Introduction
This is the beginning of the extended "How it all will end" video series. Click through the tabs to see the individual videos and the script.
Introduction
Script
Here’s something I bet you haven’t thought of. . .
You know that whole shouting match about global warming?
[Foil {wearing Viking-type hat}: Yeah! And I’m sick of it! {Explosion with smoke—BOOM!}]
What’s with the hat and smoke?
[Foil (aside): I’ll be playing devil’s advocate. Lay off—it’s the best I could do for horns and brimstone.]
Okay. I know it seems like such a noisy mess that it’s easy to tune out. But here’s a thought for you: while we debate whether humans can really change the climate or not, we are at the same time running the experiment. The kicker is, no matter what the outcome of the experiment, we’re in the test tube! So it seems clear that we’d better get to the bottom of the controversy as quick as possible.
[Foil: But how do you know which side to believe?]
Well, what if I told you I’ve got a way to look at it where you don’t need to believe anyone, but can still decide with confidence what we should do?
[Foil: What’re you smokin’? That sound impossible.]
Yeah, I thought so too, so I put it out there in a video, and after being critiqued by thousands of people, I think I’ve now got a conclusion that is pretty much undeniable.
[Foil: We’ll see about that. FLASH]
[0:55]
So here’s the reasoning in a nutshell. If you want more detail, watch for the index at the end of the video:
[At board, with “You can never be 100% certain, so EVERY CHOICE CARRIES A RISK. Activists warn: Upheaval and destruction. Skeptics warn: severe economic harm.”]
First off, no one’s perfect. So any choice you make brings with it a risk if your choice turns out to be a mistake. Given that, which risk would you rather take: listen to the activists and take big action now, risking the possible harm to the economy that the skeptics warn us about, or listen to the skeptics and don’t take big action now, risking the possible destruction and upheaval that the activists warn us about. Bottom line is, which is the more acceptable risk: the risk of taking action, or the risk of not taking action?
[Foil: Um, geez—when you put it that way. . .{starts to take horns off}]
Hey, don’t just accept what I say! I’m just some guy. Think it through for yourself!
[Foil: Okay, okay. {Puts hat back on.} Wait a minute—global warming isn’t caused by humans in the first place—I’ve seen lots of evidence for that. So you’re presenting a false choice!]
Are you infallible?
[Foil: No.]
Could you be wrong?
[Foil: Yes.]
So the question “which is the more acceptable risk” still applies doesn’t it?
[Foil: {acidly} Fine. But it’s still a loaded question.]
Well, take a look at where the question came from, and see if you agree that it’s a valid one.
[1:00]
If you need to make a decision when things are unclear—like we do with global warming—it’s useful to look at the different possibilities for the future.
The first possibility is whether human-caused global warming is real or not. We’ll put F for the future where it turned out to be false, and T for true.
The other possibility is what action we end up taking. Let’s make column A action, and column B no action.
So that gives us a grid that sketches out four basic possibilities for our future.
What might each of these futures look like?
First is the future where we did take action, and global warming turned out not to be real after all. Let’s take the most pessimistic view and say there’s significant harm to the economy, with no positive benefits.
What about this box? We didn’t take action, and we didn’t need to. Everybody celebrates: the skeptics because they were right, and the activists because it wasn’t the end of the world after all.
How about this box? We took action, and it was a good thing, too, because here the doomsayers were right. We’ve still got the economic costs, but everyone’s okay with that, because we saved our cookies.
Now how about this box? The doomsayers were right, but we listened to the skeptics, and didn’t act. If we took a pessimistic view up here, let’s do the same thing down here. Well, you’ve heard this story before: disasters—environmental, political, social, public health, and economic—on a global scale.
Obviously, this is grossly simplified. The smiley faces should give that away. But we can say the future will fall roughly into one of these four boxes.
Most of the shouting match is about trying to predict which row the future will fall into, which we can’t know for certain until we get there.
What we can know, because we control it, is which column the future will not fall into. Because by taking action or not, we are choosing a column, and that eliminates the risk in the other column.
It’s a bit like buying a lottery ticket—we choose ticket A or ticket B with its risk, and wait to see what the laws of physics dish out as our result.
One way or the other, we’re taking a risk: so which risk is more acceptable, the risk of taking action, or the risk of not taking action?
