How it all ends - No Holds Barred

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 Manpollo.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.

This video is titled “No Holds Barred” and is the final video just for skeptics in the expansion pack accompanying the video “How It All Ends.” A lot of the arguments in this video assume that you’ve viewed all the other videos first.
I’m going to try to not be sassy, but I gotta tell you. If you’ve made it this far through all my videos and you still insist that taking action on global climate change is not in our best interests, I’m getting a little frustrated. But then so are you probably, and I realize no one has ever changed their mind because they’re being attacked. In fact frontal assaults “with attitude” tend to just cause people to hunker down in their opinions. So I’m going to try to be civil, even though it’s not nearly as satisfying as being righteous. Please forgive me if I slip.
And this is sort of a grab-bag of the topics left over, so also please pardon the lack of narrative flow, and eloquent exposition, or whatever.
Before we get to the last stand, here’s a basic recap of my argument given over the course of all these bloody videos.
You say: “We don’t know that AGW is true. Isn’t it still being debated?”
I say: “Science is never certain,” show you the statements from AAAS and NAS, and point out that you’re in the test tube.
So you say: “Well, then, how are we to decide something if we can’t know for sure what’s going on?”
And I say: “Use risk management. Here’s a grid that might help.”
And you say: “Can’t that argument just be used for the dire threat of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?”

And I say: “You’re right, so we’ve got to estimate the probabilities, making sure to establish the credibility of our sources by using this here credibility spectrum” and I suggest that the statements from AAAS, NAS and pretty much the rest of the national science academies in the world should convince us that AGW is more probable than not.
And you say: “But unless we caused it, we shouldn’t interfere with it.”
Then I explain the mechanics of climate change and forcing.
Then you say: “Well, it’s way too big for us to stop. And if we try we might overshoot and end up in an ice age, or make the warming worse.”
And then I say: “No, it’s really simple—stop the forcing of the climate system. There’s lots of great ways to do that without reducing our standard of living.”
And then here we are.
First and foremost, I can perhaps save you time here by pointing out that if your opinions about global climate change are not falsifiable, then you don’t even need to watch the rest of the video—you can go google Paris Hilton or something. [Cut to squeamish look.]
Falsifiability is an idea in science that establishes whether a claim someone makes is even worth examining. Here’s how it works. Let’s say I claim aliens exists—the truth being out there and all—and you claim they don’t. It’s not even worth your time to try to convince me that I’m wrong, because no matter what your evidence or reasoning, I can always counter with “Well, we just haven’t looked hard enough.”
In fact, with this claim, there’s no way even in principle for you to prove me wrong—even if you are correct—because you could have all the star drives you want and search every rock and gas ball in the universe, and come back to me with that, and I could still say—”You missed a spot.” Or “They moved when you weren’t looking.” Or “They’re invisible.”
Unless I can provide you ahead of time with a test and a hypothetical result that I would accept as disproof of my claim, there’s no use arguing with me, because my claim is not falsifiable.
That’s why conspiracy theories aren’t worth arguing about. They will always be around, because they are not falsifiable. Which is to say: even if they’re not true, that fact cannot even in principle be demonstrated. If you ask the conspiracy theorist: “Well, where’s your evidence?” they can always claim “It’s being suppressed.” And if you try the other direction and say: “Well here’s evidence against your claim,” they can say “It was fabricated.” Or biased. Or just faulty.
Please note: I’m not saying that the means the conspiracy is wrong. Or that it’s right. I’m just saying if the claim is not falsifiable, then there’s no way to ever know, and so it’s just a lot of wasted effort to even debate it.
I often find myself thinking of this when I’m debating hard-line climate skeptics whose claim is “anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.” No matter what the evidence I provide, they claim it’s biased, or just plain wrong.
So before we go further, stop and answer the question: “What would convincing evidence look like to you?”
How about a bunch of really smart people who are experts in the field working with supercomputers and a worldwide network of data sensors for 30 years? We’ve got that. Maybe a public statement from the largest, most well-respected scientific body in the world, calling for action? We’ve got that [AAAS]. A statement from an honorary scientific body, comprised of the most credentialed and respected scientists in the country, one-in-ten of which have a Nobel Prize? We’ve got that [NAS].
Statements from the national science academies of other major countries? We’ve got those [Google “joint academies climate change”]. A statement from a collection of businesses with vested interests in the fossil fuels themselves? We’ve got that [USCAP]. Still not good enough? How about if the biggest, most notorious corporate holdout around finally publicly admitted that climate change is a threat, and it finally stopped funding climate skeptic think tanks? We’ve got that [Google “Rex Tillerson prudent”].
Still not enough? How about a statement from the US military, not known so much for it’s environmental advocacy, but for its bottom line interest in preserving national security above all other concerns? We’ve got that [Google “Pentagon climate change”].
Perhaps it would take unanimous support from anyone remotely connected to the issue, so that no journalist could dig up a single scientist, author, or think tank analyst who is ever willing to say that AGW might be bunk. Well, as you’ve seen in my video “How It All Ends: Nature of Science,” we’ll never have that on ANY issue, simply due to the inherently uncertain nature of all science. So wouldn’t that make your claim unfalsifiable?
Perhaps it would take you personally feeling the climate effects in your life. Well if that’s the case, I’m afraid we’re doomed to no longer be actors in our own lives, purposefully influencing our fate, but merely powerless victims of circumstance. Because as you saw in the video “How It All Ends: Scare Tactics” the feedback loops of the climate system are long enough that by the time the effect is obvious, it’s too late to do anything about it.
Who would need to issue a call to action in order for it to be convincing to you? If you say “No one—I go by the EVIDENCE”—I’d ask you to watch the “Nature of Science” and “Risk Management” videos again, and remind you that there’s a reason it takes a Ph.D. to get a job as a researcher.
So is there someone—some expert whose expertise, experience, and judgment you trust—so that if they came out for action on climate change, you’d be on board? If so, then your claim is indeed falsifiable, and worth debating. But I’m not sure you’re left with a good thing, because aren’t you giving that person or organization an awful lot of power over you and your world?
I’m comfortable with AAAS and NAS playing part of that role of advisor for me, because as far as I can tell they’re probably the smartest, most careful, most knowledgeable people on the planet, and the issue is smack-dab in the middle of their expertise. They’re not infallible, but they’re the best we’ve got. Seriously—who is better or more credible on matters of science? And my knowledge of the scientific process tells me that only the most unequivocal, robust statements make it very far through such organizations, much less being announced as public calls for action.
Whose advice would you care to stake your (and my) future on? It’s not a rhetorical question. Let’s get it out in the open. Leave a comment—who would have to come out in favor of action on climate change in order for you to be on board? I think it’s an interesting question, and I’m very curious to read the answers provided.
Really, what would it take to convince you? And if your honest answer is “Nothing can convince me,” then fine. But then please admit that your belief is one of faith, not reasoning, and step aside. Isn’t it disingenuous to debate when you don’t consider debate itself—the examination of evidence and reasoning—to be a valid means for getting closer to the truth?
I’m sorry if I’m getting a little sassy, but the hard-line skeptical view is really starting to look a lot like a conspiracy theory. It seems like it’s not falsifiable, and therefore, not worth even arguing. So, like I mentioned before, here is the test to see if your belief is falsifiable: ask yourself “Can I come up with a reasonable scenario that would convince me that we should take big action now on climate change?”
And if you find that you can’t, then what does that tell you? Wouldn’t that send up a little red flag that maybe you need to check your thinking? That maybe you’re not being completely rational about this? Maybe you’re letting a bias blind you to any evidence that contradicts your opinion, and therefore your unconscious goal is no longer to figure out reality, but instead is to preserve your beliefs? That may feel good and righteous, but does it really seem like it’s in your own pragmatic self interests?
Of course it would be fair of you to turn the question to me, and ask if my claim is falsifiable. Can I sketch out a scenario which would convince me to convert to the skeptic’s side? The answer is yes. I’ll wait until the very end of this video to give it to you, so that you can put it in context.
On either side of this bitter debate, you hear accusations that the other side is in somebody’s pocket. From the skeptics you’ll hear “It’s just a liberal plot to get control of our lives,” and it’s not uncommon for a warmer to imply that anyone who argues hard for the skeptical side must be a corporate shill. I figured that the idea of vested interests hiring people to surf the net and argue for the skeptical side wasn’t too outlandish, but I also thought it sounded a little too sinister to probably be true.

In response to my “Most Terrifying” video, I got a lot of responses that had a common quality that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. I finally figured out it could be described as sort of an arrogant ignorance. I don’t think the word “ignorant” is an insult—it just means there’s an opportunity to learn something you don’t know yet. We’re all ignorant, just in different areas.
But when that is taken on the offense, it can become offensive. Like when people would so vigorously attack me for being so stupid or alarmist or thick-headed, and they did it while totally misapplying some basic concept, like mixing up carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, or dismissively calling the grid Pascal’s Wager, or confusing the ozone layer with global warming.
This mix of aggression and ignorance puzzled me, and I think I now have an explanation. I think people are tired of feeling like they’re constantly being told that they are the problem, that they are bad for just going about their lives. And so they lash back, with whatever small bit of terminology or concept they may have picked up. So I want to be clear: we’re not bad for causing global climate change. It’s not a moral judgment. We’re just doing stuff that ends up being bad for us. What’s the saying? “Don’t poo in your own bed?” That’s really all we’re talking about.

Okay, here’s something that’ll make you hostile, but I’ve just gotta point it out. I came across a cynic on RealClimate.org who observed that there seem to be three phases of skeptics’ response to environmental problems:
Phase 1: “There is no problem.”
Phase 2: “OK there is a problem, but it’s exaggerated and not really serious.”
Phase 3: “Now it’s too late to stop it.”
I share this because it was stunning how well the comments I got on my previous video tracked with those phases. It really wasn’t funny how many times I got comments along the lines of: “Actually, the globe isn’t warming; it’s the urban heat island effect!” (Phase 1). There are actually entire web projects devoted to bulldogging the data collection sites—check ‘em out if you’re looking for a hobby to get you outside. Or “There is little argument on the existence of global warming, but there’s still a lot on its causes” (Phase 2). (That one creepily reminded me of how careful that corporate guy in the Grist.com discussion was to appear reasonable.) Or “In the next 20 years, China will triple its emissions, no matter what. It can’t be stopped” (Phase 3).
Where’s the phase in that progression where the problem is big enough to be acknowledged as important, but not yet so big as to be intractable? Can you imagine what that situation would look like? And if you can’t imagine such a scenario that would convince you that action is both necessary and still possible, shouldn’t that send up a little red flag about your thinking?

Here are some of the more outlandish comments my videos got from die-hard skeptics, in bursts of sometimes surreal logic:
[ON SCREEN] “You might consider that column B ‘true’ is the best place to be (after column B ‘false’) as we will be strong and have the capital and confidence to tackle a true climate catastrophe.”
Oh, that’s right, a pound of prevention is worth an ounce of cure. No wait, an ounce, gram—metric?
[ON SCREEN] “I would rather be strong enough to face any threat that may or may not materialize than to be weak and find out we did the wrong things, to stop a real threat that arises, whether it be from the weather or from somewhere else. Remember the planet-killer asteroids?. . . What about an ascendant Chinese/Russian communist alliance? How could we defend ourselves and react to those things, which are actual demonstrable long-term threats if we have so weakened ourselves because we are afraid of a possible longer growing season in Canada?”
Um. “Actual, demonstrable long-term threats?” I really wonder how he would go about deciding that something is an actual threat since in the case of climate change, official statements by the most capable and respected groups of professionals in that field don’t seem to be enough for him. And yet a Chinese/Russian communist alliance qualifies as an actual, demonstrable threat. Maybe I haven’t been reading the papers carefully enough. And it’s the longer growing season in Canada that has everyone in a tizzy? Did I look away for a second? Are we talking about the same thing?
[ON SCREEN] “Scientists can say the sky is falling all they want (and they’ve been doing it for centuries) but until I see it, I don’t want POLICY MAKERS getting their hands on my prosperity and my independence.”
So, I’ve just gotta sit and take whatever the natural world dishes out until you’ve been personally inconvenienced enough to agree to let us take action, despite whatever some trained scientists may think. Thanks a lot. He’s definitely not an alarmist about big government.
[ON SCREEN] “No, I’ll fight the very real threat of global central planning with its return to the Dark Ages until my last breath before I worry about some nebulous idea of global climate change.”
Sounds like this guy is pretty level-headed. Doesn’t get too excited or overreact about things. I wonder if he listened to the scientists when they came up with the alarmist plan of immunizations against some nebulous idea of viruses in the germ theory of disease. Pah. Germ theory. It’s just a theory.
[ON SCREEN] “If we squander our resources on speculative global warming and then we’re left exhausted and poor, what happens when we have to face a real threat, like the asteroid Apophis, which might intersect the earth in 2036?”
I looked that one up. That reasoning is just bizarre. The scientists who study asteroids give it a 1 in 45,000 chance of hitting the Earth. The scientists who study human-caused global climate change give it a 9 in 10 chance of being true [“IPCC: ‘very likely’ = 90%”]. Asteroids?
[ON SCREEN] “I truly don’t care how many scientific organizations line up for global warming, I still think column B would save us.”
Yeah. Pfff—scientists. What do they know anyway? That’s why I never use plastic. Or rubber. Or synthetic cloth. Or medications. Or a telephone. Or cars. Or electricity. I don’t care how many scientists line up behind it, it’s just common sense that it’s impossible for 300 tons of metal to stay up in the sky. Stupid 747.
[ON SCREEN] “Don’t you know that the AGW spin is nothing more than a socialist/communist attempt to take over the world? They are playing you!”
Man. As if being called a Chicken Little when you’re trying to warn people isn’t bad enough, but to be called a Chicken Little by people like this. That’s just insulting. And sad. Doesn’t “a socialist/communist attempt to take over the world” have just a smidge too much comic book premise in it to not be laughed at? In fact, it sounds almost more paranoid than simply Chicken Little—who, after all, was just too excitable—doesn’t it? Well, not compared to this one:
[ON SCREEN] “So what we have witnessed in the Global Warming debate is a perfect storm of anti-Christian philosophies parading as science. Materialists, Socialists, and Left-leaning types found common cause with neo-pagans and anti-Christian spirituality to advocate a New World Order dressed as a movement to save the planet.”
Wow. I’m kinda surprised he didn’t throw in there: “people who eat their bread with the butter side down.”
[ON SCREEN] “Action would lead to goverment control of our lives. Couldn’t a private organization deal with this?”
Look, we already tried laissez-faire and it didn’t work. Everyone agreed that it sucked. “Tragedy of the Commons” and all that. Pay attention in class there, buddy.
[ON SCREEN] “The climate has changed before. It’s inevitable.”
Oh right, I get it—it’s going to happen sometime anyway, so why get all in a hissy fit when it threatens. Sort like of like dying is inevitable, so don’t worry so much trying to avoid it.
[ON SCREEN] “Because action on global climate change doesn’t generate wealth, it would be an overall drain on the economy.”
My God, you’re right—anything that doesn’t actually generate wealth is a bad thing that must be shunned, like disaster preparation, and a standing army, and air traffic control. Let the invisible hand of the market gently move one plane to the side when it’s on a collision course with another. I think that’ll work.
A lot of people expressed that they’d pick column B in the grid because it contained the only box in the whole grid that they like the look of. It was the only one with a happy face, but is that how you decide the fate of the planet? And I can’t help but think about how—by that logic—someone standing on the road in the way of an out-of-control truck would choose to just stand there instead of jumping into the muddy ditch, because the only scenario where he ends up unequivocally happy is the one where he stands still and the truck happens to swerve around him. “Sweet! Didn’t even muss my hair. . . .”
Sorry. Sassy again.

But don’t these objections strike you as being a little bit more towards the side of fearful dogma, and less towards the side of rational assessment?
Be aware if you’ve made it this far through my arguments and you still just think AGW is bunk, then these are the people you’re going to be seen as keeping company with. And it’s starting to sound a bit like a conspiracy theory.
[BOARD, CREDIBILITY SPECTRUM] Because here’s the picture so far: [columns labeled “significant action” vs. “no significant action” on either side of credibility spectrum running vertically]: all of these organizations that fall on the top of our credibility spectrum [AAAS, NAS, IPCC, USCAP, Exxon, Pentagon report, Stern Report, Economists’ Statement on Climate Change, Scientists’ Warning to Humanity] vs. this individual, or that think tank, or the other self-selected group signing a petition lower down on the spectrum [Lomborg (Copenhagen Consensus), Cato, Lindzen, Landsea et al., Leipzig Declaration, Oregon Petition]. The best you’ve got over here is the Copenhagen Consensus with its four Nobel Laureates, which is pretty much balanced out by the Economists’ Statement on Climate Change, with its six, so we’ll call it a wash there.
Let’s be clear: if you side with these guys, then you are explicitly dismissing the conclusions of the best science on the planet, as well as a bunch of heavyweight industry leaders. Now, they may indeed be wrong—no one is infallible. But remember, since we’re using basic risk management, in order to convince the rest of us that we shouldn’t take action “just in case,” you need to do way more than show that AAAS and NAS might be wrong. We already know that. Anybody might be wrong.
[BOARD, GRID] What you’ll need to do is convince us that this line actually belongs down here—way down here if you want this column to have the better expected value, because you’ll remember the consequence of this box by definition is greater than this one. You need to provide some extraordinary evidence that the most well-respected scientific societies on the planet are completely out to lunch.
[DESK] So it’s going to take more than a couple of good-sounding ideas, like “it’s the sun,” or “climate has always changed—it’s a natural cycle,” or “the Medieval warming period wasn’t so bad,” or “Mars is warming too, you know,” or “CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere,” or “water is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2,” or “who’s to say what the right climate is?” or “CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data,” etc. [Google “how to talk to a climate skeptic”] Do you really expect us to think the scientists haven’t heard those and taken them into account already?
And it’ll take more than saying “the scientists are biased because their grant money depends on people caring.” You would need to somehow explain how such erroneous statements as those of AAAS and NAS made it all the way through the bruising peer-review process of the two most well-respected scientific organizations on the planet. Organizations that arguably have a greater stake in never making wrong statements than any other organization in existence. Essentially, if you wouldn’t listen to them, why would you listen to anybody? Because NO process is more careful and self-critical than science.
Plus, since you could say “the scientists are biased, because their funding depends on it” about any topic, why is it valid to only bring that up here? Why don’t you reject all science, then? And why are you perfectly happy to put your well-being in the hands of the companies that sell you your car, your food, your power tools, and anything else that might possibly harm you when their paychecks depend on you wanting more of what they have to offer, just like you accuse the scientists of? And the companies don’t even have an element of greater good in their job description like “pursuing knowledge” for the scientist. Business’ only universal mission is to increase value for shareholders.
[BOARD, SPECTRUM] Really it’s some elaborate denial, don’t you think, requiring quite a conspiracy to explain it. It’s starting to sound a bit like the shadow government or black helicopters or the hoaxed moon landing or aliens in Roswell or the faked Holocaust or the U.S. government bringing the towers down. So you’d best be prepared for people lumping you in with the conspiracy theorists as they start to see this much expertise stacked up, and you thrashing at the tide. Perhaps that’s fine with you. I’m just saying—be aware of it, and make it a conscious choice, instead of an accidental one because you couldn’t be bothered to research and rebut all of my arguments.
And aside from protecting your cred or your rep or your character or whatever, does this really look like the best bet for getting what you want out of life? To ignore these guys when you’re betting the world on what I might remind you is a scientific issue? These are really smart people who spend way more time researching it than you do. Why do you trust them on so many other topics that contribute to your comfort, health, convenience, and safety of daily life, but not on climate change? Why is this the one topic that’s different? Aren’t you starting to suspect some strong bias in your views, say a deep hostility toward government? But is that really the same as uncertainty about climate change?

[BOARD] I want to go back and take a closer look at the truck example I gave earlier, this time with a grid. Cuz everything’s better with a grid.

[DESK] If we are sincere in getting closer to the truth, whatever it is, rather than just preserving our opinion, then we are obliged to follow the debate back and forth, and not just stop when we find something that pleases us. What do I mean? Let’s say you keep hearing a claim that really bugs you, so you look up a counterargument that seems to neutralize the claim. So now, whenever you hear the claim, you repeat your counterargument to yourself and move on, confident that the claim doesn’t hold water.
What you should do—in fact, I’m arguing it’s not only your obligation, but it’s in your own best interests—is go looking for any rebuttals to that counterargument that you’re carrying around in your pocket. Whether your counterargument is solid or not, either way you benefit by actually trying to rebut it yourself. Why? Because if it’s really solid, then your thorough looking will turn up no good rebuttals to it, and thus your confidence in your counterargument is increased.
And if your counterargument is lousy and full of holes, well then you probably would like to know that before you go betting your house on it, wouldn’t you? So you can rid yourself of the weak points in your arguments, and strengthen the strong points, by conscientiously tracing the back-and-forth refutations of the debate yourself.
I do this all the time—I’m actively looking around for new arguments and evidence against my viewpoint. Why? To make it stronger—to get rid of the weak points and find even more effective ways to convey the strong points. For instance, that’s what I did with my “Most Terrifying” video—I pretty much threw down with the whole freakin’ internet. A million views and 5000+ critical comments later, I emerge battered and bruised, but with a better argument. In argumentation, at least, it’s true that whatever doesn’t kill it makes it stronger.
So do some more homework. Look up your objections to human-caused global climate change on Grist.com’s “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.” [Google “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic”] Then consider the rebuttal to your argument you find there. In fact, that site is such a good resource for you that I’m jealous, because it lays out exactly what you need to refute to make your point. I’d like to find a “How to Talk to a Warmer” site of equal quality that would give the skeptic’s responses to the rebuttals on the Grist site. And I’ve got to tell you, the lack of such a site reinforces my view that the warmers are more probably correct than the skeptics.
The pitfall to avoid in this whole back-and-forth process is stopping when you find an argument that supports what you believe. It’s very hard to resist. But if you make the effort to persist, the robustness of your opinion increases. You hopefully get closer to the truth.
Have you done this for your viewpoints? If not, why? I know we’re all busy as heck, but if there was ever a time to really know our stuff, wouldn’t this be it, when the debate is about whether our future is on the line or not? And if you still find yourself not seeking out the weaknesses in your own arguments, don’t you need to question whether you’re being intellectually honest with yourself? Is that really in your own best interests?
Along the lines of how a thorough debate serves us best, you should distrust (and please do not yourself engage in) simple dismissals of arguments: either “just a bunch of chicken little scare tactics designed to get control of my life,” or “just another rabid neocon in the pocket of big oil.” If you name call instead of refute, you concede the point. Only when faced with an unfalsifiable claim is it valid to decline to answer the points presented.
I know I’ve laid out a ton of arguments over the course of all these bloody videos. But I’ll challenge you right now: if you disagree, and your response is along the lines of “That’s just typical liberal scaremongering,” but you don’t actually rebut my points, then you’ll have to understand if all those watching take that as a concession on your part, and assume that you are resorting to name-calling because you know I’m right, but you just won’t admit it to yourself. So: if your response to all this is name calling rather than direct refutation of each of my points, then we’ll just have to assume that it’s because you can’t refute them. How’s that for throwing down the gauntlet?
You may notice that in these videos I haven’t addressed a lot of the most common technical arguments and objections about AGW. That’s because it’s already been done in such a thorough and well-organized way on the Grist.com site. I highly recommend you check it out. And please, if you have—or can find—good refutations of any of the points made on that site that have yet to be resolved in the comments section, please bring it to my attention, with references. I would love to see the next step in the back-and-forth.
For what it’s worth, as you research the back-and-forth debate, I’ve found the Wikipedia articles on climate change to be excellent as a starting point in looking for sources with opposing viewpoints.

Okay, I’ve been avoiding this, because I didn’t want to open the can of worms, but we’ve got to talk about the valid role of government. Now before you get all up-in-2nd-amendment-protected-arms, let me just point out that believe it or not you—yes even you—do believe that government has a valid role to play in society. You may just not realize you do, because it’s so distasteful to you. But unless you are a literal anarchist, I’m sure you believe that government at least has the minimum role of protecting you from my liberties, like getting my kicks by hotwiring your car. You also probably agree that another valid function of government is to pool resources and do things that we cannot efficiently do for ourselves, like building roads, or securing our national defense.
A good analogy would be back in the pioneer days, a bunch of pioneers might pool their efforts to dig an irrigation canal that no single one of them could have dug, but which benefits all of them. The next project is complex enough that the pioneers agree to have one of them coordinate it, and they compensate that coordinator for the time lost in his own fields. That’s government. The modern examples that most people would probably agree are pretty nifty include things like universal electrification, universal phone service (back in the pre-cell days), the interstate highway system, and food safety.
Here’s a comment I got: “But everything the government touches turns to shit. So the solution is not in public policy, but in the free market.” Now that’s just crazy talk. Just because there’s lots of stuff the government does that you dislike is no reason to let yourself be blinded and start sounding you have a religious faith in Our Omnipotent Father the Immaculate Market. Not everything the government touches is bad. How about having a police force? A fire department? Roads? Food safety laws? How about banning lead paint in 1978? Was that a lousy, heavy-handed government intrusion into the free choice of consumers? How many more kids would have been crippled if we waited for “market forces” to drive lead paint out of business? Would those kids be an acceptable price to pay for your liberty to buy whatever darn paint you want? So let’s stop the hyperbole about draconian government control of your life, and discuss its functions and limits rationally.
Global climate change is a problem that is—well . . . global in scale. And, as we saw in the video “Scare Tactics,” it has feedback loops too long for market forces to effectively react to. That is, by the time the effects are strong enough to spur the market to change, it’s too late for change to have an effect. So the market is doomed to failure in addressing such issues with long feedback loops and potentially irreversible consequences (at least, irreversible on a human time scale). So action on climate change fits perfectly, right into the most minimalist definition of the purpose of government: to protect you from the effects of me exercising my liberties (like burning as much fossil fuels as I please—it may be my private car, but it’s our shared air that I’m venting my waste to), and to pool resources to address a problem on a scale far larger than any other organization could hope to.
Here’s a related objection: “But people need to trust that the money spent to stop climate change will be spent effectively and honestly.” Yeah, you’re right.

Oh, and my test for falsifiability? My claim is based on very thorough and broadly-based research, and so would need similarly thorough and broadly-based disproof. The main lynchpin would need to be an answer to the question: “How could the most trusted and established scientific organizations in the world get it so wrong?”
I would need to see persistent and thorough evidence along multiple lines that the both the scientific processes of AAAS and NAS as organizations and the careers of a significant number of their most trusted and established individuals had been corrupted or brilliantly mislead by a tremendously well-organized covert campaign of manipulation. The reporting of the evidence would need to be picked up by the major news networks and hold up under scrutiny for a long period of time—say at least a year.
It would need to be an expose of significantly greater caliber, extent, and expense than any other in history, because the conspiracy would have included more individuals by an order of magnitude than any other cover-up or conspiracy, ever. Remember that AAAS has 144,000 members, and the NAS has been around since 1863. In effect, it would need to be of significant enough import to damage the credibility of the human endeavor of science itself for 100 years—essentially a paradigm shift away from the trust we place in science by using so much modern technology.
The claim of incompetence or corruption on the part of these organizations and the majority of the individuals comprising them is extraordinary enough, that I would need extraordinary evidence of an extraordinary cover-up. That’s an extraordinary number of extraordinaries. But it is—in principle—possible. Which makes my claim falsifiable, and therefore, not dismissable.
How about yours?

Speaking activity:

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