00:20:16:15 , 00:20:19:00 , Let's start by trying to get a sense of the probability
00:20:19:00 , 00:20:21:19 , of human-caused global climate change being true.
00:20:21:19 , 00:20:23:09 , Before we look at direct statements about it,
00:20:23:09 , 00:20:25:24 , I'll share a rule of thumb that may be useful to you,
00:20:25:24 , 00:20:27:17 , if you have the inclination.
00:20:27:17 , 00:20:29:13 , You look at what the scientists are saying to each other
00:20:29:13 , 00:20:31:15 , when the media isn't interviewing them.
00:20:31:15 , 00:20:34:15 , I regularly read some scientific and lay scientific literature,
00:20:34:15 , 00:20:36:04 , and I'll tell you, for a number of years now,
00:20:36:04 , 00:20:39:05 , the tenor about climate change has been not at all controversial.
00:20:39:05 , 00:20:41:27 , Generally when it's mentioned, it assumes the reader is on board
00:20:41:27 , 00:20:44:12 , with the idea that humans are causing the climate to change.
00:20:44:12 , 00:20:46:21 , The hot debate is on what exactly it will look like,
00:20:46:21 , 00:20:49:28 , and how fast it will happen. That should tell you something.
00:20:50:26 , 00:20:53:08 , In the video "How It All Ends" I shared that the two
00:20:53:08 , 00:20:56:04 , most well-respected scientific organizations on the planet—
00:20:56:04 , 00:20:57:20 , AAAS and NAS—
00:20:57:20 , 00:21:01:07 , recently called for significant and immediate action on climate change.
00:21:01:07 , 00:21:04:05 , They fall into that topmost area on our spectrum of credibility,
00:21:04:05 , 00:21:07:05 , so it's worth looking at exactly what they said.
00:21:07:05 , 00:21:10:06 , The American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS,
00:21:10:06 , 00:21:14:24 , has over 144,000 members, has been around since before the Civil War,
00:21:14:24 , 00:21:16:18 , and is the publisher of the journal "Science"—
00:21:16:18 , 00:21:19:00 , the gold standard for peer-reviewed journals.
00:21:19:00 , 00:21:20:23 , These aren't nobodies.
00:21:20:23 , 00:21:22:27 , These are somebodies. These are The–bodies.
00:21:22:27 , 00:21:25:03 , These are They, as in They say.
00:21:25:03 , 00:21:28:01 , In December of 2006, it approved an unprecedented
00:21:28:01 , 00:21:30:10 , statement calling for action on climate change.
00:21:30:10 , 00:21:33:16 , Next time you hear someone matter-of-factly saying global warming is bunk,
00:21:33:16 , 00:21:36:27 , remember these next couple paragraphs, and who it is who wrote them:
00:21:37:22 , 00:21:41:05 , The AAAS statement starts out: "The scientific evidence is clear:
00:21:41:05 , 00:21:44:27 , global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now,
00:21:44:27 , 00:21:47:06 , and it is a growing threat to society.
00:21:47:06 , 00:21:51:07 , Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:…"
00:21:51:07 , 00:21:54:00 , (you know these guys are science geeks when they say
00:21:54:00 , 00:21:56:23 , "data reveal" instead of "data reveals")
00:21:56:23 , 00:21:59:28 , "…rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets,
00:21:59:28 , 00:22:03:03 , increases in extreme weather, rising sea level,
00:22:03:03 , 00:22:05:20 , shifts in species ranges, and more.
00:22:05:20 , 00:22:07:25 , The pace of change and the evidence of harm
00:22:07:25 , 00:22:11:05 , have increased markedly over the last five years.
00:22:11:05 , 00:22:15:11 , The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."
00:22:15:11 , 00:22:19:23 , Remember—this isn't Al Gore talking. This is AAAS.
00:22:19:23 , 00:22:22:20 , The statement continues on to say: "As expected,
00:22:22:20 , 00:22:25:14 , intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods,
00:22:25:14 , 00:22:28:02 , wildfires, and sever storms is occurring,
00:22:28:02 , 00:22:31:22 , with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies.
00:22:31:22 , 00:22:34:14 , These events are early warning signs of even more
00:22:34:14 , 00:22:38:26 , devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible.
00:22:39:26 , 00:22:43:04 , Delaying action to address climate change will increase the
00:22:43:04 , 00:22:46:28 , environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs.
00:22:46:28 , 00:22:49:08 , The longer we wait to tackle climate change,
00:22:49:08 , 00:22:53:17 , the harder and more expensive the task will be."
00:22:53:17 , 00:22:55:17 , Doesn't this start to make you a little nervous?
00:22:55:17 , 00:22:57:24 , This isn't your local "save the stream" organization.
00:22:57:24 , 00:22:59:12 , These are the guys who know what they're doing
00:22:59:12 , 00:23:01:23 , better than anyone else in the world.
