Hardcore Sceptics

Get what you want

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Script

All right skeptics, here’s the first of the three videos I did just for you: “Get What You Want,” followed by “I Hope I’m Wrong” and finally “No Holds Barred,” all part of the expansion pack accompanying the video “How It All Ends.”

I suggest that before you watch this video, you first make sure you’ve watched the following parts of the expansion pack to “How It All Ends”: “Nature of Science,” “Risk Management,” “Why There Is Still Debate,” “The Manpollo Project,” “Mechanics of GCC,” “Scare Tactics,” “The Solution,” and “God’s Will.” This is because we are entering the home stretch of the argument—the really outlying details, and those videos contain rebuttals to most common objections to the idea of human-caused global climate change, which I’ll sometimes just refer to as AGW, since that’s how I’ve found most skeptics refer to it. And notice I’m referring to you as skeptics, not denialists. In a debate, it’s just way more productive for each side to refer to the other as that side prefers. If you’d like to return the favor of civility, you can refrain from calling me an alarmist, though, I am alarmed, and I think others should be more alarmed than they seem to be, and—truth be told—if there were a big red handle that said “global alarm” on it, I’d probably pull it. But I wouldn’t run. No running. Anyway, a lot in your camp use the term “alarmist” as an epithet, so how about just referring to me and my ilk as a “warmers,” and I’ll stick to calling you “skeptics,” which you may notice turn into “hard-line skeptics” the farther you make it through my videos.

If, as you watch this, you find rebuttals popping up in your mind, please pause and ask yourself if I’ve already said something in a previous video which may answer your rebuttal. There’s a lot of back-and-forth lines of reasoning, and it would take too much time to haul out each one for review every time we hit on a piece of it.

When I posted “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See” in the Spring of 2007, it garnered over a million views on various sites within a month. I quickly put out three more videos titled “Patching Holes” to answer the objections raised. Over the course of that online debate, I read well over 5,000 comments on my arguments, most of them critical. So I learned a bit about the skeptical viewpoint.

In any technique of conflict resolution or negotiation, the most useful strategy is always about finding common ground—what is it that the two disagreeing sides both need, and is there a way to satisfy those needs? So I just started brainstorming, listing universal human needs, and it jumped right out at me. Common objections to action on AGW like “We need to protect the economy” and “The government just wants more control of our lives,” seem to me to really all come down to one thing: the need for self-determination. No one wants to be limited by others or told what to do. Specifically, it seemed a majority of the comments could be lumped into two subcategories: economic self-determination (sort of the “I need to put food on the table” idea), and social/political self-determination (sort of the “Don’t tread on me” idea).

So, this video is going to proceed with the assumption—hopefully a reasonable one—that if you are a hard-line skeptic who has watched all my other videos and still isn’t convinced that action on climate change is worth it, it’s because you feel a very strong need for economic and political self-determination, and you feel that need is threatened by taking action on climate change.

The purpose of this video is not to argue you out of those totally valid needs, but to show you how taking action is actually your best bet in getting those needs met. And that not taking action on climate change is actually a greater threat to your economic well-being, and to your political and social liberties, than is taking action.

You wouldn’t be at all misguided to ask me why am I taking such a great effort to do all this. What do I have to gain? That’s a good question to ask. Please remember to ask this of all your sources, not just the ones you disagree with.

I don’t have anything more or less to gain than the next guy. In fact, my motivations are completely pragmatic. I don’t get paid for this, I’m not looking for a job, and I’m not running for office. What I hope to gain. . . is a less nasty world a few years down the road. Because I’m a science guy, and when I learned the specifics of the science of climate change, it’s scared the willies out of me.

“But you won’t be around to see the difference,” you might say. I’m not convinced of that, and if you watched my video “Scare Tactics” you’ll know why. Plus, I’ve got two little girls that mean more to me than anything. I want to do whatever I can to eliminate the possibility that they inherit a Mad Max world. That’s my motivation. So I guess it’s kind of selfish—I want to feel like I was a responsible father, and did everything in my power to protect my kids.

I point out that my motivations are simply pragmatic, because in my experience, that’s the case for a lot of you, as well, so it’s common ground for us. As one commentator wrote in response to what he thought was my environmental do-gooder pitch:

[SCREEN] “I can tell you right now that when the rubber meets the road, people are more concerned with their own personal economies than they are with the distant specter of global climate change. My personal economy, for better or worse, ends at my property line.” So you and I are really motivated by the same thing: we just want the best for ourselves and our loved ones. And as I think you’ll see, we don’t need to be in conflict about that.

So really, don’t dismiss me as just another greenie shouting “Save the Planet.”

In fact—screw the planet! Save us! (Don’t tell the tree-huggers I said that.) The planet will do fine on its own! And it’s not even the race I’m concerned about—I think humanity will survive. What I’m concerned about is me and mine, and our lifestyle.

I’m doing all this because my careful study of the science has shown me a future scenario that’s unlikely—but still terrifyingly feasible—where I end up holding people off at gunpoint to keep them away from my grandkids’ clean water supply. I’ll do that—but I’d really rather not end up there.

In evaluating how to meet our needs of self-determination, let’s take a look at the problem as if we were a business, because if there’s anything the free market does well, it’s evolving businesses that are good at figuring out what’s in their own best interest. How does a business go about deciding what to do? In general, couldn’t we say that a business would do a careful analysis of future threats and opportunities, and then research which courses of action would be most likely to maximize benefits and minimize costs?

So if you’re a business, and you discover the potential of a drastic threat to you, what would you do? You’d study it, right? You’d ask “What is the likelihood, and what are the costs and benefits of various courses of action?” You’d want the highest quality answer possible, so you’d hire professionals. And the greater the potential threat, the more resources you’d be willing to devote to looking at it. If it might threaten the very existence of the business, you’d delay less important projects and divert funding so that you could hire the best experts available.

And in that process, you’d be careful to combat your own psychology, because you know that no one—not even you—wants to change “business as usual,” and your hired help certainly doesn’t want to end up being the bearer of bad news about who gets shot. So to get the highest quality answer, you do everything you can to make sure you hired unbiased, independent people. You don’t want yes-men telling you what they think you want to hear. You want smart people telling you what is the most likely thing to happen, regardless of whether you like it or not.

You’d tell them “Everything may be riding on this. So make darn sure your answer is correct,” and being the best, they’d tell you “It’s impossible to make sure, because there’s always uncertainty.” And you’d be self-aware enough to know that it’s a waste of money to hire experts and then not listen to them simply because your own human shortcomings of bias, fear, and stubbornness got in the way.

So then you’d tell them “Okay—then do it carefully, check your answers, and then do it again. And then, run it by others.”

And if, after all that, they came back to you with bad news, and you found yourself dismissing their answers, thinking “that can’t be right,” you’d be self-aware enough to stop and ask “Do I just think that because I don’t like their answers? Am I unconsciously letting that influence my judgement of their quality?” Because after all, you did go our of your way to hire expert, unbiased professionals. That doesn’t mean they’re infallible, but it does mean you’d better have some really compelling reasons to ignore what they say.

So let’s translate all this into the climate change debate. Before we examine what various experts say, let’s put ourselves in the business leader’s shoes when he asked himself whether he might be letting his likes and dislikes interfere with his judgement. It’s my observation that a lot of climate skeptics have very strong Republican or libertarian leanings. As I explained in the video “Why There Is Still Debate,” this isn’t surprising, since those philosophies have a general distaste for government, and acknowledging AGW would seem to imply increased government action.

But let’s be very explicit: it is not in your own interests to let your distaste for government (or Senator Gore, for that matter) influence your judgment about physical reality. Those are two totally different things. It’s also the very definition of bias, and it doesn’t serve you. So be very deliberate to not confuse hostility towards government with uncertainty in climate science.

Okay let’s examine what the experts out there have to say about protecting our economic self-determination in the face of action on climate change. And as we “hire these experts” let’s remember the credibility spectrum we developed in the video “Risk Management” and focus on sources from here up. Sources down here (think tanks and individuals) can be useful for giving insight or new ideas, but are less useful for analysis because of the greater potential for bias. Generally that’s what I mean when I say “credible.”

I covered a lot of this in detail already in the video “Risk Management,” but it’s worth a brief recap here. After a conscientious search for credible economic disaster scenarios arising from taking action when it wasn’t necessary, the worst-case scenario I could find from a credible source was: a 3% reduction in GDP growth. That’s the outside figure, from a DOE report that Prof. Ross McKitrick sent me. Most credible predictions put the worst case somewhere around 1.5-2%. Also note that it’s GDP growth, which in the U.S. over the past 30 years has averaged a bit over 3% per year, and has actually been negative several times. So the worst case credible scenario is that the GDP continues to grow, but very slightly. I did have a chuckle when I came across a dire prediction from a 1998 Heritage Foundation article warning that if the U.S. followed the Kyoto Protocol, by 2010 gasoline could cost as much as. . . $1.91 a gallon.

So what might a business leader make of this? “That’s it?” He might say. “That doesn’t sound catastrophic. What else is out there about the economic effects of taking action? And fire that Heritage guy—he’s lost his credibility and I don’t have time for histrionics.”

