How it all ends - Patching Holes

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.

“Patching Holes #1”

Okay. . . Who’s got all the answers? Who likes being called names? Who’s all for a civil and reasoned debate? Great.

You know that “bitter debate” I mentioned in “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See?” Yeah. I don’t like being called names. I’m just this guy, see, sincerely trying to do what I can to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. I mean, I know I asked for pointers where I’m wrong, but, geez, folks, do we have to be so nasty about it?

On Digg dot com, I even got called a condescending douche. So I was getting pretty down on myself. So, in an attempt to counteract both of those point, I’m going to wear silly hats for the remainder of this video.

I started addressing critiques singly, but quickly became overwhelmed, so here’s what I’d like to do. Now that I’ve got your attention, we can take some time to add back in some of the complexity that got smoothed over in the original video. So over the next few days, I’ll try to put together some videos to address the most common “holes” in the argument that have been gleefully poked.

Objections such as:

Say, isn’t that just Pascal’s Wager all dressed up?

There are actually infinite possible columns in between these extremes--what about those?

What if GCC is true, but it’s not human-caused, or we can’t do anything about it? What about that row?

The depression in this box could very well bring about all the stuff down here, making it just as bad, so the best bet is column B.

Shouldn’t global economic depression be in this box as well as this one, therefore making column B a better bet?

It’s deceptive because each box is equally-sized, implying equal probability.

I’ll try to get to those in the next few days as I have time and energy. If you share any of those objections and are curious as to my fixes, here’s a tip to see them sooner: I’m a big boy, but I tend to have more energy for responding if you’re not mean.

Gotta assign probabilities and numerical consequences. Given that this is a possibility, shouldn’t our best and brightest be evaluating this with all possible speed and resources?

If you disagree that it even merits such consideration, then here I’m going to venture into more inflamatory territory, and give you my take on the probabilities. Let me preface this by saying that I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about the nature of knowledge and how we know what we think we know. Not so much from a philosophical thinker’s standpoint, but from a process of science standpoint.

A big problem here is most people misunderstand the nature of science. It is tentative. The law of gravity is still being questioned to this day. Yet we use it, because it is the best that we’ve got. It is the closest we’ve got to an understanding of the nature of the universe. How do we know it is the best? Because it has been the most accurate in making predictions that we could test.

Science isn’t certain. We cannot know reality. Every scientific statement essentially comes with error bars--a statement of how confidant we are of that measurement or statement. One of the hallmarks of science--and the reason for it’s amazing effectiveness--is that it is self critical. This manifests in the peer-review process. It’s not perfect, it has made errors, and the results should not be taken as the “truth.”

There will always be dissenters. And just because they are outnumbered doesn’t mean they were wrong. Tons of examples. In fact, almost all science that has gone before us has turned out to be wrong. Good thing, too, or we would be stuck with 100-year-old science! Science makes observations, looks for patterns, builds models based on those patterns, makes predictions based on those models, and then tests the predictions with observations.

In climate science, you hear a lot about “computer models.” Why pay attention to what they predict about the future? Because they have been tested to see if they can reproduce the climate we’ve already seen. There have been a ton of them, and the best ones survive and are made better. In short, why believe what a computer spits out? Because it has worked before. But not just any computer, and not just any output--only the ones with a solid track record.

How to reconcile dissenters? Wait. The truth will out. The problem here is, the situation may not tolerate waiting. So you have to balance that, and perhaps make the best decision you can with the information you have. Because, really, that is all that science has ever done. We never get “the answer.” But we do get “the best answer we have so far.”

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. At this point, so much peer-reviewed science has supported the two propositions that:
1) the globe is warming, and
2) we’re the ones doing it,
that any serious dissenters who would like to have their answers considered “the best we’ve got so far” would need to have a comprehensive, well-established, peer-reviewed.

There is no consensus. I’ll let you in on a secret: you’re right! There is no consensus in the scientific community about climate change. But here’s the kicker: there is never consensus in science. And that’s because science is self-critical. Science says: “I want to know reality as well as I can, but I’m human and can make mistakes. So please, find the weak spot in my argument so I can fix it.” Science welcomes criticism! Why? Because that’s how it gets a better answer.