00:23:01:23 , 00:23:05:26 , And the statement ends with an uncharacteristic call for action.
00:23:05:26 , 00:23:09:22 , "It is time to muster the political will for concerted action.
00:23:09:22 , 00:23:12:14 , Stronger leadership at all levels is needed.
00:23:12:14 , 00:23:16:21 , The time is now. We must rise to the challenge."
00:23:16:21 , 00:23:19:16 , This isn't Greenpeace. These are some of the stodgiest,
00:23:19:16 , 00:23:22:09 , most well-trained, intelligent people on the planet.
00:23:22:09 , 00:23:24:17 , They're not infallible, but if you're not going to listen
00:23:24:17 , 00:23:26:22 , to what they have to say about a scientific issue,
00:23:26:22 , 00:23:28:15 , then who are you going to listen to?
00:23:28:15 , 00:23:33:19 , I mean if that's not a slam dunk, what would, be, a slam dunk?
00:23:34:28 , 00:23:37:25 , So who are you going to listen to? It's not a rhetorical question.
00:23:37:25 , 00:23:41:14 , Who would you listen to? Maybe the National Academy of Sciences.
00:23:41:14 , 00:23:45:08 , NAS, which is pretty much the other crown jewel of scientific societies,
00:23:45:08 , 00:23:50:05 , has 2100 members, incidentally 1 our of every 10 members has a nobel prize,
00:23:50:05 , 00:23:52:22 , and has been around since 1863.
00:23:52:22 , 00:23:57:09 , The NAS statement of June, 2005 wasn't just from NAS.
00:23:57:09 , 00:24:00:00 , It was a joint statement made along with the national academies
00:24:00:00 , 00:24:02:24 , of the other major industrialized countries (the G8),
00:24:02:24 , 00:24:06:27 , and included China, India, Brazil as well.
00:24:06:27 , 00:24:08:18 , The NAS statement said:
00:24:08:18 , 00:24:12:01 , "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently
00:24:12:01 , 00:24:14:25 , clear to justify nations taking prompt action,"
00:24:14:25 , 00:24:17:17 , and it called on world leaders to "Acknowledge that the threat
00:24:17:17 , 00:24:20:16 , of climate change is clear and increasing,"
00:24:20:16 , 00:24:23:12 , and "Recognize that delayed action will increase the risk
00:24:23:12 , 00:24:28:05 , of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost."
00:24:28:05 , 00:24:31:08 , There you have the two most well-respected scientific organizations
00:24:31:08 , 00:24:33:27 , on the planet—along with the national science academies
00:24:33:27 , 00:24:36:24 , of pretty much every other major industrialized nation—
00:24:36:24 , 00:24:40:08 , all saying: the globe is warming, we're the ones doing it,
00:24:40:08 , 00:24:43:17 , it's going to be bad, and we'd better do something about it quick.
00:24:43:17 , 00:24:44:29 , That is huge.
00:24:44:29 , 00:24:48:10 , This isn't a couple, or a dozen, or a hundred scientists talking.
00:24:48:10 , 00:24:50:12 , That doesn't mean that every member agrees with the statement,
00:24:50:12 , 00:24:53:08 , but if AAAS and NAS say something about a topic in science,
00:24:53:08 , 00:24:55:26 , that is as close as we are ever going to get to a statement
00:24:55:26 , 00:24:57:27 , of "What science knows."
00:24:57:27 , 00:25:01:16 , They are the Science Establishment—capital letters.
00:25:01:16 , 00:25:04:07 , If that's not good enough for you to change your mind about something,
00:25:04:07 , 00:25:07:27 , then I gotta tell you—nothing from science ever will be.
00:25:07:27 , 00:25:11:09 , Cuz it just doesn't get any stronger than that.
00:25:11:09 , 00:25:14:04 , It's worth noting here that both AAAS and NAS statements
00:25:14:04 , 00:25:17:21 , explicitly endorse the findings of the IPCC.
00:25:17:21 , 00:25:19:28 , I mention this because a lot of skeptics simply dismiss
00:25:19:28 , 00:25:23:12 , the IPCC as a political hack, implying that is findings are
00:25:23:12 , 00:25:28:01 , incompetent and biased because it's an arm of the UN.
00:25:28:01 , 00:25:30:21 , Well, maybe now that won't be such an easy dismissal to make,
00:25:30:21 , 00:25:34:00 , give the endorsement of the two top scientific bodies in the world.
00:25:34:00 , 00:25:36:17 , AAAS coming out and saying that climate change is a real problem
00:25:36:17 , 00:25:38:15 , that needs to be dealt with fast is a lot like when
00:25:38:15 , 00:25:41:07 , the AMA came out and said that smoking was bad for you.
00:25:41:07 , 00:25:43:21 , You could still find doctors that disagreed, but the issue was
00:25:43:21 , 00:25:46:00 , pretty much as close to settled as it could ever be.
