Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Very pleased to welcome back to the show, doctor Matthew Wielecki,
who is Matthew is a Earth science professor in exile
PhD in Earth Science from UCLA and used to teach
this stuff and then realized that wasn't a yet too
far if he was insistent on actually looking at data
(00:20):
and telling the truth, and which is a hell of
a comment about the academic environment right now. So he's
got a fabulous substack called Irrational Fear. So Irrationalfear dot
substack dot com. You should go, you should subscribe. I'm
a subscriber and do that. So Matt's got a couple
(00:42):
of recent posts that I think are much worth talking about.
And so, first of all, good morning, Thanks, thanks for
being back on the show.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
It's good to see you, Marie Ross, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
So let's start with the one you did several days ago,
you know, a little less than a week ago, the.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
C level lie exposed.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
And this has always been a thing that bothered me,
the claims that all these low lying islands we're going
to disappear and all this stuff, especially when okay, this here,
here's what it reminds me of. Here's what it reminds
me of Matt. There's a famous phrase attributed to Yogi Bera,
(01:21):
and everything is attributed to either Yogi Berra or Winston
Churchill or Thomas Jefferson. Right, those three guys said everything
that's ever worth hearing. But in theory, there's no difference
between theory and practice.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
But in practice there is that that's very true, that
is very true. That is that sums up climate science
in a nutshell.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
So let's talk about the sea level thing. And you
can either start start wherever you want, but I do
want to get to this idea that like, why haven't
these islands disappeared already given what we've been told?
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Yeah, So I mean that the way the I P
C C cells it, it's very simple. Right, The surface
of the planet is warming, and thus the poles are
going to be melting because we have what's called polar amplification,
so they warm even faster than the other areas, and so.
Speaker 4 (02:07):
They're going to rapidly lose ice.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
That's where a large majority of the fresh water and
ice is stored, and so they're going to raise sea
levels dramatically. And you know, the New York Post has
as an article that says New York will experience thirteen
inches of sea level rise. And it's a very nice
little story. It's very simple. It makes sense.
Speaker 4 (02:28):
You know.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
I take ice out and put it out in the
sun and it melts, and that makes sense. But when
we start to look at the observable data, we get
out of the theory, like we said, and we start
to look at the actual practice, the data. What we
can see. There's a new paper that came out from
in China this just last month. It takes a little
time to get translated and everything, but they looked at
(02:48):
satellite data from Antarctica and they've seen abrupt mass gain
over the last four years or so, since about twenty
twenty one, in the time period we've been being told
it's the hottest years in the last one hundred and
twenty thousand, the Arctic is gaining mass and pulling ice
and actually lowering sea levels. And so, you know, it
flips the whole narrative on its head. It's this little
(03:10):
simplistic story is clearly not how the planet is operating,
all right.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
And since I'm a nerd and I've been studying this
stuff a lot, not as well as you, but more
than the average person tell listeners how significant as a
percentage of a global total of sea ice or ice
mass Antarctica is.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
It holds by far the vast majority of the fresh
water and the possibility of sea level rise. Greenland is
a much smaller player in this. It's Antarctica that's really
the big player.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
For a couple of different reasons.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
So I think there has been, and I want to
word this very carefully, what looks like a sea level
rise in Manhattan and a couple other places, but it's
not actually a sea level rise. So I want to
talk about that. And then I want to talk about
you know, Tuvalu and some of these islands that have
decided to take the climate grift on themselves and they
(04:09):
go to the UN and say, all you rich countries,
you're gonna swamp us with water, so please give us
a billion dollars or you're gonna go to hell.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
So talk about both of those things.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
Yeah, So to your first point, So, especially when we're
building along like the east coast of the US, we
call that a passive margin where we're going off the
continental shelf and we're going into the oceanic crust. But
we're doing that without crossing a plate boundary. So we
have soft sediments, and we have relatively soft ground, and
the ocean doesn't just stop right where the coastline is.
(04:40):
It actually infiltrates underneath the ground, and so that ground
is relatively soft. And in places like Manhattan, what we're
seeing now is that anywhere from about a third to
two thirds, so well over half is the of the
of the what we.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
See in the title gauges.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
I trust the title gauges the most, and so these
are little gauges we have right along the coastline that
are measuring the seas as they go up and down.
