Subtitles for "Risk Management" Part 3 in English (masterlist)

Back to Translation Index

Note: Please read the editing guidelines before you begin editing.

00:40:12:26 , 00:40:16:09 , In 2002, BP committed to cutting its own CO2 emissions
00:40:16:09 , 00:40:19:09 , by 10 percent over ten years, to get good publicity.
00:40:19:09 , 00:40:21:06 , At the time they calculated that they could do it
00:40:21:06 , 00:40:25:06 , at no net dollar cost, and would get great publicity, so they went for it.
00:40:25:06 , 00:40:28:16 , Well now, they say it's going to end up saving them, get this,
00:40:28:16 , 00:40:32:08 , 0 million through energy efficiency!
00:40:32:08 , 00:40:35:07 , All because they wanted to cut emissions for publicity
00:40:35:07 , 00:40:37:01 , and figured it wouldn't cost them anything.
00:40:37:01 , 00:40:39:01 , They made money. That's cool!
00:40:39:01 , 00:40:41:05 , And it shows that the dire warnings of the economic
00:40:41:05 , 00:40:44:00 , doomsayers are really starting to look pretty flimsy.
00:40:44:00 , 00:40:47:17 , Along those lines of flimsy economic doomsday scenarios,
00:40:47:17 , 00:40:50:07 , here's another thing I turned up that I wanted to share as you are
00:40:50:07 , 00:40:53:02 , making your own evaluation of the predictions of economic doom and gloom
00:40:53:02 , 00:40:56:16 , that the hard-line skeptics seem to so often resort to.
00:40:56:16 , 00:40:59:14 , Google this: "Backgrounder #1229",
00:40:59:14 , 00:41:01:28 , and you'll get the Heritage Foundation's commentary
00:41:01:28 , 00:41:04:17 , on a 1998 Department of Energy report about
00:41:04:17 , 00:41:06:25 , the economic impacts of the Kyoto Protocol.
00:41:06:25 , 00:41:09:27 , The DOE report, by the way, was one of the documents
00:41:09:27 , 00:41:12:23 , that Prof. McKitrick actually sent to me.
00:41:12:23 , 00:41:15:03 , The Heritage Foundation's article is subtitled
00:41:15:03 , 00:41:18:21 , "More Bad News for Americans", and their lead economic consequence,
00:41:18:21 , 00:41:21:04 , the biggest, scariest impact that they could find
00:41:21:04 , 00:41:23:00 , in that whole report and chose to highlight
00:41:23:00 , 00:41:28:18 , to warn the reader of the "Devastating Economic Consequences" was:
00:41:28:18 , 00:41:31:23 , if we followed the Kyoto Protocol, by the year 2010
00:41:31:23 , 00:41:36:10 , a gallon of gasoline could cost as much as .91.
00:41:36:10 , 00:41:39:09 , I had to laugh. I mean, to be fair, there's lots of other numbers in there.
00:41:39:09 , 00:41:41:13 , But that's the scariest thing that they could dredge
00:41:41:13 , 00:41:44:03 , out of the whole report, and they repeated it three more times!
00:41:44:03 , 00:41:46:18 , Given that they're always calling the people who
00:41:46:18 , 00:41:48:15 , advocate action on climate change "Chicken Littles",
00:41:48:15 , 00:41:50:28 , you just gotta appreciate the irony.
00:41:50:28 , 00:41:52:29 , What wasn't a laughing matter, however,
00:41:52:29 , 00:41:56:01 , was how deviously manipulative that article was.
00:41:56:01 , 00:41:58:06 , It was supposedly about the DOE's report,
00:41:58:06 , 00:42:01:10 , but woven in with the mild quotes from the DOE report
00:42:01:10 , 00:42:04:23 , were quotes from "a nationally recognized econometric firm",
00:42:04:23 , 00:42:07:08 , which were the ones predicting dire consequences.
00:42:07:08 , 00:42:11:06 , The carefully crafted message that the casual reader takes away
00:42:11:06 , 00:42:13:23 , is that the heavyweight DOE report predicted harsh
00:42:13:23 , 00:42:16:16 , economic consequences form the Kyoto Protocol,
00:42:16:16 , 00:42:19:23 , something that simply wasn't true if you looked at the actual report.
00:42:19:23 , 00:42:21:18 , I take the time to relate this to you in order to
00:42:21:18 , 00:42:24:08 , underscore the importance of evaluating your sources.
00:42:24:08 , 00:42:27:19 , That Heritage stuff was downright slimy. Look it up.