Well there is [Bjorn] Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus, which had 4 Nobel Laureates on board. They concluded that action on global climate change shouldn’t be a priority compared to other world issues. But they didn’t really talk so much about the negative economic impacts of action on climate change, and anyway whatever credence we give to their advice is pretty much cancelled out by the conclusions of the [placard: “Economists’ Statement on Climate Change”—a petition with 6 Nobel Laureates, but who’s counting—which concluded that the right course of action would actually make money]. Plus, both of those were sort of think tanks anyway, so we’re not going to listen too much to them.

There’s also the [placard] Stern Report, prepared by Nicholas Stern for the British government. As we think about how much credibility to assign to him, technically, he’s an individual. But he headed up a whole working group, and the government of the world’s 12th wealthiest country listens to him, so I’d place his report somewhere in the high middle—higher than the Copenhagen Consensus for sure, cuz a lot more work went into it, and a lot more was riding on it, so its methods were probably way more rigorous. [grid, on placard] His study concluded that this up here would cost about 1% of GDP. Note that they’re talking GDP, not GDP growth, so don’t try to compare it to the GDP number I mentioned earlier. 1% doesn’t sound like much, but in dollars (or pounds sterling, in their case), that’s a huge amount of money.

“That sounds significant,” our business leader might say. But then we’d be obliged to point out that the Stern report estimated that this down here would probably cost around 20% of GDP.

“Holy cats!” our boss exclaims. “Is this guy for real?”

Well, I had the good fortune of having a brief email exchange with Prof. Richard Tol, a critic of the Stern report who has publicly said that the report is too pessimistic and “could be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent.” When I sent professor Tol my standard request for credible worst-case economic scenarios, he pointed me to the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF), calling it “the most authoritative source on these matters.” After digging around for a while in their reports, I couldn’t find any doomsday scenarios, but I did find this conclusion in a 1993 report:
[SCREEN] “Thus it is possible to reduce emissions significantly from their non-controlled level without significantly reducing the growth of the economy.” (EMF WP 12.1 Global Climate Change: Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Control Strategies, Executive Summary, page iii) This was the exact opposite of what I was looking for!

So I emailed the quote to Prof. Tol, telling him that and asking:

[SCREEN] “If Stanford’s EMF is ‘the most authoritative source on these matters,’ am I left with NO defense to the alarmist’s argument ‘No one knows for certain, so why not act, just in case’??!!? Help!!!”

He never answered. I’m sure he’s a very busy guy, but still—I’d like to know his response.

“Hmph,” Says our boss. “Are there any other sources towards the top of the credibility spectrum—you know, the really solid stuff—who have weighed in on the economic threat of action on climate change?”

One of our topmost categories is statements from organizations that contradict their normal bias. Remember the U.S. Climate Action Partnership—that group of heavyweight companies like Ford, GM, GE, Dupont, Shell, BP and others that I mentioned in previous videos? Their statement about the economics of action on climate change is pretty unequivocal:

[SCREEN] “Each year we delay action to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that could necessitate even steeper reduction in the future, at potentially greater economic cost. . . . Action sooner rather than later preserves valuable response options. . . and should lower the costs of mitigation and adaptation.”

Remember, this is coming from groups whose acknowledged bottom line is to build value for shareholders. If you want to argue with them, you’d better have some pretty good stuff.

And, as long as we’re at the top of the credibility spectrum, it’s worth mentioning that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) said:

[SCREEN] “The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.”

And the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) said that:

[SCREEN] “Delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.”

True, those are organizations of scientists, not economists. But as long as you think you and I are qualified to do armchair evaluations of the threat to the economy, why not let a few tens of thousands of Ph.D.s have their say, too?

“Criminey!” exclaims our business leader, leaning forward on the conference table. “Why the heck are we still talking about this? It seems pretty clear what’s in our best economic interests. Any other arguments to be made?”

Well, there’s the argument that if planned, debated spending would cause economic hardship up here, then last-minute, panicked spending, compounded by natural disasters, would certainly be even worse down here.

And if the idea is to protect the economy (a phrase I got from the talking points of a Cato Institute presentation on AGW), then really, how good for the economy are floods, droughts, landslides, hurricanes, wildfires, epidemics, wars, and refugees?

And even if we take the outlandish extremes—at least in a depression you can still plant a subsistence garden. Down here in a chaotic climate, your area may not even have topsoil or a growing season.

But then a voice of dissent rises from the opposite side of the conference table. “I’d rather not take action on an uncertain threat, so that we can face any real threats that do materialize down the road with the wealth that an unfettered economy would bring us.”

“Hmmm,” sez our boss. “On the face of it, that sounds appealing. But isn’t that just like the practice of ‘leveraging’ in the investment realm? Where you borrow money from one place and then invest it somewhere else? As long as the interest you pay on the loan is lower than the yield you get from your investment, you make money. But if the rates flip, you’re totally hosed. Essentially, we’d be betting that our unfettered economy would grow faster than any potential threats to it. And given the odds we’ve gotten from the eggheads who actually know the science, and the consequences if we’re wrong, that seems like an extremely high-risk bet. Not prudent, not prudent at all,” he mutters.

“Before we adjourn, are there any other arguments to be made that acting on climate change—even in the face of the stated uncertainty—is pragmatically in our best economic interests?”

Well, how about this: the solutions are exciting and can maintain our standard of living—like hydrogen fuel cells, cars that “run on water,” and biodiesel. And before you let someone pile on with all the shortcomings of alternative energies, let me point out—they’re comparing it to fossil fuels. And it’s not a fair comparison, because we’re already set up for fossil fuels, which makes them very cheap and easy compared to the technologies of the future. That’s why those energy technologies are called “alternatives,” rather than “perfects.”

But here’s a news flash: there’s only so much fossil fuels left in the ground; we’re going to run out of the stuff, probably in your lifetime. We WILL move to the new technologies, almost certainly in the next 50 years. There’s a good chance we’re right now around Peak Oil, having already burned more than what remains in the ground. And before you parrot the old “we’ve got enough coal for 500 years,” you’d better watch the video titled “The Most Important Video You’ll Ever See” on my wonderingmind42 account. All it takes is some simple arithmetic to show that anyone knowledgeable who feeds you that line about coal is either woefully ignorant, or unforgivably manipulative.

So, it is inevitable that our energy technologies will change. And isn’t it true in business that the early innovators are the ones who make the big bucks? Like Ford, Goodyear, Microsoft? So it’s going to happen—you can’t deny that. Why not start now, mitigate possible downsides, and make some money in the process?

The U.S. could be leading the world in this. We’ve got the world’s greatest higher education system and the best research resources—we could use those to lead in new technologies and to sell it to the rest of the world, increasing our own economic prosperity. The ones that change last, lose out—just look at history. So do we want to be left behind? To make money, you hire the best people to look ahead, and then you position yourself to get in early so that YOU have the expertise, YOU have the product, YOU have the brand, and EVERYONE buys from you. Who’s going to be the next Bell? Not those that rely on oil and coal technology.

Given all that evidence and reasoning, from such credible sources, don’t you think that the prudent business leader would agree that the course of action which is most likely to maximize opportunity and minimize cost—to “protect the economy”—is to take significant action now to combat global climate change? Doesn’t it just seem practical?

Now, as for protecting our social and political self-determination—our liberties—the case seems much simpler to me, and can be summed up in a single sentence: democracy cannot survive in a Mad Max world.

There’s a reason martial law exists. It’s so that when the asteroid hits the fan, the government can do whatever necessary—even suspending the rights of the individual—in order to secure the greater good for the greater number. Do you think anyone in New Orleans in the days after Katrina gave a rat’s ass about civil liberties? No—they were busy looting bottled water and disposable diapers. And had the National Guard gotten there faster, they would have opened up the fire hoses on the looters to ensure order. There’s nothing like large scale natural disasters or threats to national security to bring out the draconian in any government.

I often hear the very strident objection: “Action on AGW would lead to government control of our lives!” Well, given the probability of AGW being real versus it being a huge, elaborate hoax, isn’t it more likely that the greatest long-term threat to your liberties is inaction?

And if you’re concerned about national autonomy, here’s two words to whet your appetite for developing renewables: “energy independence!” Here’s two more: “goodbye OPEC!”

So back to protecting your economic self-determination. . . . When I was asking around for credible predictions of the economic costs of unnecessary action, one exasperated skeptic finally complained:

[SCREEN] “predictions of economic models are even more uncertain than climate models.”

I did a double take. Cuz if that’s the case, then where the heck is the wisdom in ignoring the warnings of the climate models based on the even less reliable predictions of the economic models? But it’s even more lopsided than that, because none of the economic models actually even predict nasty economic consequences of action. All of the economic doom-and-gloom predictions seem to be conjecture by sources at the bottom of the credibility spectrum! Does this really sound like the best bet for protecting your economic well-being?

How well is field economics known for making correct predictions? That is, how often do economists’ predictions come true? Sometimes, sometimes not. How often do the predictions of science come true? When you fly in a jet airliner, or use your cellphone, or turn on your tap water, or get on the Internet, or take Advil. I’m not saying science—or the scientist—is infallible. I’m just saying when it comes to comparing the predictive power of science versus the predictive power of economics, who’s your daddy? No—wait—I’m not saying that.

