A Linkedin Conversation on Climate Change.
I received the following email from someone on Linkedin regarding my comment on all the negative comments posted to a story about Tesla creating a Truck.
From bruce pisetzner:
Don’t believe the hype
“Global warming”, I mean “climate change” has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with controlling carbon which means you control everything. It is also about creating $1 trillion for Wall Street literally out of thin air for Wall Street.
Al Gore lives in a 50,000 square foot house, flies on private planes, hasn’t been right about anything, but made $500,000,000. hmmmmm.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/un-official-admits-global-warming-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism https://wattsupwiththat.com/
MY RESPONSE:
That’s some interesting Conspiracy sophistry you’re dealing in.
With all due respect, let me explain why I differ on this opinion. As a person who studies science in his spare time and has read a hundred-plus books and studies on Global Climate Change, I’ve learned a few things that are more science based than political/economic ideology based (ergo prone to fallacy):
1) As a species we are currently screwed.
During human existence since the end of the last ice age, man has managed to become the main cause of the Earth’s current mass die-off event, called the “Anthropocene” Mass Extinction. Our species has managed to wipe out close to 90% of the other species on this planet over the course of twelve thousand years. This die-off has been ramped up even further since the beginning of the industrial age which helped man’s population explosion and the increased use of fossil fuels. This of course brings up questions which I pose to you as a thought experiment in reasoning:
Question for you: The human habitable Earth is a finite land mass with finite resources which can be exhausted through over-consumption. This has been proven in the micro by various cultures and regions throughout history. A prime example of this is Easter Island. This was once an island full of trees and had a sustainable environment for a limited human populace. But due to the island’s population growth and ridiculous mis-management of its resources (to create and move giant sculptures of all things), the population managed to exhaust their sustainable environment and irreparably harm it. Thereby causing the island population to collapse into turmoil, disease and death. On a wider scale the same can be said of the environment of the middle east. A few thousand years ago that region was covered in pine and cedar trees and vegetation, but man’s habitation, wars, over-consumption destroyed that massive forest. Given these small examples (I could provide a few dozens others if you need it.) of man’s actions having a negative impact on his finite resources, how can you justify the thinking that the Earth, which has finite resources and species, can’t be negatively impacted by humankind’s over-population and over-use of finite resources?
Take as much time and space as you want on that answer.
2) When we talk about Global Climate change and the measure of CO2, there are several factors which most people don’t realize or have bothered to learn about in their limited and ill-informed conclusions on the topic.
A) The measure of CO2 and its implications. CO2 was first measure in 1958 by Dave Keeling but not with the desire to prove climate change, global warming or proof of the Anthropocene (man-made) Mass Extinction. It was done just to see what was the composition of our atmosphere. But over time one thing started to become clear from the samples was that the CO2 that was increasing in the samples wasn’t the slightly radioactive CO2 that is found in most living and breathing organisms on the Earth. It was the non-radioactive CO2 that comes from the burning of fossil fuels. The CO2 that is trapped within fossil fuel has no radioactivity because over the course of the millions of years that these fuels have been sitting in the ground, the radioactivity has decayed long ago. Long story short, we know from these ever-increasing measurements that the increase is 100% due to man’s burning of fossil fuels.
B) Increased CO2 is approaching levels not seen on this planet in over 250 million years, long before man existed. We know this due to measurements taken from ice core samples and drilling samples. Why is are levels of CO2 that approach 420PPM dangerous? Because given the drastic rise of CO2 we will soon approach the levels that occurred during the end-Permian extinction 252.2 million years ago which decimated 90 percent of marine and terrestrial species. It is called “The Great Dying,” and was the most severe mass extinction in Earth’s history. The explosion in CO2 was assumed to be due to volcanism. However now we know that’s not the case in our current situation.
C) CO2 is not the only worry. CO2’s increase in the atmosphere is creating a 1–3C degree average rise in global temperature. Most people think this is no big thing but they are wrong. They are confusing a mean average to represent localized temperature changes however those can change dramatically. For example, Juno Alaska reached 90 degrees for the first time in its recorded history. It’s temperature swing during the day was a 30–40 degree swing. That is a huge swing for Alaska.
Why should we worry about Alaskan tundra, and the north pole in general, reaching average sustained temps far above freezing?
