 |
| Dick Leone |
I have no funny, satirical opening sketch to give you today. This topic of climate change just isn’t all that funny.
If you’re a registered voter in the United States of America, and you care about Climate Change, vote for Hillary Clinton for President. I don’t like her either,, I’m just saying she’s the solution…Drumpf is the problem.
Climate Change deniers are not worth our time and effort. so be like me: don’t argue with them.
If you do, you’ll win every time until they present you with magical reasoning. When a climate change denier raises, as evidence the flying spaghetti monster, Zeus,, Mokualii, Babd Catha, Ch’eng-Huang, Thor, Yahweh or God into the argument…just stop the argument. You can’t argue against magical thinking and mythology.
Climate Change deniers are intellectually dishonest. Yeah, I’m talking about you Trump, and Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Ted Nugent, Jeremy Clarkson, George Will, Victoria Jackson, David Bellamy, Senator James Snowball Inhofe, Christopher Booker, Lord Christopher Monckton, and Nigel Lawson, every one of them denying the overwhelming solid independently verified, validated and proven evidence that supports the opinion of 97% of the worlds climatologists that anthropogenic climate change is real.
Now that I’ve said all that, on the advice of several of you out there, I’m going to try my best to tone down the rancor in this episode. It is with complete honesty and humble assertiveness that I assure you that I’m not going to win over any hearts and mind on this topic.
Oh, I’ve already won the argument “is global warming real and caused by human activity” through
overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus…so, there’s really no point at ridiculing the defeated. I savor no joy from kicking them while their down and out.
If you haven’t listened to the first two episodes in this three part series, here’s a synopsis of what you’ve missed.
In part one, I provided overwhelming evidence that our planet Earth has been warming significantly since the industrial revolution. I’ve proven this with inarguable, simple to understand and remember facts.
In part two I explained to you that the single most used logical fallacy that every climate change denier pulls out of there ass is the pathetically weak argument of the form “Cherry Picking”.
Once you can identify a cherry picker climate change denier, they cannot win an argument with you on this topic. When they refuse to accept defeat, and they will: you can look them in the eyes and with confidence tell them the truth: that they are intellectually dishonest.
Today, in the final episode of this series I’m going to give you the truth about the lives our grandchildren and our great grandchildren will live…about the world they will inherit and the actions you can take to help reduce the creation of greenhouse gases that are causing the Earth to warm.
Global climate change is the single most important topic of our time….more important than terrorism, drug abuse, cancer, political corruption, bio-warfare, economic collapse and credit card fraud….which happen to be the top seven things that ‘Merican’s are afraid of.
It turns out that a certain percentage of ‘Merican’s are afraid of alot of things. We have a disturbingly
significant number of cowards in this country, as evidenced by the recent Republican National Convention.
The list of ‘Merican’s greatest fears does not include Global Warming: but it should…in fact, the Global Warming of our planet is the single greatest fear we should have…as it will kill more flora and fauna, including human beings, and will cause more creatures to suffer, including human beings, than all of the other fears combined multiplied by a million.
Yeah, I know…that’s quite an extraordinary claim right? How do you measure that? How can I be so absolutely certain of this?
Well, for a start we can talk about tipping points. While the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, which came out two years ago has only medium confidence that there are some well defined examples of climate tipping points: each one will cause suffering and death for much of the life forms on this planet…and each one is predicted by climate change models.
Now, it’s possible that some of you will listen to this and decide that I am an Alarmist. And to that, I have to say: yeah…I am a global warming alarmist…thank you, I’m honored that you’d think that of me. Being a Global Warming Alarmist is something to be proud of, we should all be alarmists….it’s far better to sound the alarm of the danger that’s real than to hide our heads and deny reality.
This isn’t nihilism. Don’t make that mistake. This isn’t even a case of enlightenment. I ask you to consider these six major climate tipping point events that mark the transition for our current climate state to a point where it cannot be reversed in our grandchildren and great grandchildren’s lifetime.
- The Boreal forest dieback
- The Amazon rainforest dieback
- The loss of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice and Polar ice packs as well as the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
- The disruption to Indian and West African monsoons.
- The formation of Atlantic deep water near the Arctic ocean, a component process of thermohaline circulation and
- The loss of permafrost, leading to potential Arctic methane release and the clathrate gun effect
I could spend the next hour and a half going over each of these tipping points with you, and maybe I should…but that would be a case of “Ignoratio elenchi” otherwise known as an irrelevant conclusion that is “missing the point”.