[Foil: Hey. . . that sounds good, but the logic is bogus. Wouldn’t that grid argue for action on any possible threat? No matter how costly the action, or how ridiculous the threat, like Giant Mutant Space Hamsters? Because according to that it’s better to go broke making giant rodent traps than to even risk the possibility of becoming Hamster Chow, right? So that grid is useless. FLASH!]
Yeah, I totally agree with you.
[Foil: What??]
The grid by itself isn’t a silver bullet. But what it does do is it allows us to make a decision using uncertain knowledge by changing the question from “Are humans affecting the climate?” to the real question “What’s the wisest thing to do, given the uncertainties and the risks?” Really, it’s just basic risk management. So to get around your hamster argument, we need to get a sense of how likely each row is.
[Foil: Why can’t we just wait until the science is finished, and then we’ll know what to do?]
Well for one thing, that doesn’t avoid risk, because that’s the same as just choosing column B, which is where we sit right now. And for another thing, science is never finished—we’re still studying the law of gravity for Pete’s sake! As a science teacher, I can tell you that science—that most precise and geeky of all human endeavors—is surprisingly never certain! Every single scientific statement carries with it some sort of estimate of how big the uncertainty is. Which is part of why there will almost always be some disagreement on any scientific question.
[Foil: But where does that leave us, if anything any scientist says is accompanied by a sort of “but I could be wrong”?]
The trick is to not look at what individual scientists are saying, but instead look at what the professional organizations are saying. The more prestigious they are, the more weight you can give to their statements, because they’ve got huge reputations to uphold, and don’t want to ever say something that later makes them look foolish.
Probably the two most well-respected of these in the world are NAS [hold up whiteboard reading “the U.S. National Academy of Sciences”], and AAAS [hold up whiteboard reading “the American Association for the Advancement of Science”]. These are not advocacy groups, but both recently issued unprecedented statements calling for big action now on global warming. This isn’t a bunch of hippies. These are the nerdiest people on the planet.
[Foil: So trust the eggheads, huh? Basically you’re saying “If NAS and AAAS said so, who the heck are you to argue?”]
No. Well, sorta. I mean, who else are you going to believe on a scientific issue? But remember, you still don’t have to believe them. You’re just using the fact that two such stodgy institutions staked their reputations on this, to get a sense that this row must be way more likely than this row, pushing this line up.
Even companies such as these [pull off sheet on board to reveal the words “USCAP agrees that the world must preserve the possibility of stabilizing the climate at a level that would avert the most dangerous impacts of climate change” with list of companies beneath] are calling for emissions caps—on their own industries!—pushing the line up even further. Now the conclusion is clear, since we’ve got solid reasons to believe on our own that this is a much more threatening risk than this—not only in potential damage, but in likelihood as well.
[Foil: Okay, I can see that. But if the statements from those groups are such a slam dunk, then why do we still hear so much debate?]
Well, there is a handful of dissenting scientists—like there always is—and a media that knows that controversy sells. But I found a couple polls that suggest it’s the lack of absolute certainty that’s holding people back, which is a little odd to me. We buy car insurance without being certain that we’ll get into an accident, because we want make sure that if it does happen, we don’t end up broke.
And during WWII, just the possibility that Hitler might be developing an atomic bomb was enough of a threat to justify all-out action. If you were a voter back then and it was public knowledge, would you have insisted that every scientist interviewed thought such a bomb was possible before supporting the Manhattan Project? Would you have held out until you understood the physics? No. So why are Joe Schmoes like you and me still debating the finer points of climate science instead of talking about risk management?
[Foil: Well, there’s a gajillion causes out there already screaming for my attention and money. “Save the Planet” and stuff.]
Look, it’s not the planet that I care about. It’ll do fine on its own. What I care about is saving our bacon. And I understand how overwhelming it is when you hear cries about {places placards on the table, while speaking increasingly quickly}
save the whales, or the rainforests, or the children,
or air pollution, water pollution, light pollution,
toxic waste, nuclear waste, government waste, corporate waste,
Peak Oil, Snake Oil,
flag burning, wire-tapping, gay marrying, immigrating,
ANWR, Anbar,
gun rights, human rights, water rights, right to life, abortion rights.
Whew! Where do you start?
Well, let me suggest a way to prioritize. All of these [sweep off desk with a CRASH] will be peanuts, if the worst of this [place placard reading “global warming”] comes to pass.
[Foil: Oooo, way to go, Mr. Smarty-Pants. {points to floor} You just managed to tick off pretty much everybody. How come your pet crusade trumps everyone else’s?]