I’m saying—in our business analogy—when you’re looking for a reliable track record in making predictions, the résumé of science far outweighs the résumé of economics. Both have their place, both are useful, both make mistakes. One isn’t intrinsically better than the other. But if you’re going to put them head to head—which, make no mistake, is what you’re doing if your answer to “Why not act, just in case?” is “Because it would cost too much”—then you’ve got to give the job to science.

“Hey, wait a minute,” someone says. “Science isn’t so hot. Remember when the eggheads were all certain in the 1970’s that the globe was going into an ice age that never materialized? They’re always screaming some Chicken Little story. So why should we listen now?”

A totally understandable sentiment. But it turns out the claim that scientists in the 70’s were warning of an impending ice age is a classic urban myth, originating in some over-hysterical media coverage about an NAS report that was actually trying to say: the climate is changing, and we’d better figure out how to understand it better. That’s why it’s so important to distinguish between media stories, and what the organizations are actually saying. There was nothing back then even comparable to the unprecedented statements today that most every scientific society is making. But don’t believe me—go look up for yourself what the scientists said during the 70’s “Ice Age” scare—not just what the media said the scientists said. The NAS report that was the source of that urban myth is available in its entirety online. Remember to evaluate your sources. George Will is not a reliable source on what NAS said. NAS is.

It’ true, you can always find some doom-and-gloom story in the history books and newspaper archives. But look around now, and then do some digging. Look at the extent and quality of the warnings made now about global climate change. When you have all these scientific societies, and all these profit-driven companies lining up with the usual suspects of all the environmental organizations, something profoundly different must be going on now. You will not find—ever in history—a warning with this level and widespread extent of weighty opinion and analysis behind it.

I’m serious—go looking for yourself. And remember the warning about confirmation bias from the video “Nature of Science”: don’t just stop when you find something that supports what you already think. Go further. See if you can find the refutation to that. You’ll see that never before have so many professional societies issued so many warnings in such strong words. Never before have so many companies vested in the status quo publicly called for change—for government regulation of themselves. I think you’ll see that to dismiss this as another Chicken Little story just because it seems to predict doomsday—like so many failed doomsday predictions before—is not just irrational, it’s downright reckless. Sometimes the wolf is at the door.

I believe you want the best for yourself. I even believe you probably want the best for the whole world. I think if you try to become brutally aware of your thinking—your biases, whether your goal in looking for information is to get closer to the physical truth or just to strengthen your opinion, whether you are starting from belief or starting from evidence—and you analyze this in historical perspective, you will see that we are in a time like no other. Because our population and our technology are large enough to change the planet, and the old way of thinking, where we could tolerate mistakes, no longer serves us. Because this time it’s global, there’s no longer anywhere to move on to.

Whether you’re a tree-hugger or a tree-logger, pro-life or pro-choice, communist or laissez-faire, fascist or libertarian, you still want economic and political self-determination. And I hope you’ve seen that, using basic risk assessment and weighing all the factors from all the sources, [checklist on board] it is in your best interests to do all you can to increase public demand for policy changes to combat global climate change as soon as possible.

If you’re still not convinced, then I’ll meet you at your next video: “I Hope I’m Wrong.”

Comments

Youtube Comments: Part 1
Youtube Comments: Part 2
Youtube Comments: Part 3

I hope I am wrong

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Script

This is video is titled “I Hope I’m Wrong,” and is the second of three prepared just for hard-core climate skeptics in the expansion pack to the video “How It All Ends.”

I want to show you that I think a lot about the question “What if I’m wrong?” To be totally frank, my purpose in doing so is that I hope to inspire you to do the same for your own thinking. Because, although I hope I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong. How’s that for clear?

It seems to me that being honest with yourself means being willing to acknowledge when you’re wrong, and then fixing it, so that you are less wrong. I’m wrong all the time, and by being conscious of that, I think I get better and better all the time. So could I be wrong about this? Let me tell you—I sure hope I am. But I haven’t been able to escape this conclusion. And as time has gone on, my assessment has done the same thing as that of the scientists studying climate change—the picture just gets worse.

I used to get wound up about all sorts of issues, but I don’t anymore. You know why? Because I’m terrified. It’s become clear to me that the potential threat is big enough that nothing is more worth dealing with than this. So in an ironic—and bizarre—sense, having a fairly deep understanding of climate change has really mellowed me out. I used to regularly read the letters to the editor and get all ticked off. Now I never even open to that page. Pretty much all other concerns have dropped away, because this issue has the potential to so dominate our—my, my kids’—future. It’s almost a sense of: nothing else may matter much if we don’t deal with this.

And if you’ve watched all my videos up to this one, I think you’ll see that it’s not just a knee-jerk reaction to some sensationalist magazine article. I’ve done a bit of homework. I teach science. I have a deep understanding of the basic principles, though I also try to recognize when my knowledge falls short. My terror results from my own cold, rational assessment of the science of climate change and complex, non-linear systems, not from someone’s scare tactics or appeals to my emotions. They didn’t need to: I was already paying attention.

A while ago I noticed something that I still haven’t quite been able to figure out. I realized that when I’m debating climate change with someone, I’m hoping to change their minds, but at the same time I sincerely hope that my arguments are wrong. Kind of odd. And I don’t sense that the other person can say the same thing about their own arguments. It was a sort of “huh” moment, though it’s since grown into this sense that there must be some significance to it, but I can’t figure out what that would be. I mean, isn’t it a little odd to find yourself arguing vehemently for a point of view, and you just as vehemently hope you’re wrong? It’s sort of a strange feeling.

An interesting exercise is to ask yourself: in 20 years, how would I feel if I turned out to be wrong? Personally, I’d be thrilled. Drinks’ll be on me. I’d even feel okay about any economic damage that happened as a result of mistakenly taking action, because I’d feel that I’d done my best. I haven’t stopped at the first answer that made sense, or that I liked the sound of. I looked for the rebuttal to that answer, and then the response to that rebuttal, and then the critique of that response. I made as thorough and conscientious of an effort as can be expected of anybody. I tried to be uncomfortably self-critical so that I could root out my assumptions and unconscious biases, to be sure that in my research my goal really was to get closer to the truth, rather than just to retain my beliefs. And after all that, my evaluation says that the risk of not taking action is clearly greater than the risk of taking action.

I’m certainly no expert, but I’ve spent literally hundreds of hours researching and studying. Yeah, it’s exhausting, which is why I don’t do that for the debate in the chemistry education community over why Mentos causes Diet Coke to go wild—because it’s just not that important. But since global climate change can’t be dismissed as “certainly not a threat,” I think the time is worth it.

There are many possible future worlds. Imagine for a moment you’re in the world where catastrophic climate change has come to pass, wrecking the economy, leading to brutal dictatorships, and so on. Now imagine looking back on this moment, when you had enough information to connect the dots, but you argued against action because you weren’t sufficiently convinced it was even possible. You were afraid that it might hurt the economy, or give the government more power. Looking around in that future at the economic ruins and draconian governments, how would that feel? Maybe I’m wrong. What might be the worst consequences of that? Maybe you’re wrong. What might be the worst consequences of that?

As you probably picked up from watching the previous videos, I’m pretty big on the idea of trying to be aware of one’s own biases. I mention it here because I think that’s often the cause when we turn out to be wrong—a bias we didn’t know we had, interfering with our judgement about things that seemed obvious. And the really dangerous part is that these biases can be so bloody stealthy, so in the moment it doesn’t even occur to you to ask if you’re being objective, and all the while you’re carrying an unknown assumption that totally throws off your judgement.

Here’s a graphically personal example.

I’m 38 now and don’t exercise, but I used to be an athlete, and have always been blessed with a very forgiving metabolism, so my. . . widening. . . process has been extremely gradual. And—just like all you other humans—I have a deep psychological need to have a positive view of myself. As a result, when I happen to see myself in the mirror without a shirt on, [WARNING: images may be objectionable to some viewers] I still occasionally catch myself thinking “Hey—not too shabby. You’ve still got a hint of a six pack.” Six pack??! Those are rolls of fat!! [Show]. What am I, delusional?? No—just human. The point is, our desire for something can be so strong that it totally influences what we think is a simple perception of reality—without us even realizing it.

What does this have to do with climate change? I’m not saying that if you’re still doubtful about climate change you must be delusional. Who am I to make that judgement—I’m no professional. But I am saying: this is a powerful and stealthy psychological phenomenon. Isn’t it worth taking a step back and examining it, so you can make yourself confident that it’s NOT influencing your opinions? I try to do that every so often with my thoughts about climate change, because the stakes are so high. I want to end up with the most robust, solid viewpoints I can, so that I don’t find myself holding on to something flimsy just because I really like the idea, or I really dislike the alternative.

Along those lines, I had an interesting experience recently. I’d been having an extensive back-and-forth debate by email with a climate skeptic who was civil and thoughtful. And fairly far into the conversation, I was trying to make sense of this long response of his. I just couldn’t do it. I re-read and re-read, and was befuddled, thinking: he’s all over the place—I just don’t know how to respond to this. And then I thought—ahh, maybe that’s a clue to examine my own thinking. Maybe he’s being perfectly clear, and I don’t know how to respond because he’s right, and I just can’t let myself see it.