One third or two thirds of that is going to
be due to land subsidence, and that means that we've
built these giant structures, skyscrapers, huge foundations on this relatively
soft soil, and so over time that soil is gently
settling down, and that is what's actually driving what appears
(05:19):
to be that's an apparent sea level rise. The seas
aren't nearly changing as much as we thought. It's actually
the ground is changing. Miami has a big problem with this,
Houston has a big problem with this. Nearly all of
our coastal cities have a big problem with this, and
that has nothing to do with the amount of water
in the oceans. That regardless of the amount of water
in the ocean, whether there's any being contributed from the poles,
(05:42):
that's the land actually changing because of the mass. And
when we talk about these islands disappearing, that used to
be the Mantra. I remember seeing one of these island
nation presidents standing in the ankles with a podium that
you know, his land was going to disappear. I think
this was the Maldives, and they just built like a
couple of billion dollar airport they're They're tourism is skyrocketed.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
The land area in the of the.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Maladi's has increased because they're realizing that the sedimentation rates
change as the sea levels change a little bit. And
they've been also doing some engineering to build these extra
areas where they can build an airport that's just you know,
basically like a brand new island.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
And so human intervention can.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Clearly solve a lot of these problems, and it just
seems like the simplistic narrative is falling apart everywhere.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
And and just to one just to elaborate on something,
you went by kind of quickly there on the on
these islands in the Pacific.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Uh, and tell me if I have this wrong. But
my understanding is.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
That what's happening is that the waves keep bringing what's
the word I'm looking for, the decomposed coral, little bits
of coral up onto shore, and keep making the shoreline
bigger and go further out to see right, So you're
you're gaining land mass just with the depots of well,
(07:01):
some of those islands are like a volcanic but some
arete and even if they are, they can be built
this way.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
So sea levels, even if they even if.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
They are rising, it appears that the new sedimentation, as
you put it, is more than keeping up with it,
and actually the land mass is increasing in those places.
Speaker 4 (07:21):
Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
The dynamics are much more complicated than we ever thought.
That are simplistic narrative at the beginning, and it seems
to be working in the favor of keeping those those
land masses around. And we already had that notion because
we know sea levels have changed dramatically in the past,
but we have very old, relatively small islands, so everybody
had alreadys been kind of scratching their heads, going like, wait,
why didn't these disappear? If the narrative is correct and
(07:45):
a tiny little fraction of sea level rise is going
to wipe these things off the map, why do we
have these older islands when we know sea levels have
fluctuated dramatically in the past. And now we're starting to
get these answers.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
Right, And it's it's a grift right that these islands.
They they want our money. They want American politicians to
feel guilty about America becoming what America has become. And
it is true that America is responsible for a lot
of the so called emissions. That's because we make a
lot of stuff. And by the way, per unit of output,
(08:18):
we produce a lot less emissions than other people because
we're a very clean country and we got nothing to
feel guilty for. It's more of a political rant than
a scientific rant.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
But do you want to add anything?
Speaker 3 (08:28):
Yeah, I think the incentive for these nations is very clear.
If you say, hey, you know, we're freaked out and
this is going to be a catastrophe, the funds start
pouring in. If you say, hey, I think we can
deal with this, the spigots turn off. And so there's
an incentive clearly on one side, and that's why the
rhetoric keeps getting ramped up, right, And.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
That same incentive exists throughout throughout climate science. I won't
say one hundred percent of climate science, but I think
much more than half of climate science, this is my
personal opinion, is driven by people chasing grants, chasing income,
staying relevant and all that. And like you said, there's
no there's no money to be made in saying we're
gonna be okay except for you because you're such an outlier.