Because on the outside chance that the worst of global warming does happen {place placards reading “floods, droughts, hurricanes, wildfires, dustbowls, famine, epidemics, refugees, wars, economic collapse” while talking}, we’ll be so busy dealing with the fallout that most all other human concerns may seem like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I mean who’s really going to care if some protester wants to burn the flag on the courthouse lawn when the whole city’s flooded?
[Foil: But why the hysteria? What’s the big deal about a degree or two?]
Yeah. Turns out it’s not the warming that gets ya. It’s the way that such a quick change throws a monkey wrench in the whole system. That’s why global “warming” is a misleading name, and global “climate change” is only a little better. Really, what we’re talking about is “global climate destabilization.” And it gets worse. Because just in the last 5 years we’ve learned that this may happen very abruptly, like within the span of a decade. It may turn out to be like pushing a light switch: small pushes in the past have created only small results, until you hit an unexpected tipping point.
[Foil: Man, we’re totally hosed. We’re going back to the Dark Ages, aren’t we?]
Disturbing, isn’t it? Actually, there’s a lot of reason to believe we can fix this—maybe even without reducing our standard of living. If we’re quick about it.
[Foil: But what difference can I make? I’m just one guy. . . with a stupid hat.]
What you do is—spread the word! Because the only way we really get into column A. . . is by policy changes. And those only happen when enough people demand it. So you forward this video to others. If they forward it to ten others, and so on, in just 4 steps, that’s over ten thousand people that may have their opinions influenced. That’s power. Use it.
This is likely to be the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced. Think that’s overblown? Maybe. But can you be so certain that you’re willing to bet everything? Because we only get to run this experiment once.
Hopefully this idea of risk management will end the debate. How the world ends up? Well, that depends in part on you. And what you do next.
We have greatness within us—innovative, giving, determined. It’s time for the best in us to come out.
Comments
Index
Script
Viewing Sequence on Board:
This video is titled “How It All Ends: Index” and is a guide to a sort of “Expansion Pack” of videos backing up the arguments contained in the video “How It All Ends.”
[BOARD, LIST] Okay, so here’s the plan. If you feel sort of middling about this issue, and have a specific question, you can choose which video to watch from the “a la carte” menu that I’ll give you in a minute. If you feel like I do and want to do whatever you can to make policy changes on climate change happen, then you’ll probably want to watch them all. I know that seems like a big time commitment, but if there’s ever a time in your life to be thorough and thoughtful, it is now, with this issue. It is worth taking those few hours of your life to watch a few videos. Because we need as many information warriors out there as we can get—I’ll give you your specific assignment in this video [“Your Mission”].
If you’re a skeptic you’ll be looking for holes, so you’ll want to watch all in this sequence too, except this one. Don’t watch that one cuz it’ll give away our game plan. Crud! We can edit that out, right? [Beat.]
If you’re a skeptic, you’ll be looking for holes, so you’ll want to watch all in this sequence too, except for this one. That one probably wouldn’t be worth your time.
In fact, skeptics, you’ll probably want to watch them all twice, because you don’t want to end up making an assertion that someone else answers simply with “He already covered that.” That would just be embarrassing. And be warned: if you try dismiss my my hours of complex and thorough argumentation with a “That’s just typical liberal scaremongering” without specifically addressing my points, you’ll have to forgive the rest of us if we interpret that as a concession, that you can’t refute the argument, so you won’t even try. In fact, I made these three just for you! You’re welcome!
[DESK] A little background: in the Spring of 2007, I presented the basic decision grid about climate change in a video titled “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See.” Within a month, it had garnered over a million hits on various websites, and at least 5,000 comments, most of them critical. Turns out, my “silver bullet” argument had a hole big enough to drive a Hummer through, caused by an assumption I didn’t realize I had. (Isn’t that just way with assumptions?) As a result, I posted three more videos, titled “Patching Holes #1-3,” answering those criticisms. Problem is, no one found those videos to watch them.
Throughout that whole debate, I tracked the comments and discussions in various places, continuing reading until it had been a long time since I’d read a new argument or criticism that I hadn’t seen before. So as a result, I am extremely familiar with the objections to my argument, and have come back, loaded for bear. Hence the hours and hours of expansion pack videos.
So skeptics, I’m throwing down with you right now: I’m quite confident there is not a single reasonable criticism of my argument which I have not already anticipated and refuted in the expansion pack videos. How’s that for a challenge? Actually, as I was editing the videos, I did find one assertion I made that I realized had a hole in it. So I brought attention to it with a subtitle. It’s just another free service I provide to you, the viewer. Can you find it?
And for those of you already sympathetic to the cause: if you see that the skeptics do find a hole, how about you take on the patching of it? Last go ‘round a couple people had my back, but the comments were overwhelmingly negative, and it pretty much felt like me against the Internet. How about some warm fuzzies, too, people? Cuz I gotta tell you. I’ve been working non-stop on this freakin’ project for 4 months, and it’s time I got some sleep and got back to my family. So I’m passing the torch on to you. Run with it.
For instance, if someone wants to make a better index than I’m about to give you, say one that goes down to the scale of which part of a video, please do. Post it as a response. Take this stuff, fix it up, pimp my argument. I’ve got no ownership of these ideas. I’m just trying to plant a seed here. Or a virus, more properly, but that’s not nearly as pleasant an image, is it?
In fact you, yes you right there, have my explicit permission to take this material and do anything you want with it in any form. Copy it, rip it, do a mash-up, turn it into a PowerPoint (take out the dirty parts first), turn it into a musical and go on tour, even remake it, claim it as your own work and get paid for it! I don’t care. Just get it out there! I can’t be the only champion for this reasoning. We’ve all got to be champions for it. Because that’s what it will take to change the culture, which is what it will take to change policies, which is what it will take to eliminate the possibility of that lower righthand corner.
I know I really drone on in a couple of the videos. Well, more than a couple. Okay all. Look—I didn’t have time to make them short and eloquent. So you get long and punishing. Sorry ‘bout that, Chief. Anyway, all the ideas are there. Please look past the poor production values, the sleep-deprived slurred speech, the Red Bull–fueled stutters, and the repetition, the redundancy, the saying the same thing over and over, when I just keep repeating myself, flogging a dead horse again and—
Throughout these videos, I use the terms “global warming” and “global climate change” interchangeably, though really they mean different things, as well as “human-caused” and “anthropogenic” which mean the exact same thing.
I’ve deferred answering most of the technical objections dealing with the science of global climate change, cuz they’re already covered most excellently on [placard] Grist.com’s “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.” So check there for the answers to any technical objections you don’t see me cover. No need to reinvent the wheel.
At its heart, this is a deadly serious issue. But, in an effort to not take myself too seriously, and to try to bring a little levity to an often angry debate, I’m going to wear a different silly hat for each video. [rapid collage]
[BOARD, LIST] Be aware: if you make a la carte choices, things may be just a little confusing, because a lot of this is intertwined. So if something doesn’t make sense, go upstream in the flow to get the context.
Most of these videos have multiple parts, due to the time limit on some video hosting services. For instance, this bruiser comes in 7 individually wrapped packages [point to “Risk Management”]. I’ve tried to make sure each part points to the next one. But if you get lost, just go back to my wonderingmind42 account, and you should find everything there.
[DESK] I finally realized why I get frustrated with people in discussions when they keep bringing up technical little objections to the science of global climate change, or when they get abrasive about how none of the proposed solutions is ever going to work. Here’s my objection to all the nit-picking: who the heck are you or I to judge either the fitness of the science, or the fitness of the policy solutions? I’m no climate scientist. And I’m no policy maker. It’s foolish for me to try to act like either of those. That’s why we hire the professionals in both those fields.
What you and I are qualified to do is to set the agenda, delegate, and then supervise. We are the boss, and we hire the experts to do the technical stuff for us. What we should be doing is taking what the scientists tell us about the natural world, decide what level of resources to devote to the problem, and then delegate to the policy makers to come up with the best proposed solutions. Then they check it off with us by giving us the executive summary, we make the final decision, and give the green light. Why the heck are we micromanaging this? We’re only hurting ourselves by trying to do the jobs of the experts that we’ve hired. Let’s start acting like the executives of public policy that we should be: listen to our best when they give us an assessment, and then delegate to our best in coming up with solutions, supervising all the while to ensure our interests are well-served. Let’s stop being the pointy-haired boss in this whole thing.
Let’s face it: the issue is complex, and our lives are busy. And so here we sit in column B, waiting to see what the future holds. I find that terrifying.
Remember when everybody tore into the FBI because it had all the information it needed to stop the September 11th attacks at the time, but it didn’t connect the dots? The dots that were so easy for us to connect in hindsight? I keep thinking about that. Why don’t we see if the dots connect now? Instead of doing it in hindsight. Don’t we deserve that much?
I know watching these videos is going to be a slog (think about how I felt making them!), but this may be the single most important issue in your life. You may not believe that now, but given the unequivocal statements made by the best scientists on the planet, you can’t just dismiss the possibility. Isn’t it worth a little more time to figure that out?
This is the most credible, most clear and pressing threat on a global scale in the history of humanity, with the sole exception of being on the brink of global nuclear war during the Cuban Missile crisis. But this time, you—as an individual citizen—not only know about it, but you play a necessary part. You can help prevent it. If there’s ever a time in your life, in our history, to be thorough and deliberate, conscientious and unselfish, determined and extraordinary, wouldn’t it be right now? At this moment?
So. What do you do next?
It’s time for the best in us to come out.
[On screen: for the a la carte menu listing which expansion pack video to watch for which objection or question, see “How It All Ends: Menu”]
Comments
Menu
Script
“How It All Ends: Menu”
(original script—final version)
AUTHOR’S NOTE: This is the original script, but may deviate from what actually is said in the final video, because of ad-libs, last-minute changes, and straight-up flubs. As per my appeals in “How It All Ends: Index” and “How It All Ends: The Solution,” please take this script as the starting point in a folk process. That means that you are welcome and encouraged to improve upon it—whether that means correcting typos, bringing it into line with the actual video (so that it is an actual transcript), condensing it and re-filming your own version, adding to it with your own original material, whatever—go for it! I am explicitly putting this all in the public domain, so that you do not need my permission for anything. Do whatever you want with it—just get the ideas to spread as widely and quickly as possible! I’d suggest that you put a note at the top of any new version you create, specifying the nature of the changes you made, so that posterity can sort it all out when the history is written of how we all saved the world—I mean, our own hides—through the non-linear system of internet communications. Good luck! ( HYPERLINK "mailto:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
"
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
, 25OCT2007)
(Cross-references in parentheses.)
“Nature of Science”
Topics
What “peer-reviewed” means, and why it’s so important. (“Risk Management”)
Telling the difference between causation and correlation.
Objections Answered
“Why should we trust the scientists?”
“Why don’t we just go with the facts? Just look at the evidence.”
“Why should we listen to scientists now, if they’ve been wrong before?”
“Scientists can’t even predict the weather, so why should we listen to them about something even bigger, like the climate?” (“Scare Tactics”)
“There is no consensus amongst scientists on global warming.”
“Climate models are just models, just predictions about the future. So they’re just conjecture, and therefore useless.” (“Risk Management”)
“Risk Management”
Topics
How do you go about making a decision when faced with uncertainty?
How do you decide you who believe, and who not to?
What tricks can we learn from Casinos and insurance companies?
What “peer-reviewed” means, and why it’s so important. (“Nature of Science”)
Details from the AAAS and NAS statements. (“Get What You Want”)
Details from the industries calling for mandatory emissions caps on themselves—the US Carbon Action Partnership or USCAP. (“Get What You Want”)
How the warnings of “harm to the economy” are a Jedi Mind trick.
Objections Answered
“That grid is just Pascal’s Wager.”
“There is little argument on the existence of global warming, but there’s still a lot on its causes.” (“Mechanics of GCC”)
“What about the Copenhagen Consensus, the Leipzig Declaration, the Oregon Petition?”
“Stop telling me what to think”
“That grid is so grossly oversimplified that it’s useless.” (“The Manpollo Project”)
“I noticed you dropped the global depression that was in the upper left box in the original grid in ‘The Most Terrifying Video.’ Couldn’t take the heat, huh, so you had to bias the grid your way?” (“Get What You Want”)
“You underplayed the negative consequences in the upper left.” (“Get What You Want”)
“You overplayed the negative consequences in the lower right.”
“Well, we can’t just surrender control of our future to a bunch of eggheads who we don’t know and never elected.”
“But that’s just a PREDICTION. That doesn’t mean it’s really going to happen.” (“Nature of Science”)
“That’s just argument from authority!”
“There are at least 3 documentaries on YouTube alone disproving AGW.”
“If action on climate change is such a good deal, how come businesses aren’t doing it yet?”
“I think we’ll innovate ourselves out of any problem.”
“Whatever negative economic consequences show up in the upper left, should show up in the lower left, too, so if we choose action, we’re doomed to economic harm.”