Pick the most well-established Law of Science you can think of. You probably thought of the Law of Gravity. Know what? There is no consensus! We’ve still got serious scientists testing it. They think it is highly likely to be true, but there is a satellite in orbit right now that is designed to observe whether are current Law of Gravity makes correct predictions. It’s the most hallowed law in science, and we’re still trying to break it! [MOND]

So what do you and I, as non-scientists do with that? We stop looking for certainty. Because science can’t provide it. Instead, we must tolerate some uncertainty, and go about our lives with information that we know to be incomplete.

If you object that AGCC is controversial or speculative in the scientific community, I would ask: what would it look like when we got a solid enough answer for you? Describe it. What would the test be for “good enough to go on”? When no one disagrees? Well, by that, don’t bet on the fact we’ve got a moon, because there are very convinced people who disagree with that, and they’ll present lots of evidence. How about: let’s take a poll. Reality by democracy? Who gets to vote? Only those with relevant degrees? Who decides what constitutes a relevant degree?

If a large panel of scientists in the field, looking at a large body of peer-reviewed evidence over a long period of time, with the make-up of the panel changing over time, making a quantitative statment that puts the probability at 90% doesn’t do it for you, then what would? It’s a serious question. What would be good enough?

How about this: I read a bunch of lay-science literature, stuff like Science News and Scientific American. Respected stuff that reports to the scientifically literate public what they heavyweights are publishing in the technical journals. And global climate change is no longer ever qualified by “purported climate change,” or “the possibility of global warming.” When mentioned, it’s just a given. What I take from that is, the people who do this for a living have decided that it’s just not worth wasting breath over whether it’s happening or not. They’ve gotten their “good enough” answer, and are moving on with it.

So here are some common objections to my treatment of the issue.

So how do you decide what to believe in the physical world (science)? I’ll tell you how I do it. I evaluate the source--how credible, what stake, what track record. Science, NAS, AAAS, professional associations. Does that mean it’s true? No! It means I weight it more than if I read it on someone’s blog or heard it from a friend.

So what would I decide on if it were up to me? I wouldn’t. I would hire a bunch of people way smarter than me, have them work on it as fast as possible. Then I’d have them explain to me how they got their conclusions, and then I’d make the call. Isn’t that what we should be asking for? Since climate change can’t be dismissed out of hand, don’t we deserve that?

Please don’t be content with a hit-and-run, whether you’re the victim OR the driver.

If you don’t believe me (which you shouldn’t--I’m just a random guy on the internet as far as you know), and you don’t believe a large body of specialists, then who do you believe? Ask yourself “What would it take for me to believe it’s probable enough to act on?” If you can’t come up with a reasonable answer. Then think of this: isn’t that evidence that your opinion is not based on evidence or experience, but on something else? That is, if you can imagine no evidence which would change your mind, then why do you trust the answer that your opinion is giving you?

How do you go about deciding what to believe when hearing opposite things from people with letters after their names?

. . .”expected value,” a well-established procedure in probability theory that--while flawed--still allows casinos and insurance companies to commit to paying huge amounts at unpredictable intervals, yet still be confidant of making a profit.

I know I said “tell me where I’m wrong,” but I also said “do this yourself.” It does all of us (you, me, and the rest of humanity) a disservice to point out an omission in this simplified grid, and then move on with the feeling that you’ve discredited it, and needn’t concern yourself with it any further. Grab a pencil and paper, and put the omissions back in there. Don’t you owe yourself that? Don’t we all deserve the most well-considered arguments we can possibly get? Catastrophic AGCC cannot be dismissed out of hand. That in itself implies we need to analyze more.

But let’s keep this civil, please. I’ve got no interest in joining the shouting match about climate change. Part of my sharing this was a hope that we could cut through the opinions on both sides that seem so entrenched that they won’t even consider the other’s argument, and see if both sides could find some common ground. Because like it or not, we’re in this whatever-it-is together.

Being dismissive of others almost never gets you what you want. So, let’s see if we can give each other the benefit of the doubt. I’m trying to listen to your comments. Please do that with each other, as well as with me.