(09:10):
But but seriously, because I mean, you've quit being a
professor and you're you're doing the irrational Fear substack, and
if you're just joining us folks, Matthew Wilicky is the
is a PhD or scientist, and his substack is called
Irrational Fear Right Irrational Fear dot substack dot com. I
wish you wouldn't be able to make a living at
(09:32):
this in the sense that I wish there weren't so
much information out there that is wrong and a grift
and a lie that that people have to seek out
a rare person like you who's offering the actual data.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
Yeah, yeah, I mean I agree with you one hundred percent.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
One of my biggest irks in all of this is
the lack of more scientists speaking out, even when it's
their own work that's being essentially bastardized to push propaganda,
and they keep their mouth shut because it's so toxic
right now out there, and if you say one thing right,
they kick you out of the club. And it's just
it's unfortunate that there are more people that because they
(10:12):
do say this stuff behind their backs, and you know,
they'll call me secretly and let me know, but they
won't dare speak out.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Well, you were smart enough to resign your membership in
the club.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Before they kick you out.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Now, there are a lot of people in climate science
who I think are self serving. I don't necessarily think
they're bad people. But there is a guy who is
definitely a bad person, and his name is Michael Mann.
And I say that even knowing that Michael Mann has
a habit of people who as suing people who say
(10:44):
bad things about him.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
But he is a very bad person.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Who should have been kicked out of the Academy many
many years ago for his many, many lies. And he
is a big part of promulgating what Well, you've got
a new substant article entitled Exposing Climate Science's Biggest Lie.
And you don't mention Michael mannon here, but it's really
part of the same thing that I'm referring to, the
(11:09):
lie that he promulgates.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Yeah, this is essentially reconstructing past climate. So Michael Mann's
very famous for creating what was known as the hockey
stick graph that essentially showed a stable climate for a
few thousand years. That's the handle and then the blade
right shoots straight up very quickly over a very short
time period.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
We got that argue that backwards the blade, the blade
is the flat part and yeah, and the handle is
the straight up part.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Oh yeah, there you go, right, yeah, and then uh.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
And then and and that's what I PCC essentially took, right,
And that's what they ran with, and that's the whole argument,
the basis for the argument that what we're experiencing now
is unprecedented and it's unnatural and we have to do
some drastic actions.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
And the I was I keep seeing a.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Graphic that keeps popping up when I when I have
these discussions, and it's about this little tiny what they
call a safe climate zone. And this is all COmON
comes back to this micromangraph, that there's this just one
flat line where because human civilization is so young, we're
only you know, we've only had agriculture for a few
thousand years, climate changes on much larger time scales that
(12:14):
somehow the climate must remain in that exact little one
degree They claim a one degree celsius a band, and
that's just absurd. I mean, humans live in Siberia, they
live along the equator.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
We're so adaptable as a species.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
The daily change that we experience in the morning when
the sun rises is ten times that one's degree safe zone.
It's such an absurd metric to claim that we have
to somehow keep the planet that varies by tens of
degrees on the order of hundreds of thousands of years
in one degree zone in order to survive. And it's
(12:49):
just I mean, it's in a completely absurd argument.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
Why is an argument, Why is an argument that is
so transparently obsord so accepted by let's say, the UN
and other and other folks.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
I mean, does it go beyond the grift?
Speaker 4 (13:09):
No, it's money. It's simple. It's very simple to measure.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
It's a it's it's a well, it's very difficult to measure,
but it's a simple metric to kind of compute. They
essentially calculate it. There's no real global temperature than anybody measures.
Speaker 4 (13:22):
They measure a few little areas.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
They have satellites now as well, but there's a lot
of extrapolation in between.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
So it's essentially a calculated metric. But it's simple.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
It's simple for people to understand, and it's simple for
them to put thresholds on to say that when we
cross this threshold, we need more money. When we cross
this next threshold, we need more money. When we cross
this next threshold, you've got to give us all the
money because it's an existential threat now and just pour it,
pour it into our coffers, because we're going to be
the solution.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
And that ties in perfectly to the title of doctor
Matthew Willocky's blog, Irrational Fear, and it those people who
are saying the stuff that Matthew just described, they're not
actually afraid. They know, or at least they guess that
they're lying, but they're trying to instill an irrational fear
(14:14):
in all of us.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
So that we give them our money.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Everybody, go to Irrational Fear dot substack dot com and subscribe.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Matt, thanks for being here always great. Thanks Ross. All right,
we'll see you
Very pleased to welcome back to the show, doctor Matthew Wielecki,
who is Matthew is a Earth science professor in exile
PhD in Earth Science from UCLA and used to teach
this stuff and then realized that wasn't a yet too
far if he was insistent on actually looking at data
(00:20):
and telling the truth, and which is a hell of
a comment about the academic environment right now. So he's
got a fabulous substack called Irrational Fear. So Irrationalfear dot
substack dot com. You should go, you should subscribe. I'm
a subscriber and do that. So Matt's got a couple
(00:42):
of recent posts that I think are much worth talking about.