So I approached the text again, this time able to hear what he had to say, instead of trying to deconstruct it to form a counterattack. Turns out I didn’t think he was right after all. But taking the step back did allow me to figure out that the reason I didn’t know how to respond was that I didn’t think that I could ever convince him. He was starting from belief instead of evidence, which is simply impossible to refute. He finally admitted to something along these lines, writing “I just don’t like the idea of politicians and an unelected bureaucracy making decisions based on special interest groups and the prevailing political wind. Lol! Maybe I should have said that from the get go!” Like I said, a nice guy, but when you start from belief rather than from evidence, you end up keeping or ignoring evidence as it fits your belief, which means you will never be convinced, no matter how compelling the evidence. We all do that sometimes. I’m just saying, if there was ever a time in our individual and collective lives to be extraordinarily careful to not make that mistake, it would be now, with this issue.

Still, it was a good lesson for me, remembering it’s good to be willing to take a step back and ask myself “Could I be the one who’s wrong here?” Trying to be as unbiased and intellectually honest as I can is a service I try to offer my opponents in a discussion, and I like to ask that they offer it to me in return. We all come out feeling less angry that way, and hopefully a bit closer to the truth.

Finally, one more personal anecdote in humility. I teach high school chemistry, and I’m very thoughtful and cautious about safety. For example: late one night I was testing a demonstration in my classroom, and I knew I was all alone in the building. The demo involved big flame and glass, and I asked myself “What’s the worst that could happen?” Well, I could imagine the glass exploding while I was sitting right in front of it, and I thought through the worst-case scenarios. So in addition to the goggles, apron, gloves, and fire extinguisher, I wrapped cloth towels around my pressure point so that I couldn’t get a major artery cut and bleed to death before I could reach the phone to call for help. Extremely unlikely, but hey—why risk it?

Anyway, this last Spring, for one of my “Patching Holes” videos, I was videotaping a bunch of flashy demos. [Show video of demos.] In addition to all these exploding demos, which went off like I expected them to—shattering glass and all—I did one that simply oozes. [Show video of oozing.] Now, like I said, I’m really cautious, and I know what I’m doing. This one gives off aerosolized concentrated sulfuric acid, so it’s a good idea not to breathe it in, and I was doing it in the fume hood. I did three or four takes, each time setting aside the jar when I was done with it.

So I’m done with all the takes, and I’m standing about 10 feet away from the fume hood, messing with the video camera, when a gunshot goes off. The jar that I had used 20 minutes before exploded like a bomb, shooting carbon-gooed, concentrated acid-coated shards of glass the length of my 40 foot room, including all along my left side. Here’s the aftermath in the fume hood after I came back the next day. Right after the explosion, I’d inspected the room to make sure everything was stable, and then I left to let it air out and let me settle down. Seemed like a good time to take a break.

Now, I’m a pretty smart guy, and I’ve been doing this for a few years. This is a demo that oozes and sizzles. It doesn’t explode. If someone had told me third hand that it had happened to their buddy’s colleague, I would have been sure that they’d gotten their story mixed up, because I couldn’t have even come up with an explanation that would have this demo exploding that violently. I would have judged it to be impossible. And I would have been wrong. Like we humans sometimes are. In fact, it was only by being forced by the very undeniable evidence on my left side to acknowledge it was possible, that I was able to later construct a feasible explanation for what had happened, because I simply couldn’t accept the conclusion “Nope, not possible” when my understanding of the chemistry led me to that.

The reason I’m telling you this is: when it exploded, I was still wearing all my safety equipment, even though I was finished with the demos. And boy, was I glad that I tend to play “better safe than sorry,” rather than going with what’s more convenient, so that I still had on the gear out of simple habit. Because then I was protected a bit from my misjudgement—a judgement I wasn’t even aware I had made, because it was an assumption—by definition, unconscious. That’s the insidious part. “Assumptions are the things you don’t know you have.” That is exactly why they can be so dangerous. Could you be holding any of those in the debate about climate change? If there’s ever a time to be conscientiously self-critical, it is now, with this issue.

So, I’ve learned it’s in my interest to be brutally honest with myself and ask “What if I’m wrong? What would be the consequences then?” I try to employ that thoroughness and humility in my approach to the debate about what action to take on global climate change. Please, join me in that.

And if not—still, well. . . . Then I’ll see you in your final video: “No Holds Barred” [sic].

Comments

Youtube Comments: Part 1
Youtube Comments: Part 2

No Holds Barred

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Script

This video is titled “No Holds Barred” and is the final video just for skeptics in the expansion pack accompanying the video “How It All Ends.” A lot of the arguments in this video assume that you’ve viewed all the other videos first.

I’m going to try to not be sassy, but I gotta tell you. If you’ve made it this far through all my videos and you still insist that taking action on global climate change is not in our best interests, I’m getting a little frustrated. But then so are you probably, and I realize no one has ever changed their mind because they’re being attacked. In fact frontal assaults “with attitude” tend to just cause people to hunker down in their opinions. So I’m going to try to be civil, even though it’s not nearly as satisfying as being righteous. Please forgive me if I slip.

And this is sort of a grab-bag of the topics left over, so also please pardon the lack of narrative flow, and eloquent exposition, or whatever.

Before we get to the last stand, here’s a basic recap of my argument given over the course of all these bloody videos.

You say: “We don’t know that AGW is true. Isn’t it still being debated?”

I say: “Science is never certain,” show you the statements from AAAS and NAS, and point out that you’re in the test tube.

So you say: “Well, then, how are we to decide something if we can’t know for sure what’s going on?”

And I say: “Use risk management. Here’s a grid that might help.”

And you say: “Can’t that argument just be used for the dire threat of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?”

And I say: “You’re right, so we’ve got to estimate the probabilities, making sure to establish the credibility of our sources by using this here credibility spectrum” and I suggest that the statements from AAAS, NAS and pretty much the rest of the national science academies in the world should convince us that AGW is more probable than not.

And you say: “But unless we caused it, we shouldn’t interfere with it.”

Then I explain the mechanics of climate change and forcing.

Then you say: “Well, it’s way too big for us to stop. And if we try we might overshoot and end up in an ice age, or make the warming worse.”

And then I say: “No, it’s really simple—stop the forcing of the climate system. There’s lots of great ways to do that without reducing our standard of living.”

And then here we are.

First and foremost, I can perhaps save you time here by pointing out that if your opinions about global climate change are not falsifiable, then you don’t even need to watch the rest of the video—you can go google Paris Hilton or something. [Cut to squeamish look.]

Falsifiability is an idea in science that establishes whether a claim someone makes is even worth examining. Here’s how it works. Let’s say I claim aliens exists—the truth being out there and all—and you claim they don’t. It’s not even worth your time to try to convince me that I’m wrong, because no matter what your evidence or reasoning, I can always counter with “Well, we just haven’t looked hard enough.”

In fact, with this claim, there’s no way even in principle for you to prove me wrong—even if you are correct—because you could have all the star drives you want and search every rock and gas ball in the universe, and come back to me with that, and I could still say—”You missed a spot.” Or “They moved when you weren’t looking.” Or “They’re invisible.”

Unless I can provide you ahead of time with a test and a hypothetical result that I would accept as disproof of my claim, there’s no use arguing with me, because my claim is not falsifiable.

That’s why conspiracy theories aren’t worth arguing about. They will always be around, because they are not falsifiable. Which is to say: even if they’re not true, that fact cannot even in principle be demonstrated. If you ask the conspiracy theorist: “Well, where’s your evidence?” they can always claim “It’s being suppressed.” And if you try the other direction and say: “Well here’s evidence against your claim,” they can say “It was fabricated.” Or biased. Or just faulty.

Please note: I’m not saying that the means the conspiracy is wrong. Or that it’s right. I’m just saying if the claim is not falsifiable, then there’s no way to ever know, and so it’s just a lot of wasted effort to even debate it.

I often find myself thinking of this when I’m debating hard-line climate skeptics whose claim is “anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.” No matter what the evidence I provide, they claim it’s biased, or just plain wrong.

So before we go further, stop and answer the question: “What would convincing evidence look like to you?”

How about a bunch of really smart people who are experts in the field working with supercomputers and a worldwide network of data sensors for 30 years? We’ve got that. Maybe a public statement from the largest, most well-respected scientific body in the world, calling for action? We’ve got that [AAAS]. A statement from an honorary scientific body, comprised of the most credentialed and respected scientists in the country, one-in-ten of which have a Nobel Prize? We’ve got that [NAS].

Statements from the national science academies of other major countries? We’ve got those [Google “joint academies climate change”]. A statement from a collection of businesses with vested interests in the fossil fuels themselves? We’ve got that [USCAP]. Still not good enough? How about if the biggest, most notorious corporate holdout around finally publicly admitted that climate change is a threat, and it finally stopped funding climate skeptic think tanks? We’ve got that [Google “Rex Tillerson prudent”].

Still not enough? How about a statement from the US military, not known so much for it’s environmental advocacy, but for its bottom line interest in preserving national security above all other concerns? We’ve got that [Google “Pentagon climate change”].

Perhaps it would take unanimous support from anyone remotely connected to the issue, so that no journalist could dig up a single scientist, author, or think tank analyst who is ever willing to say that AGW might be bunk. Well, as you’ve seen in my video “How It All Ends: Nature of Science,” we’ll never have that on ANY issue, simply due to the inherently uncertain nature of all science. So wouldn’t that make your claim unfalsifiable?

