our forebrain.
I actually wrote that by the way...I know it sounded like a Wikipedia entry or an excerpt from the IPCC report, But no...I'm kind of a science geek.
But, I'm NOT a climatologist. Okay? Got that? Good.
So, great..now you understand that we have the ability to notice a 1.4 degree increase in temperature... But sadly, or not, most of us don't have a centennial lifespan where we can note the average temperature from then until now.
And even if we did, “SO WHAT?!” We might exclaim....that was me, exclaiming….
“BIG DEAL...1.4 degrees...who cares?" That was me exclaiming again.
Here's the thing about that 1.4 degree increase...it's real, really real...really wicked really real...now, you don't have to believe me...I don't really care if you believe me…as a matter of fact the universe does not give a crap about what any of us thinks....it just is.
How do we know that the average global temperature has increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 100 years? Listen carefully: scientists, who have no agenda and do not care either way, have recorded measurements since the year 1880...why would they do that? What was their motive?
Why do you wear a watch when you run? What's your agenda?
Answer that question however you want....it's the same reason climatologists measured the temperature around the world every day for over a hundred years.
So, this is the first fact I want you to remember: 1.4 degrees. Remember that number and remember how they record it. If someone challenges you on the numbers, the burden of proof is with them, if someone challenges you on the validity of the numbers, remind them that science has one agenda: to learn the truth about the universe. If they say that's not so, tell them that they are being intellectually dishonest...because they are.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest on record, and 2015 was globally the warmest year since records began in 1880.
Although I’m asking you to remember 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit, in reality, according to NOAA, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was actually 1.62 F above the 20th century average…so why am I asking you to remember 1.4 instead of 1.62?
Because although 1.62 is the most recent agreed upon measurement…the recorded consensus of climatologists have already agreed that the Earth has warmed by more than 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit…so, let’s not confuse the intellectually dishonest anymore than they already are.
Keep it simple, go with the consensus: 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit is a huge number, it’s mind bogglingly large…it’s scary end-of-days huge, and if you want to impart the enormity of this, buy low and sell high.
At some point the 1.62 degree measurement will become the new 1.4, but for now…stick with 1.4. When someone tries to challenge you on that, level with them that the truth is, it’s probably higher…because it is…not because I want it to be, not because the consensus wants it to be, it just is…and the universe doesn’t give a crap.
Rising global temperatures have also been accompanied by other changes in weather and climate. Many places have experienced more intense rainfall, whereas some areas, yeah, I’m looking at you California…are experiencing extreme drought. Excessive snowfall and more frequent and severe heat waves. are all weather characteristics of an overall increase in global temperatures. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced changes: oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising…well get into that in a bit.
All of these changes are evidence that our world is getting warmer.
So the first simple fact that I’m asking you to remember is: in the past 100 years, the average global temperature has risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Got it? Good.
Next lets talk about this consensus that I just talked about.
Earlier I mentioned the Pew Research Center’s study that showed that 94% of climatologists say that climate change is a “very serious" or "somewhat serious” phenomenon….but, that doesn’t tell the whole story.
The truth, and the second fact I want you to remember is 97.
Because a recent study published in the Journal of Environmental Research Letters titled “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” examined 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.
They found that among the studies expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are the cause.
When the authors of these studies were asked to rate their own papers, 97.2% endorsed the consensus that Global Warming was Real and caused by human activity.
So, remember 97%. That’s the world wide percentage of climate scientists who agree that climate change is real, and that humans are the cause of it.
If someone tries to tell you that scientists do not agree with the premise that that global warming is real, and that in the last 100 years the Earths average temperature hasn’t risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit, you can tell them that a review by the University of Queensland, Australia, University of Western Australia, Tera Tech in California, the Michigan Technological University, the University of Reading in the UK, the University of Newfoundland in Canada, George Mason University in the US, and Salt Spring Consulting in British Columbia…all reviewed well over ten thousand scientific studies on the topic of climate change, and polled the authors of those studies of which 97% agreed that not only is global warming happening, but that it is caused by human activity.
If you talk to an intellectually morally bankrupt ignorant climate change denier…and that, by the way, is the full descriptor of anyone who denies the reality of global warming, and they disagree with the findings of the article, then they have to explain why.
They have the burden of proof.
They must present overwhelming evidence as to why they believe that the majority of climate scientists are lying. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: thank you Carl Sagan.