And so, first of all, good morning, Thanks, thanks for
being back on the show.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
It's good to see you, Marie Ross, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
So let's start with the one you did several days ago,
you know, a little less than a week ago, the.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
C level lie exposed.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
And this has always been a thing that bothered me,
the claims that all these low lying islands we're going
to disappear and all this stuff, especially when okay, this here,
here's what it reminds me of. Here's what it reminds
me of Matt. There's a famous phrase attributed to Yogi Bera,
(01:21):
and everything is attributed to either Yogi Berra or Winston
Churchill or Thomas Jefferson. Right, those three guys said everything
that's ever worth hearing. But in theory, there's no difference
between theory and practice.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
But in practice there is that that's very true, that
is very true. That is that sums up climate science
in a nutshell.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
So let's talk about the sea level thing. And you
can either start start wherever you want, but I do
want to get to this idea that like, why haven't
these islands disappeared already given what we've been told?
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Yeah, So I mean that the way the I P
C C cells it, it's very simple. Right, The surface
of the planet is warming, and thus the poles are
going to be melting because we have what's called polar amplification,
so they warm even faster than the other areas, and so.
Speaker 4 (02:07):
They're going to rapidly lose ice.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
That's where a large majority of the fresh water and
ice is stored, and so they're going to raise sea
levels dramatically. And you know, the New York Post has
as an article that says New York will experience thirteen
inches of sea level rise. And it's a very nice
little story. It's very simple. It makes sense.
Speaker 4 (02:28):
You know.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
I take ice out and put it out in the
sun and it melts, and that makes sense. But when
we start to look at the observable data, we get
out of the theory, like we said, and we start
to look at the actual practice, the data. What we
can see. There's a new paper that came out from
in China this just last month. It takes a little
time to get translated and everything, but they looked at
(02:48):
satellite data from Antarctica and they've seen abrupt mass gain
over the last four years or so, since about twenty
twenty one, in the time period we've been being told
it's the hottest years in the last one hundred and
twenty thousand, the Arctic is gaining mass and pulling ice
and actually lowering sea levels. And so, you know, it
flips the whole narrative on its head. It's this little
(03:10):
simplistic story is clearly not how the planet is operating,
all right.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
And since I'm a nerd and I've been studying this
stuff a lot, not as well as you, but more
than the average person tell listeners how significant as a
percentage of a global total of sea ice or ice
mass Antarctica is.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
It holds by far the vast majority of the fresh
water and the possibility of sea level rise. Greenland is
a much smaller player in this. It's Antarctica that's really
the big player.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
For a couple of different reasons.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
So I think there has been, and I want to
word this very carefully, what looks like a sea level
rise in Manhattan and a couple other places, but it's
not actually a sea level rise. So I want to
talk about that. And then I want to talk about
you know, Tuvalu and some of these islands that have
decided to take the climate grift on themselves and they
(04:09):
go to the UN and say, all you rich countries,
you're gonna swamp us with water, so please give us
a billion dollars or you're gonna go to hell.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
So talk about both of those things.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
Yeah, So to your first point, So, especially when we're
building along like the east coast of the US, we
call that a passive margin where we're going off the
continental shelf and we're going into the oceanic crust. But
we're doing that without crossing a plate boundary. So we
have soft sediments, and we have relatively soft ground, and
the ocean doesn't just stop right where the coastline is.
(04:40):
It actually infiltrates underneath the ground, and so that ground
is relatively soft. And in places like Manhattan, what we're
seeing now is that anywhere from about a third to
two thirds, so well over half is the of the
of the what we.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
See in the title gauges.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
I trust the title gauges the most, and so these
are little gauges we have right along the coastline that
are measuring the seas as they go up and down.