What the specific climate change tipping points are is not something to be concerned with, rather: it’s the fact that there ARE at least six major tipping points. That’s the thing that should be freaking you out at night, that’s the thing that should make you stop, think and fear.
And why should you be afraid? Here’s where words and definitions are important: the phrase “tipping point” is equivalent to the phrase “planet wide extinction”.
Is that alarmist enough for you? Sounds crazy doesn’t it? Sadly, it’s not.
There are two questions that everyone should be asking about climate change:
The first is when will it cause our grandchildren pain and the second is:
What does our planet look like after any one of those tipping points has occurred? What kind of world are we leaving for our progeny?
According to a study conducted by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the near-equatorial regions of the planet, that is, the tropics, will begin experiencing a period of permanent catastrophic global warming in the year 2020. Above the equator, in North America and Europe, the same catastrophic period will begin to occur in the year 2047.
That’s not me being an alarmist, that’s just science. But what is meant by “catastrophic”? In short, it means suffering, death and extinction. We’re talking species extinctions…not of humans, but of other innocent species. The impoverished economies within 2,500 miles of the equator will become unlivable.
Then there’s the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a study authored by 26 leading climatologist with the goal of updating the findings of the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007 on the long term effects of the CO2 life cycle.
Basically, what it says is that the carbon that we are releasing into the atmosphere today is in the process of ‘programming’ a potential 2-5 meters of sea level rise by around the year 2300.
That’s a 6 to 16 foot increase in sea level around the world in only 284 years!
But that’s not all. The report also says that “even a thousand years after reaching a zero-emission society, temperatures will remain elevated, likely cooling down by only a few tenths of a degree below their peak values.”
So, think about that. Even if we all focused our energies on those of the renewable sort, even if we stopped burning the most stinking, polluting, pathetically poisonous source of energy this is: coal: it’s going to take hundreds of years before the global mean temperature of the Earth starts to cool again.
So, what does the world look like in the year 2300?
Well, I supposed that depends on who you ask, but I’m of the opinion (yes, this is just MY opinion here) that Professor Tony McMichael, a climatologist from the Australian National University has it right, when he wrote that:
“Much of the climate change debate has been about whether the world will succeed in keeping global warming to the relatively safe level of only two degrees Celsius (that’s 35 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. But climate change will not stop in 2100, and under realistic scenarios out to 2300, we may be faced with temperature increases of 12 degrees Celsius (that’s 53 degrees Fahrenheit) or even more. If this happens, our current worries about sea level rise, occasional heat waves and bushfires, biodiversity loss and agricultural difficulties will pale into insignificance beside a major threat - as much as half of the currently inhabited globe may simply become too hot for people to live there."
Think about this: according to an October 2013 study titled “The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability” from the University of Hawaii and the University of the Okinawa:
“In seven years the coldest year in New Guinea after 2020 will be warmer than the hottest year anyone there has ever experienced.”
And by 2047, even the coldest monthly dips in temperature on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States will be warmer than any time in the past 150 years.
I didn’t cherry pick this report, I just chose one of the earliest prediction studies out there. It’s part of the overwhelming evidence that proves that anthropogenic climate change is real, and we are facing a tipping point where our best efforts at reducing greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the future.
The storm and hail storms in West Virginia a few weeks ago left thousands of people without power, California’s sand fires continue to engulf 35,000 acres of the Santa Clarita Valley, all due to the past 5 years of drought and 14 consecutive months of record breaking temperatures combined with a heat dome.
 |
| The flooding in Louisiana |
On their own, these events don’t mean much as they relate to climate change, but the frequency and severity of these events are increasing, and that is related to global warming.
That’s the science based alarmist in me speaking.
The science based optimist in me looks at the great technological advances that my species has accomplished over the past 200 years, and wants to believe that we’ll find a profitable, moral, ecological and low risk solution to global warming.
Make no mistake about it, Global Warming is the single most dangerous and deadly topic of our lives.
So, what can we do as individuals to help?
It’s actually very easy, and despite what any climate change denier might tell you, it’s not going to cause you any discomfort, inconvenience or even much money…as a matter of fact, it’ll make you money.
- Replace all of your most frequently used lightbulbs with “Energy Star” qualified bulbs. This will save you money.
- Insulate your home and make it more airtight. This will save you money.
- Reduce, Reuse and recycle. Check to see if there’s a recycling program in your town and save your newspapers, plastic and glass bottles, and overall: buy less stuff. ‘Merica is a huge consumer nation, we buy stuff we don’t really need every day. Just stop it, buy what you need: not always what you want. This will save you money.