00:25:46:00 , 00:25:48:06 , The only way it could get any more settled would be
00:25:48:06 , 00:25:50:07 , if the tobacco companies themselves admitted it.
00:25:50:07 , 00:25:53:08 , Which they finally did, long after it was obvious to everybody
00:25:53:08 , 00:25:55:19 , else that they'd been financing a misinformation campaign.
00:25:55:19 , 00:25:57:28 , Well, it turns out, that analogy will go even further.
00:25:57:28 , 00:26:00:29 , Because remember that other category at the top of our credibility spectrum—
00:26:00:29 , 00:26:04:08 , organizations making statements that contradict their normal stance?
00:26:04:08 , 00:26:07:02 , In the video "How It All Ends", I briefly shared—
00:26:07:02 , 00:26:09:19 , well, okay, I flashed it on the board for a little over one second—
00:26:09:19 , 00:26:14:11 , a tiny bit of the statements from the US Carbon Action Partnership,
00:26:14:11 , 00:26:17:02 , which includes Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Ford,
00:26:17:02 , 00:26:20:11 , Chrysler, GM, GE, PGE, Dupont, and Dow Chemical.
00:26:20:11 , 00:26:23:04 , These guys are calling for mandatory requirements
00:26:23:04 , 00:26:25:27 , on carbon emissions—on themselves!
00:26:25:27 , 00:26:28:15 , And get this: last year, none other than
00:26:28:15 , 00:26:31:28 , Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson himself said about climate change:
00:26:31:28 , 00:26:34:29 , "The potential risk to society could prove to be significant,
00:26:34:29 , 00:26:37:27 , so despite the areas of uncertainties that do exist,
00:26:37:27 , 00:26:42:12 , it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the potential risks."
00:26:42:12 , 00:26:44:22 , He may not sound totally gung-ho, but given that Exxon
00:26:44:22 , 00:26:47:26 , has long been the poster child of corporate climate denial,
00:26:47:26 , 00:26:50:10 , that's pretty much like the tobacco companies finally saying that
00:26:50:10 , 00:26:52:22 , yes, it may be true that cigarettes can harm you.
00:26:52:22 , 00:26:54:20 , Plus, for the first time last year,
00:26:54:20 , 00:26:57:22 , Exxon didn't donate to the Competitive Enterprise Institute,
00:26:57:22 , 00:27:01:07 , a think tank that has been at the forefront of the climate change issue.
00:27:01:07 , 00:27:04:01 , In the past, when I've cited the AAAS and NAS statements
00:27:04:01 , 00:27:06:18 , thinking they're a slam dunk, I've sometimes hear the criticism
00:27:06:18 , 00:27:09:03 , that those citations are just "arguments from authority",
00:27:09:03 , 00:27:12:08 , and are therefore useless. Talk about grasping at straws.
00:27:12:08 , 00:27:15:27 , the criticism can be valid in a formal logic structure—like in mathematics.
00:27:15:27 , 00:27:17:22 , But we're talking about knowledge about the physical world,
00:27:17:22 , 00:27:19:09 , of course authority matters.
00:27:19:09 , 00:27:21:13 , "Honey, remember your doctor warned you that if you didn't
00:27:21:13 , 00:27:24:03 , cut down on the salt, you'll have another heart attack."
00:27:24:03 , 00:27:26:28 , "Don't just argue from authority. Explain to me the details of cellular
00:27:26:28 , 00:27:31:02 , metabolism and osmosis, or I eat as many chips as I darn well please."
00:27:31:02 , 00:27:33:11 , And ask yourself this: does the Earth go around the sun,
00:27:33:11 , 00:27:35:05 , or does the sun go around the Earth?
00:27:35:05 , 00:27:37:20 , No one even seriously questions that anymore, right?
00:27:37:20 , 00:27:41:06 , Try this sometime. Stand back and point to the sun in the sky.
00:27:41:06 , 00:27:43:11 , A few hours later, stand in the same spot,
00:27:43:11 , 00:27:45:26 , facing the same direction, and do it again.
00:27:45:26 , 00:27:49:00 , Is your arm pointing in the same direction as before? No!
00:27:49:00 , 00:27:52:13 , Clearly, the sun is the thing that moved, and clearly,
00:27:52:13 , 00:27:56:12 , the Earth is too large to have gone anywhere, and is right where you left it.
00:27:56:12 , 00:28:00:01 , If you senses—and your common sense—are so easily fooled,
00:28:00:01 , 00:28:02:25 , then how do you decide what to believe about the natural world?
00:28:02:25 , 00:28:05:00 , Well, why do you so firmly believe that the Earth
00:28:05:00 , 00:28:07:00 , orbits the sun, instead of the other way around,
00:28:07:00 , 00:28:10:09 , despite all evidence and common sense to the contrary?
00:28:10:09 , 00:28:13:22 , You believe it because: smart people told you so.