Perhaps it would take you personally feeling the climate effects in your life. Well if that’s the case, I’m afraid we’re doomed to no longer be actors in our own lives, purposefully influencing our fate, but merely powerless victims of circumstance. Because as you saw in the video “How It All Ends: Scare Tactics” the feedback loops of the climate system are long enough that by the time the effect is obvious, it’s too late to do anything about it.

Who would need to issue a call to action in order for it to be convincing to you? If you say “No one—I go by the EVIDENCE”—I’d ask you to watch the “Nature of Science” and “Risk Management” videos again, and remind you that there’s a reason it takes a Ph.D. to get a job as a researcher.

So is there someone—some expert whose expertise, experience, and judgment you trust—so that if they came out for action on climate change, you’d be on board? If so, then your claim is indeed falsifiable, and worth debating. But I’m not sure you’re left with a good thing, because aren’t you giving that person or organization an awful lot of power over you and your world?

I’m comfortable with AAAS and NAS playing part of that role of advisor for me, because as far as I can tell they’re probably the smartest, most careful, most knowledgeable people on the planet, and the issue is smack-dab in the middle of their expertise. They’re not infallible, but they’re the best we’ve got. Seriously—who is better or more credible on matters of science? And my knowledge of the scientific process tells me that only the most unequivocal, robust statements make it very far through such organizations, much less being announced as public calls for action.

Whose advice would you care to stake your (and my) future on? It’s not a rhetorical question. Let’s get it out in the open. Leave a comment—who would have to come out in favor of action on climate change in order for you to be on board? I think it’s an interesting question, and I’m very curious to read the answers provided.

Really, what would it take to convince you? And if your honest answer is “Nothing can convince me,” then fine. But then please admit that your belief is one of faith, not reasoning, and step aside. Isn’t it disingenuous to debate when you don’t consider debate itself—the examination of evidence and reasoning—to be a valid means for getting closer to the truth?

I’m sorry if I’m getting a little sassy, but the hard-line skeptical view is really starting to look a lot like a conspiracy theory. It seems like it’s not falsifiable, and therefore, not worth even arguing. So, like I mentioned before, here is the test to see if your belief is falsifiable: ask yourself “Can I come up with a reasonable scenario that would convince me that we should take big action now on climate change?”

And if you find that you can’t, then what does that tell you? Wouldn’t that send up a little red flag that maybe you need to check your thinking? That maybe you’re not being completely rational about this? Maybe you’re letting a bias blind you to any evidence that contradicts your opinion, and therefore your unconscious goal is no longer to figure out reality, but instead is to preserve your beliefs? That may feel good and righteous, but does it really seem like it’s in your own pragmatic self interests?

Of course it would be fair of you to turn the question to me, and ask if my claim is falsifiable. Can I sketch out a scenario which would convince me to convert to the skeptic’s side? The answer is yes. I’ll wait until the very end of this video to give it to you, so that you can put it in context.

On either side of this bitter debate, you hear accusations that the other side is in somebody’s pocket. From the skeptics you’ll hear “It’s just a liberal plot to get control of our lives,” and it’s not uncommon for a warmer to imply that anyone who argues hard for the skeptical side must be a corporate shill. I figured that the idea of vested interests hiring people to surf the net and argue for the skeptical side wasn’t too outlandish, but I also thought it sounded a little too sinister to probably be true.

Well, a couple months ago, I was reading a back-and-forth discussion about Grist.com’s “How to Talk to A Climate Skeptic” [Google the exact phrase “We’re all seekers for truth here” WITH THE QUOTE MARKS] and there was one guy really taking the lead for the skeptical view, talking quite reasonably how there’s a lot to be said for both sides, and the science on the issue is divided, which is why people are divided, etc. He was saying stuff like “The truth is that reasonable people of good will can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions, including scientists. This is what makes the climate change debate so interesting. It is one of the greatest scientific debates in history.” Seemed like a very reasonable, nice guy who just happened to hold a different opinion than mine.

Imagine my surprise and horror when someone outed this guy as a consultant hired by the electric power industry! And as soon as that was revealed, the guy immediately disappeared, though he had been countering most every point up to then! It was really creepy! Especially when I looked back on the stuff that he had written that I had excused before as being simply uninformed, but really, was deliberately manipulative, and downright intellectually dishonest. “This is what makes the climate debate so interesting. . .” It’s not “interesting” you jerk—it’s potentially life or death for real people if the worst case scenarios actually come to pass! We’re not sure it’ll happen, but that’s what the rest of us are sincerely trying to avoid. And you find it an “interesting” discussion. It’s hard to convey how angry that makes me, to see someone so careless about their impact on other people’s lives.

I felt so violated! I share this with you here because you should know that there are indeed selfish, dishonest people out there who will try to manipulate you for their own benefit, regardless of any harm to you. And be aware, if you’ve made it this far through my videos and still think AGW is bunk, then you may be a hard-line skeptic, and this is the character of the people you are keeping company with.

I’m just pleading with you to ask the hard questions, to be self-critcal, and aware of your biases, and to do research. Go check out the discussion on the website for yourself. It makes you feel really icky.

In response to my “Most Terrifying” video, I got a lot of responses that had a common quality that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. I finally figured out it could be described as sort of an arrogant ignorance. I don’t think the word “ignorant” is an insult—it just means there’s an opportunity to learn something you don’t know yet. We’re all ignorant, just in different areas.

But when that is taken on the offense, it can become offensive. Like when people would so vigorously attack me for being so stupid or alarmist or thick-headed, and they did it while totally misapplying some basic concept, like mixing up carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, or dismissively calling the grid Pascal’s Wager, or confusing the ozone layer with global warming.

This mix of aggression and ignorance puzzled me, and I think I now have an explanation. I think people are tired of feeling like they’re constantly being told that they are the problem, that they are bad for just going about their lives. And so they lash back, with whatever small bit of terminology or concept they may have picked up. So I want to be clear: we’re not bad for causing global climate change. It’s not a moral judgment. We’re just doing stuff that ends up being bad for us. What’s the saying? “Don’t poo in your own bed?” That’s really all we’re talking about.

Okay, here’s something that’ll make you hostile, but I’ve just gotta point it out. I came across a cynic on RealClimate.org who observed that there seem to be three phases of skeptics’ response to environmental problems:

Phase 1: “There is no problem.”

Phase 2: “OK there is a problem, but it’s exaggerated and not really serious.”

Phase 3: “Now it’s too late to stop it.”

I share this because it was stunning how well the comments I got on my previous video tracked with those phases. It really wasn’t funny how many times I got comments along the lines of: “Actually, the globe isn’t warming; it’s the urban heat island effect!” (Phase 1). There are actually entire web projects devoted to bulldogging the data collection sites—check ‘em out if you’re looking for a hobby to get you outside. Or “There is little argument on the existence of global warming, but there’s still a lot on its causes” (Phase 2). (That one creepily reminded me of how careful that corporate guy in the Grist.com discussion was to appear reasonable.) Or “In the next 20 years, China will triple its emissions, no matter what. It can’t be stopped” (Phase 3).

Where’s the phase in that progression where the problem is big enough to be acknowledged as important, but not yet so big as to be intractable? Can you imagine what that situation would look like? And if you can’t imagine such a scenario that would convince you that action is both necessary and still possible, shouldn’t that send up a little red flag about your thinking?

Here are some of the more outlandish comments my videos got from die-hard skeptics, in bursts of sometimes surreal logic:

[ON SCREEN] “You might consider that column B ‘true’ is the best place to be (after column B ‘false’) as we will be strong and have the capital and confidence to tackle a true climate catastrophe.”

Oh, that’s right, a pound of prevention is worth an ounce of cure. No wait, an ounce, gram—metric?

[ON SCREEN] “I would rather be strong enough to face any threat that may or may not materialize than to be weak and find out we did the wrong things, to stop a real threat that arises, whether it be from the weather or from somewhere else. Remember the planet-killer asteroids?. . . What about an ascendant Chinese/Russian communist alliance? How could we defend ourselves and react to those things, which are actual demonstrable long-term threats if we have so weakened ourselves because we are afraid of a possible longer growing season in Canada?”

Um. “Actual, demonstrable long-term threats?” I really wonder how he would go about deciding that something is an actual threat since in the case of climate change, official statements by the most capable and respected groups of professionals in that field don’t seem to be enough for him. And yet a Chinese/Russian communist alliance qualifies as an actual, demonstrable threat. Maybe I haven’t been reading the papers carefully enough. And it’s the longer growing season in Canada that has everyone in a tizzy? Did I look away for a second? Are we talking about the same thing?

[ON SCREEN] “Scientists can say the sky is falling all they want (and they’ve been doing it for centuries) but until I see it, I don’t want POLICY MAKERS getting their hands on my prosperity and my independence.”

So, I’ve just gotta sit and take whatever the natural world dishes out until you’ve been personally inconvenienced enough to agree to let us take action, despite whatever some trained scientists may think. Thanks a lot. He’s definitely not an alarmist about big government.

[ON SCREEN] “No, I’ll fight the very real threat of global central planning with its return to the Dark Ages until my last breath before I worry about some nebulous idea of global climate change.”

Sounds like this guy is pretty level-headed. Doesn’t get too excited or overreact about things. I wonder if he listened to the scientists when they came up with the alarmist plan of immunizations against some nebulous idea of viruses in the germ theory of disease. Pah. Germ theory. It’s just a theory.