The Alaskan AND Siberian tundra and the north pole currently trap millions of tons of methane, keeping it from being released into the atmosphere. Methane, in case you don’t know, is 84 times more powerful as a global warming gas.
Imagine those tundras and seas releasing million of tons of methane within a short amount of time and humankind and the world’s species would be completely unprepared for the 10–15C increase in heat that would occur. And that temperature rise estimate is on the low side of what could possibly happen.
Currently methane is being released and measured from the Arctic but we haven’t seen the worst yet thankfully.
D) Wild temperature changes and weather. Two weeks ago 5 feet of hail fell in Guadalajara, Mexico within a few hours. Major flooding has started to impact growing regions around the globe. Sure this could be Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc error in my argument but it’s not. Time and time again scientists has proven these extreme weather events are related to Climate change.
There is no dispute (outside of this country) that CO2 and increased heat in the atmosphere is driving this. While you don’t see corporate media in this country discussing these things, they definitely mention it elsewhere in the world.
On a personal note, I was in Europe during the heat wave two weeks ago and weathermen there discussed, at length, how Global warming effected the weather. It was refreshing to hear some honesty in the news for once.
E) CO2 contributing to increase ocean acidification and dead zones. There is no dispute that increased CO2 in the atmosphere can overwhelm the world’s oceans ability to be a carbon capture system when CO2 levels reach past 500pm. At that point CO2 combines with H2O to create a chemical reaction which reduces the PH level of seawater and reduces the amount of oxygen in the water as well, which in turn creates deoxygenated water that can’t sustain oxygen breathing life.
We are currently seeing this acidification happening in the southern oceans and it’s already killing reefs and sea-life.
If we continue in this climb of CO2 we could see by the end of century a 150% climb in ocean acidity which the Earth hasn’t had in 20million years!
This rise in acidity will negatively impact 20% of the world’s population who derive 1/5 of their food supply from the ocean.
Question for you: Do you think that extreme weather events and sudden changes in what is usually consistent atmosphere/weather in growing regions of the world and the oceans will have wider implications for food production and human health? If not, then why?
3) I haven’t in this response even mentioned how Climate Change, and it’s impact on warming the world, could effect sea level rise throughout the world.
Since 1880, sea levels have risen on average about 8 inches, three of which were added in just the last 25 years. On average the sea is rising about 1/10th of an inch per year. But due to thermal expansion half of that sea level rise is due to warmer oceans. Warmer water occupies more space. (Basic earth science I would assume you know.)
If we were to reach the 425PPM of CO2 in the next couple of years scientists fully expect our planet to reach a crucial feedback loop of warming that will speed up global glacial and arctic ice melt. This will increase sea level rise drastically. The end of the century estimates put sea level rise between 2ft to 3 ft. depending on how much water comes from Greenland and Antarctica.
That’s the low end of the estimate but it is still enough to flood many of the coastal cities of the world, poison aquifers and land with salt contamination, and cause the loss of wetlands around the world.
In summation
Of course all this is being optimistic of just a few of the results of the very real Global Climate Change, the effects could actually be much, much worse.
If people continue to keep their heads in the sand over this issue they will be worse.
This of course brings me to my last point.
Judging from your comment, it exudes a mindset that has been heavily programmed by confirmation bias, especially when it comes to quoting zerohedge.com which has dubious reportage at best.
All I can hope for is that perhaps some of the items I have mentioned here as well as the questions I posed, will help you to investigate the science on your own and think about this issue, beyond the limited lens of conspiracy theories which occlude your vision.
There is more to our Earth and how it works than what is dictated by the small minds of politicians and businessmen who have agendas other than the concern of human survival.
While I disagree with your questioning of Climate Change‘s reality, I will agree with you on one point regarding what will be the result from a world devastated by Climate Change.
The world’s governments and financial systems are currently unprepared to deal with the consequences in any other way than by harsh, autocratic authoritarianism.
I fully expect that by the end of the century, if we don’t as a species, act in a unified manner to help repair and fix our world, we will devolve into utter chaos, war and our final destruction.
Unless we get over all this nonsense of trying to dispute or discredit hard science, we are doomed to go the way of the dinosaurs.
The Earth wouldn’t care one bit because it will continue on like it always does.