- Drive a fuel efficient, low green house gas car and go easy on the brakes and gas pedals…and lighten the load in your car, empty your trunk once in a while to get rid of stuff you don’t need to bring with you everywhere. This will save you money.
- Check your cars tire pressure regularly. This will save you money.
- Use a programmable thermostat in your house. This will save you money.
- Eat less meat, especially beef. A single pound of beef is responsible for 18 times the emissions of a pound of pasta. A family of four that decides to cut their beef intake in half prevents about three tons of global greenhouse gases every year. If you want to help save the planet, trust me on this: eat less meat. This will make you healthier, and that will save you money.
- Wash your clothes in cold water. The clothing detergent they make today is alot more powerful than it used to be, and it’s made to work in cold water. Using hot water in your wash uses five times as much energy and therefore creates five times the emission of greenhouse gases. This will save you money.
- Let policy makers know that you give a crap about global warming. Vote for leaders who understand not just science but also the lethality of global warming. Go to http://www.ucsusa.org (Union of Concerned Scientists Action Network) for more information on how to better inform lawmakers to make the world a better place.
- Spread the word: tell others how much money you saved and how you didn’t have to make any huge sacrifice to help reduce the human majority impact of global warming. If all M’ericans’ reduced their contribution to green house emissions by just 20% we could negate the damage done by 200 of ‘Merica’s 600 coal plants….and that would help reduce the severity of global warming.
I want to believe that we can reduce the harm we’ve done to our planet, because we have to.
A listener, a really cool fellow runner whose name I won't disclose, out of respect for him and who I had specifically warned not to listen to these past few episodes wrote me an angry email that is interesting for it's demonstration of classic climate change denier logical fallacies.
Here’s what he wrote:
"I don't appreciate your preaching to me and telling me how I may be immoral for not being a believer in global warming."
This is called "begging the question" or “assuming the conclusion of an argument” logical fallacy. It's a type of circular reasoning: the listener didn't like something he heard me say and assumes that I've told him he's immoral for not being a believer in global warming.
But I never said that. What I did say back in the first episode of this series was the following:
"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."
You see, I never said anything about belief. I never once brought up the morality of belief.
While there are many valid examples of immoral beliefs, I never said that he is immoral for anything he believes....however I stand by my assertion that it is morally wrong to deny the overwhelming evidence that I presented. In his email, he did not deny any of the evidence I had presented.
It's not morally wrong to deny that ducks float in water or that rocks do not...as long as no one is made to suffer for those truths...but failure to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that will, not could; but will lead to the death and suffering of our grandchildren IS morally wrong.
To deny such evidence requires intellectual dishonesty, but that has nothing to do with belief.
And besides, I warned him not to listen.
He went on to write:
"You may want to look into the "cherry picking" Mann did with his data to come up with the "Hockey Stick" graph".
He’s referring to the American climatologist and geophysicist Michael Mann, one of the authors of a study that first produced the “hockey stick model” of global warming.
But, sadly for my listener: I did read Mann’s paper in the Journal Nature, published in April of 1998 titled “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries” and I can assure you that there is zero evidence of cherry picking used in his collected proxy data.
Look: I’m not a smart person, but Mann was with the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst when he published the study, and I was a 36 year old climate change denier living just about an hour and a half to the east of him, and I did read the report: and I could not deny the presented overwhelming evidence. It was a friend of mine by the name of Dick Leone who insisted that I read the study, by the way: and it changed my opinion dramatically.
Now, I’ve spent much of the last episode explaining exactly what cherry picking is and yet the author of this email assumes that the study by Mann, Bradley and Hughes was based on the fallacy of incomplete evidence.
Think this through: Here's the abstract from that study:
“Spatially resolved global reconstructions of annual surface temperature patterns over the past six centuries are based on the multivariate calibration of widely distributed high-resolution proxy climate indicators.
Time-dependent correlations of the reconstructions with time-series records representing changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols suggest that each of these factors has contributed to the climate variability of the past 400 years, with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant force during the twentieth century.
Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) AD 1400.”
Now, where’s the suggestion of cherry picking in the proxy data that was collected there? Dude, there is none: read the report yourself and you’ll understand that there is zero evidence of cherry picking anywhere within this study and the cited dataset.
Then, the listener continues:
"But...that aside...even if I agreed that the earth was warming...I'm not willing to forego all that mankind has achieved to make our lives what they are today."