00:42:27:19 , 00:42:30:13 , Yet another rosy economic view of the upper-left box
00:42:30:13 , 00:42:33:10 , by a heavyweight economist is the Stern report
00:42:33:10 , 00:42:36:01 , to the British government, which says this up here
00:42:36:01 , 00:42:42:01 , will cost about 1% of GDP, but this would cost 20% of GDP.
00:42:42:01 , 00:42:44:09 , So try as I might, I just couldn't find a credible
00:42:44:09 , 00:42:47:00 , economic disaster scenario for this box.
00:42:47:00 , 00:42:48:09 , That doesn't mean it doesn't exist—
00:42:48:09 , 00:42:50:05 , maybe you'll find one and send it to me.
00:42:50:05 , 00:42:52:00 , But I think you'll at least agree that I tried to be
00:42:52:00 , 00:42:55:03 , as conscientious as possible in looking for one.
00:42:55:03 , 00:42:57:18 , But really, turns out I didn't need to do all that looking,
00:42:57:18 , 00:43:00:01 , and you didn't need to do all that listening these last few minutes,
00:43:00:01 , 00:43:01:25 , because here's a point that makes the severity
00:43:01:25 , 00:43:05:09 , of the economic costs up here moot anyway. 
00:43:05:09 , 00:43:08:08 , Think of it this way if you'd like: the main idea of those who warn
00:43:08:08 , 00:43:10:11 , that the negative consequences up here are worse
00:43:10:11 , 00:43:13:01 , than the negative consequences down here, is that government
00:43:13:01 , 00:43:15:19 , spending and regulation would be bad for the economy.
00:43:15:19 , 00:43:19:23 , Now for the moment, let's not debate that, let's simply accept that thesis,
00:43:19:23 , 00:43:22:08 , Now, imagine the scenario here:
00:43:22:08 , 00:43:24:17 , we take action on a nebulous threat,
00:43:24:17 , 00:43:29:06 , but we have time to do our best to ease the restrictions
00:43:29:06 , 00:43:31:03 , into place in a planned and thoughtful manner,
00:43:31:03 , 00:43:33:10 , to minimize the chance of disrupting the economy,
00:43:33:10 , 00:43:34:27 , skeptics have time to protest,
00:43:34:27 , 00:43:37:27 , the usual mess of capitalist democracy in action.
00:43:37:27 , 00:43:40:15 , Now, imagine the scenario down here.
00:43:40:15 , 00:43:43:06 , We chose not to take action on climate change,
00:43:43:06 , 00:43:46:17 , and it ended up happening, despite what anyone's opinion was.
00:43:46:17 , 00:43:50:06 , A world full of natural disasters. Will we just sit there any take it?
00:43:50:06 , 00:43:52:13 , No. If we're getting battered and bruised,
00:43:52:13 , 00:43:55:11 , we're going to do something about it quickly. And in a panic.
00:43:55:11 , 00:43:57:12 , Extreme things, maybe even draconian things,
00:43:57:12 , 00:43:59:08 , because our coastal cities are flooding.
00:43:59:08 , 00:44:03:21 , So if planned, controlled action up here is bad for the economy,
00:44:03:21 , 00:44:08:10 , how much worse for the economy would panicked, harsh action down here be?
00:44:08:10 , 00:44:10:14 , An economy which has already been battered by
00:44:10:14 , 00:44:13:08 , disaster after disaster in a destabilized climate
00:44:13:08 , 00:44:15:16 , and has fewer natural resources like croplands
00:44:15:16 , 00:44:17:03 , and predictable growing seasons.
00:44:17:03 , 00:44:19:10 , Up here you've got negative economic
00:44:19:10 , 00:44:21:12 , consequences, and anything that flows from that.
00:44:21:12 , 00:44:24:29 , Down here, you've got all of that—every bit of disaster scenario 
00:44:24:29 , 00:44:28:20 , that the individual lay blogger wants to conjecture—up here,
00:44:28:20 , 00:44:34:04 , You've got all of that down here, plus, a bunch of bonus features.
00:44:34:04 , 00:44:37:09 , So no matter what feasible worst-case economic scenario
00:44:37:09 , 00:44:42:20 , we grant up here, it is included and made worse down here.
00:44:43:19 , 00:44:46:01 , So we've made a very conscientious effort to find credible
00:44:46:01 , 00:44:48:02 , worst-case economic scenarios that spell disaster
00:44:48:02 , 00:44:49:25 , up here, and we haven't come up with much.
00:44:49:25 , 00:44:53:01 , But it turns out we didn't need to, because necessarily
00:44:53:01 , 00:44:55:07 , this down here will be worst then this,
00:44:55:07 , 00:44:57:08 , because it includes all of it.
00:45:02:26 , 00:45:05:10 , Let's now look at that other big negative consequence on the board,
00:45:05:10 , 00:45:09:04 , where we chose not to take action—or we debated too long (same thing)—
00:45:09:04 , 00:45:13:04 , and human-caused global climate change turned out to be true after all.
00:45:13:04 , 00:45:15:21 , Here our feasible worst-case scenario gives us
00:45:15:21 , 00:45:18:04 , political, social, environmental, public health,
00:45:18:04 , 00:45:20:26 , and economic catastrophes on a global scale.
00:45:20:26 , 00:45:24:27 , Sea levels rise 20, 30 feet, entire coastal countries disappear,
00:45:24:27 , 00:45:28:04 , hundreds of millions of refugees displaced, pushing in on each other,
00:45:28:04 , 00:45:31:18 , causing widespread warfare over scarce resources and ancient hatreds,
00:45:31:18 , 00:45:33:11 , entire forests die and burn,
00:45:33:11 , 00:45:35:23 , massive floods alternate with killer droughts,
00:45:35:23 , 00:45:38:17 , the breadbaskets of the U.S. and Russia turn to dust bowls,
00:45:38:17 , 00:45:40:05 , leading to catastrophic famines,
00:45:40:05 , 00:45:42:26 , and dreadful epidemics spreading like wildfire,
00:45:42:26 , 00:45:46:04 , storms like Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Mitch are the norm,
00:45:46:04 , 00:45:48:08 , plus all the economic disaster from up here,
00:45:48:08 , 00:45:50:29 , exacerbated by haste and natural disaster down here.
00:45:50:29 , 00:45:52:21 , We're talking a world straight out of science fiction,
00:45:52:21 , 00:45:55:09 , a world that makes Al Gore look like a sissy Pollyanna
00:45:55:09 , 00:45:58:17 , with no guts who sugar-coated the bad news.
00:45:58:17 , 00:46:01:24 , If the statements from the experts like AAAS, NAS, and USCAP
00:46:01:24 , 00:46:04:14 , aren't enough for you in deciding which column is better,
00:46:04:14 , 00:46:06:29 , just give your common sense a chance.
00:46:07:22 , 00:46:10:25 , Which situation sounds like it would do more damage to the economy:
00:46:10:25 , 00:46:13:17 , government spending and regulation up here,
00:46:13:17 , 00:46:17:06 , or a world halfway to Mad Max's Thunderdome down here?
00:46:17:06 , 00:46:20:07 , Watch the video "How It All Ends: Scare Tactics" if you want
00:46:20:07 , 00:46:24:10 , details for how these disaster scenarios might come about.
00:46:24:10 , 00:46:28:05 , So, let's recap, and then we can apply the expected value calculation.
00:46:28:05 , 00:46:31:12 , First, to establish the probabilities of the two rows,
00:46:31:12 , 00:46:35:03 , as to whether anthropogenic global climate change is true or not,
00:46:35:03 , 00:46:36:29 , we looked at a bunch of sources.
00:46:36:29 , 00:46:40:30 , These sources on this side simply said that anthropogenic
00:46:40:30 , 00:46:44:12 , global climate change is true and it's a problem.
00:46:44:12 , 00:46:47:13 , And the sources on this side said that anthropogenic
00:46:47:13 , 00:46:51:19 , global climate change is false, or not a problem.
00:46:51:19 , 00:46:54:11 , If you remember our credibility spectrum,
00:46:54:11 , 00:46:59:10 , which I proposed running from less credible all the way up
00:46:59:10 , 00:47:02:02 , to more credible, starting at the bottom with the lay individual
00:47:02:02 , 00:47:04:04 , more credible is that is the professional individual,
00:47:04:04 , 00:47:06:01 , more credible than that probably is think tanks,
00:47:06:01 , 00:47:09:25 , and somewhere in there is university programs and petitions and statements.
00:47:09:25 , 00:47:13:07 , This is all sort of mixed up, not sure which is higher than the other.
00:47:13:07 , 00:47:16:11 , Then peer-reviewed is definitely higher than these, peer-reviewed science.
00:47:16:11 , 00:47:19:15 , And, finally, I feel pretty confident to put it at the top,
00:47:19:15 , 00:47:22:18 , statements that contradict the normal bias of the
00:47:22:18 , 00:47:24:29 , organization or person making the statement,
00:47:24:29 , 00:47:27:14 , and professional organizations at the top.
00:47:27:14 , 00:47:30:10 , So on this side, we've got the two professional organizations,
00:47:30:10 , 00:47:35:16 , AAAS and NAS, and an organization contradicting its own bias,
00:47:35:16 , 00:47:38:08 , an organization of heavyweight industries, USCAP,
00:47:38:08 , 00:47:40:20 , coming out and saying global climate change is
00:47:40:20 , 00:47:42:13 , caused by humans, and is a problem.
00:47:42:13 , 00:47:46:12 , We also have an author down here that I mentioned briefly, Fred Pearce.
00:47:46:12 , 00:47:49:19 , On this side, we don't have anything up here.
00:47:49:19 , 00:47:52:27 , We've got a bunch of individual professional individuals, scientists
00:47:52:27 , 00:47:56:14 , and authors down here, Michael Crichton, State of Fear.
00:47:56:14 , 00:47:58:28 , Now it may seem odd, with all of the shouting going on,
00:47:58:28 , 00:48:01:13 , that there's so much blank space on either side here.
00:48:01:13 , 00:48:03:02 , That's because I just tried to put the things
00:48:03:02 , 00:48:05:02 , that weren't canceled out by the other side,
00:48:05:02 , 00:48:06:27 , the things that were different. For instance,
00:48:06:27 , 00:48:09:22 , we've got sources on this side, this end
00:48:09:22 , 00:48:11:12 , of the spectrum, but we don't have them over here.
00:48:11:12 , 00:48:15:08 , If you want to put things in here, like there's a ton of stuff
00:48:15:08 , 00:48:17:15 , from think tanks, but if you want to put in
00:48:17:15 , 00:48:20:26 , Cato, and AEI, and Heritage, and the Hoover Institute
00:48:20:26 , 00:48:23:04 , then your going to have to grant stuff from the
00:48:23:04 , 00:48:26:21 , Environmental Defense Fund, and NRDC, and Sierra Club, et cetera.
00:48:26:21 , 00:48:28:20 , So, that we can pretty much, just, instead of
00:48:28:20 , 00:48:30:29 , cluttering up our board, we can just call those a wash.
00:48:30:29 , 00:48:33:18 , Same thing with university programs, petitions and statements,
00:48:33:18 , 00:48:35:17 , and peer-reviewed science actually is weighted
00:48:35:17 , 00:48:37:20 , way more to this side than this side.
00:48:37:20 , 00:48:40:17 , But I didn't want to complicate things even more,
00:48:40:17 , 00:48:44:11 , so this could be much larger but I just wanted to simplify it,
00:48:44:11 , 00:48:48:14 , and acknowledge that there's a ton of stuff on both sides of each level,
00:48:48:14 , 00:48:51:21 , but pretty much it cancels out and we just look at the big differences.
00:48:51:21 , 00:48:53:22 , These down here are actually outweighed
00:48:53:22 , 00:48:57:05 , by professional individuals on this side but I put them here
00:48:57:05 , 00:49:00:19 , because they are the names your going to see most often.
00:49:00:19 , 00:49:04:24 , They're really the only people out there, who are at all credentialed,
00:49:04:24 , 00:49:09:08 , who are countering the statements from AAAS and NAS.
00:49:09:08 , 00:49:13:24 , Other then them, all you got is think tanks and bloggers.
00:49:13:24 , 00:49:16:08 , That's not true. Other then them, you've got think tanks,
00:49:16:08 , 00:49:18:12 , you got bloggers, you got petitions and statements,
00:49:18:12 , 00:49:20:28 , you just have very little peer-reviewed, and you got,
00:49:20:28 , 00:49:24:02 , as far as I can find, no professional organizations
00:49:24:02 , 00:49:26:27 , or statements from organizations contradicting their own bias.
00:49:26:27 , 00:49:29:12 , If you can find it, let me know.
00:49:29:12 , 00:49:31:06 , And I don't think I cherry picked.
00:49:31:06 , 00:49:35:18 , If you can find some stuff up here for this side, please let me know.
00:49:35:18 , 00:49:39:09 , So, I don't think I've stacked this because of my bias,
00:49:39:09 , 00:49:43:19 , this is what I found, and because of what I found it leads me
00:49:43:19 , 00:49:50:19 , to the conclusion that this row is way more likely than this row.
00:49:50:19 , 00:49:52:01 , Way more probably. 
00:49:52:01 , 00:49:55:19 , Which we can represent by moving this line up.
00:49:55:19 , 00:49:59:18 , Now, I want to be clear, that doesn't mean it's going to happen.
00:49:59:18 , 00:50:02:06 , I don't know the future any more than you do, or Nostradamus does,
00:50:02:06 , 00:50:06:26 , No one knows what the future is going to hold.
00:50:06:26 , 00:50:08:22 , We just speak about probabilities.
00:50:08:22 , 00:50:12:04 , And it sure as heck seems by looking at that diagram,
00:50:12:04 , 00:50:16:30 ,  stacking up the credible sources on both sides,
00:50:16:30 , 00:50:20:10 , it seems pretty much irrefutable that this row
00:50:20:10 , 00:50:24:16 , is more likely, more probable, than this row.
00:50:24:16 , 00:50:26:26 , Now, in terms of consequences for our expected value,
00:50:26:26 , 00:50:30:12 , we decided to not worry so much about the range of possibilities in each box,
00:50:30:12 , 00:50:33:09 , and simply accept the feasible worst-case scenario for each.
00:50:33:09 , 00:50:36:24 , Up here, we've got reduced GDP growth, and all that ripples out from that.
00:50:36:24 , 00:50:40:11 , Down here, we've got what seems to be an almost Mad Max world.
00:50:40:11 , 00:50:42:23 , We've stacked up Lomborg's four Nobel Laureates
00:50:42:23 , 00:50:45:00 , vs. "The Economists' Statement on Climate Change"
00:50:45:00 , 00:50:47:15 , six Nobel Laureates and called it a wash.
00:50:47:15 , 00:50:51:04 , As well as showing that any negative economic
00:50:51:04 , 00:50:54:17 , consequences up here are not only included,
00:50:54:17 , 00:50:57:28 , but made worse down here by natural disasters.
00:50:58:27 , 00:51:01:23 , And we've deferred looking at the details behind the physical
00:51:01:23 , 00:51:06:29 , consequences here to the video "How It All Ends: Scare Tactics".
00:51:07:14 , 00:51:11:04 , Now for the hard part—we've got a basic idea of
00:51:11:04 , 00:51:14:10 , probabilities and a basic idea of consequences,
00:51:14:11 , 00:51:16:18 , now we need to come up with some actual numbers
00:51:16:18 , 00:51:18:16 , for the probabilities and the consequences
00:51:18:16 , 00:51:21:04 , in order for us to then do the expected value calculation
00:51:21:04 , 00:51:24:25 , that you saw us do in the sample gambling problem.
00:51:24:25 , 00:51:28:01 , Except, lucky for us, we don't have to come up with numbers.
00:51:28:01 , 00:51:31:23 , Because we've just hit upon a special case of expected value.
00:51:31:23 , 00:51:34:21 , We've established that both the consequence
00:51:34:21 , 00:51:39:03 , and the probability of this box are greater than this box.
00:51:39:03 , 00:51:41:25 , And if you go back to our original gaming example,
00:51:41:25 , 00:51:44:22 , you'll see that in cases such as that, we don't even need actual numbers
00:51:44:22 , 00:51:48:24 , in order to know which expect value will turn out to be larger.
00:51:48:24 , 00:51:50:20 , Play with it, and you'll see that no matter what
00:51:50:20 , 00:51:53:05 , the exact numbers are, if both the probability of this
00:51:53:05 , 00:51:55:26 , and the consequence of this box is greater than the probability
00:51:55:26 , 00:51:59:06 , and consequence of this box, the expected value of this column
00:51:59:06 , 00:52:02:12 , will necessarily turn out to be larger than this column.
00:52:02:12 , 00:52:04:03 , Now remember, in this application,
00:52:04:03 , 00:52:05:28 , the expected value we're talking about is a bad thing,
00:52:05:28 , 00:52:08:07 ,  because it represents our suffering, not how much money
00:52:08:07 , 00:52:10:22 , we're going to get like it was in the gaming example.
00:52:10:22 , 00:52:13:10 , So we would definitely be betting against the odds,
00:52:13:10 , 00:52:17:22 , and against our own rational self-interest to pick this column,
00:52:17:22 , 00:52:20:24 , because it's expected value of suffering is necessarily
00:52:20:24 , 00:52:24:11 , greater than this column—probably much greater.
00:52:24:11 , 00:52:26:20 , Remember, this is how casinos and insurance companies do business.
00:52:26:20 , 00:52:28:07 , They've got it figured out.
00:52:28:07 , 00:52:31:01 , Why should we ignore such a successful tool
00:52:31:01 , 00:52:34:22 , when betting on the future of the planet—I mean us?
00:52:34:22 , 00:52:36:28 , Now, I want to be completely intellectually honest with you,
00:52:36:28 , 00:52:38:27 , because stuff like that Heritage Foundation article
00:52:38:27 , 00:52:41:03 , I mentioned earlier just really ticks me off,
00:52:41:03 , 00:52:43:15 , and I don't want to even be accused of stooping to their level.
00:52:43:15 , 00:52:45:18 , So, to avoid being like them, I want to tell you
00:52:45:18 , 00:52:48:04 , that for the sake of accessibility, I did a little sleight of hand
00:52:48:04 , 00:52:51:07 , right there with the expected value "calculation", or the estimate.
00:52:51:07 , 00:52:53:10 , I don't see how it could change the conclusion,
00:52:53:10 , 00:52:55:15 , but then, I'm only human and I could be wrong,
00:52:55:15 , 00:52:58:01 , so maybe it could change the outcome.
00:52:58:01 , 00:52:59:21 , And you shouldn't believe anything I say anyway,
00:52:59:21 , 00:53:01:08 , check it out for yourself. Here's the deal:
00:53:01:08 , 00:53:04:08 , really, the expected value of a column should be
00:53:04:08 , 00:53:08:14 , the sum of the expected value of both boxes in that column,
00:53:08:14 , 00:53:11:23 , and we only looked at the worst-case scenarios in each column.
00:53:11:23 , 00:53:16:11 , We only looked at the expected value of this box vs. this box.
00:53:16:11 , 00:53:19:04 , Really, what you should do is take the expected value of this box
00:53:19:04 , 00:53:21:21 , plus the expected value of this box, that becomes
00:53:21:21 , 00:53:23:30 , the expected value of the whole column. Same thing over here.
00:53:23:30 , 00:53:26:07 , Then you compare the expected values of the columns.
00:53:26:07 , 00:53:28:04 , I don't see how it would change the answer,
00:53:28:04 , 00:53:30:19 , but if that simplification doesn't do it for you
00:53:30:19 , 00:53:33:21 , and you want the complexity, then go watch the video
00:53:33:21 , 00:53:35:16 , "How It All Ends: The Manpollo Project"
00:53:35:16 , 00:53:37:18 , where we will explore that further.
00:53:39:02 , 00:53:41:15 , You may be thinking to yourself "Did he just take
00:53:41:15 , 00:53:44:27 , 40 minutes to tell me 'Better safe than sorry?'"
00:53:44:27 , 00:53:47:17 , Pretty much. Only it's a bit more well founded,
00:53:47:17 , 00:53:50:29 , cuz "Better safe that sorry" does apply to building a defense system
00:53:50:29 , 00:53:54:01 , against Giant Mutant Space Hamsters, just in case some attack,
00:53:54:01 , 00:53:56:00 , and as I hoped you've seen, this risk management
00:53:56:00 , 00:53:58:21 , is robust enough to not be slain by that criticism,
00:53:58:21 , 00:54:01:15 , because we established the credibility of the threat.
00:54:01:15 , 00:54:03:14 , Also, I've heard the criticism that this is the
00:54:03:14 , 00:54:06:14 , precautionary principle, which is supposedly self-contradictory—
00:54:06:14 , 00:54:08:28 , at least according to what I could find from Michael Crichton
00:54:08:28 , 00:54:11:22 , and Wikipedia, both well-credentialed philosophers.
00:54:11:22 , 00:54:15:11 , Regardless of the validity of the precautionary principle, this ain't it,
00:54:15:11 , 00:54:17:24 , because this isn't formulated with the criterion
00:54:17:24 , 00:54:21:03 , of scientific consensus, but just likelihood of outcome.
00:54:21:03 , 00:54:23:08 , Plus, if you think it's self-contradictory and invalid,
00:54:23:08 , 00:54:25:16 , go tell that to the casinos that there's no way they're going to
00:54:25:16 , 00:54:27:30 , make any money if they keep giving the stuff away all day.
00:54:27:30 , 00:54:30:05 , I'm sure they'll appreciate your keen insight.
00:54:30:26 , 00:54:34:29 , Before we wrap up this brief bullsh*t exploration of risk management,
00:54:34:29 , 00:54:36:26 , there are a few loose threads to tie up,
00:54:36:26 , 00:54:40:08 , most of them objections that I've heard about these arguments.
00:54:40:08 , 00:54:43:03 , Objection: "I think we'll innovate ourselves out of any problem.
00:54:43:03 , 00:54:47:05 , We always have in the past. I mean, we're still here—right, Mr. Gloomy?"
00:54:47:05 , 00:54:50:02 , My response is: you don't base your decision to buy
00:54:50:02 , 00:54:52:00 , car insurance on optimism, but on a realistic
00:54:52:00 , 00:54:54:04 , assessment of the worst case scenario.
00:54:54:04 , 00:54:56:14 , "I'm not going to buy insurance, because I think I'm a pretty good driver,
00:54:56:14 , 00:54:58:15 , so if anything happens I'm going to get out of it."
00:54:58:15 , 00:55:02:06 , We pay to insure our cars, our homes, our health,
00:55:02:06 , 00:55:04:30 , without knowing for certain that anything bad is going to happen.
00:55:04:30 , 00:55:06:30 , Why is it suddenly different here?
00:55:06:30 , 00:55:09:11 , As for putting faith in science to get us out of any jams
00:55:09:11 , 00:55:12:20 , in the future, umm…that's pretty much what the scientists
00:55:12:20 , 00:55:15:05 , are trying to do right now, but no one's listening.
00:55:15:05 , 00:55:17:05 , They're saying "knock off with the carbon emissions,
00:55:17:05 , 00:55:19:09 , cuz it's probably going to totally hose us."
00:55:19:09 , 00:55:22:01 , I think the only reason we're still talking about this is that
00:55:22:01 , 00:55:26:09 , NAS and AAS don't have huge advertising budgets to get the word out.
00:55:26:09 , 00:55:28:28 , And the exuberant faith that our innovation will magically
00:55:28:28 , 00:55:32:04 , do whatever we need it to quickly becomes ridiculous.
00:55:32:04 , 00:55:34:19 , The late Julian Simon, a well-respected economist—
00:55:34:19 , 00:55:36:28 , and, I've read, Bjorn Lomborg's inspiration for
00:55:36:28 , 00:55:39:00 , writing The Skeptical Environmentalist—
00:55:39:00 , 00:55:42:15 , actually wrote "the quantity of copper that will ever
00:55:42:15 , 00:55:45:10 , be available to us is not finite."
00:55:46:19 , 00:55:49:26 , Wait, if something's not finite, doesn't that mean it's infinite?
00:55:49:26 , 00:55:53:02 , Is he saying there's an infinite amount of copper available to us?
00:55:53:02 , 00:55:55:02 , Is he still reading those alchemy books?
00:55:55:02 , 00:55:57:20 , Do you think, on a scientific issue, it's wise to listen
00:55:57:20 , 00:56:00:14 , to people who are so clearly ignorant of science?
00:56:00:14 , 00:56:02:22 , As for the idea that we shouldn't get all worked up because—
00:56:02:22 , 00:56:06:02 , hey—we've always managed to avoid global catastrophe in the past, right?
00:56:06:02 , 00:56:07:27 , That just reminds me too much about what a good
00:56:07:27 , 00:56:09:29 , friend of mine in high school used to say.
00:56:09:29 , 00:56:12:18 , He'd do careless, stupid things, and when I chided that he should
00:56:12:18 , 00:56:16:17 , be more careful, he'd say "I haven't died yet. Not gonna."
00:56:16:17 , 00:56:18:14 , It was a joke. It was funny.
00:56:18:14 , 00:56:20:20 , He's dead now, from driving drunk.
00:56:20:20 , 00:56:23:25 , And that's not funny. That's deadly serious.
00:56:23:25 , 00:56:25:29 , Is that really the way we want to decide on
00:56:25:29 , 00:56:28:23 , a public policy that influences everybody on the planet?
00:56:28:23 , 00:56:31:07 , "We haven't hosed ourselves yet, so we're not gonna."
00:56:31:25 , 00:56:34:26 , Objection: "That grid is just Pascal's Wager, which has more holes
00:56:34:26 , 00:56:38:00 , than Swiss cheese. You can't put lipstick on that pig."
00:56:38:00 , 00:56:40:04 , No, but can I put the pig and cheese on rye?
00:56:40:04 , 00:56:41:28 , Nah, it just looks like Pascal's Wager because
00:56:41:28 , 00:56:43:23 , they are both basic decision grids.
00:56:43:23 , 00:56:48:04 , What sunk his was the infinite payoffs, and the assumptions without evidence.
00:56:48:04 , 00:56:51:12 , This one has finite payoffs, and assumptions based on evidence.
00:56:51:12 , 00:56:53:22 , So knock it off with the Pascal's Wager.
00:56:54:07 , 00:56:57:04 , Objection: "Whatever negative economic consequences
00:56:57:04 , 00:56:59:26 , show up in the upper-left would show up in the bottom-left too,
00:56:59:26 , 00:57:01:17 , since they're a function of our action,
00:57:01:17 , 00:57:03:24 , not of what the physical world ends up doing.
00:57:03:24 , 00:57:07:02 , So if we choose action, we're doomed to economic harm.
00:57:07:02 , 00:57:09:17 , Therefore, choose column B."
00:57:09:17 , 00:57:11:27 , My response is: remember, the negative
00:57:11:27 , 00:57:14:11 , economic consequences of the left column are just
00:57:14:11 , 00:57:18:07 , worst-case possibilities—they are not guaranteed to happen.
00:57:18:07 , 00:57:20:29 , Just like the negative physical consequences of
00:57:20:29 , 00:57:23:02 , the right column are not guaranteed
00:57:23:02 , 00:57:25:07 , to happen, these are possibilities.
00:57:25:07 , 00:57:28:01 , So choosing action does not doom us to economic harm,
00:57:28:01 , 00:57:30:06 , or even economic costs for that matter.
00:57:30:06 , 00:57:32:21 , It's just the worst-case possibility.
00:57:32:21 , 00:57:35:01 , Watch the video "How It All Ends: Get What You Want"
00:57:35:01 , 00:57:38:08 , to see how it's actually quite likely that column A
00:57:38:08 , 00:57:41:09 , would be a net benefit to the economy.
00:57:41:09 , 00:57:43:15 , Anything, if you think adding the worst-case
00:57:43:15 , 00:57:45:16 , economic scenario to the bottom corner would change
00:57:45:16 , 00:57:48:11 , the expected value of column A compared to column B,
00:57:48:11 , 00:57:50:13 , that's a pretty complicated calculation.
00:57:50:13 , 00:57:52:11 , Well, actually, it's a pretty simple calculation,
00:57:52:11 , 00:57:55:04 , but coming up with the numbers to do that is pretty complicated.
00:57:55:04 , 00:57:57:17 , If you do want to do that, then go watch the video
00:57:57:17 , 00:58:00:25 , "How It All Ends: The Manpollo Project" and we'll take it on.
00:58:01:20 , 00:58:04:09 , Objection: "We should be saving up for real threats,
00:58:04:09 , 00:58:06:21 , like the asteroid Apophis hitting us in 2036.
00:58:06:21 , 00:58:09:06 , If we squandered our money on the climate change boondoggle,
00:58:09:06 , 00:58:12:07 , we'll be too economically crippled to do anything about it."
00:58:12:07 , 00:58:15:12 , Okay, that one's just bizarre. And I heard it several times.
00:58:15:12 , 00:58:17:22 , You're going to believe scientists when they talk
00:58:17:22 , 00:58:20:05 , space rocks, but not when they talk climate science?
00:58:20:05 , 00:58:22:20 , And if you really do believe the space rock scientists,
00:58:22:20 , 00:58:24:04 , then you haven't been paying attention,
00:58:24:04 , 00:58:26:15 , cuz that rock has been taken off the danger list.
00:58:26:15 , 00:58:28:24 , If that's your reason for not worrying about climate change,
00:58:28:24 , 00:58:30:15 , I'm afraid you've got bigger problems.
00:58:31:00 , 00:58:34:03 , Objection: "It's not that simple. What about the intermediaries
00:58:34:03 , 00:58:35:29 , between no action and all-out action?
00:58:35:29 , 00:58:38:21 , What if climate change is happening, but we're not the ones doing it?
00:58:38:21 , 00:58:41:13 , What if climate change is happening, and we're the ones doing it,
00:58:41:13 , 00:58:44:03 , but our actions don't stop it. Or they make it worse?
00:58:44:03 , 00:58:46:05 , You need more columns and rows."
00:58:46:05 , 00:58:49:09 , My response is: Okay. Let's talk about that.
00:58:49:09 , 00:58:52:09 , Take a swing through "How It All Ends: Why There is Still Debate",
00:58:52:09 , 00:58:55:12 , and then I'll meet you at "How It All Ends: The Manpollo Project",
00:58:55:12 , 00:58:58:17 , where we'll get radical and totally blow this grid up.
00:58:59:11 , 00:59:02:12 , For the rest of you, when you look at the statements from AAAS
00:59:02:12 , 00:59:05:01 , and NAS saying that climate change is a real threat,
00:59:05:01 , 00:59:07:10 , and the statements from so many industry and economic
00:59:07:10 , 00:59:09:07 , sources saying that taking action will probably help—
00:59:09:07 , 00:59:11:02 , rather than hurt—the economy,
00:59:11:02 , 00:59:12:27 , doesn't it start to seem kind of ridiculous
00:59:12:27 , 00:59:14:18 , that we're still talking about this?
00:59:14:18 , 00:59:17:08 , Let's get going. Forward the video to others.
00:59:17:08 , 00:59:20:08 , Talk about it to friends and family. Git 'er done.

Back to Translation Index