One third or two thirds of that is going to
be due to land subsidence, and that means that we've
built these giant structures, skyscrapers, huge foundations on this relatively
soft soil, and so over time that soil is gently
settling down, and that is what's actually driving what appears
(05:19):
to be that's an apparent sea level rise. The seas
aren't nearly changing as much as we thought. It's actually
the ground is changing. Miami has a big problem with this,
Houston has a big problem with this. Nearly all of
our coastal cities have a big problem with this, and
that has nothing to do with the amount of water
in the oceans. That regardless of the amount of water
in the ocean, whether there's any being contributed from the poles,
(05:42):
that's the land actually changing because of the mass. And
when we talk about these islands disappearing, that used to
be the Mantra. I remember seeing one of these island
nation presidents standing in the ankles with a podium that
you know, his land was going to disappear. I think
this was the Maldives, and they just built like a
couple of billion dollar airport they're They're tourism is skyrocketed.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
The land area in the of the.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Maladi's has increased because they're realizing that the sedimentation rates
change as the sea levels change a little bit. And
they've been also doing some engineering to build these extra
areas where they can build an airport that's just you know,
basically like a brand new island.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
And so human intervention can.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Clearly solve a lot of these problems, and it just
seems like the simplistic narrative is falling apart everywhere.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
And and just to one just to elaborate on something,
you went by kind of quickly there on the on
these islands in the Pacific.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Uh, and tell me if I have this wrong. But
my understanding is.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
That what's happening is that the waves keep bringing what's
the word I'm looking for, the decomposed coral, little bits
of coral up onto shore, and keep making the shoreline
bigger and go further out to see right, So you're
you're gaining land mass just with the depots of well,
(07:01):
some of those islands are like a volcanic but some
arete and even if they are, they can be built
this way.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
So sea levels, even if they even if.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
They are rising, it appears that the new sedimentation, as
you put it, is more than keeping up with it,
and actually the land mass is increasing in those places.
Speaker 4 (07:21):
Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
The dynamics are much more complicated than we ever thought.
That are simplistic narrative at the beginning, and it seems
to be working in the favor of keeping those those
land masses around. And we already had that notion because
we know sea levels have changed dramatically in the past,
but we have very old, relatively small islands, so everybody
had alreadys been kind of scratching their heads, going like, wait,
why didn't these disappear? If the narrative is correct and
(07:45):
a tiny little fraction of sea level rise is going
to wipe these things off the map, why do we
have these older islands when we know sea levels have
fluctuated dramatically in the past. And now we're starting to
get these answers.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
Right, And it's it's a grift right that these islands.
They they want our money. They want American politicians to
feel guilty about America becoming what America has become. And
it is true that America is responsible for a lot
of the so called emissions. That's because we make a
lot of stuff. And by the way, per unit of output,
(08:18):
we produce a lot less emissions than other people because
we're a very clean country and we got nothing to
feel guilty for. It's more of a political rant than
a scientific rant.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
But do you want to add anything?
Speaker 3 (08:28):
Yeah, I think the incentive for these nations is very clear.
If you say, hey, you know, we're freaked out and
this is going to be a catastrophe, the funds start
pouring in. If you say, hey, I think we can
deal with this, the spigots turn off. And so there's
an incentive clearly on one side, and that's why the
rhetoric keeps getting ramped up, right, And.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
That same incentive exists throughout throughout climate science. I won't
say one hundred percent of climate science, but I think
much more than half of climate science, this is my
personal opinion, is driven by people chasing grants, chasing income,
staying relevant and all that. And like you said, there's
no there's no money to be made in saying we're
gonna be okay except for you because you're such an outlier.
