Subtitles for "The Manpollo Project" in English (masterlist)

Back to Translation Index

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

01:00:04:19 , 01:00:10:26 , This video is called "The Manpollo Project" and is part of the expansion pack accompanying the original video "How It All Ends".
01:00:10:26 , 01:00:13:19 , This video is to address the concerns of all those who feel that
01:00:13:19 , 01:00:17:26 , I've oversimplified something inappropriately in my risk management approach to climate change
01:00:17:26 , 01:00:20:27 , represented by the grid in the video "How It All Ends",
01:00:20:27 , 01:00:23:08 , and that that oversimplification can't be ignored
01:00:23:08 , 01:00:26:10 , because it would qualitatively change the outcome of our analysis.
01:00:26:10 , 01:00:30:15 , Generally, I got accused of being either incompetent or manipulative by simplifying.
01:00:30:15 , 01:00:31:29 , So here, we'll answer that.
01:00:31:29 , 01:00:35:26 , So if you think I oversimplified inappropriately, here we'll make sure we don't do that,
01:00:35:26 , 01:00:39:11 , by taking the full complexity head on, and not shirking a single detail.
01:00:39:11 , 01:00:41:02 , So buckle your seatbelt.
01:00:41:02 , 01:00:44:26 , Regarding the grid, I've often heard objections such as: "It's not that simple
01:00:44:26 , 01:00:48:05 , What about the intermediates between no action and all-out action?
01:00:48:05 , 01:00:51:04 , What if climate change is happening, but we're not the ones doing it?
01:00:51:04 , 01:00:54:25 , What if climate change is happening, and we're the ones doing it, but our actions don't stop it?
01:00:54:25 , 01:00:59:27 , Or they make it worse? Don't we need more columns and rows to account for all of those possibilities?"
01:00:59:27 , 01:01:02:06 , Okay, those are all valid, but before we explore them,
01:01:02:06 , 01:01:05:11 , I'll point out that if you first watch the videos "The Mechanics of Climate Change",
01:01:05:11 , 01:01:10:12 , "Scare Tactics", and "The Solution" you'll probably see how unfeasible those last three scenarios are—
01:01:10:12 , 01:01:13:02 , that is, how clear it is that we are the ones doing it,
01:01:13:02 , 01:01:15:02 , and that action would be only beneficial—
01:01:15:02 , 01:01:17:23 , and you might no longer be concerned with the need to include them as rows
01:01:17:23 , 01:01:20:14 , before using the grid to draw a conclusion about what to do.
01:01:20:14 , 01:01:24:28 , Also, independent of whether the science I explained in those three videos allays your concerns,
01:01:24:28 , 01:01:29:00 , the video "Risk Management" points out that the top scientific organizations in the world
01:01:29:00 , 01:01:32:23 , have publicly and explicitly said: yes, the globe is warming,
01:01:32:23 , 01:01:36:14 , yes, humans are the ones doing it, and yes, our actions will have an effect,
01:01:36:14 , 01:01:38:20 , a good one, but we better get on it quick.
01:01:38:20 , 01:01:44:22 , so the short answer to the objections is: who are you and I to argue with the top scientists about the science?
01:01:44:22 , 01:01:48:29 , But some of you still don't trust the objectivity or competence of those scientific authorities,
01:01:48:29 , 01:01:51:04 , so we'll take on all those "what ifs" head on,
01:01:51:04 , 01:01:54:00 , and include them in our pathetically oversimplified grid.
01:01:54:00 , 01:01:56:00 , Ready? Here we go.
01:01:56:00 , 01:01:58:00 , Holy s—t, it exploded!
01:01:58:00 , 01:02:01:26 , Across the top we've replaced the dichotomous two columns of action no-action
01:02:01:26 , 01:02:06:21 , with the gradation of five different columns ranging from all-out action to no action.
01:02:06:21 , 01:02:10:28 , and in between. Down the side we've got three different factors to consider:
01:02:10:28 , 01:02:12:26 , One is is global warming true or not?