Not once during these past episodes have I ever asked anyone to "forego all that mankind has achieved". I challenge anyone to cite a single instance where I told you to sell your house, move closer to your job and use less gas. I never told you to sell your car, ride bikes and walk everywhere...in fact, that's what HE wrote....a strawman that he could refute.
In his email, he calls me a hypocrite.
Am hypocritical because I feel we should invest in renewable energy?
Am I a hypocrite because I think we should reduce our burning of greenhouse gas emitting fuels?
Am I a hypocrite because I turn off the lights in rooms when I don't need them, or shut off air conditioners when I'm not home, or walk to the store up the street instead of hopping in my car when my wife asks me to pick up some groceries?
By calling me a hypocrite, the listener is invoking a special logical fallacy called the "Just Because Fallacy"...it's also known as "trust me, mother knows best” and the "because I said so, you'll see" fallacy".
He gives no example of my being a hypocrite as from the afore to mentioned "strawman" argument, but “never let the truth ruin a good story” is another common global warming denier method of reasoning. It's fallacious, and I won't waste my time countering the poorly formed argument.
Maybe it’s hard to believe, but although anthropogenic global warming is a reality, I am hopeful for the future, because there are things we can do to reduce the impact and increase of global warming….and no, I’m not talking about returning to the days of horse and buggies and oil lamps.
I don’t think it’s alot to ask people to reduce their use of power, shut the lights off when you’re not around, or at least SOME of the lights…turn off the air conditioner if it’s not too hot and humid out, recycle…I mean why not, what’s the harm in recycling? How about investing in renewable energy? How is that going to cause you any grief? People across ‘Merica are looking for jobs, let’s learn how to build, install and maintain solar and wind farms…look, the truth is there are hundreds of ways you can help reduce the dependency on green house gas emitting fuels.
I'm well aware that these three episodes have alienated many of you. I'm not sorry about that; this topic is something that I felt I needed to put out there, it’s important to me and it should be important to you. Granted, I probably could have been alot less snarky about it, but I stand by both the content and style of my passionate delivery.
Why did I do this? Why did I spend the last three months talking about Global Climate Change?
It was for my friend Dick Leone, who died of cancer two years ago. He was a champion for the environment and the first global warming alarmist I ever met. We sparred for years on the topic, and he won every argument. By late 1990's I had come around to his way of thinking, and it wasn't an easy transition...I was stubborn, angry, and in complete denial about it.
But most importantly, I was wrong about Global Warming....but not anymore: and I have my friend Dick to thank for that. This was for you Dungman.
I am a proud global warming American Alarmist. I’m not here to frighten you as would the “Republican Right who fear their own shadow”, would have you believe: I’m here to sound the science based alarm and warn you that “I see a bad moon rising, I see trouble on the way”.
The evidence is overwhelming and well understood.
When I’m not behind this microphone, I often get into heated and interesting arguments with friends who are both supporters of Donald Trump and deniers of Global Warming…and we part company as friends. As a whole, our opinions are not generally changed…but on specific points we often learn something from one another.
What I won’t do is get into a politically charged conversation with someone who is intellectually dishonest and unwilling, as I am, to keep somewhat of an open mind.
You tell me that you think the Chinese government is the origin of a Global Warming myth, and I’ll stop you and say something like: “Look, dude…let’s not talk about this…trust me, for you and I to discuss this will be pointless for both of us”. In such instances, I’ll often let my friend have the last word…why not? I know they’re wrong in their reasoning, and I know they’re incapable of honesty.
Intellectual honesty is a well understood concept that I refer to frequently. It’s an unbiased way of solving problems and understanding the truth of the universe around us.
We are intellectually honest when we do not allow our personal beliefs, such as faith in magical beings, sway our understanding.
We are intellectually honest when we do not purposefully omit relevant facts and information when they contradict our hypotheses…such as when a climate change denier insists on cherry picking their data.
We are intellectually honest when we present our facts in an unbiased way, and don’t twist the facts to give misleading impressions.
And we are intellectually honest when we correctly reference previously published research, as I’ve done in this series of episodes.
But some of the feedback I’ve received over the past few months, such as this listeners email, has been ignorant to this one rule: and it’s one that I insist upon:
If you want to argue politics or science, especially the overwhelming evidence regarding anthropogenic global warming: I have to insist that you be intellectually honest: go ahead, teach me something I don’t already know…give me reasonable, logical proof without a fallacious argument…and if you can’t or won’t do that, then just stop.
There’s no point in your waisting a kilojoule of your energy trying to prove to me the unprovable. It would be a waste of both of our time.
I’m Steve Runner, reminding you to Run long and Taper