And if they won’t provide you the proof, if they try to say the 97% number is based on some conspiracy, then you will know that they are either intellectually dishonest, or they are lying to you…or even worse, that their relying on faith over knowledge, they’re denying the overwhelming evidence and they are wrong.
It sucks to be wrong, but in science it’s accepted and anticipated. Being wrong in the real world means that you open yourself to the opportunity of learning and knowledge.
When scientists are wrong, it's proof that the scientific method is working.
When scientists make progress by replicating each others experiments to see if they can get the same results...and they don't...they don't break down and pray for a miracle, they don't blame it on the bad invisible flying spaghetti monster of your particular choice.
Scientists and researchers don't WANT to BELIVE in their results, or in anything: they ACCEPT their results when the evidence is overwhelming,
I don’t want to believe that global temperatures have risen by more than 1.4 degrees F in the past hundred years,
I don’t want to believe that 97% of the climate experts agree that anthropogenic climate change is real…but based on the overwhelming evidence I accept that as the most rational fact...and if evidence should arise to show that the increase is actually only 1 degree F and that, in fact only 96% of the worlds climate scientists acknowledge the reality of global warming…then, fine, I was wrong…I can live with that. That why science isn't faith. Faith requires ignorance, Science requires data.
The third piece of evidence I want you to remember isn’t so much a number as it is a shape.
I am the descendent of a proud family from Scotland by way of Prince Edward Island in Canada…a place that I may well soon immigrate back to if ‘Merica choses the stupid route and votes in ol’ “tiny paws”.
It is there, in that beautiful, peaceful, drumpfless country, that the game of ice hockey…a contact sport played with skates, nets, pucks and sticks, reigns supreme.
The ice hockey stick is a 5 to 6 foot long slender shaft with a flat extension on the end called the blade. The blade is about a foot long and positioned at 135 degree angle from the axis of the shaft…it kinda looks like a sloppily drawn letter “L”.
I want you to remember that shape…put the hockey stick horizontally on the ground, that is…with the 5 to six foot long shaft on the floor and the blade sticking up to your right.
That’s a fairly accurate representation of the global mean temperature of the earth for the past 2,000 years.
For two thousand years, the earths temperature has remained pretty much the same with a very slight decrease over that time. How do scientists know this? Data. But I’ve already said that they’ve only been recording temperatures since the 1880’s…so how do we know what the temperature was a few thousand years ago?
(laugh) oh, you thought you got me there, didn’t you?
Remember, I’ve already told you that this climate change stuff is easy…scientists know what the temperature on Earth was thousands of years ago from measuring tree rings, ice cores, ancient corals, paleoclimatology, the ratio of light oxygen 16 to heavy oxygen-18 in the oceans…just to name a few sources.
I’m not going to explain all of this to you, you can take my word for it or look it up yourself and if you don’t believe me? Well…sorry, but that wacky burden of proof is with you my friend!
Back to that 2000 year old hockey stick. The point where the blade rises 135 degrees up to the right from the 2000 year long shaft of time represents the year 1900.
Are you still wearing your skeptic hats? Riddle me this: what happened on the planet Earth in the early 20th century? Care to guess? Think it through: does the "Industrial Revolution" ring a bell? Exactly.
Now, the 2000 year old hockey stick model really sucks for climate change deniers...because their only response to the overwhelming evidence here is to call it "controversial" and attack both the data points and calculations. This is called the "balance fallacy" otherwise known as an inverse false dilemma. Climate change deniers will try to tell you that the hockey stick is controversial, (I love this), they'll say that changes in climate have occurred throughout geologic time as in the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age....and then they'll say...and I'm serious here, I promise one of them will bring this up, they'll say "well...you know, from 1940 through 1970 temperatures actually dropped".
We're going to get into the difference between climate and weather in the next episode of this podcast, but this is a what is called "The Ice Age Fallacy". Scientists, at the time, were in fact concerned about global cooling between 1940 and 1970...and of course, the Earth didn't cool...so, there's no need to believe the current scientific consensus about climate change is there?