01:02:12:26 , 01:02:16:24 , Two, if it's true is it anthropogenic, or "human caused"?
01:02:16:24 , 01:02:21:07 , And three, what effects would our actions have have, positive negative or neutral?
01:02:21:07 , 01:02:23:25 , So down the side we have nine different scenarios:
01:02:23:25 , 01:02:29:10 , First one is, global warming is true, and it is caused by humans, and our actions have a positive effect.
01:02:29:10 , 01:02:32:23 , How about if it's true, and we caused it, but our actions would have no effect.
01:02:32:23 , 01:02:36:04 , Or it's true, and we caused it, but our actions would actually screw it up worse.
01:02:36:04 , 01:02:40:12 , Then we got, it's true, but it's not us doing it, but we could have positive effects.
01:02:40:12 , 01:02:45:05 , It's true, but we're not the ones doing it, and we would have neutral effect.
01:02:45:05 , 01:02:49:08 , It's true, we're not the ones doing it, and we could screw it up even worse by taking action.
01:02:49:08 , 01:02:52:26 , And then down here we've got global warming isn't happening at all, so it's false.
01:02:52:26 , 01:02:56:00 , It's meaningless to ask whether it is caused by humans or not if it's not actually happening.
01:02:56:00 , 01:02:58:04 , And then positive, negative, and neutral effects here.
01:02:58:04 , 01:03:01:28 , And you'll notice that our three factors of two time two times three
01:03:01:28 , 01:03:05:24 , turned out to be twelve, but we collapsed that into nine because it's moot to talk about
01:03:05:24 , 01:03:08:18 , whether it's anthropogenic or not if it doesn't actually exist.
01:03:08:18 , 01:03:13:12 , Okay, so that gives us a grid with 45 boxes, and into each one of these 45 boxes
01:03:13:12 , 01:03:17:07 , we put our different economic, environmental, social, political, and public health scenarios.
01:03:17:07 , 01:03:20:22 , If you recall from our "expected value" discussion from the video "Risk Management",
01:03:20:22 , 01:03:25:08 , you might think we would then assign to each box a number to represent the consequence
01:03:25:08 , 01:03:28:02 , if that scenario happened—in this case, the cost to us.
01:03:28:02 , 01:03:34:09 , Not just the economic costs, but also some sort of quantified measurements of the various forms of suffering or benefit.
01:03:34:09 , 01:03:39:15 , But if you remember in that video, I pointed out how each box actually contains a range of possible consequences,
01:03:39:15 , 01:03:41:29 , and that to simplify our expected value calculation,
01:03:41:29 , 01:03:44:21 , we purposefully neglected to take into account that range,
01:03:44:21 , 01:03:48:01 , and instead just took the feasible worst-case scenario.
01:03:48:01 , 01:03:50:10 , Up here and down here are the ones we mainly looked at.
01:03:50:10 , 01:03:55:14 , This led a number of people who looked at the simplified grid to claim the column B was the better bet,
01:03:55:14 , 01:03:57:22 , because they forgot that this was just a simplification,
01:03:57:22 , 01:04:01:24 , and therefore they assumed that choosing column A doomed us to economic harm,
01:04:01:24 , 01:04:04:03 , no matter how the truth of global climate change played out,
01:04:04:03 , 01:04:07:24 , because we put in economic harm up here as part of our spending,
01:04:07:24 , 01:04:11:27 , so therefore it must show up down here, therefore choosing column A dooms us to economic harm,
01:04:11:27 , 01:04:15:27 , therefore B is the better choice because it is the only one has a box that we like the look of.
01:04:15:27 , 01:04:19:28 , Well, in order to address that, we just need to point out that
01:04:19:28 , 01:04:24:29 , once we unpack the simplicity, it's clear from the videos "Risk Management" and "Get What You Want",
01:04:24:29 , 01:04:29:25 , that choosing column A only brings with it the possibility of economic harm, not the certainty.
01:04:29:25 , 01:04:33:02 , As you saw in those videos, long and conscientious searching on my part
01:04:33:02 , 01:04:38:20 , turned up exactly zero economic doomsday scenarios from credible sources for this box.
01:04:38:20 , 01:04:44:06 , All the economic doomsday stories turned out to be simple conjecture
01:04:44:06 , 01:04:47:27 , from people at the very bottom of our credibility spectrum.
01:04:47:27 , 01:04:53:16 , And in fact, a number of quite credible sources, including industry leaders in the US Climate Action Partnership,
01:04:53:16 , 01:04:58:02 , assert that column A quite likely leads to economic growth.
01:04:58:02 , 01:05:03:15 , So that should get us over our economic phobias surrounding column A and the boogeyman of government action.
01:05:03:15 , 01:05:08:13 , So, if we're sincerely trying to not oversimplify here, what we need to do get a little complicated.
01:05:08:13 , 01:05:12:14 , Fortunately for us, the tool of expected value is scalable, and can be applied recursively.
01:05:12:14 , 01:05:17:02 , So what we'll do is go inside of each box and look at the full range of possible consequences—
01:05:17:02 , 01:05:21:01 , say in here all the way from global depression to wild economic boom—
01:05:21:01 , 01:05:24:08 , and then we'll assign numerical values to each one of those possible consequences.
01:05:24:08 , 01:05:27:13 , Now to stay backwardly compatible with our previous oversimplification,
01:05:27:13 , 01:05:31:01 , let's still represent consequences that cause suffering as positive numbers—
01:05:31:01 , 01:05:33:11 , the greater the magnitude, the greater the suffering or impact—
01:05:33:11 , 01:05:36:10 , and let's set zero as neutral—no deviation from the norm.
01:05:36:10 , 01:05:39:00 , Counterintuitively, that gives us negative numbers for good consequences,
01:05:39:00 , 01:05:41:03 , like an economy boosted by innovation,
01:05:41:03 , 01:05:45:08 , but we can handle that. That's why we're here, instead of stopping at the oversimplified four-boxer, right?
01:05:45:08 , 01:05:48:23 , So next, we'll multiply each of the possible consequences in the box
01:05:48:23 , 01:05:51:03 , by the probability of each of those happening,
01:05:51:03 , 01:05:54:13 , and sum those up to get the expected value for that box as a whole.
01:05:54:13 , 01:05:56:23 , Now that gives us the single number we're looking for
01:05:56:23 , 01:05:59:02 , to give as the consequence for one box.
01:05:59:02 , 01:06:01:26 , And that replaces the worst case scenario that we'd assumed
01:06:01:26 , 01:06:06:02 , to use as a consequence for that box in our previous oversimplified graph.
01:06:06:02 , 01:06:08:13 , Which is what caused some people to be confused
01:06:08:13 , 01:06:11:20 , and conclude that column A doomed us to economic harm no matter what.
01:06:11:20 , 01:06:14:26 , So we've taken care of that problem because we've introduced the probabilities back in,
01:06:14:26 , 01:06:18:14 , and there's no dooming anywhere, it's just probabilities and an expected value.
01:06:18:14 , 01:06:20:26 , Then we'll calculate the expected value for the whole column,
01:06:20:26 , 01:06:25:17 , by multiplying the consequences of each box—again, really just the calculated expected value of that box—
01:06:25:17 , 01:06:28:01 , by its probability taken from the rows on the side.
01:06:28:01 , 01:06:31:23 , And then we'll sum up those nine products to get the expected value of the column as a whole.
01:06:31:23 , 01:06:35:26 , You'll recognize that's the exact same process of taking the sum of a series of products
01:06:35:26 , 01:06:40:12 , that we did inside of each box, illustrating the very slick recursive nature of the expected value.
01:06:40:12 , 01:06:41:18 , It's a pretty cool tool.
01:06:41:18 , 01:06:45:12 , Then we'll move over and do that exact same process for the next column, and the next and the next.
01:06:45:12 , 01:06:49:10 , That will eventually give us an expected value assigned to each level of potential action,
01:06:49:10 , 01:06:51:25 , and we finally get the satisfaction of simply sitting back,
01:06:51:25 , 01:06:55:20 , looking at five numbers and asking: which one is the closest to negative infinity?
01:06:55:20 , 01:06:57:25 , And that's the column that's the best choice for us.
01:06:57:25 , 01:07:00:28 , Because that will tell us how much suffering we can expect if we choose that column.
01:07:00:28 , 01:07:05:13 , Now remember again that to stay consistent with our original grid-for-the-masses four-boxer,
01:07:05:13 , 01:07:09:18 , zero is neutral, positive numbers are suffering, and negative numbers are actually benefits,
01:07:09:18 , 01:07:13:12 , so the greatest benefit comes to the number that is farthest to the left on a number line.
01:07:13:12 , 01:07:17:27 , The closest to negative infinity, instead of talking larger or smaller because then you get confused with sign and magnitude.
01:07:17:27 , 01:07:19:14 , And remember there are no guarantees,
01:07:19:14 , 01:07:22:04 , because there were probabilities of probabilities layered in here.
01:07:22:04 , 01:07:25:09 , But the expected value is a well-proven tool, used by businesses all the time,
01:07:25:09 , 01:07:27:20 , and it's the best we've got here. Okay, let's get started.
01:07:27:20 , 01:07:31:26 , Oh, and you'll recognize, of course that the probabilities of all of our rows
01:07:31:26 , 01:07:36:25 , are going to need to sum up to exactly one, if we are going to be thorough and not neglect any scenarios.
01:07:36:25 , 01:07:40:29 , That one of course represents the fact that we have a 100% chance of something being true.
01:07:40:29 , 01:07:44:00 , So if they sum to one that tells us that we haven't missed any cases, 
01:07:44:00 , 01:07:47:00 , we haven't oversimplified and dropped a case about what might happen.
01:07:47:00 , 01:07:50:13 , Also it means that the absolute probability that we've distributed across these rows
01:07:50:13 , 01:07:55:23 , will handily function as relative probabilities as in "how much more likely is this row that this row?"
01:07:55:23 , 01:07:57:12 , Oh, and one more thing.
01:07:57:12 , 01:08:01:17 , You know how we, to put this process inside each box,
01:08:01:17 , 01:08:06:07 , we will need to do the whole range of possible economic consequences for a single box.
01:08:06:07 , 01:08:09:28 , We'll need to do that identical process for each of the identical factors besides economic,
01:08:09:28 , 01:08:13:00 , because there are probably things besides economic numbers
01:08:13:00 , 01:08:15:00 , that we might want to factor into our happiness, don't you think?
01:08:15:00 , 01:08:17:29 , But for the first time through I suggest we limit ourselves to the factors of
01:08:17:29 , 01:08:22:15 , economic, environmental, social, political, and public health scenarios,
01:08:22:15 , 01:08:24:26 , because those will probably be the easiest for us to quantify,
01:08:24:26 , 01:08:27:08 , and probably have the greatest bearing on our standard of living.
01:08:27:08 , 01:08:29:14 , At the end, if we have a close tie between two columns,
01:08:29:14 , 01:08:32:20 , then we can go back in and add some other factors in order to refine our answer.
01:08:32:20 , 01:08:35:21 , So we're not oversimplifying here, we're just doing a first past through,
01:08:35:21 , 01:08:39:17 , and if the answer is not clear then we can go back in and add some more factors.
01:08:39:17 , 01:08:43:28 , And for each one of those factors, lets break it into a reasonable 5 cases,
01:08:43:28 , 01:08:48:02 , so for the economic consequences of this box we can say we've got 5 cases
01:08:48:02 , 01:08:51:18 , all the way from global depression, to wild economic boom,
01:08:51:18 , 01:08:53:22 , neutral, and then two intermediate cases there.
01:08:53:22 , 01:08:57:12 , So that gives us five cases, times five factors, times 45 boxes,
01:08:57:12 , 01:09:01:29 , or a little over 1100 numbers we've got to agree on to quantify consequences,
01:09:01:29 , 01:09:04:12 , and an equal number of probabilities to assign.
01:09:04:12 , 01:09:08:06 , So I'm going to have to write kind of small because we're going to have to fit in 2200 numbers on this.
01:09:08:06 , 01:09:09:23 , You might have to squint, sorry about that.
01:09:09:23 , 01:09:12:07 , And you might want to go get an energy drink, cuz this may take a while.
01:09:12:07 , 01:09:13:03 , Okay, ready?
01:09:13:10 , 01:09:14:26 , Just kiddin'!
01:09:14:26 , 01:09:17:18 , There's no way I'm qualified to quantify all that!
01:09:17:18 , 01:09:19:02 , And neither, probably, are you.
01:09:19:02 , 01:09:20:02 , I mean, look at us—
01:09:20:02 , 01:09:23:08 , we're interacting through homemade videos and derisive comments, for God's Sake!
01:09:23:08 , 01:09:26:26 , If this is to be done—really done, and not "oversimplified"—
01:09:26:26 , 01:09:31:07 , why on Earth would we be satisfied with a hack job or armchair analysis?
01:09:31:07 , 01:09:34:11 , This analysis is how a business who knew their business would do it—
01:09:34:11 , 01:09:36:13 , like a casino, or an insurance company.
01:09:36:13 , 01:09:39:21 , Except they wouldn't be listening to you and me and our opinions on what they should do,
01:09:39:21 , 01:09:43:13 , because I suspect it's actually even way more complex than what I just described.
01:09:43:13 , 01:09:46:19 , What they would do is hire really smart people with Ph.D.s,
01:09:46:19 , 01:09:49:06 , tell them to eliminate their biases as much as possible,
01:09:49:06 , 01:09:50:27 , and then turn them loose on the problem.
01:09:50:27 , 01:09:53:10 , So if making a profit is important enough for a company
01:09:53:10 , 01:09:55:23 , to hire the best to do their expected value calculations,
01:09:55:23 , 01:09:58:10 , how come we're not doing that in this case, for global climate change,
01:09:58:10 , 01:10:01:07 , which might have slightly more at stake than one business's profits?
01:10:01:07 , 01:10:03:18 , So if you're serious about getting to the truth of the matter,
01:10:03:18 , 01:10:06:18 , and not just taking potshots to buy some time and preserve your opinion,
01:10:06:18 , 01:10:08:17 , then let's hire the best and the brightest we've got,
01:10:08:17 , 01:10:12:13 , and have them work with the greatest urgency on this ridiculous grid, numbers and all.
01:10:12:13 , 01:10:13:11 , I'm serious.
01:10:13:11 , 01:10:16:26 , Let's draft the best scientists, political economists, historians, and analysts
01:10:16:26 , 01:10:19:07 , on the planet to bring their greatest effort to bear,
01:10:19:07 , 01:10:23:18 , to work round the clock on what our best scientists already say may be the greatest challenge we've ever faced.
01:10:23:18 , 01:10:27:04 , I'm talking a project on the scale of the Manhattan project and the Apollo project put together.
01:10:27:04 , 01:10:29:08 , We could even call it the Manpollo Project if you like,
01:10:29:08 , 01:10:31:28 , and we would give it the greatest national urgency and resources.
01:10:31:28 , 01:10:34:21 , Because you and I may not be qualified to do that ridiculous grid,
01:10:34:21 , 01:10:38:24 , but as citizens, what we are qualified to do—and in fact are responsible for doing—
01:10:38:24 , 01:10:41:29 , is deciding how much resources to put into calculating the answer.
01:10:41:29 , 01:10:43:18 , Isn't that what government is for—
01:10:43:18 , 01:10:46:21 , to bring to bear our collective time, expertise, and resources
01:10:46:21 , 01:10:49:18 , to accomplish what you and I cannot accomplish individually?
01:10:49:18 , 01:10:52:08 , You wouldn't remove your own appendix. You wouldn't try your own law case.
01:10:52:08 , 01:10:55:14 , We let the experts do the details—which you and I are not qualified to do—
01:10:55:14 , 01:10:57:14 , and we retain our supervisory role,
01:10:57:14 , 01:11:00:21 , examining the executive summary before signing off on a course of action
01:11:00:21 , 01:11:03:08 , that has the best expected value that they calculated.
01:11:03:08 , 01:11:04:29 , In fact, there's a silver bullet!
01:11:04:29 , 01:11:08:17 , Both sides of the debate will agree that we should have a Manpollo Project,
01:11:08:17 , 01:11:12:24 , and here's why: because each side thinks the project will get us closer to the truth,
01:11:12:24 , 01:11:15:25 , and dispel the untruths that the other side has spun.
01:11:15:25 , 01:11:18:22 , So we all want this, because everyone thinks they're right,
01:11:18:22 , 01:11:21:15 , and would love further ammunition to prove the other side wrong.
01:11:21:15 , 01:11:23:02 , Wouldn't that be worth the cost?
01:11:23:02 , 01:11:25:26 , Because a Manhattan Project is not going to cause a global depression.
01:11:25:26 , 01:11:29:29 , An Apollo Project is not going to bankrupt the US, or lead to government control of your life.
01:11:29:29 , 01:11:32:13 , So what's to lose? Really, what's to lose?
01:11:32:13 , 01:11:35:11 , If we have a Manpollo Project and it finds that human–caused climate change
01:11:35:11 , 01:11:37:19 , turned out to be bunk, or that we can't do anything about it.
01:11:37:19 , 01:11:41:11 , Hey—okay, we diverted some government jobs from one sector to another.
01:11:41:11 , 01:11:44:25 , Isn't reducing the uncertainty about this at least worth that cost?
01:11:45:10 , 01:11:47:04 , Let's not kid ourselves any more.
01:11:47:04 , 01:11:50:14 , You can ask about solar activity, or natural cycles, or proxy data,
01:11:50:14 , 01:11:53:14 , but the climate—and the economy—are way to complex for you or me
01:11:53:14 , 01:11:57:14 , to do armchair evaluation of this stuff in the face of so much peer–reviewed science.
01:11:57:14 , 01:11:59:26 , Let's get the big boys—and girls—on it.
01:11:59:26 , 01:12:01:01 , Don't we deserve that?
01:12:01:01 , 01:12:04:10 , I'm not talking about forming another commission to "study the problem further".
01:12:04:10 , 01:12:05:29 , We've been doing that for 20 years,
01:12:05:29 , 01:12:08:25 , and the statements from AAAS, NAS, and USCAP
01:12:08:25 , 01:12:10:19 , that I shared in the video "Risk Management"
01:12:10:19 , 01:12:12:17 , make it clear that that time is past.
01:12:12:17 , 01:12:16:10 , And you can't resort to "Well, that argument could be made against Giant Mutant Space Hamsters—
01:12:16:10 , 01:12:18:07 , so we'd better have a Hampollo Project to study it,
01:12:18:07 , 01:12:20:10 , because the possibility can't be dismissed."
01:12:20:10 , 01:12:24:03 , Climate change has a little more peer–reviewed science behind it already than the hamsters.
01:12:24:03 , 01:12:26:23 , In fact, faced with the statements from these organizations,
01:12:26:23 , 01:12:29:25 , if someone still argued that the idea of anthropogenic climate change
01:12:29:25 , 01:12:31:13 , can be dismissed out of hand,
01:12:31:13 , 01:12:35:03 , so that it's not even worth studying our options with a Manpollo Project,
01:12:35:03 , 01:12:37:11 , at that point people might start to view them a little bit like
01:12:37:11 , 01:12:39:18 , Saddam Hussein's Minister of Information—
01:12:39:18 , 01:12:43:09 , remember? The guy who denied the existence of the bombs falling around him.