So here’s the reasoning in a nutshell. If you want more detail, watch for the index at the end of the video:
[At board, with “You can never be 100% certain, so EVERY CHOICE CARRIES A RISK. Activists warn: Upheaval and destruction. Skeptics warn: severe economic harm.”]
First off, no one’s perfect. So any choice you make brings with it a risk if your choice turns out to be a mistake. Given that, which risk would you rather take: listen to the activists and take big action now, risking the possible harm to the economy that the skeptics warn us about, or listen to the skeptics and don’t take big action now, risking the possible destruction and upheaval that the activists warn us about. Bottom line is, which is the more acceptable risk: the risk of taking action, or the risk of not taking action?
[Foil: Um, geez—when you put it that way. . .{starts to take horns off}]
Hey, don’t just accept what I say! I’m just some guy. Think it through for yourself!
[Foil: Okay, okay. {Puts hat back on.} Wait a minute—global warming isn’t caused by humans in the first place—I’ve seen lots of evidence for that. So you’re presenting a false choice!]
Are you infallible?
[Foil: No.]
Could you be wrong?
[Foil: Yes.]
So the question “which is the more acceptable risk” still applies doesn’t it?
[Foil: {acidly} Fine. But it’s still a loaded question.]
Well, take a look at where the question came from, and see if you agree that it’s a valid one.
[1:00]
If you need to make a decision when things are unclear—like we do with global warming—it’s useful to look at the different possibilities for the future.
The first possibility is whether human-caused global warming is real or not. We’ll put F for the future where it turned out to be false, and T for true.
The other possibility is what action we end up taking. Let’s make column A action, and column B no action.
So that gives us a grid that sketches out four basic possibilities for our future.
What might each of these futures look like?
First is the future where we did take action, and global warming turned out not to be real after all. Let’s take the most pessimistic view and say there’s significant harm to the economy, with no positive benefits.
What about this box? We didn’t take action, and we didn’t need to. Everybody celebrates: the skeptics because they were right, and the activists because it wasn’t the end of the world after all.
How about this box? We took action, and it was a good thing, too, because here the doomsayers were right. We’ve still got the economic costs, but everyone’s okay with that, because we saved our cookies.
Now how about this box? The doomsayers were right, but we listened to the skeptics, and didn’t act. If we took a pessimistic view up here, let’s do the same thing down here. Well, you’ve heard this story before: disasters—environmental, political, social, public health, and economic—on a global scale.
Obviously, this is grossly simplified. The smiley faces should give that away. But we can say the future will fall roughly into one of these four boxes.
Most of the shouting match is about trying to predict which row the future will fall into, which we can’t know for certain until we get there.
What we can know, because we control it, is which column the future will not fall into. Because by taking action or not, we are choosing a column, and that eliminates the risk in the other column.
It’s a bit like buying a lottery ticket—we choose ticket A or ticket B with its risk, and wait to see what the laws of physics dish out as our result.
One way or the other, we’re taking a risk: so which risk is more acceptable, the risk of taking action, or the risk of not taking action?