00:28:13:22 , 00:28:16:04 , And you trust them, when it's their area of expertise,
00:28:16:04 , 00:28:19:03 , and enough of them agree. Of course authority matters.
00:28:19:03 , 00:28:21:18 , That doesn't mean it's infallible—just ask Galileo.
00:28:21:18 , 00:28:24:18 , But it's certainly a better bet than armchair analysis.
00:28:24:18 , 00:28:26:26 , So who is providing the rebuttal to the AAAS,
00:28:26:26 , 00:28:30:05 , NAS, and USCAP statements that seem like such a slam dunk?
00:28:30:05 , 00:28:32:10 , I'll share a handful of names, and if you keep your eyes out,
00:28:32:10 , 00:28:34:04 , I guarantee you'll recognize them in the future,
00:28:34:04 , 00:28:36:07 , cuz they come up again and again.
00:28:36:07 , 00:28:39:11 , They're almost all professional individuals, in fact most of them are scientists.
00:28:39:11 , 00:28:41:13 , Remember—there are a lot of people out there to cherry pick from,
00:28:41:13 , 00:28:44:04 , and remember where they fall on our credibility spectrum.
00:28:44:04 , 00:28:46:26 , Maybe this is the origin of the objection I sometimes hear:
00:28:46:26 , 00:28:48:23 , "It is true the climate is changing, but there's a lot
00:28:48:23 , 00:28:51:12 , of debate about whether we're the ones causing it."
00:28:51:12 , 00:28:54:22 , Hopefully you see now from the AAAS and NAS statements
00:28:54:22 , 00:28:57:25 , that no—there really isn't debate about the cause of climate change.
00:28:57:25 , 00:28:59:19 , At least not in the scientific community,
00:28:59:19 , 00:29:03:22 , who really are the only people actually qualified to debate the evidence.
00:29:03:22 , 00:29:06:02 , And these scientists who are climate skeptics?
00:29:06:02 , 00:29:08:05 , You'll hear them complain that they've been marginalized
00:29:08:05 , 00:29:10:10 , because they spoke out against the orthodoxy.
00:29:10:10 , 00:29:12:16 , No. They've been marginalized because they no longer
00:29:12:16 , 00:29:14:21 , have any credibility with the other scientists.
00:29:14:21 , 00:29:17:24 , No one will even debate them, because they've gotten so far out there.
00:29:17:24 , 00:29:19:24 , Incidentally, that'll be a claim you hear, too—
00:29:19:24 , 00:29:22:20 , "The chickens won't even debate me, because they know I'm right."
00:29:22:20 , 00:29:24:05 , So you will see quotes from guys with
00:29:24:05 , 00:29:26:20 , scientific–sounding titles after their names,
00:29:26:20 , 00:29:28:28 , giving reasons that human-caused climate change is bunk.
00:29:28:28 , 00:29:31:26 , They can be found. The Google is a wonderful thing.
00:29:31:26 , 00:29:34:00 , But just because someone on the web can provide
00:29:34:00 , 00:29:36:04 , quote after quote doesn't make the case very convincing.
00:29:36:04 , 00:29:37:28 , Volume doesn't count for very much
00:29:37:28 , 00:29:40:21 , when you're way down here on the credibility spectrum.
00:29:40:21 , 00:29:43:06 , The only category less credible than these guys
00:29:43:06 , 00:29:45:01 , is some random jerk on YouTube.
00:29:45:16 , 00:29:46:13 , Wait.
00:29:46:13 , 00:29:48:14 , Speaking of us jerks on YouTube—
00:29:48:14 , 00:29:50:22 , (we jerks? we jerk??)—
00:29:51:09 , 00:29:52:16 , speaking of YouTube,
00:29:52:16 , 00:29:54:09 , I've had a bunch of people send me links to at least
00:29:54:09 , 00:29:56:04 , three separate documentaries on YouTube
00:29:56:04 , 00:29:58:26 , "proving" human-caused global warming to be false.
00:29:58:26 , 00:30:01:27 , Now, if someone sends you such references, you have two choices:
00:30:01:27 , 00:30:04:15 , you can either look up the criticisms of those movies—
00:30:04:15 , 00:30:06:12 , being sure to evaluate the credibility of those
00:30:06:12 , 00:30:09:23 , providing the criticisms using our credibility spectrum,
00:30:09:23 , 00:30:12:08 , or you can save time and short-circuit the whole debate
00:30:12:08 , 00:30:14:23 , by simply asking the person who sent you the links:
00:30:14:23 , 00:30:17:10 , "What is your explanation for why these filmmakers would be
00:30:17:10 , 00:30:21:28 , more correct about the science than AAAS and NAS?"
00:30:21:28 , 00:30:24:03 , If they fall back on "Well, the scientists have a vested
00:30:24:03 , 00:30:26:08 , interest in people listening to them, cuz it keeps the
00:30:26:08 , 00:30:28:17 , grant money coming, so they're biased,"
00:30:28:17 , 00:30:31:02 , try applying that standard to the filmmakers—
00:30:31:02 , 00:30:33:12 , filmmakers vs. scientists for Pete's sake!
00:30:33:12 , 00:30:36:06 , Is it really reasonable to think that scientists' paychecks
00:30:36:06 , 00:30:39:28 , are more vulnerable to the public's tastes than filmmakers'?
00:30:39:28 , 00:30:42:28 , Make up your own mind, but like I said in "How It All Ends",
00:30:42:28 , 00:30:45:21 , it sure seems to me like the reasons are overwhelming
00:30:45:21 , 00:30:48:17 , to believe that this row has a much greater probability
00:30:48:17 , 00:30:51:22 , than this one, pushing this line up.
00:30:52:25 , 00:30:54:29 , Now remember, we're trying to get a sense of which column
00:30:54:29 , 00:30:57:03 , is our best bet by using the tool of expected value,
00:30:57:03 , 00:30:59:10 , which has two components: probability—
00:30:59:10 , 00:31:02:13 , which is what we've just been establishing—and consequence.
00:31:02:13 , 00:31:03:28 , Let's talk about consequences now.
00:31:03:28 , 00:31:06:02 , and with this it will be a little confusing here,
00:31:06:02 , 00:31:10:04 , because in my earlier example with the gaming about expected value,
00:31:10:04 , 00:31:12:03 , the consequence was a payoff from the bank,
00:31:12:03 , 00:31:15:01 , and therefore a positive thing, that we wanted to maximize.
00:31:15:01 , 00:31:17:07 , Here, the consequence is going to be the negative
00:31:17:07 , 00:31:20:07 , impacts of our actions, which we want to minimize.
00:31:20:07 , 00:31:22:12 , So once we get our expected value, we'll want to
00:31:22:12 , 00:31:24:18 , pick the column with the lower expected value,
00:31:24:18 , 00:31:26:17 , because it will give a sense of the pain and suffering
00:31:26:17 , 00:31:29:15 , we can expect from choosing that column.
00:31:29:15 , 00:31:32:29 , Another complexity is going to be that—unlike with our gaming example earlier—
00:31:32:29 , 00:31:35:17 , we don't know what the consequences in the box will be.
00:31:35:17 , 00:31:37:26 , That in itself has a lot of uncertainties.
00:31:37:26 , 00:31:40:13 , In fact, in a long back-and-forth with one skeptic
00:31:40:13 , 00:31:42:18 , as I was trying to find a credible source for the possible
00:31:42:18 , 00:31:45:00 , economic consequences in the upper left-hand corner,
00:31:45:00 , 00:31:46:28 , he finally got exasperated and said
00:31:46:28 , 00:31:49:23 , "Economic models are even less reliable than climate models!"
00:31:49:23 , 00:31:51:17 , Which I thought was kind of funny, cuz skeptics
00:31:51:17 , 00:31:54:20 , are usually all over climate models like a bad rash.
00:31:54:20 , 00:31:56:10 , So when you hear skeptics warning that we
00:31:56:10 , 00:31:58:09 , shouldn't take action because it might hurt the economy,
00:31:58:09 , 00:32:01:00 , ask yourself—or ask them, if you're feeling up to it—
00:32:01:00 , 00:32:04:02 , where's the acknowledgement of uncertainty up here,
00:32:04:02 , 00:32:08:27 , that is the hallmark of the careful, methodical scientists down here?
00:32:08:27 , 00:32:12:12 , "Anthropogenic global warming is uncertain, and might not be true,
00:32:12:12 , 00:32:14:17 , so we shouldn't take action yet until we know."
00:32:14:17 , 00:32:17:27 , "Why not take action, just in case? Better safe than sorry."
00:32:17:27 , 00:32:19:28 , "Because it would hurt the economy."
00:32:19:28 , 00:32:22:00 , Did you catch the Jedi Mind Trick?
00:32:22:00 , 00:32:24:15 , Does it seem fair to you to claim that economic harm will
00:32:24:15 , 00:32:28:21 , definitely happen, and yet claim that this is only a possibility?
00:32:28:21 , 00:32:31:29 , That this is uncertain, but this is certain.
00:32:31:29 , 00:32:34:19 , Maybe this hypocrisy of implying certainty for their side
00:32:34:19 , 00:32:36:22 , while attacking the uncertainty of the other side
00:32:36:22 , 00:32:38:11 , will count for something when you evaluate
00:32:38:11 , 00:32:40:08 , these arguments for yourself in the future.
00:32:40:08 , 00:32:42:23 , After all, where's the wisdom in ignoring the warnings
00:32:42:23 , 00:32:45:08 , from the more reliable model of climate change,
00:32:45:08 , 00:32:49:17 , in favor of heeding the warnings of the weaker model of economics?