(09:10):
But but seriously, because I mean, you've quit being a
professor and you're you're doing the irrational Fear substack, and
if you're just joining us folks, Matthew Wilicky is the
is a PhD or scientist, and his substack is called
Irrational Fear Right Irrational Fear dot substack dot com. I
wish you wouldn't be able to make a living at
(09:32):
this in the sense that I wish there weren't so
much information out there that is wrong and a grift
and a lie that that people have to seek out
a rare person like you who's offering the actual data.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
Yeah, yeah, I mean I agree with you one hundred percent.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
One of my biggest irks in all of this is
the lack of more scientists speaking out, even when it's
their own work that's being essentially bastardized to push propaganda,
and they keep their mouth shut because it's so toxic
right now out there, and if you say one thing right,
they kick you out of the club. And it's just
it's unfortunate that there are more people that because they
(10:12):
do say this stuff behind their backs, and you know,
they'll call me secretly and let me know, but they
won't dare speak out.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Well, you were smart enough to resign your membership in
the club.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Before they kick you out.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Now, there are a lot of people in climate science
who I think are self serving. I don't necessarily think
they're bad people. But there is a guy who is
definitely a bad person, and his name is Michael Mann.
And I say that even knowing that Michael Mann has
a habit of people who as suing people who say
(10:44):
bad things about him.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
But he is a very bad person.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Who should have been kicked out of the Academy many
many years ago for his many, many lies. And he
is a big part of promulgating what Well, you've got
a new substant article entitled Exposing Climate Science's Biggest Lie.
And you don't mention Michael mannon here, but it's really
part of the same thing that I'm referring to, the
(11:09):
lie that he promulgates.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Yeah, this is essentially reconstructing past climate. So Michael Mann's
very famous for creating what was known as the hockey
stick graph that essentially showed a stable climate for a
few thousand years. That's the handle and then the blade
right shoots straight up very quickly over a very short
time period.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
We got that argue that backwards the blade, the blade
is the flat part and yeah, and the handle is
the straight up part.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Oh yeah, there you go, right, yeah, and then uh.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
And then and and that's what I PCC essentially took, right,
And that's what they ran with, and that's the whole argument,
the basis for the argument that what we're experiencing now
is unprecedented and it's unnatural and we have to do
some drastic actions.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
And the I was I keep seeing a.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Graphic that keeps popping up when I when I have
these discussions, and it's about this little tiny what they
call a safe climate zone. And this is all COmON
comes back to this micromangraph, that there's this just one
flat line where because human civilization is so young, we're
only you know, we've only had agriculture for a few
thousand years, climate changes on much larger time scales that
(12:14):
somehow the climate must remain in that exact little one
degree They claim a one degree celsius a band, and
that's just absurd. I mean, humans live in Siberia, they
live along the equator.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
We're so adaptable as a species.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
The daily change that we experience in the morning when
the sun rises is ten times that one's degree safe zone.
It's such an absurd metric to claim that we have
to somehow keep the planet that varies by tens of
degrees on the order of hundreds of thousands of years
in one degree zone in order to survive. And it's
(12:49):
just I mean, it's in a completely absurd argument.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
Why is an argument, Why is an argument that is
so transparently obsord so accepted by let's say, the UN
and other and other folks.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
I mean, does it go beyond the grift?
Speaker 4 (13:09):
No, it's money. It's simple. It's very simple to measure.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
It's a it's it's a well, it's very difficult to measure,
but it's a simple metric to kind of compute. They
essentially calculate it. There's no real global temperature than anybody measures.
Speaker 4 (13:22):
They measure a few little areas.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
They have satellites now as well, but there's a lot
of extrapolation in between.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
So it's essentially a calculated metric. But it's simple.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
It's simple for people to understand, and it's simple for
them to put thresholds on to say that when we
cross this threshold, we need more money. When we cross
this next threshold, we need more money. When we cross
this next threshold, you've got to give us all the
money because it's an existential threat now and just pour it,
pour it into our coffers, because we're going to be
the solution.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
And that ties in perfectly to the title of doctor
Matthew Willocky's blog, Irrational Fear, and it those people who
are saying the stuff that Matthew just described, they're not
actually afraid. They know, or at least they guess that
they're lying, but they're trying to instill an irrational fear
(14:14):
in all of us.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
So that we give them our money.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Everybody, go to Irrational Fear dot substack dot com and subscribe.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Matt, thanks for being here always great. Thanks Ross. All right,
we'll see you
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.