[Foil: Hey. . . that sounds good, but the logic is bogus. Wouldn’t that grid argue for action on any possible threat? No matter how costly the action, or how ridiculous the threat, like Giant Mutant Space Hamsters? Because according to that it’s better to go broke making giant rodent traps than to even risk the possibility of becoming Hamster Chow, right? So that grid is useless. FLASH!]
Yeah, I totally agree with you.
[Foil: What??]
The grid by itself isn’t a silver bullet. But what it does do is it allows us to make a decision using uncertain knowledge by changing the question from “Are humans affecting the climate?” to the real question “What’s the wisest thing to do, given the uncertainties and the risks?” Really, it’s just basic risk management. So to get around your hamster argument, we need to get a sense of how likely each row is.
[Foil: Why can’t we just wait until the science is finished, and then we’ll know what to do?]
Well for one thing, that doesn’t avoid risk, because that’s the same as just choosing column B, which is where we sit right now. And for another thing, science is never finished—we’re still studying the law of gravity for Pete’s sake! As a science teacher, I can tell you that science—that most precise and geeky of all human endeavors—is surprisingly never certain! Every single scientific statement carries with it some sort of estimate of how big the uncertainty is. Which is part of why there will almost always be some disagreement on any scientific question.
[Foil: But where does that leave us, if anything any scientist says is accompanied by a sort of “but I could be wrong”?]
The trick is to not look at what individual scientists are saying, but instead look at what the professional organizations are saying. The more prestigious they are, the more weight you can give to their statements, because they’ve got huge reputations to uphold, and don’t want to ever say something that later makes them look foolish.
Probably the two most well-respected of these in the world are NAS [hold up whiteboard reading “the U.S. National Academy of Sciences”], and AAAS [hold up whiteboard reading “the American Association for the Advancement of Science”]. These are not advocacy groups, but both recently issued unprecedented statements calling for big action now on global warming. This isn’t a bunch of hippies. These are the nerdiest people on the planet.
[Foil: So trust the eggheads, huh? Basically you’re saying “If NAS and AAAS said so, who the heck are you to argue?”]
No. Well, sorta. I mean, who else are you going to believe on a scientific issue? But remember, you still don’t have to believe them. You’re just using the fact that two such stodgy institutions staked their reputations on this, to get a sense that this row must be way more likely than this row, pushing this line up.
Even companies such as these [pull off sheet on board to reveal the words “USCAP agrees that the world must preserve the possibility of stabilizing the climate at a level that would avert the most dangerous impacts of climate change” with list of companies beneath] are calling for emissions caps—on their own industries!—pushing the line up even further. Now the conclusion is clear, since we’ve got solid reasons to believe on our own that this is a much more threatening risk than this—not only in potential damage, but in likelihood as well.

[Foil: Okay, I can see that. But if the statements from those groups are such a slam dunk, then why do we still hear so much debate?]
Well, there is a handful of dissenting scientists—like there always is—and a media that knows that controversy sells. But I found a couple polls that suggest it’s the lack of absolute certainty that’s holding people back, which is a little odd to me. We buy car insurance without being certain that we’ll get into an accident, because we want make sure that if it does happen, we don’t end up broke.
And during WWII, just the possibility that Hitler might be developing an atomic bomb was enough of a threat to justify all-out action. If you were a voter back then and it was public knowledge, would you have insisted that every scientist interviewed thought such a bomb was possible before supporting the Manhattan Project? Would you have held out until you understood the physics? No. So why are Joe Schmoes like you and me still debating the finer points of climate science instead of talking about risk management?
[Foil: Well, there’s a gajillion causes out there already screaming for my attention and money. “Save the Planet” and stuff.]
Look, it’s not the planet that I care about. It’ll do fine on its own. What I care about is saving our bacon. And I understand how overwhelming it is when you hear cries about {places placards on the table, while speaking increasingly quickly}
save the whales, or the rainforests, or the children,
or air pollution, water pollution, light pollution,
toxic waste, nuclear waste, government waste, corporate waste,
Peak Oil, Snake Oil,
flag burning, wire-tapping, gay marrying, immigrating,
ANWR, Anbar,
gun rights, human rights, water rights, right to life, abortion rights.
Whew! Where do you start?
Well, let me suggest a way to prioritize. All of these [sweep off desk with a CRASH] will be peanuts, if the worst of this [place placard reading “global warming”] comes to pass.
[Foil: Oooo, way to go, Mr. Smarty-Pants. {points to floor} You just managed to tick off pretty much everybody. How come your pet crusade trumps everyone else’s?]
Because on the outside chance that the worst of global warming does happen {place placards reading “floods, droughts, hurricanes, wildfires, dustbowls, famine, epidemics, refugees, wars, economic collapse” while talking}, we’ll be so busy dealing with the fallout that most all other human concerns may seem like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I mean who’s really going to care if some protester wants to burn the flag on the courthouse lawn when the whole city’s flooded?
[Foil: But why the hysteria? What’s the big deal about a degree or two?]
Yeah. Turns out it’s not the warming that gets ya. It’s the way that such a quick change throws a monkey wrench in the whole system. That’s why global “warming” is a misleading name, and global “climate change” is only a little better. Really, what we’re talking about is “global climate destabilization.” And it gets worse. Because just in the last 5 years we’ve learned that this may happen very abruptly, like within the span of a decade. It may turn out to be like pushing a light switch: small pushes in the past have created only small results, until you hit an unexpected tipping point.
[Foil: Man, we’re totally hosed. We’re going back to the Dark Ages, aren’t we?]
Disturbing, isn’t it? Actually, there’s a lot of reason to believe we can fix this—maybe even without reducing our standard of living. If we’re quick about it.