Reponse from Bruce:
Edward, Thank you for your response. I will go over it in detail.
When people tell you they are lying toy you believe them. That’s when they are telling the truth.
Q: What happened to “peak oil”? What of those predictions? How’d that work out? Q: THe Earth was suppose to be done with about 4 years ago? Why are we still here? (You know cause we have to do SOMETHING (do you know much about what the actual plans are, what the cost is how irrelevant the “success” would be? A: I do…IT’s farcical and appeals on the logic, “well we have to do something”.. I will go over your response and detail and thank you for your response. You mention you read “100 articles”-here’s many thousand.. https://wattsupwiththat.com/
Also I suggest you look up Dr. Julian SImon.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Simon Edward-pleasure to make you acquaintance. and have this opportunity for a civil exchange.
My Response:
(Note to self: I really have to learn to have patience. That one major downfall I have thanks to a lifetime of living in NYC i think.)
First Answer: Peak Oil is still in process and the whole thing was dubious to begin with since there were still sources of oil to be found in the world but were hard to access. Unfortunately with Global Warming making the Arctic sea ice less of a hazard, it has managed to open up new areas for drilling were once it was cost prohibitive. On the downside though this new access to areas means a continued reliance on fossil fuel which is essentially killing us and the planet.
Second answer: How was the Earth supposed to be done? According to who? Some crazed lunatic religious cult? Most of the Mass Extinction events that have taken place in the past occurred over thousands of years. However the one which we are currently in is happening in a time frame that starts to drastically curve upward around the beginning of the industrial age. Most science points towards its finish at possible 1000 years from now. But that is not to say the Earth will end, it simply will be uninhabitable for human life and the other species which now live on the planet.
Farcical is sitting on one’s ass watching TV while the house where the TV is sitting is burning down to the ground. The analogy can be applied to those who drive huge gas guzzling trucks while thinking there are no consequences from doing so. Everything has consequences. The mere fact that either of us is using up electricity generated by some coal fired power plant in order to try and convince each other to one side or the other is farcical.
After 25 years in the advertising game I gave up trying to convince those whose heads are buried in the concrete of confirmation bias.
A person will either have the good sense to see what’s in front of them or they’ll continue to be a sucker to someone else’s scheme. That’s advertising manipulation 101.
Yes, I’ve looked at wattsupwiththat.com. The site’s climate denier reputation is renowned. They are also widely known for flawed and inaccurate reporting, scientific inaccuracy and biased partisan hack untrustworthiness.
As for Dr. Julian I’ll need more info but I’ll assume he’s one of those small number of questionable “scientists” who get regularly touted out Republican panels whenever they need a hack to back up their Fossil Fuel donor’s lies about the environment. (NOTE: I missed the link below the fold of the previous message.)
Anyhow I don’t expect you to come to any conclusions that will make you realize that Climate change is real. I only hope you’ll realize that man can’t keep shitting up his planet and not expect to see some kind of karmic slapback.
FROM BRUCE:
(NOTE: this is where things start going off the rails.)
How much do you know about computer modeling? Simple question-why is it that the people who are in charge of this farce TELL YOU THEY ARE LYING AND THIS IS AN ATTACK ON CAPITALISM ???? Let’s say it is “real” -what do we do about it? Can you site a plan that has been bandied about that actually would impact this supposed climate change? (the climate in case you didn’t know has changed since the beginning of the planet. The continents use to be connected. They aren’t. now…
Q: DId the continents drift apart because of Karma ? THe middle east use to be lush forrest. IT’s a dessert. Happened before there were many people on the planet (like nobody living on Earth)… Is this man/karma problem? Again-”what do you know about computer modeling?”. Did you know the original models did not factor in Solar activity? Do you think solar activity is a variable that you can dismiss when talking about “climate”?
I am very interested in your answers. Thank you Edward….
My Response
(Note to self: Next time don’t respond to crazy note at 7:00am before having a cup of strong tea and a bit of reflection. Otherwise unwise words are chosen…)
Wwowwwww. I’ve never seen so much disconnected thinking about Earth’s geology and history and astronomy in one statement.