00:32:49:17 , 00:32:52:12 , Anyway, to simplify our expected value estimation,
00:32:52:12 , 00:32:55:29 , let's neglect putting in the proper range of consequences in each box,
00:32:55:29 , 00:32:58:05 , and instead just take the feasible worst-case scenario,
00:32:58:05 , 00:32:59:28 , because that's what we really care about, right?
00:32:59:28 , 00:33:01:15 , "What's the worst that could happen?"
00:33:01:15 , 00:33:04:19 , That gives us a single value for a consequence in a box
00:33:04:19 , 00:33:07:24 , that we can then multiply by the probability of that row
00:33:07:24 , 00:33:10:09 , to get the column's expected value.
00:33:10:09 , 00:33:15:04 , Let's start with the upper left box here, where we took action,
00:33:15:04 , 00:33:17:15 , but we didn't need to, because human-caused
00:33:17:15 , 00:33:19:20 , climate change turned out not to be true after all.
00:33:19:20 , 00:33:22:02 , This is the consequence that the skeptics warn us about.
00:33:22:02 , 00:33:24:12 , When I first did this grid in "The Most Terrifying Video",
00:33:24:12 , 00:33:26:29 , I put in worldwide depression up here.
00:33:26:29 , 00:33:30:07 , But get this—I just pulled that out of my hat—I totally made it up!
00:33:30:07 , 00:33:31:28 , Because I was trying to show extremes.
00:33:31:28 , 00:33:34:25 , Well, people got hung up on it, so this time I decided
00:33:34:25 , 00:33:37:25 , to try to get some reliable sources instead of just blowing smoke.
00:33:37:25 , 00:33:40:26 , I did a bunch of searching, because I wanted to find some really credible stuff,
00:33:40:26 , 00:33:43:06 , maybe a professional association of economists,
00:33:43:06 , 00:33:47:21 , like AAAS and NAS is for science, but from the other side of the debate.
00:33:47:21 , 00:33:50:09 , I wasn't finding much that wasn't on the bottom of the credibility spectrum,
00:33:50:09 , 00:33:52:26 , so I challenged climate skeptics to find good sources
00:33:52:26 , 00:33:55:22 , predicting dire economic consequences up here for me.
00:33:55:22 , 00:33:58:24 , I put the challenge in the comments to my "Most Terrifying Video"—
00:33:58:24 , 00:34:01:15 , I was even deliberately brash, trying to provoke a response.
00:34:01:15 , 00:34:02:22 , It felt kind of naughty.
00:34:02:22 , 00:34:05:21 , I had a long back-and-forth with a quite thoughtful, educated guy
00:34:05:21 , 00:34:08:13 , who referred to his long first response as
00:34:08:13 , 00:34:12:06 , "The Thinking Man's Objection to Anthropogenic Global Warming",
00:34:12:06 , 00:34:14:06 , a description I found a little odd.
00:34:14:06 , 00:34:18:27 , I emailed the big conservative think tanks: Cato, CEI, AEI, Heritage.
00:34:18:27 , 00:34:21:17 , I asked for help in some climate skeptic discussion groups.
00:34:21:17 , 00:34:23:23 , I even emailed Prof. Ross McKitrick himself—
00:34:23:23 , 00:34:25:14 , one of the most prestigious skeptics,
00:34:25:14 , 00:34:28:16 , who is a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.
00:34:28:16 , 00:34:30:19 , I figured if he didn't know, nobody did.
00:34:30:19 , 00:34:32:18 , And he did send me several documents.
00:34:32:18 , 00:34:35:19 , The reason I went to such great lengths was I wanted to avoid
00:34:35:19 , 00:34:38:16 , the confirmation bias described in the video "Nature of Science"
00:34:38:16 , 00:34:41:24 , by trying to find evidence to disprove my views.
00:34:41:24 , 00:34:45:15 , I hope you'll agree that I at least did a conscientious job of looking.
00:34:45:15 , 00:34:47:11 , Well, if you're a skeptic, don't get your hopes up,
00:34:47:11 , 00:34:50:10 , because with all of that searching, I still couldn't find
00:34:50:10 , 00:34:53:29 , any credible economic disaster scenarios in this box—
00:34:53:29 , 00:34:56:19 , credible meaning, from sources above conservative think-tanks
00:34:56:19 , 00:34:59:26 , or professional individuals on the credibility spectrum.
00:34:59:26 , 00:35:02:14 , To be honest, I didn't even try to find anything from those sources,
00:35:02:14 , 00:35:04:13 , because I knew I wouldn't put much stock in it.
00:35:04:13 , 00:35:06:18 , Maybe economic disaster scenarios resulting from
00:35:06:18 , 00:35:09:03 , unnecessary action on climate change don't even exist
00:35:09:03 , 00:35:11:11 , above the individual lay person, the blogger,
00:35:11:11 , 00:35:13:07 , which would really say something, wouldn't it?