[ON SCREEN] “If we squander our resources on speculative global warming and then we’re left exhausted and poor, what happens when we have to face a real threat, like the asteroid Apophis, which might intersect the earth in 2036?”

I looked that one up. That reasoning is just bizarre. The scientists who study asteroids give it a 1 in 45,000 chance of hitting the Earth. The scientists who study human-caused global climate change give it a 9 in 10 chance of being true [“IPCC: ‘very likely’ = 90%”]. Asteroids?

[ON SCREEN] “I truly don’t care how many scientific organizations line up for global warming, I still think column B would save us.”

Yeah. Pfff—scientists. What do they know anyway? That’s why I never use plastic. Or rubber. Or synthetic cloth. Or medications. Or a telephone. Or cars. Or electricity. I don’t care how many scientists line up behind it, it’s just common sense that it’s impossible for 300 tons of metal to stay up in the sky. Stupid 747.

[ON SCREEN] “Don’t you know that the AGW spin is nothing more than a socialist/communist attempt to take over the world? They are playing you!”

Man. As if being called a Chicken Little when you’re trying to warn people isn’t bad enough, but to be called a Chicken Little by people like this. That’s just insulting. And sad. Doesn’t “a socialist/communist attempt to take over the world” have just a smidge too much comic book premise in it to not be laughed at? In fact, it sounds almost more paranoid than simply Chicken Little—who, after all, was just too excitable—doesn’t it? Well, not compared to this one:

[ON SCREEN] “So what we have witnessed in the Global Warming debate is a perfect storm of anti-Christian philosophies parading as science. Materialists, Socialists, and Left-leaning types found common cause with neo-pagans and anti-Christian spirituality to advocate a New World Order dressed as a movement to save the planet.”

Wow. I’m kinda surprised he didn’t throw in there: “people who eat their bread with the butter side down.”

[ON SCREEN] “Action would lead to goverment control of our lives. Couldn’t a private organization deal with this?”

Look, we already tried laissez-faire and it didn’t work. Everyone agreed that it sucked. “Tragedy of the Commons” and all that. Pay attention in class there, buddy.

[ON SCREEN] “The climate has changed before. It’s inevitable.”

Oh right, I get it—it’s going to happen sometime anyway, so why get all in a hissy fit when it threatens. Sort like of like dying is inevitable, so don’t worry so much trying to avoid it.

[ON SCREEN] “Because action on global climate change doesn’t generate wealth, it would be an overall drain on the economy.”

My God, you’re right—anything that doesn’t actually generate wealth is a bad thing that must be shunned, like disaster preparation, and a standing army, and air traffic control. Let the invisible hand of the market gently move one plane to the side when it’s on a collision course with another. I think that’ll work.

A lot of people expressed that they’d pick column B in the grid because it contained the only box in the whole grid that they like the look of. It was the only one with a happy face, but is that how you decide the fate of the planet? And I can’t help but think about how—by that logic—someone standing on the road in the way of an out-of-control truck would choose to just stand there instead of jumping into the muddy ditch, because the only scenario where he ends up unequivocally happy is the one where he stands still and the truck happens to swerve around him. “Sweet! Didn’t even muss my hair. . . .”

Sorry. Sassy again.

But don’t these objections strike you as being a little bit more towards the side of fearful dogma, and less towards the side of rational assessment?

Be aware if you’ve made it this far through my arguments and you still just think AGW is bunk, then these are the people you’re going to be seen as keeping company with. And it’s starting to sound a bit like a conspiracy theory.

[BOARD, CREDIBILITY SPECTRUM] Because here’s the picture so far: [columns labeled “significant action” vs. “no significant action” on either side of credibility spectrum running vertically]: all of these organizations that fall on the top of our credibility spectrum [AAAS, NAS, IPCC, USCAP, Exxon, Pentagon report, Stern Report, Economists’ Statement on Climate Change, Scientists’ Warning to Humanity] vs. this individual, or that think tank, or the other self-selected group signing a petition lower down on the spectrum [Lomborg (Copenhagen Consensus), Cato, Lindzen, Landsea et al., Leipzig Declaration, Oregon Petition]. The best you’ve got over here is the Copenhagen Consensus with its four Nobel Laureates, which is pretty much balanced out by the Economists’ Statement on Climate Change, with its six, so we’ll call it a wash there.

Let’s be clear: if you side with these guys, then you are explicitly dismissing the conclusions of the best science on the planet, as well as a bunch of heavyweight industry leaders. Now, they may indeed be wrong—no one is infallible. But remember, since we’re using basic risk management, in order to convince the rest of us that we shouldn’t take action “just in case,” you need to do way more than show that AAAS and NAS might be wrong. We already know that. Anybody might be wrong.

[BOARD, GRID] What you’ll need to do is convince us that this line actually belongs down here—way down here if you want this column to have the better expected value, because you’ll remember the consequence of this box by definition is greater than this one. You need to provide some extraordinary evidence that the most well-respected scientific societies on the planet are completely out to lunch.

[DESK] So it’s going to take more than a couple of good-sounding ideas, like “it’s the sun,” or “climate has always changed—it’s a natural cycle,” or “the Medieval warming period wasn’t so bad,” or “Mars is warming too, you know,” or “CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere,” or “water is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2,” or “who’s to say what the right climate is?” or “CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data,” etc. [Google “how to talk to a climate skeptic”] Do you really expect us to think the scientists haven’t heard those and taken them into account already?

And it’ll take more than saying “the scientists are biased because their grant money depends on people caring.” You would need to somehow explain how such erroneous statements as those of AAAS and NAS made it all the way through the bruising peer-review process of the two most well-respected scientific organizations on the planet. Organizations that arguably have a greater stake in never making wrong statements than any other organization in existence. Essentially, if you wouldn’t listen to them, why would you listen to anybody? Because NO process is more careful and self-critical than science.

Plus, since you could say “the scientists are biased, because their funding depends on it” about any topic, why is it valid to only bring that up here? Why don’t you reject all science, then? And why are you perfectly happy to put your well-being in the hands of the companies that sell you your car, your food, your power tools, and anything else that might possibly harm you when their paychecks depend on you wanting more of what they have to offer, just like you accuse the scientists of? And the companies don’t even have an element of greater good in their job description like “pursuing knowledge” for the scientist. Business’ only universal mission is to increase value for shareholders.

[BOARD, SPECTRUM] Really it’s some elaborate denial, don’t you think, requiring quite a conspiracy to explain it. It’s starting to sound a bit like the shadow government or black helicopters or the hoaxed moon landing or aliens in Roswell or the faked Holocaust or the U.S. government bringing the towers down. So you’d best be prepared for people lumping you in with the conspiracy theorists as they start to see this much expertise stacked up, and you thrashing at the tide. Perhaps that’s fine with you. I’m just saying—be aware of it, and make it a conscious choice, instead of an accidental one because you couldn’t be bothered to research and rebut all of my arguments.

And aside from protecting your cred or your rep or your character or whatever, does this really look like the best bet for getting what you want out of life? To ignore these guys when you’re betting the world on what I might remind you is a scientific issue? These are really smart people who spend way more time researching it than you do. Why do you trust them on so many other topics that contribute to your comfort, health, convenience, and safety of daily life, but not on climate change? Why is this the one topic that’s different? Aren’t you starting to suspect some strong bias in your views, say a deep hostility toward government? But is that really the same as uncertainty about climate change?

[BOARD] I want to go back and take a closer look at the truck example I gave earlier, this time with a grid. Cuz everything’s better with a grid. Remember, the argument is: column B is a better bet, because it’s the only one with a box that looks at all attractive. A similar argument for column B was that choosing column A would doom us to economic harm, no matter what ended up happening with climate change. At least with column B, humanity’s got a chance to be happy.

On this side is what the truck ends up doing when it passes your spot, and up here is what action you choose to take. Your only option is to jump to a rock in the middle of a muddy ditch. If you do that, you may slip and get muddy or you may not. But you’re a worst-case kinda guy, so you assume the worst WILL happen if you jump, and we put in muddy for both these boxes: here muddy for no reason, here muddy but relieved.

Wait—if you were a worst-case kinda guy, you wouldn’t still be standing in the road, would you? I guess you’re only a worst-case kind of guy when it comes to threats to your clothes, but if it’s a substantive threat to your physical well being—well, bring on the adrenaline. So we’ll assume muddy in this entire column.

Now, let’s say you see the truck weaving a bit because the driver is texting someone, but it’s far away. It’s got your attention, but this line is down low, because the driver has plenty of time to see you. You don’t want to end up here—muddy for no reason, so you wait a bit, because you like the look of this box. But as he gets closer, you can see that it must be a very engrossing conversation, because he’s now using both hands for his phone, so this line moves up. Still, you don’t like the look of any of these three boxes. You really want this box. So you hope. He’ll see you. He’s gotta. I can’t imagine getting creamed by a truck, so it’s not gonna happen.

How long would you let your desire for this box keep you in the middle of the road? Until the last possible moment, just before the truck is certain to hit you? What if you miscalculated that moment? What if it comes, and you slip? What if it’s not just your life, but you’ve got a family that depends on you? What if you’re not the one in the road, but it’s someone who holds the key to your own life? How long before you scream at him that he’s not just making a personal choice?

[DESK] If we are sincere in getting closer to the truth, whatever it is, rather than just preserving our opinion, then we are obliged to follow the debate back and forth, and not just stop when we find something that pleases us. What do I mean? Let’s say you keep hearing a claim that really bugs you, so you look up a counterargument that seems to neutralize the claim. So now, whenever you hear the claim, you repeat your counterargument to yourself and move on, confident that the claim doesn’t hold water.

What you should do—in fact, I’m arguing it’s not only your obligation, but it’s in your own best interests—is go looking for any rebuttals to that counterargument that you’re carrying around in your pocket. Whether your counterargument is solid or not, either way you benefit by actually trying to rebut it yourself. Why? Because if it’s really solid, then your thorough looking will turn up no good rebuttals to it, and thus your confidence in your counterargument is increased.

And if your counterargument is lousy and full of holes, well then you probably would like to know that before you go betting your house on it, wouldn’t you? So you can rid yourself of the weak points in your arguments, and strengthen the strong points, by conscientiously tracing the back-and-forth refutations of the debate yourself.

I do this all the time—I’m actively looking around for new arguments and evidence against my viewpoint. Why? To make it stronger—to get rid of the weak points and find even more effective ways to convey the strong points. For instance, that’s what I did with my “Most Terrifying” video—I pretty much threw down with the whole freakin’ internet. A million views and 5000+ critical comments later, I emerge battered and bruised, but with a better argument. In argumentation, at least, it’s true that whatever doesn’t kill it makes it stronger.

So do some more homework. Look up your objections to human-caused global climate change on Grist.com’s “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.” [Google “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic”] Then consider the rebuttal to your argument you find there. In fact, that site is such a good resource for you that I’m jealous, because it lays out exactly what you need to refute to make your point. I’d like to find a “How to Talk to a Warmer” site of equal quality that would give the skeptic’s responses to the rebuttals on the Grist site. And I’ve got to tell you, the lack of such a site reinforces my view that the warmers are more probably correct than the skeptics.

The pitfall to avoid in this whole back-and-forth process is stopping when you find an argument that supports what you believe. It’s very hard to resist. But if you make the effort to persist, the robustness of your opinion increases. You hopefully get closer to the truth.

Have you done this for your viewpoints? If not, why? I know we’re all busy as heck, but if there was ever a time to really know our stuff, wouldn’t this be it, when the debate is about whether our future is on the line or not? And if you still find yourself not seeking out the weaknesses in your own arguments, don’t you need to question whether you’re being intellectually honest with yourself? Is that really in your own best interests?

Along the lines of how a thorough debate serves us best, you should distrust (and please do not yourself engage in) simple dismissals of arguments: either “just a bunch of chicken little scare tactics designed to get control of my life,” or “just another rabid neocon in the pocket of big oil.” If you name call instead of refute, you concede the point. Only when faced with an unfalsifiable claim is it valid to decline to answer the points presented.

I know I’ve laid out a ton of arguments over the course of all these bloody videos. But I’ll challenge you right now: if you disagree, and your response is along the lines of “That’s just typical liberal scaremongering,” but you don’t actually rebut my points, then you’ll have to understand if all those watching take that as a concession on your part, and assume that you are resorting to name-calling because you know I’m right, but you just won’t admit it to yourself. So: if your response to all this is name calling rather than direct refutation of each of my points, then we’ll just have to assume that it’s because you can’t refute them. How’s that for throwing down the gauntlet?

You may notice that in these videos I haven’t addressed a lot of the most common technical arguments and objections about AGW. That’s because it’s already been done in such a thorough and well-organized way on the Grist.com site. I highly recommend you check it out. And please, if you have—or can find—good refutations of any of the points made on that site that have yet to be resolved in the comments section, please bring it to my attention, with references. I would love to see the next step in the back-and-forth.

For what it’s worth, as you research the back-and-forth debate, I’ve found the Wikipedia articles on climate change to be excellent as a starting point in looking for sources with opposing viewpoints.


Okay, I’ve been avoiding this, because I didn’t want to open the can of worms, but we’ve got to talk about the valid role of government. Now before you get all up-in-2nd-amendment-protected-arms, let me just point out that believe it or not you—yes even you—do believe that government has a valid role to play in society. You may just not realize you do, because it’s so distasteful to you. But unless you are a literal anarchist, I’m sure you believe that government at least has the minimum role of protecting you from my liberties, like getting my kicks by hotwiring your car. You also probably agree that another valid function of government is to pool resources and do things that we cannot efficiently do for ourselves, like building roads, or securing our national defense.

A good analogy would be back in the pioneer days, a bunch of pioneers might pool their efforts to dig an irrigation canal that no single one of them could have dug, but which benefits all of them. The next project is complex enough that the pioneers agree to have one of them coordinate it, and they compensate that coordinator for the time lost in his own fields. That’s government. The modern examples that most people would probably agree are pretty nifty include things like universal electrification, universal phone service (back in the pre-cell days), the interstate highway system, and food safety.

Here’s a comment I got: “But everything the government touches turns to shit. So the solution is not in public policy, but in the free market.” Now that’s just crazy talk. Just because there’s lots of stuff the government does that you dislike is no reason to let yourself be blinded and start sounding you have a religious faith in Our Omnipotent Father the Immaculate Market. Not everything the government touches is bad. How about having a police force? A fire department? Roads? Food safety laws? How about banning lead paint in 1978? Was that a lousy, heavy-handed government intrusion into the free choice of consumers? How many more kids would have been crippled if we waited for “market forces” to drive lead paint out of business? Would those kids be an acceptable price to pay for your liberty to buy whatever darn paint you want? So let’s stop the hyperbole about draconian government control of your life, and discuss its functions and limits rationally.

Global climate change is a problem that is—well . . . global in scale. And, as we saw in the video “Scare Tactics,” it has feedback loops too long for market forces to effectively react to. That is, by the time the effects are strong enough to spur the market to change, it’s too late for change to have an effect. So the market is doomed to failure in addressing such issues with long feedback loops and potentially irreversible consequences (at least, irreversible on a human time scale). So action on climate change fits perfectly, right into the most minimalist definition of the purpose of government: to protect you from the effects of me exercising my liberties (like burning as much fossil fuels as I please—it may be my private car, but it’s our shared air that I’m venting my waste to), and to pool resources to address a problem on a scale far larger than any other organization could hope to.

Here’s a related objection: “But people need to trust that the money spent to stop climate change will be spent effectively and honestly.” Yeah, you’re right. But does withholding the money in the face of an imminent threat because we’re afraid of waste sound like it’s in our best interest? Here’s something no one will ever say out loud: we’re not going to hit it spot on—we will end up either overspending or underspending. We just need to be big girls and boys about it, and accept that there’s going to be some inefficiency.

We cannot be perfect, so we are either going to spend more money than absolutely necessary in order to ensure that we accomplish what we need to, or we are going to accomplish less than we need to, in order to ensure that we waste no money. Given what’s at stake, which sounds like the more important goal to ensure: that we waste no money, or that we accomplish what we need to? Given that we may be threatened with irreversible harm—including to our economy, by the way—why don’t we err on the side of caution, make sure everything gets done that needs to, and follow up to minimize the waste as best we can? But it’s just silly to sit here paralyzed in the path of that truck, trying to figure out which would expend less energy—jump over the guardrail, or run for the other side? We don’t want to risk possibly wasting any energy, now do we?

Here’s one that rocked me back in my seat: “I’m currently on the fence about the ultimate cause of global warming.” “I’m currently on the fence??” Why do you need to decide? “I’m currently on the fence??” Who are YOU to judge? What are your qualifications? Why the heck is our policy (and our collective neck) riding on Joe Schmoe’s armchair analysis of one of the most complex scientific issues in the world? What on earth is going on here? Why are we allowing the popular debate to even continue like this, when the overwhelming conclusion of those who are actually qualified to judge—scientists, economists, business leaders—is that we need to take significant action as soon as possible to avoid losing our hides.

I’m sorry. Self-righteous again. I just get worked up about this stuff, cuz I’m really worried about where we seem to be heading, and sometimes it seems that so many skeptics are just cavalier about the potential threats, dismissing them with a wave of their hand and the label of “alarmist” about anyone who is concerned.

Did you ever think about how Paul Revere is revered in American history for spreading alarm? Would you have dismissed him at the time as an alarmist? Is everyone who spreads an alarm an alarmist? And if your answer is “No, he wasn’t an alarmist, because that was his job—he was designated ahead of time to watch for threats. If he was the lookout, then what are the scientists but high tech lookouts—meticulously studying the physical world to see what’s going on, and letting us know what they find. And now, when they raise the alarm, encapsulated in the unequivocal statements from AAAS and NAS, you would dismiss them as hysterical, incompetent, biased?

I do believe you want the best for yourself. I even believe you probably want the best for the whole world. I think if you try to become brutally aware of your thinking processes—your biases, whether your goal in looking for information is to get closer to the physical truth or to retain your opinion, whether you are starting from belief or starting from evidence—and you analyze this in historical perspective, you will see that we are in a time like no other. Because our population and our technology are large enough to change the planet, and the old way of thinking—where we could tolerate mistakes—won’t work for us any more. There’s no longer anywhere to run to.

I’m pretty sure I’m not being ideological. I’m trying to just be practical. Join me in that. When the stakes are this big, how can you—we—afford not to?

So, to recap:

I say “How do you account for the fact that AAAS and NAS issued such strongly worded statements.”

And then you say “The scientists are biased. They get to keep their jobs if everyone believes them.”

And then I say “Have you watched my explanation about bias in the video ‘Nature of Science?’ Because of all jobs on the planet, the job of scientist is the one that is most careful about identifying and eliminating bias. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. But couldn’t the accusation of a belief based on bias be also levelled at you, for your claim that climate change is a hoax? And do you really want to claim that you are less biased than scientists in general, who are specifically trained in how to avoid it? And sure—scientists are individuals, so they might be biased. But AAAS has 144,000 members and a huge reputation to uphold. Isn’t it a bit extraordinary for you—a single lay person—to claim that you have less bias than a statement that represents 144,000 people who are specifically trained on how to avoid bias?”

And you say “But it’s job security for scientists. If they scare people about it enough, all they have to do is put the word ‘climate change’ on their grant proposal, and they’re on the gravy train.”

I say “Aren’t you just repeating your claim? How can our conversation be productive if you just repeat your claim, and not specifically counter my rebuttals?”

And then you say “Do you have a different question?

And then I say “Why do you apply the reasoning about job security in this case, but not in any other case, say when scientists warned us about lead-based paint, or mercury in fish, or arsenic in drinking water, or—here’s a good one—that an atomic bomb might be possible, and Hitler might be working on it? The Manhattan Project was created—and gave jobs to scientists—because scientists gave a warning about a possible threat that they understood better than lay people or policy makers. Using your logic then would have resulted in the Manhattan Project not happening, and possibly a very different end to WWII. Doesn’t that show your logic to be not useful?”

And then I’m not sure what you say to that. Maybe you can fill in the blank in the comments section.

And then I say “Okay, let’s say that most of the scientists are biased or corrupt. Still, then how do you account for the statement from the companies in the USCAP, who are calling for mandatory emissions caps on their own businesses?”

And then you say “They’ve been duped by the scientists.”

And then I say “Isn’t the picture you’re painting getting a little hard to believe? That global climate change is essentially a conspiracy—intentional or not—that includes all the most well-respected scientific organizations in the world, as well as a bunch of big for-profit corporations, which probably themselves aren’t run by a bunch of dummies? Isn’t the simpler explanation the one that says the scientists on the whole do know what they’re doing, and aren’t corrupt, and that the business leaders also know what they’re doing? Let’s face it, if there’s been duping going on, which sounds more feasible: that business leaders—who make it their, well, business—to figure out what’s in their best interest, have been duped by the most trusted organizations representing the most deliberate and self-critical profession in human history, or that individual lay people have been tragically misled about a complex scientific topic by a few well-funded and organized businesses trying to keep their current jobs?”

And then you probably say “I hate intellectuals. They’re so condescending.”

And then I say “I’m sorry, but I’m just trying to be thorough. You can’t claim that you know for certain that global warming isn’t a problem, can you? So isn’t just the possiblility that it may be the greatest threat humans have ever faced make it worth the time to be thorough in our thinking about it?”

I’m not asking you to believe me. I think that’s what gotten us into trouble—too much belief, and not enough questioning. I’m asking you to please, just consider the possibility that you’re wrong. And think about the possible consequences of that.

You’ve probably been wrong before. Goodness knows I have. If there was ever a time in our individual lives—and our history as a society—to get it right, it’s now. So I’m asking you to be as unselfish, humble, and thorough as you will ever be in your life, step back from your belief, and take another look at the case for human-caused global climate change.

Because none of us is as smart as we think we are. I know, I know—you’re very sure of yourself. So am I. But no one is infallible. Either of us may be wrong. So we’ve each got to ask ourselves: “What if I’m wrong?” Like I shared in the video “I Hope I’m Wrong,” I’ve done that exercise, and I’m comfortable with my answer, because I think I’ve been as self-critical and conscientious as anyone could demand. Picture what that world might look like if you turn out to be wrong, and how it would feel to be there, looking back at this moment right now, when you knew you had the opportunity to choose “better safe than sorry,” but you decided to risk it, because you were afraid it might hurt the economy. How much would that suck?

[BOARD, SPECTRUM] If you’re not willing to even imagine that, if you’re not willing to even entertain the possibility that you’re wrong and they are right, then what does that say about the quality and honesty of your thinking—and your credibility with the rest of us? Do you really want to risk being sidelined as a conspiracy theorist and ignored?

If you’re not yet convinced that action is in your own pragmatic best interest, then why aren’t you at least campaigning for a Manpollo Project, to properly answer the question on which hangs your fate? If you’re not even doing that, then doesn’t that leave the rest of us with the conclusion that you do indeed consider yourself infallible? Because you’d be settting yourself up in opposition to all these people who call for significant action now—and you’d be looking them in the eye and saying: “Well, in my judgment of the evidence—it’s not even worth looking at any further. We can dismiss the possibility of catastrophic climate change right now.”

In fact, there’s a silver bullet! Both sides of the debate will agree that we should have such a Manpollo, project, and here’s why: because each side thinks the project will get us closer to the truth, and dispel the untruths that the other side has spun. So we all want this, because everyone thinks they’re right, and would love further ammunition to prove the other side wrong. Wouldn’t that be worth the cost?

Because a Manhattan Project is not going to cause a global depression. An Apollo Project is not going to going to bankrupt the US, or lead to government control of your life. So what’s to lose? If we have a Manpollo project and it finds that human-caused climate change turns out to be bunk, then hey—okay, we diverted some government jobs from one sector to another. Isn’t reducing the uncertainty about this at least worth that cost?

Given the stakes, it seems that at this point you as a skeptic have only two intellectually honest options: either step aside, or agitate for a Manpollo Project as soon as possible!

“Hey wait!” you cry. “That’s biased! Why isn’t agitating for the skeptic’s side included?” Because, with the AAAS, NAS, USCAP and even Exxon lining up on the warmers’ side, you’ll never find enough credible evidence on your own to take on their judgment and expertise. If you think they’re wrong, the only way to convince the public and policy makers of that is by having something as weighty as a Manpollo Project show it, to stack up its findings against all of those organizations.

Still if you don’t believe the scientists now, then why would you believe them later as part of a Manpollo Project? Which means you’ll never believe them. Which means even if it’s true, you won’t believe it! And now you’re starting to look like the Iraqi Minister of Information, who was already known for being flagrantly out of touch with reality, but got just downright surreal during the invasion of Baghdad, you remember? Telling reporters that there were no US troops in the city, even as the reporters could hear the tanks outside! In fact, I’m a little surprised that no blogger on the warmers’ side has yet taken to giving out monthly Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf awards. They could go to the hard-line skeptic who best embodies the former Information Minister’s talent for heroically persistent denial in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Make no mistake: as a skeptic you are left with only two defensible choices: either actively campaign for the Manpollo project, or get out of the way. Anything else, and you would be explicitly saying you don’t give a rat’s ass about the economic or physical well-being of anybody but yourself. Which is your prerogative. But if that’s the case, then say it, and stop pretending to debate.

Because, while you aren’t obliged to work for the well-being of others, it is immoral of you to actively hinder those who are working for their own well-being. We’ve had enough. Again, if you say “But hey, I could turn that right around and say the same to you, because your action on climate change is going to impinge on my liberties,” then see above—because in the face of such overwhelming evidence, a Manpollo Project is the only feasible way of accomplishing the skeptic’s agenda of convincing the rest of us to not take action.

So become a crusader for the Manpollo Project. . . or get the hell out of the way.

Well, you’ve come to the end of the line. That’s it. That’s my best effort in getting to the truth of the matter, with as much thoroughness, honesty, and self-criticism as I can muster. Thanks for taking the time.

Oh, and my test for falsifiability? My claim is based on very thorough and broadly-based research, and so would need similarly thorough and broadly-based disproof. The main lynchpin would need to be an answer to the question: “How could the most trusted and established scientific organizations in the world get it so wrong?”

I would need to see persistent and thorough evidence along multiple lines that the both the scientific processes of AAAS and NAS as organizations and the careers of a significant number of their most trusted and established individuals had been corrupted or brilliantly mislead by a tremendously well-organized covert campaign of manipulation. The reporting of the evidence would need to be picked up by the major news networks and hold up under scrutiny for a long period of time—say at least a year.

It would need to be an expose of significantly greater caliber, extent, and expense than any other in history, because the conspiracy would have included more individuals by an order of magnitude than any other cover-up or conspiracy, ever. Remember that AAAS has 144,000 members, and the NAS has been around since 1863. In effect, it would need to be of significant enough import to damage the credibility of the human endeavor of science itself for 100 years—essentially a paradigm shift away from the trust we place in science by using so much modern technology.

The claim of incompetence or corruption on the part of these organizations and the majority of the individuals comprising them is extraordinary enough, that I would need extraordinary evidence of an extraordinary cover-up. That’s an extraordinary number of extraordinaries. But it is—in principle—possible. Which makes my claim falsifiable, and therefore, not dismissable.

How about yours?

Comments

Youtube Comments: Part 1
Youtube Comments: Part 2
Youtube Comments: Part 3
Youtube Comments: Part 4
Youtube Comments: Part 5
Youtube Comments: Part 6