It’s pretty obvious that explaining anything might be an exercise in futility. But I’ll take a stab at trying to pick apart this convoluted mess…
First of all in regards to trying to counter rising CO2 Levels. The Kyoto protocols were an attempt at trying to get a general agreement on decreasing the output of CO2 worldwide. It’s been mostly a failure though due to countries either not sticking to the plan and the overall CO2 targets being too low to realistically have an impact on decreasing CO2 in a meaningful way. Sweden and Denmark about the only two countries making a realistic attempt at moving away from using Fossil Fuels. Ironically China is also in some respects with massive solar and wind switch-overs but they also still use way too much coal to make an impact.
As for Carbon Tax credits and and the other financial penalty approaches, in my opinion they’re a failure as well. Penalties are always the wrong approach to most solutions. Sweden at least has the right idea with giving electric car buyers big tax breaks, low car taxes, and other financial incentives to make the switch. Now Sweden just has to make sure their electrical power is coming from mostly renewable sources (water, wind, solar) they aren’t 100% there yet but they are getting close. Oh and it’s isn’t destroying the economy of their country in any way shape or form so that “Attack on Capitalism” malarky is just unfounded fears promoted by mainly those who invest in fossil fuels.
As for a worldwide solution: A change in the mindset of constant consumption is where we have to start. Plus moving to renewable energy in a major way. If we could take the auto industry in 1940 and switch it overnight to making war machinery for WW2, I’m pretty sure with the right incentive we can get manufacturers and companies to make the switch quickly.
2) Now as for continental drift. I’m not sure how this figures into your argument. Not sure if you understand that much about tectonic plate movement and how it’s impacted by the earth’s core, gravitational pull and outward elements such as massive asteroid strikes, but continental drift is still happening.
In about a million years or so Africa should be fully cleaved in two by the drift happening right through it.
3) Now as it applies to the the Middles East and its once lush Pine and Cedar forest, you miss the point of how man over thousands of years can destroy his habitat. Maybe this is too long of a time frame for you to wrap your head around.
Let me point out to Spain and other parts of Europe, where over the course of about 1000 years they managed to deforest much of the land. This is all documented in recorded history so there’s no dispute over if it was man or Karma.
Thankfully the Europeans are trying to limit the deforestation in the last 70 years.
Seriously, stating computer modeling didn’t factor in solar activity isn’t helping your argument. The fact that the Sun is currently in an 11 year lull of activity, yet each successive year on Earth it is getting hotter and breaking temperature records. This blows that solar impact thesis right out the window.
(Ok I’ll admit it, I got to disparaging in this message. I should have apologized but alas it’s the patience thing again. Yes, I’ll openly admit I’m a flawed human being.)
I then sent a follow up:
Hi Bruce, Due to how linkedin has these dialogs I missed the last name and link to Dr. Julian Simon. I checked it out. Personally i’ve always had a problem with economists who think unlimited economic growth can be a good thing for any planet. Also while he may have been a skeptic of Climate Change he had no expertise in the science of it. This makes his assumptions have no more validity than those of you or I.
Speaking of economic growth and sustainability, how is it that a guy like you who is in the CBD business seems not to understand the necessary sustainability of natural resources? Marijuana, or more specifically, Hemp is an incredible plant that can be used for so many products which can help to eliminate the plastic waste inundating this planet, as well as it can be used as a possible quickly renewable power source. Though that still continues the CO2 release dilemma. I’ve read about the reverse thinking though of using hemp to capture CO2 and that proved interesting. Anyhow I’m sure this stuff must have crossed your mind at some point?
Response from Bruce:
(Note: I sense I really pressed on some hot buttons. Things really break down at this point. Civility gets tossed.)
First-you should know who you are talking to. My scientific background and technology backgrtound come from Google’s campus and Siliccon Valley. I am presently filing the largest patent portfolio of the most revolutionary consumer science in 120 years.
So-”can you get your mind around”-can you get your mind around that the data we have from the 1800’s is not statistically valid for anything, that the thesis of global warming correlating CO2 is WRONG-because when that hockey stick bullshit was looked at it turns out that the temp gains occurred prior to 1947 which is when CO2 concentrations got bigger.
“Saying the sun isn’t used in a model doesn’t help your argument” and talking about “11 year cycles”-dude is FUCKING STUPID…Obviously the single thing that effects climate and temperature in the Universe is the SUN.Period. SO if you build a model-and i sir unlike you, have built these models, worked with MIT, GaTech’s data vis PHD program, and Stanford’s NLP/Machine learning know what i am talking about.