“The upper right corner is the only box that looks attractive. That’s why we should choose column B.”
“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.” (“Get What You Want”)
“The statements from AAAS and NAS shouldn’t be taken as any big deal, because the scientists are biased. Their grant money depends on them crying wolf.” (“No Holds Barred”)
“The grid is useless without actual numbers assigned to the probabilities.” (“The Manpollo Project”)
“One hundred years of data is not enough to know thousands of years of the past climate.”
“The IPCC is just a UN hack. They have no credibility.”
“Why Is There Still Debate?”
Topics
A little bit of the psychology and sociology of why we’re still talking about this in the face of very clear and explicit scientific agreement.
Why scare tactics can sometimes be a good thing.
Smackdown: “An Inconvenient Truth” vs. “The Great Global Warming Swindle.”
Why we’d be better off if Gay Sex were the cause of global climate change. (“Scare Tactics”)
Objections Answered
“But I’ve heard the opposite of all that you say about climate change, so doesn’t that prove it’s still being debated?”
“Mechanics of GCC”
Topics
The basics: greenhouse effect vs. global warming vs. global climate change.
Some of the swindles of GGWS.
Objections Answered
“CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas compared to methane and water vapor.”
“There is little argument on the existence of global warming, but there’s still a lot on its causes.” (“Risk Management”)
“If we take action and climate change doesn’t happen, how will we know whether it was ever true in the first place?”
“How arrogant to think that we can change the globe. We’re too small to have any effect.” (“Scare Tactics”)
“The water vapor from HFC cars would just replace the CO2 as a GHG”
“Humans are not causing global warming.” (“Scare Tactics”)
“Climate changes all the time.” (“Scare Tactics”)
“We’re coming out of a cold cycle, so this is natural.” (“Scare Tactics”)
“Scare Tactics”
Topics
The big threat: abrupt climate change.
The military’s assessment of abrupt climate change as a threat to national security.
Why this is probably the only issue that matters, save one (which I’ll leave as an exercise for the viewer).
Why I like clear cuts and nuclear power now.
Why we’d be better off if Gay Sex were the cause of global climate change. (“Why There Is Still Debate”)
Objections Answered
“The picture you paint is unlikely to happen. How could it be so bad?”
“What’s the explanation for the disaster scenarios on the Red Bull cans? How do we get ‘epidemics’ and ‘wars’ from climate change?”
“What’s wrong with a degree or two? How is that like flipping a light switch?”
“We can’t even predict the weather tomorrow, so why are we making predictions about 20 years from now?” (“Nature of Science”)
“Climate has always changed, so why are we suddenly the bad guys?” (“Mechanics of GCC”)
“It’s the sun, stupid. Or cosmic rays.”
“I’ve heard predictions of temperature drops. How does that come from global warming?”
“Why get all wound up about the climate changing? Who’s to say what the right climate is?”
“Birds and bees build nests and homes out of raw materials in their environment, just like we do. How is this different? If there were no beavers, there wouldn’t be any beaver dams disrupting the natural course of a river—is that good or bad or just the way it is?”
“The climate has done fine before without us!”
“But it’s been warm in the past. Where’s the evidence that that’s bad?”
“Why should we [that is, America] change? It won’t make a difference unless China and India are stopped.”
“But CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data, so those silly scientists have got it backward!”
“Humans are too small to have an effect on the climate.” (“Mechanics of GCC”)
“You’re indulging in irresponsible scare mongering.”
“The Solution”
Topics
How to do more than “just pass it on.”
Understanding the technical and policy solutions.
Applying the test of future regrets.
How are we supposed to fix this without going back to the Dark Ages?
How you might be able to be a part of history. Probably won’t get any monuments, but it’ll make a great story for the grandkids.
Objections Answered
“So exactly what is this “action” you’ve been whining about? Specifics, please.”
“So what do we do about it? What do I do about it?”
“Biodiesel is bad because it displaces food crops!”
“Wind turbines kill birds, you know!”
“If man has changed the climate, then what is it SUPPOSED to be now? Until we have a clue what the norm is, how do we know how much we need to adjust what we’re doing?” (“The Manpollo Project”)
“What if taking action makes it worse? Or we overshoot and cause an ice age?” (“The Manpollo Project”)
“Leave the government out of this. The free market can handle the problem.”
“How much action is enough? Exactly what needs to get done?”
