How it all ends (menu)

This video-article is part of an advanced listening activity for advanced learners of English.

  

The video on Youtube:

Note: The script below is from the author at Monpollo.org and other site (on this second site, the author asks for help translating the topics to Spanish for DVDs, etc.) The script doesn't correspond 100% to the video and still needs checking over.

“Nature of Science”
Topics
What “peer-reviewed” means, and why it’s so important. (“Risk Management”)
Telling the difference between causation and correlation.
Objections Answered
“Why should we trust the scientists?”
“Why don’t we just go with the facts? Just look at the evidence.”
“Why should we listen to scientists now, if they’ve been wrong before?”
“Scientists can’t even predict the weather, so why should we listen to them about something even bigger, like the climate?” (“Scare Tactics”)
“There is no consensus amongst scientists on global warming.”
“Climate models are just models, just predictions about the future. So they’re just conjecture, and therefore useless.” (“Risk Management”)

“Risk Management”
Topics
How do you go about making a decision when faced with uncertainty?
How do you decide you who believe, and who not to?
What tricks can we learn from Casinos and insurance companies?
What “peer-reviewed” means, and why it’s so important. (“Nature of Science”)
Details from the AAAS and NAS statements. (“Get What You Want”)
Details from the industries calling for mandatory emissions caps on themselves—the US Carbon Action Partnership or USCAP. (“Get What You Want”)
How the warnings of “harm to the economy” are a Jedi Mind trick.

Objections Answered
“That grid is just Pascal’s Wager.”
“There is little argument on the existence of global warming, but there’s still a lot on its causes.” (“Mechanics of GCC”)
“What about the Copenhagen Consensus, the Leipzig Declaration, the Oregon Petition?”
“Stop telling me what to think”
“That grid is so grossly oversimplified that it’s useless.” (“The Manpollo Project”)
“I noticed you dropped the global depression that was in the upper left box in the original grid in ‘The Most Terrifying Video.’ Couldn’t take the heat, huh, so you had to bias the grid your way?” (“Get What You Want”)
“You underplayed the negative consequences in the upper left.” (“Get What You Want”)
“You overplayed the negative consequences in the lower right.”
“Well, we can’t just surrender control of our future to a bunch of eggheads who we don’t know and never elected.”
“But that’s just a PREDICTION. That doesn’t mean it’s really going to happen.” (“Nature of Science”)
“That’s just argument from authority!”
“There are at least 3 documentaries on YouTube alone disproving AGW.”
“If action on climate change is such a good deal, how come businesses aren’t doing it yet?”
“I think we’ll innovate ourselves out of any problem.”
“Whatever negative economic consequences show up in the upper left, should show up in the lower left, too, so if we choose action, we’re doomed to economic harm.”
“The upper right corner is the only box that looks attractive. That’s why we should choose column B.”
“I’d rather not take action on an uncertain threat, so that we can face any real threats that do materialize down the road with the wealth that an unfettered economy would bring us.” (“Get What You Want”)
“The statements from AAAS and NAS shouldn’t be taken as any big deal, because the scientists are biased. Their grant money depends on them crying wolf.” (“No Holds Barred”)
“The grid is useless without actual numbers assigned to the probabilities.” (“The Manpollo Project”)
“One hundred years of data is not enough to know thousands of years of the past climate.”
“The IPCC is just a UN hack. They have no credibility.”

“Why Is There Still Debate?”
Topics
A little bit of the psychology and sociology of why we’re still talking about this in the face of very clear and explicit scientific agreement.
Why scare tactics can sometimes be a good thing.
Smackdown: “An Inconvenient Truth” vs. “The Great Global Warming Swindle.”
Why we’d be better off if Gay Sex were the cause of global climate change. (“Scare Tactics”)
Objections Answered
“But I’ve heard the opposite of all that you say about climate change, so doesn’t that prove it’s still being debated?”

“Mechanics of GCC”
Topics
The basics: greenhouse effect vs. global warming vs. global climate change.
Some of the swindles of GGWS.
Objections Answered
“CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas compared to methane and water vapor.”
“There is little argument on the existence of global warming, but there’s still a lot on its causes.” (“Risk Management”)
“If we take action and climate change doesn’t happen, how will we know whether it was ever true in the first place?”
“How arrogant to think that we can change the globe. We’re too small to have any effect.” (“Scare Tactics”)
“The water vapor from HFC cars would just replace the CO2 as a GHG”
“Humans are not causing global warming.” (“Scare Tactics”)
“Climate changes all the time.” (“Scare Tactics”)
“We’re coming out of a cold cycle, so this is natural.” (“Scare Tactics”)

“Scare Tactics”
Topics
The big threat: abrupt climate change.
The military’s assessment of abrupt climate change as a threat to national security.
Why this is probably the only issue that matters, save one (which I’ll leave as an exercise for the viewer).
Why I like clear cuts and nuclear power now.
Why we’d be better off if Gay Sex were the cause of global climate change. (“Why There Is Still Debate”)
Objections Answered
“The picture you paint is unlikely to happen. How could it be so bad?”
“What’s the explanation for the disaster scenarios on the Red Bull cans? How do we get ‘epidemics’ and ‘wars’ from climate change?”
“What’s wrong with a degree or two? How is that like flipping a light switch?”
“We can’t even predict the weather tomorrow, so why are we making predictions about 20 years from now?” (“Nature of Science”)
“Climate has always changed, so why are we suddenly the bad guys?” (“Mechanics of GCC”)
“It’s the sun, stupid. Or cosmic rays.”
“I’ve heard predictions of temperature drops. How does that come from global warming?”
“Why get all wound up about the climate changing? Who’s to say what the right climate is?”
“Birds and bees build nests and homes out of raw materials in their environment, just like we do. How is this different? If there were no beavers, there wouldn’t be any beaver dams disrupting the natural course of a river—is that good or bad or just the way it is?”
“The climate has done fine before without us!”
“But it’s been warm in the past. Where’s the evidence that that’s bad?”
“Why should we [that is, America] change? It won’t make a difference unless China and India are stopped.”
“But CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data, so those silly scientists have got it backward!”
“Humans are too small to have an effect on the climate.” (“Mechanics of GCC”)
“You’re indulging in irresponsible scare mongering.”

“The Solution”
Topics
How to do more than “just pass it on.”
Understanding the technical and policy solutions.
Applying the test of future regrets.
How are we supposed to fix this without going back to the Dark Ages?
How you might be able to be a part of history. Probably won’t get any monuments, but it’ll make a great story for the grandkids.
Objections Answered
“So exactly what is this “action” you’ve been whining about? Specifics, please.”
“So what do we do about it? What do I do about it?”
“Biodiesel is bad because it displaces food crops!”
“Wind turbines kill birds, you know!”
“If man has changed the climate, then what is it SUPPOSED to be now? Until we have a clue what the norm is, how do we know how much we need to adjust what we’re doing?” (“The Manpollo Project”)
“What if taking action makes it worse? Or we overshoot and cause an ice age?” (“The Manpollo Project”)
“Leave the government out of this. The free market can handle the problem.”
“How much action is enough? Exactly what needs to get done?”
“I’m too busy to deal with climate change. And the problem is too big.”

“Get What You Want” (Skeptics #1)
Topics
How taking action on climate change is actually a better bet for getting skeptics what they want: economic and political liberty.
If your objections to the argument “Sure there’s uncertainty, but why not take action, just in case?” is along the lines of “We need to protect the economy” or “I don’t want the government getting more control of my life.”
If you want to see me put an economist and a scientist in a jar and shake it to see them fight. Not really. But sorta.
Why you shouldn’t confuse Al Gore with global climate change.
Why I put “Global Depression” in the upper left box in my original “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See,” but dropped it in “How It All Ends” (“Risk Management”)
Even more details from the USCAP statement. (“Risk Management”)
Objections Answered
“You’re an alarmist.” (“No Holds Barred”)
“What’s your motivation, Mr. Do-Gooder?”
“My personal economy, for better or worse, ends at my property line.”
“You underplayed the negative economic consequences in the upper left.” (“Risk Management”)
“I’d rather not take action on an uncertain threat, so that we can face any real threats that do materialize down the road with the wealth that an unfettered economy would bring us.” (“Risk Management”)
“Science isn’t so hot. Remember when the eggheads were all certain in the 1970’s that the globe was going into an ice age that never materialized? They’re always screaming some Chicken Little story. So why should we listen now?”
“Global warming is a ploy for the elites to grow the government and take away our freedoms.”

“I Hope I’m Wrong” (Skeptics #2)
Topics
The details of how I’ve tried to be conscientious and unbiased in my analysis.
Why being terrified of climate change has actually mellowed me out in some aspects.
If you want to see a picture of me without my shirt on. (Don’t worry, there’s a warning just before the image, so you can skip that part.)
For the story of a very unexpected and violent explosion in my classroom.
Why I’d be okay with us taking big action on climate change, but turning out to be wrong about it, even if it results in economic harm.
Objections Answered
“You’re clearly biased, so why should I listen to anything you have to say?”

“No Holds Barred” (Skeptics #3)
The final stand in the debate with hard-line skeptics. You might want to watch this video if:
. . . You feel like you’re not getting anywhere in your argument with warmers.
. . . You’re tired of being told you’re the problem.
. . . You want to call me an alarmist. (“Get What You Want”)
. . . You’ve ever been called a conspiracy theorist about this.
. . . You want to hear me get sassy.
. . . You claim that the AAAS and NAS statements aren’t credible because “the scientists are biased. Their grant money depends on them crying wolf.” (“Risk Management”)
. . . You subscribe to Michael Crichton’s hypothesis that the threat of global climate change is mostly a conspiracy by scientists.
. . . You think that ”The truth is that reasonable people of good will can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions, including scientists.”
. . . Your objection has any mention of asteroids.
. . . You think everything that the government touches turns to crap, so we should just let the free market solve the problem. (“The Solution”)
. . . You think we should pick column B because it contains the only box that seems attractive.
. . . You wonder why I would think the website “How To Talk To a Climate Skeptic” is actually a better resource for skeptics than for warmers.
. . . You think there’s no way anyone could ever show you that you actually like government.
. . . Your objection to action is along the lines of “But people need to trust that the money spent to stop climate change will be spent effectively and honestly.”
. . . You think that I’m delusional and cannot—even in principle—be convinced that AGW is bunk.
. . . You think choosing column A dooms us to economic harm, regardless of the truth of global warming. (“The Manpollo Project”)
. . . You think global warming is a ploy for the elites to grow the government and take away your freedoms. (“Get What You Want”)

“God’s Will”
If it seems like global climate change is just God’s Will, and therefore out of our control, or that taking action to combat it would be contrary to God’s Will.

“The Manpollo Project”
Topics
If the grid in “How It All Ends” was the height of simplicity, and “Risk Management” was the next step up in complexity, this is the final installment of complexity. There’s no “for simplicity’s sake” here.
Objections Answered
“Your grid is oversimplified.” (“Risk Management”)
“What about the intermediates between no action and all-out action?”
“What if climate change is happening, but we’re not the ones doing it?”
“What if climate change is happening, and we’re the ones doing it, but our actions don’t stop it? Or they make it worse?” (“The Solution”)
“The consequences in each box themselves aren’t certain—there should be a range of possible consequences in each box, not just a worst-case scenario.”
“Don’t we need more columns and rows to account for all of those possibilities?”
“The grid is useless without actual numbers.” (“Risk Management”)
“You biased the grid by putting only economic consequences in the upper left, but economic plus a bunch more in the lower right.”
“Choosing column A dooms us to economic harm, regardless of the truth of global warming.” (“No Holds Barred”)

Speaking activity:

Global Warming Speaking - Practice the topic on this speaking page.