You sir-are a member of the sheeple… (FROM ED: UH OH, HERE’S A TELL) You were told by the people at the U.N -”we are lying”…and you can’t figure it out. You can’t figure out that Wall Street gets $1 trillion for nothing. You haven’t obviously looked at or understand a single actual proposal to supposedly address these issues and the purported impact which is nothing-and the cost which is trillions, and the suffering that it would bring to the most disadvantaged humans on the earth.
SO you are the guy telling AFricans as Obozo (FROM ED: Ah hah, There it is, the guy is a Trumpanzee.) did, “you can’t have cars and air conditioners because the Earth will boil over”…Uh, huh, Whitey gonna have it. But not Africans.
So -here’s the deal-you went down a route of insulting me-and I’m not a photographer, I do work with some of the absolute pre-eminent PHD’s in science on this planet.We are talking Nobel Prize winning science.
SO “you aren’t helping your case by pointing out the sun was not a variable looked at for climate” -and using the reference with certitude that you know a thing about the sun is 4 billion years old and you are tlaking about “11 years’.
Oh-so wait you know with certitude that because of the infinite variable involved in climate that “sun down, temp up, disprove” LOL
Q: DOes anybody ever have to be right ? A: Not one prediction about hurricanes,storms the end of mankind has come true.. Not one….yet-you still believe…
Anyhow-gotta go…I have real scientists that I deal with….
(Note: Eeesh. I should have taken the high road but…)
MY RESPONSE:
Oh for crying out loud. Way to pick and choose from my responses. This is why I hate Trumpers. They have their heads embedded in the concrete of capitalist BS, which ultimately will destroy the world if left to its own devices.
FROM BRUCE:
Listen -you might want to show some respect and stop with your perjorative and insulting comments. “how is it you don’t understand sustainability”-genius, I am presently working with Pepsi Co on their sustainability technology game plan.
Q: You take pictures. LOL
“Trumpers”-did you mean “person who has developed more patents, IP, innovation, and is working with the largest corporations on sustainability? That’s what you hate? People who know more than you? Ed-go take some pictures please. Thanks…https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/
(NOTE: I decided at this point to just mess with him a bit more. Since this guy decided to pick and choose from my comments and background.)
MY RESPONSE:
Nope. I only hate those who seems to not accept that unless we do something we as a species are f*cked.
Let me suggest a wonderful book to you: The Light of the Stars and the Fate of the Earth https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393609014/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
FROM BRUCE:
SO you hate people who don’t agree with your exact recipe for humanity…LOL SO now your documentation is an NPR astrophysicist and this substantiates your climate theories?
MY RESPONSE:
No, I was suggesting that as merely some easy reading fodder.
Also as for what I love, it’s as often as possible not being in this rotten to the core country full of fools and greedheads, all climbing over one another like a pile of lobsters in a bucket. All for the mighty dollar.
In Conclusion:
Yes, I could have handled that much better and could have tried to reach a consensus on how to deal with rising CO2 levels and the real threat of Climate Change. But invariably it’s nearly impossible to break through the veil when one person is so imbued with a combination of confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, self -righteous capitalist dogma and bloated numb-skullery.
Not even once did Bruce even admit that the actions of billions of humans can have a negative impact on our planet. Of course, when he suggested I review the work of Dr. Julian Smith I should have realized that he might lean toward the selfish, irresponsible ideology of Libertarianism. Foolish me, I should have known. A person can’t argue with a brainwashed Libertarian. They consider themselves always 100% right and try to proselytize their nonsense as much as a Jehovah’s Witness on a Sunday.
I’ll admit that I’m not without my own faults. I too should have controlled my patience, not been so self-righteous, or have impugned his knowledge so much. However once he flatly stated I was just a photographer, thereby discounting 30+ years in the advertising business, web development programming, multi-language skills and general world knowledge, well… the gloves come off. Blame the fighting Irish in me.
However foregoing the self-incrimination and indignation, overall this dialog poses one big question: How will we as a species survive Climate Change, or any other big threat for that matter, if we can’t even begin to have an extended level-headed discussion on any topic?
Useful Links:
Arguments against Climate Change Denier talking points:
