Summary of Matthew M. Wielicki: Irrational Fear | Tom Nelson Pod #146

This is an AI generated summary. There may be inaccuracies.
Summarize another video · Purchase summarize.tech Premium

00:00:00 - 01:00:00

Matthew M. Wielicki, an earth science PhD and isotope geochemist, engages with students and addresses their climate change anxiety on TikTok. He discusses his experience with being shadow-banned for questioning mainstream narratives but has recently resumed posting on the platform. Wielicki reflects on the changing landscape for academics and the opportunities to share scientific information outside of academia. He discusses the constant catastrophizing of weather events and the misrepresentation of science by the media. He also explores the influence of funding sources on climate science research and highlights the need for a more balanced approach. Wielicki emphasizes the importance of considering the geologic record to understand the relationship between CO2 and temperature fluctuations throughout history. He argues that there is still much uncertainty and room for further understanding of climate change dynamics. Wielicki also critiques the irrational fears driving certain climate change narratives and the potential negative consequences of sacrificing industries and standards of living to combat climate change. He questions the focus on extreme weather events as a measure of climate change and argues that population growth and infrastructure improvements have contributed to a decline in such events. Wielicki further discusses the challenges of modeling unpredictable events, like volcanic eruptions, in climate science and the need to consider their impacts. He highlights the complex relationship between greenhouse gases and solar radiation in heating the ocean surface and points towards a shifting perspective within the scientific community towards more realistic and nuanced studies.

00:00:00 In this section, Matthew Wielicki, an earth science PhD and isotope geochemist, discusses his background and current work as a public commentator on science. He explains that he started using TikTok to engage with students and address their anxiety about climate change, but eventually got shadow-banned for questioning mainstream narratives. Despite this setback, he has recently resumed posting on TikTok and has found it to be a positive way to reach young people. Wielicki also discusses the demographics of his viewers and how he uses analytics to understand his audience. He mentions the back-and-forth conversations on TikTok that allow for a more personal engagement compared to platforms like Twitter.
00:05:00 In this section, Matthew M. Wielicki discusses his initial fears and concerns about leaving academia and the potential career suicide that was once associated with it. However, he acknowledges that times have changed, thanks to the influence of figures like Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein, who have shown alternative ways for academics to share scientific information and even turn it into profitable endeavors. Wielicki states that his Substack newsletter has started to grow and could potentially generate the same amount of revenue he would have earned if he had stayed at the University of Alabama. His goal with the newsletter is to provide readers with scientific information that they wouldn't find in mainstream media, and he also circumvents paywalled journals by sharing excerpts of research papers on his Substack. Wielicki believes that this new era allows for greater accessibility to scientific knowledge and alternative voices, and he encourages academics who are frustrated with academia to explore these opportunities. Although he admits to feeling nervous about his career change, he sees a promising future ahead and believes that there is a growing demand for the kind of content he provides.
00:10:00 In this section of the interview, Matthew M. Wielicki discusses the constant catastrophizing of weather events and how science is often misrepresented by the media. He points out the cherry-picking of catastrophic news and the slim possibility of certain events actually occurring. Wielicki also highlights the imbalance in funding and resources allocated to climate research compared to other important areas such as earthquakes, volcanism, and resource exploration. He emphasizes the need to focus on actions that will have a greater impact on the environment and people's lives.
00:15:00 In this section, Matthew M. Wielicki discusses how funding sources in climate science influence the topics and sessions at conferences like AGU. He explains that funding agencies prioritize climate science in funding proposals, leading researchers to include climate change references even when their research is unrelated. Wielicki also notes the prevalence of fear and uncertainty surrounding climate change, despite observing scientists in the field leading normal lives, such as having families. He criticizes the promotion of fear for personal gain and the detrimental effects it has on young people. Wielicki reflects on his own experience at UCLA, where he encountered climate change propaganda but also witnessed efforts to allow conflicting viewpoints and promote free speech on campus.
00:20:00 In this section, the speaker discusses his experience in academia where he observed the use of inflammatory language such as "climate crisis" and "climate emergency" by prominent scientists, which he believes is unscientific and politicized. He criticizes leaders who use such language, arguing that it is irresponsible and harms the credibility of the scientific community. He also raises concerns about activists like Greta Thunberg being used for larger agendas and expresses skepticism about the accuracy of climate change predictions. The speaker further mentions his attendance at the AGU meeting, where he enjoyed discussions with individuals from various backgrounds, including academia and policy.
00:25:00 In this section, the speaker discusses how science and policy are interconnected and how the manipulation of science can lead to bad policy decisions. They mention their affiliation with certain organizations such as Heartland, the CO2 Coalition, and Dr. Wrightstone, but also acknowledge the potential negative impact these affiliations can have on their audience. They express frustration about the association fallacy, where people automatically dismiss anything one says if they are associated with a disliked group. The speaker advocates for more open panel discussions and debates to focus on the science and encourage different voices to participate. They also highlight the importance of looking at the geologic record to understand the relationship between CO2 and temperature fluctuations throughout history, mentioning a relevant paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
00:30:00 In this section, Matthew M. Wielicki discusses the fluctuations of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the past 500 million years. He highlights that CO2 levels have varied dramatically, ranging from 2500 to above 5000 parts per million (PPM). Wielicki also points out that during the four major glaciation periods, three out of four had elevated CO2 concentrations of thousands of PPM. This suggests that the global surface temperature is relatively insensitive to high levels of CO2, as other climatic factors override its influence. Therefore, Wielicki argues that there should be no expectation of dramatic temperature changes from lowering CO2 through policy or removing certain energy sectors, as there is no evidence of this in the geologic record.
00:35:00 In this section, Matthew M. Wielicki discusses the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. He explains that while there is a correlation between the two, there are other factors that have a much greater impact on climate change, such as orbital cycles and catastrophic events. He also addresses the question of what atmospheric CO2 levels would be without human interference, stating that the CO2 levels would not have remained stable throughout history. Wielicki acknowledges that humans are contributing to the increase in CO2 concentration, but argues that it is an oversimplification to solely blame human activity for the rise. He mentions the process of CO2 removal through the ocean's deep waters and the deposition of calcium carbonate as factors that reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. However, he also points out that our understanding of the ocean is limited, and there may be other factors at play that we are unaware of. Overall, Wielicki suggests that our understanding of climate change and CO2 dynamics is still evolving.
00:40:00 In this section, Matthew M. Wielicki, a guest on the Tom Nelson Podcast, discusses the uncertainty and lack of settled science surrounding the estimates and residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. He argues that claims about the balance between CO2 in the atmosphere and what is precipitating into minerals are based on "arm wavy science" and have error bars that could be on the order of hundreds of percent. He also questions the idea of reducing global CO2 levels to a single number, highlighting the variability of CO2 levels in different environments. Wielicki further explores the possibility that the development of fossil fuels and the resulting CO2 emissions may have inadvertently saved civilization by potentially preventing the next glacial period. He points out that previous glacial periods have caused major bottlenecks in human evolution and argues that protecting an optimal climate that could lead to another glacial period is irrational. He states that throughout human history, warmer periods have generally been more favorable for humans, while colder periods have caused suffering and hardship.
00:45:00 In this section, Matthew M. Wielicki discusses the historical context of climate change and the irrational fear that is driving certain narratives today. He suggests that in the past, people would sacrifice animals and even human lives to appease the weather gods, and now we are being asked to sacrifice our industry, standard of living, and wealth to combat climate change. Wielicki argues that those who advocate for these sacrifices are the ones who benefit financially, while the average person's quality of life declines. He also points out that the focus has shifted from temperature to extreme weather events as a measure of climate change, but data shows a relative decline in these events since 2000, particularly in Europe. He attributes this decline to population growth and improved infrastructure rather than carbon emissions.
00:50:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the impacts of the Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption and highlights the challenges of modeling unpredictable events in climate science. The eruption injected a significantly large amount of water vapor into the stratosphere, which is known to warm the Earth. This event was unique as it had minimal ash and sulfur gases, but a massive amount of water vapor. The speaker argues that these stochastic events are difficult to model and can disrupt the climate system. They criticize the tendency of some climate scientists to ignore such events in favor of attributing all changes to anthropogenic CO2. The speaker also questions the idea that CO2 could cause wildfires, noting that fire records vary across borders, suggesting a more complex relationship. Overall, they assert that it is unscientific to ignore the impacts of unpredictable events like volcanic eruptions on climate change.
00:55:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the relationship between infrared heat from greenhouse gases and solar radiation in heating the ocean surface. They highlight a quote from Jim Steele that explains how greenhouse gases only heat the shallow surface of the ocean, while solar radiation can heat the upper meters and even penetrate up to 100 meters. The speaker agrees with this perspective, citing the example of the North Atlantic Marine Heat Wave and how it was likely caused by a decrease in dust rather than atmospheric CO2 levels. They also mention a recent paper that concluded that the effects of marine heat waves on fish biomass were often minimal and indistinguishable from natural variability. The speaker believes that there is a shift happening in the scientific community, with more realistic perspectives and studies being published, even though they acknowledge that ideological biases among editors still exist.

01:00:00 - 01:05:00

In this section, Matthew M. Wielicki discusses the difficulties in modeling the climate system and the presence of abiotic hydrocarbon processes. He explains how the climate system's coupled, non-linear, and chaotic nature makes it challenging to describe with a single equation, and past patterns cannot reliably predict the future. Wielicki highlights the use of ensembles of models and the need for accurate assumptions, as errors can increase if these assumptions are incorrect. He then argues that while abiotic hydrocarbon processes do exist, the majority of the hydrocarbons we use on Earth are of biotic origin, providing evidence such as isotopic signatures and locations of hydrocarbon reservoirs. Wielicki mentions the presence of methane and ethane on Titan as an example of abiotic processes producing hydrocarbons. He concludes by suggesting a more nuanced approach to climate issues and encourages educating oneself to alleviate anxiety.