Do you remember what I just told you about how in science "being wrong" is accepted and anticipated. Think it through: just because scientists were wrong about a weather pattern for a 30 year period doesn't mean that the overwhelming evidence for 2000 years which shows that the Earths temperature started to rise at the height of the industrial revolution is to be ignored. The hockey stick is the perfect model and is useful for shoving up a climate change deniers Arrrrnyway...just one more thing:
I'd like you to remember this final number, and again, I have to use the Merican’ scale of measurement here…sorry rest of the world who use the easier to understand metric system…here’s what I want you to remember: 6.7 inches. I’ll say it again, you need to remember this: 6.7 inches. That’s the global average increase in sea level around the planet. As the temperature has risen 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers and ice caps have melted and in the past 100 years the level of the oceans…seal level, has increased by 6.7 inches.
How do we know this? It’s due to the science collected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…the aforementioned IPCC.
So let's review...
- 1.4 Degrees Fahrenheit
- 97 Percent
- The 2000 Year Old Hockey Stick
- and 6.7 Inches
1.4 degrees Fahrenheit is the mean global temperature increase over the past 100 years. It doesn't sound like much, but it's friggin huge...we'll talk about that more in another episode.
97% of the worlds climatologists, credible scientific experts who know what they're talking about, all agree that climate change is happening and it is caused by human activity since the early 1900's.
For the past 1,900 years, the mean global temperature of the planet had been decreasing, ever so slightly, but once human beings started burning coal and oil during the industrial revolution, the world has started to heat up...yes Senator Snowball, we do have cold years from time to time, but weather is not the same thing as climate and you need to learn how to read...and act mature, and be useful...to anyone. Behold the 2000 year old hockey stick, it's a model for the past two millennia.
And finally 6.7 inches, the increase in sea level around the world over the past 100 years.
If you can remember just a few of those facts, you'll have all you need to put climate deniers in their place...trust me, it's really not that hard. They have the burden of proof, they are the ones who are making an extraordinary claim.
Hey, YOU...Climate change denier...
What are you doing here?
I told you not to listen, I explained to you in very simple terms...that this was going to be a complete waste of your time and that you had to go.
Well, since you ARE here...I assume you already know this, but I feel like I should point this out to you:
I am not a smart person.
Didn't see that coming, did ya?
I'm not all that intelligent... not even close....I'm not being self deprecating here, just honest...it's important to me that you know that I'm really not even half as smart as I might make myself sound on this podcast...I know this...it's obvious to me...but I don't want any misunderstanding between us;
YES I've studied electrical engineering...V=IR, big deal,
YES I know a little about complex variables and quantum mechanics....particles and waves, it's all the same to me....
OUI: Je parle et comprends un peu le français , au moins assez pour commander un verre de Bordeaux, et alors?.
YES I've read Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra",
the New Testament,
Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing",
Dawkins "The God Delusion",
Hitchens "God is Not Great",
Sagans "Demon Haunted World", and
Austins's "Running and Philosophy"...all great books, but they didn't make me any smarter.
See...the thing is: I've been more wrong than I've been right in my life.
I once thought that Rush Limbaugh, a conservative talk show host drug abuser was a wise man. I was wrong.
I once supported the idea of going to war with Iraq, twice. I was wrong.
I was once against a woman's right to choose what she could do with her own body. I was wrong…(actually, in that case I was ignorant, stupid and slightly hateful).
I once believed that MY pretend invisible flying spaghetti monster in the sky was better than everyone else's make-believe invisible flying spaghetti monster. I was wrong.
And I once thought that Global Warming was a hoax.
You see what I mean? I'm kind of a slightly moronic hominid with an attitude.
But that's the good thing about enlightenment.
We can overcome our own ignorance. I'm not suggesting that I'm enlightened in the same sense and quality that Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Locke, Newton, Voltaire, Franklin, and Jefferson were enlightened...but at least my light is flickering a little bit, and I've figured a few things out.
I now understand that global climate change is real.I understand the difference between weather and climate, and finally I understand why Global Climate Change is the single most important topic of our time.
I regret my past stupidity, but at least I've come to accept the overwhelming evidence that's staring us all in the friggin face.
If you don't believe that Global Warming is real, and won't accept the truth that human beings have caused it: well...that's okay, I was once a completely ignorant effing moron and in many ways I still am...don't worry, about it…even I was able to learn and overcome my own ridiculously immense stupidity.
I’m not going to debate you on this, I’m through having any kind of an argument on the topic…the Universe really doesn’t care what we think and science has proven that climate change is real far beyond any reasonable doubt. You don’t have to believe in this reality, but neither can you ignore your own intellectual dishonesty. Not anymore.
I’m Steve Runner, reminding you to Run long and taper.