Years of Living Dangerously Series Debunked

Part 3 of 9:

Season 1, Part 3 - The Surge

Part 1 of 9: Season 1, Part 1 – Dry  Season
Part 2 of 9: Season 1, Part 2 – End of the Woods
Part 3 of 9: Season 1, Part 3 – The Surge
Part 4 of 9: Season 1, Part 4 – Ice & Brimstone
Part 5 of 9: Season 1, Part 5 – True Colors
Part 6 of 9: Season 1, Part 6 – Winds of Change
Part 7 of 9: Season 1, Part 7 – Revolt, Rebuild, Renew
Part 8 of 9: Season 1, Part 8 – A Dangerous Future
Part 9 of 9: Season 1, Part 9 – Moving a Mountain

By: Shawn Alli
Posted: April 18, 2017

Years of Living Dangerously Series Season 1, Part 3 - The Surge

Full resolution jpg

*Disclosure: I am a climate denier, albeit a more rational one.

 

*Disclosure: I am NOT funded by any oil, natural gas or coal corporations. I am NOT funded by any private interest groups (NGOs, foundations or political entities).

 

 

We start off with MSNBC's Chris Hayes claiming that man-made climate change is causing more hurricanes. In reality this is ideological junk science. Liberals, scientists, governments, and climate change believers are interpreting current events to fit their ideologies.

 

This is similar to the 2016 US election where liberals believe that Democrats would take an easy win. Instead, they lose the White House, the Senate, the House, and the State Legislatures. Why? Because they wrap themselves up in their ideological bubble. The same is true for climate change. Blaming every natural disaster on man-made climate change (and reinterpreting past ones) is not falsifiable objective science. The fact that liberals aren't able to see this is a tragedy.

 

And with that cheerful note, let's continue.

 

The directors continue with the somber mood due to the destruction of Hurricane Sandy while Hayes tries to get people to accept that it's due to man-made climate change. Yes, that's clearly the correct thing to do. Shove an unfalsifiable ideology in their face when they're at their most vulnerable. To be fair, I do it as well. I suggest radical dualism to people who have cancer and autoimmune conditions (see Philosophy Reborn Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).

 

We then move to people on Staten Island complaining about sea level rise. You're on a damn island. What do you expect is going to happen during hurricane season?

 

And then we move to Dr. M. Sanjayan, a conservation science writer. Liberals can't help but put visible minority scientists in the media spotlight. And visible minority scientists can't help but accept the invitation in order to be a role model for other visible minorities. It's understandable of course, but it's still fun to watch as a visible minority.

 

Sanjayan wants to figure out if man-made climate change is making natural hurricanes like El-Nino more extreme. While scientists can't claim that El-Nino is a product of man-made climate change (though I bet they will in the future), the best they can talk about is influence. But influence isn't causation (see Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose & Part III: Science). But that won't stop Hollywood directors. Through the manipulation of terminology, the directors and cast attempt to blur the lines of causation and upgrade man-made climate change as a cause instead of an influence. Ideological science at its best.

 

And then we move back to the sound bites of Hurricane Sandy (queue the edgy tense background music) with tragic personal stories of loss. This is emotional manipulation at its best. The directors are showing human devastation and priming you with man-made climate change ideology throughout and after the devastation. These are classic methods of social conditioning. And remember, none of this is accidental. All of this emotional manipulation is intentional.

 

Hayes ends with the comment:


The more I think about it the more ridiculous it seems. Super storm sandy just destroyed part of his district. Doesn't Michael Grimm [former New York Congressman] want to get to the bottom of what caused it.

 

Liberals, governments, scientists, and climate change believers are trying to sell you man-made climate causation instead of influence. That's not accidental. That's intentional.

 

We then go back to Sanjayan on Christmas Island with Dr. Kim Cobb (a climate scientist). The problem is the intentions. Both Sanjayan and Cobb want to find evidence that shows that El-Nino is worse because of man-made climate change. And when scientists have something to prove, they'll find/use anything to prove it. Such is the case for eugenics, marijuana prohibition, and cholesterol and fat in the past.

 

We then go back to Hayes and the emotional tragedies of Hurricane Sandy. He shows a graph of the damage and says a few interesting things:

 

Without sea level rise, flooding from sandy would have reached about 8ft above hide tide. When you factor in that extra foot of sea level, most of which is due to climate change, the differences seem small at first...but over miles of densely populated coast, it adds ups.

 

Hayes is saying that the extra foot is responsible for causing more fatalities. Hence, man-made climate change causes fatalities. This is ideological junk science. To claim that man-made climate changes causes that extra one foot of sea level rise is not a falsifiable claim (see Philosophy Reborn Part III: Science).

 

This is just liberals interpreting phenomena to fit their ideologies. Why? Because liberals, like conservatives, live in their ideological bubble and can't see beyond it.