“I’m too busy to deal with climate change. And the problem is too big.”
“Get What You Want” (Skeptics #1)
Topics
How taking action on climate change is actually a better bet for getting skeptics what they want: economic and political liberty.
If your objections to the argument “Sure there’s uncertainty, but why not take action, just in case?” is along the lines of “We need to protect the economy” or “I don’t want the government getting more control of my life.”
If you want to see me put an economist and a scientist in a jar and shake it to see them fight. Not really. But sorta.
Why you shouldn’t confuse Al Gore with global climate change.
Why I put “Global Depression” in the upper left box in my original “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See,” but dropped it in “How It All Ends” (“Risk Management”)
Even more details from the USCAP statement. (“Risk Management”)
Objections Answered
“You’re an alarmist.” (“No Holds Barred”)
“What’s your motivation, Mr. Do-Gooder?”
“My personal economy, for better or worse, ends at my property line.”
“You underplayed the negative economic consequences in the upper left.” (“Risk Management”)
“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.” (“Risk Management”)
“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?”
“Global warming is a ploy for the elites to grow the government and take away our freedoms.”
“I Hope I’m Wrong” (Skeptics #2)
Topics
The details of how I’ve tried to be conscientious and unbiased in my analysis.
Why being terrified of climate change has actually mellowed me out in some aspects.
If you want to see a picture of me without my shirt on. (Don’t worry, there’s a warning just before the image, so you can skip that part.)
For the story of a very unexpected and violent explosion in my classroom.
Why I’d be okay with us taking big action on climate change, but turning out to be wrong about it, even if it results in economic harm.
Objections Answered
“You’re clearly biased, so why should I listen to anything you have to say?”
“No Holds Barred” (Skeptics #3)
The final stand in the debate with hard-line skeptics. You might want to watch this video if:
. . . You feel like you’re not getting anywhere in your argument with warmers.
. . . You’re tired of being told you’re the problem.
. . . You want to call me an alarmist. (“Get What You Want”)
. . . You’ve ever been called a conspiracy theorist about this.
. . . You want to hear me get sassy.
. . . You claim that the AAAS and NAS statements aren’t credible because “the scientists are biased. Their grant money depends on them crying wolf.” (“Risk Management”)
. . . You subscribe to Michael Crichton’s hypothesis that the threat of global climate change is mostly a conspiracy by scientists.
. . . You think that ”The truth is that reasonable people of good will can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions, including scientists.”
. . . Your objection has any mention of asteroids.
. . . You think everything that the government touches turns to crap, so we should just let the free market solve the problem. (“The Solution”)
. . . You think we should pick column B because it contains the only box that seems attractive.
. . . You wonder why I would think the website “How To Talk To a Climate Skeptic” is actually a better resource for skeptics than for warmers.
. . . You think there’s no way anyone could ever show you that you actually like government.
. . . Your objection to action is along the lines of “But people need to trust that the money spent to stop climate change will be spent effectively and honestly.”
. . . You think that I’m delusional and cannot—even in principle—be convinced that AGW is bunk.
. . . You think choosing column A dooms us to economic harm, regardless of the truth of global warming. (“The Manpollo Project”)
. . . You think global warming is a ploy for the elites to grow the government and take away your freedoms. (“Get What You Want”)
“God’s Will”
If it seems like global climate change is just God’s Will, and therefore out of our control, or that taking action to combat it would be contrary to God’s Will.
“The Manpollo Project”
Topics
If the grid in “How It All Ends” was the height of simplicity, and “Risk Management” was the next step up in complexity, this is the final installment of complexity. There’s no “for simplicity’s sake” here.
Objections Answered
“Your grid is oversimplified.” (“Risk Management”)
“What about the intermediates between no action and all-out action?”
“What if climate change is happening, but we’re not the ones doing it?”
“What if climate change is happening, and we’re the ones doing it, but our actions don’t stop it? Or they make it worse?” (“The Solution”)
“The consequences in each box themselves aren’t certain—there should be a range of possible consequences in each box, not just a worst-case scenario.”
“Don’t we need more columns and rows to account for all of those possibilities?”
“The grid is useless without actual numbers.” (“Risk Management”)
“You biased the grid by putting only economic consequences in the upper left, but economic plus a bunch more in the lower right.”
“Choosing column A dooms us to economic harm, regardless of the truth of global warming.” (“No Holds Barred”)
Comments
Youtube Comments