00:35:13:07 , 00:35:17:02 , Anyway, the most dire stuff I could find that was credible
00:35:17:02 , 00:35:19:06 , entailed a reduction of GDP growth,
00:35:19:06 , 00:35:21:24 , with a maximum estimate of 3% up here.
00:35:21:24 , 00:35:25:17 , Now keep in mind, that's a reduction in GDP growth.
00:35:26:21 , 00:35:29:06 , 3% reduction
00:35:31:18 , 00:35:34:21 , Anyway, the most dire stuff I could find that was credible
00:35:34:21 , 00:35:38:25 , entailed a reduction in GDP growth, with a maximum estimate of 3%.
00:35:38:25 , 00:35:42:08 , Now keep in mind, that's not a reduction in GDP—
00:35:42:08 , 00:35:44:16 , that's a reduction in GDP growth, meaning it's not
00:35:44:16 , 00:35:46:16 , growing as fast as it otherwise would have.
00:35:46:16 , 00:35:48:13 , There's a ton more econometric numbers in there,
00:35:48:13 , 00:35:49:28 , but I couldn't find any sort of concrete
00:35:49:28 , 00:35:52:26 , description of the fallout of that, like a depression.
00:35:52:26 , 00:35:55:24 , And that 3% was on the outside of the predictions—
00:35:55:24 , 00:36:02:23 , most credible sources put it closer to 1.5–2% reduction in GDP growth.
00:36:02:23 , 00:36:04:16 , Certainly no mention of a depression,
00:36:04:16 , 00:36:08:06 , even in just the US, much less the globe.
00:36:08:06 , 00:36:10:10 , If you'd like to look at the documents Prof. McKitrick sent me,
00:36:10:10 , 00:36:12:04 , I've made them available online—
00:36:12:04 , 00:36:14:15 , perhaps they're more dire than I could make out.
00:36:14:15 , 00:36:18:09 , I put them on GoogleDocs and I'll provide the URLs at the end of this video.
00:36:18:09 , 00:36:20:29 , Sorry for the formatting disaster—I received them as PDFs,
00:36:20:29 , 00:36:22:25 , which GoogleDocs turns out doesn't accept,
00:36:22:25 , 00:36:25:02 , so I did what I could to make them available.
00:36:25:02 , 00:36:27:07 , I'm sure there are plenty of you out there that are smarter than me.
00:36:27:07 , 00:36:29:18 , Let me know what you figure out from those documents.
00:36:29:18 , 00:36:31:27 , So, no depression up here.
00:36:31:27 , 00:36:34:24 , Just some wasted economic resources that could have gone for something else,
00:36:34:24 , 00:36:38:20 , but no global depression giving rise to the next Hitler or nuclear war.
00:36:38:20 , 00:36:40:27 , Now, I don't want to trivialize the economic costs—
00:36:40:27 , 00:36:44:02 , I've been laid off before because of a recession. It sucks.
00:36:44:02 , 00:36:47:14 , But compared to what happens down here in the lower right corner—
00:36:47:14 , 00:36:49:29 , well, we'll get to that.
00:36:49:29 , 00:36:51:26 , The other source a bunch of people pointed me to was
00:36:51:26 , 00:36:53:22 , a project called the Copenhagen Consensus,
00:36:53:22 , 00:36:57:24 , headed by economist Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist.
00:36:57:24 , 00:37:00:02 , It was an interesting project where eight economics,
00:37:00:02 , 00:37:03:14 , four of them Nobel prize winners, got together and asked the question
00:37:03:14 , 00:37:06:16 , "Faced with all the world's problems, if we had 50 billion dollars
00:37:06:16 , 00:37:08:17 , over the next four years to spend to do good
00:37:08:17 , 00:37:11:00 , in this world, where should we spend it?"
00:37:11:00 , 00:37:13:17 , They ended up putting climate change on the bottom of their list,
00:37:13:17 , 00:37:16:24 , for some interesting reasons, which I won't debate here for two reasons.
00:37:16:24 , 00:37:19:26 , First, it doesn't help us with our grid, because it doesn't answer the question
00:37:19:26 , 00:37:21:29 , "What is the feasible worst-case scenario for harm
00:37:21:29 , 00:37:23:26 , if we take action on climate change and it turned out
00:37:23:26 , 00:37:26:09 , to be unnecessary or ineffective?"
00:37:26:09 , 00:37:28:24 , And the second reason is, because if you Google the words
00:37:28:24 , 00:37:31:03 , "economists' statement climate change",
00:37:31:03 , 00:37:32:29 , you'll see that Lomborg's self-selected group
00:37:32:29 , 00:37:35:22 , of top economists—including four Nobel Laureates—
00:37:35:22 , 00:37:37:20 , is countered by another self-selected group
00:37:37:20 , 00:37:40:09 , of top economists—including six Nobel Laureates,
00:37:40:09 , 00:37:42:27 , which conclude, amongst other things,
00:37:42:27 , 00:37:45:12 , "…there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse-gas
00:37:45:12 , 00:37:49:12 , emissions for which the total benefits outweigh the total costs.