 

Later on, the directors show Bob Inglis, a conservative senator that loses his seat because of admitting that man-made climate change is real. He says:

 

The worst thing in the world is not losing an election. The worst thing in the world is losing your soul.

 

And this is the problem with today's climate change...dare I say debate. Climate deniers like myself don't negate the fact that carbon dioxide and methane is causing a warmer world. We negate the theory that these gases will cause extreme weather (super cold or super warm) and that it will lead to the end of all of life on the planet. People like Inglis who believe that their soul or the soul of humanity is at stake, are living in their ideological bubbles.

 

This is similar to the past environmental movement in regards to population growth. Environmentalists believe that the science is objective about population growth destroying the world. Hence, the possible solution of sterilization. In the past, environmentalists believe in the science so blindly that they already move on drastic ideological solutions. Scientists, government, and media outlets of the past are lost in their ideologies. They create solutions for problems that don't exist.

 

The same is true for climate change. People are creating solutions for problems that don't exist. You can't say that man-made climate change causes an extra foot of sea level rise. That's not falsifiable science. But then again, the foundation for most liberals is their bubble wrapped ideologies. Most are lost in their ideologies and will forever believe that it's based on facts and objective science.

 

And then we go back to Hayes and the funeral preparations for Hurricane Sandy victims with the ideology of man-made climate change throughout. And this is what mainstream media outlets are selling today (liberal or conservative). It's all about emotional manipulation, sound bites, poster children, and then pouncing when people are vulnerable.

 

While media is a changing landscape in the 21st century, mainstream media outlets will always be known for their blatant emotional manipulation. Why? Because that's the only way to get the public on board with the message. Remember, it's not just about the message. It's about packaging the message into a manner that stakeholders can sell.

 

Back on Christmas Island,Sanjayan claims that El-Nino in the 20th century is 20% more severe than the last 7000 years, and that the last 30-40 years is more extreme due to carbon dioxide. Is that 20% rate falsifiable? Of course not. It's just an ideological interpretation.

 

Sanjayan and Cobb end on a somber note in the fact that the island is going under. Sorry, but that's just the way nature is. Sea levels rise and fall in different areas and small islands go under.

 

Back in NYC, Hayes succeeds in convincing Grimm that man-made climate change is real and causing the destruction of humanity. But he says something interesting as well:

 

The basic story of, we're putting carbon in the atmosphere, the planets getting warmer, that's going to make the sea level rise...you pretty much agree with.

 

In theory, the more melting, the greater the sea level rise. In reality, it doesn't work that way. Don't believe me? Take a look at these articles:

 

For the past couple of decades, the oceans have been steadily rising. Each year, sea-level increases by about 3 millimeters, a constant and ominous creep responding to climate warming.

Scientists have been measuring this rise from satellites since 1993, using instruments called altimeters. But for an 18-month period that began in the middle of 2010, something surprising happened. Instead of rising, sea levels fell.

Every few months we check in on sea level and try to get some idea as to what's happening and why. For most of the altimeter record, it's been a fairly bland story. But some years have really thrown some curveballs," said John Fasullo, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The one-and-a-half-year, 7-mm fall in sea levels was certainly a curveball. [1]

 

The Greenland ice sheet is melting. If you live in nearby Norway, how worried should you be about that sudden influx of water flooding your house? It turns out, not nearly as worried as you should be if you live in Chile. People tend to imagine that when an ice sheet melts, it adds water to all of the world's ocean uniformly, like a bathtub filling up. "That isn't even close," Harvard University geophysicist Jerry Mitrovica told attendees yesterday at the annual meeting of AAAS...[2]

 

Lastly, Hayes says:


If history unfolds in the way I think the science says it does...history judges those people incredibly harshly. It puts them in two categories. It puts them in categories of people that met the biggest challenge of their time and people that didn't.

 

Hayes is using history to shame Grimm for his inaction on man-made climate change. That's pretty good emotional manipulation for public servants who want to be remembered for their works. But the key is the first part of the quotation, history unfolding in the way the science says it does.

 

First, history doesn't judge anyone. History is a field of discipline and an artificial construct that represents the past. It has no power to judge anyone. The judging is left up to people and their subjective ideologies in the moment.

 

And secondly, science doesn't have any intentionality to say anything either. Those statements come from scientists practicing ideological science instead of objective falsifiable science. Eugenics, marijuana prohibition, women's lower intelligence, and cholesterol and fat...are all proved to be wrong, even though scientists in those periods claim it be factual and objective science.

 

The same will be true of the theory of man-made climate change being the harbinger of death. Scientists can't recognize that today because they're not practicing falsifiable science. They're practicing ideological science in their world of bubble wrap.

 

 

References:

[1] Ogburn, Stephanie Paige. A Scientist Explains the Mystery of Recent Sea-Level Drop. Scientific American. August 20, 2013.

[2] Wade, Lizzie. How a melting ice sheet could actually lower sea level in some places. Science Magazine. February 13, 2016.