01:12:43:21 , 01:12:46:06 , A Manpollo Project's mission would be to study the science,
01:12:46:06 , 01:12:48:04 , study the political economy, study the history,
01:12:48:04 , 01:12:50:22 , to not only come up with a whole range of possible scenarios,
01:12:50:22 , 01:12:52:19 , but to actually quantify each one.
01:12:52:19 , 01:12:55:14 , To come up with numbers for consequences—both positive and negative—
01:12:55:14 , 01:12:59:07 , and for probabilities, so that an expected value could be calculated that would
01:12:59:07 , 01:13:03:11 , end this tumultuous, ineffective political bedlam that surrounds the issue,
01:13:03:11 , 01:13:06:24 , which really should be decided by analysis, and not political rhetoric.
01:13:06:24 , 01:13:09:05 , The project would have to be well–respected enough
01:13:09:05 , 01:13:11:27 , by all that the public would place such confidence in it
01:13:11:27 , 01:13:15:11 , that we would all agree ahead of time to follow its recommendations,
01:13:15:11 , 01:13:16:28 , even if we didn't like them.
01:13:16:28 , 01:13:19:15 , We would all feel confident that the answer recommended
01:13:19:15 , 01:13:21:18 , was the one most likely to get us what we want,
01:13:21:18 , 01:13:24:14 , regardless of our individual political opinions.
01:13:24:14 , 01:13:27:17 , Because the physical world—which, in the end, is what this is about—
01:13:27:17 , 01:13:29:21 , isn't influenced by our opinions.
01:13:29:21 , 01:13:32:03 , It is only our actions which have impact.
01:13:32:03 , 01:13:35:05 , And currently, our actions are firmly in column B.
01:13:35:05 , 01:13:37:20 , If that's going to remain the case, don't you want to know—
01:13:37:20 , 01:13:41:14 , with as much confidence as you can—that that is, in fact, the best place to be?
01:13:41:14 , 01:13:45:17 , Wouldn't you rather be assured by a huge team of highly competent and unbiased experts,
01:13:45:17 , 01:13:49:13 , rather than going on your own armchair evaluation of what you've read or heard?
01:13:49:13 , 01:13:53:12 , In WWII, if Germany's threat to the world justified the Manhattan Project,
01:13:53:12 , 01:13:57:17 , why wouldn't global climate change's threat to the world justify a similar effort now?
01:13:57:17 , 01:13:59:17 , Just because it doesn't have a mustache?
01:13:59:17 , 01:14:02:05 , Look, Hitler himself was undeniably real,
01:14:02:05 , 01:14:03:26 , but him developing the atomic bomb—
01:14:03:26 , 01:14:07:02 , which I understand was the threat we were reacting to with the Manhattan Project—
01:14:07:02 , 01:14:08:13 , was just a possibility.
01:14:08:13 , 01:14:11:04 , No one—no scientist or policy maker—
01:14:11:04 , 01:14:13:24 , knew for sure that such a bomb was even possible.
01:14:13:24 , 01:14:16:10 , The scientific issue was uncertain.
01:14:16:10 , 01:14:18:24 , Yet we took action, in spite of that uncertainty,
01:14:18:24 , 01:14:21:28 , because the risks of not taking action seemed far greater.
01:14:21:28 , 01:14:26:23 , Just the possibility that Hitler might get the bomb was enough to justify all-out action.
01:14:26:23 , 01:14:28:16 , Why not here?
01:14:29:08 , 01:14:33:13 , Paying for a Manpollo Project is not going to be the end of the world as we know it.
01:14:33:13 , 01:14:35:27 , But not paying for one, might be.
01:14:36:10 , 01:14:37:22 , Let's get to it.

Back to Translation Index