00:37:49:12 , 00:37:52:12 , For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis
00:37:52:12 , 00:37:55:16 , shows that there are policy options that would slow climate change
00:37:55:16 , 00:37:58:04 , without harming American living standards,
00:37:58:04 , 00:38:02:23 , and these measures may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the longer run."
00:38:02:23 , 00:38:06:08 , So, I wouldn't use Lomborg, because it's pretty much canceled out
00:38:06:08 , 00:38:09:00 , by the "Economists' Statement on Climate Change".
00:38:09:00 , 00:38:11:09 , In fact, if you wanted to count up, Economists' got
00:38:11:09 , 00:38:14:23 , six Nobel Laureates, to Lomborg's four.
00:38:14:23 , 00:38:18:14 , So, he doesn't help us much with our calculation in the upper-left hand corner.
00:38:18:14 , 00:38:20:26 , It is worth nothing that the "Economists' Statement
00:38:20:26 , 00:38:23:06 , on Climate Change", the six Nobel Laureates included,
00:38:23:06 , 00:38:25:20 , say that action would actually be good for the economy,
00:38:25:20 , 00:38:27:29 , which is an argument I've heard a lot of individuals make.
00:38:27:29 , 00:38:29:29 , Things like "energy efficiency saves money",
00:38:29:29 , 00:38:32:20 , "early pioneers in an industry make the big money", and so one,
00:38:32:20 , 00:38:34:16 , which is food for thought, but still doesn't help
00:38:34:16 , 00:38:36:20 , us with our expected value calculation.
00:38:36:20 , 00:38:38:28 , And I know I said let's not take into account
00:38:38:28 , 00:38:41:08 , the range of possible consequences in a box
00:38:41:08 , 00:38:44:02 , so that we're just looking for the disaster scenarios.
00:38:44:02 , 00:38:46:13 , but I did find something interesting along the lines of action
00:38:46:13 , 00:38:49:20 , having positive rather than negative effects on the economy.
00:38:49:20 , 00:38:51:21 , USCAP, that group that includes all those
00:38:51:21 , 00:38:53:23 , heavyweight companies like Shell and Ford,
00:38:53:23 , 00:38:57:08 , says some surprising things in their document. Most notably:
00:38:57:08 , 00:38:59:02 , "In our view, the climate change challenge,
00:38:59:02 , 00:39:01:23 , like other challenges our country has confronted in the past,
00:39:01:23 , 00:39:06:19 , will create more economic opportunities than risks in the U.S. economy,"
00:39:06:19 , 00:39:10:21 , the emphasis is mine, and I also paraphrased the following points,
00:39:10:21 , 00:39:13:20 , which you can look up to see if I did a conscientious job.
00:39:13:20 , 00:39:15:26 , USCAP believes that action on climate change will:
00:39:15:26 , 00:39:17:08 , — create new markets
00:39:17:08 , 00:39:19:23 , — increase U.S. competitiveness
00:39:19:23 , 00:39:22:08 , —reduced reliance on foreign sources of energy
00:39:22:08 , 00:39:24:17 , — resulting in increased energy security
00:39:24:17 , 00:39:26:02 , — improved balance of trade
00:39:26:02 , 00:39:28:24 , — world leadership for the U.S.
00:39:29:11 , 00:39:32:17 , These guys make the upper-left hand box sound like a party!
00:39:32:17 , 00:39:35:03 , What a deal—reduce the change of global catastrophe,
00:39:35:03 , 00:39:37:16 , and get paid to do it! Sign me up!
00:39:37:16 , 00:39:40:14 , But wait, if it's such a good deal—if you can cut emissions
00:39:40:14 , 00:39:45:13 , and not pay a cost—then how come not all businesses are doing it yet?
00:39:45:13 , 00:39:48:05 , Look, change is hard—for all of us—okay?
00:39:48:05 , 00:39:50:20 , There's a reason the phrase "business as usual"
00:39:50:20 , 00:39:53:24 , is used to refer to not being innovative or seeking to improve.
00:39:53:24 , 00:39:55:11 , It's easier that way.
00:39:55:11 , 00:39:57:01 , Plus, that question sort of assumes that
00:39:57:01 , 00:39:58:27 , businesses are all-knowing, doesn't it?
00:39:58:27 , 00:40:01:12 , That if businesses aren't doing things a better way now,
00:40:01:12 , 00:40:03:24 , then that must be because a better way doesn't exist?
00:40:03:24 , 00:40:05:18 , That it never takes time, or pressure,
00:40:05:18 , 00:40:07:16 , to come up with a better way of doing things?
00:40:07:16 , 00:40:11:01 , That necessity isn't the mother of invention, but just a distant cousin?
00:40:11:01 , 00:40:12:26 , Sometimes a prod is useful.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.