[Foil: But what difference can I make? I’m just one guy. . . with a stupid hat.]
What you do is—spread the word! Because the only way we really get into column A. . . is by policy changes. And those only happen when enough people demand it. So you forward this video to others. If they forward it to ten others, and so on, in just 4 steps, that’s over ten thousand people that may have their opinions influenced. That’s power. Use it.
This is likely to be the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced. Think that’s overblown? Maybe. But can you be so certain that you’re willing to bet everything? Because we only get to run this experiment once.
Hopefully this idea of risk management will end the debate. How the world ends up? Well, that depends in part on you. And what you do next.
We have greatness within us—innovative, giving, determined. It’s time for the best in us to come out.

Hi. Thanks for sticking with me this far. I tried to make this video short, but just couldn’t do it. So I thought if I periodically blew up some stuff for you, it might help keep your attention.[explosion]

The author Douglas Adams noted that “the most dangerous assumptions are the ones you don’t know you have.” I realize now that in my first video “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See,” I made some assumptions that it turns out weren’t shared by everybody. My bad. My goal was to get people thinking in terms of risk management, instead of just debating scientific statements that they may or may not be in a good position to evaluate.

It seems we do have to talk about rows after all. As one commentor put it: “You seem to have retreated from your claim that you have an argument that dodges the argument. Now you just have an argument.”

So here’s my goal for the next couple minutes: I hope to convince you that it’s in your interest to do what you can to increase public demand for policy action on human-caused climate change. If I fail to convince you of that, I have a fall-back plan. A sort of consolation prize.
[Break]

The problem of course is, if you’re not a climatologist yourself, how to do go about sifting through all those contradictory statements by different experts? Robert Lindzen vs. the IPCC, the Oregon Petition vs. The World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, the Leipzig Declaration. How do you decide what to believe and what not to? One of the dangers we should all be aware of here is that it’s just human nature for us to hear the evidence that supports what we already believe, and downplay the evidence that contradicts it.

So, I hope I can help you sort that out. As a science teacher, I’m sort of halfway in between being a Joe Schmoe and being a scientist. I have some understanding of the workings of both worlds, and maybe can help translate some stuff for you. Some people have asked about my specific qualifications, and maybe I’ll do another short video on that if enough people express interest.

[What, the shirt’s not enough??]

The short answer is, it shouldn’t matter what my qualificaitons are, cuz you shouldn’t take what I have to say at face value. That’s what Google is for

.[Explosion.]

As we--the Joe Schmoes of the world--try to decide what to do with the different things that scientists are telling us, one of the problems we run into is this: we think of science as being the most precise and certain of human endeavors, so we expect it to tell us the “correct” answer.

But the surprising irony is: science is never certain. Uncertainty is inherent in all science. I’d be happy to explore this in greater detail in yet another video if you’d like, but the upshot is this: science is based on measurements, and every single time a measurement taken, the scientist aknowledges that neither they nor their instrument can be perfect, and therefore they make an estimate of how big the error--or uncertainty--might be.

And then they put the idea out there and invite criticism, so that weak points can be identified and strengthened, and the uncertainty reduced. That’s why it’s so important to ask if the statement you’re hearing about climate change has been “peer-reviewed”--that’s the official process that science uses to try to get closer and closer to “the truth” about the physical world. But it never claims to actually gets there.

So where does that leave us, if every statement from science is accompanied by an implicit “but I could be wrong”? How do we decide what to go on?

[Break]

Here are two rules of thumb: The first is, if you have the inclination, you can look at what scientists are saying to each other. I regularly read some scientific and lay scientific literature, and I’ll tell you, for a number of years now, the tenor about climate change has been not at all controversial. Generally when it’s mentioned, it assumes the reader is on board with the idea that humans are causing the climate to change. The hot debate is on what exactly that will look like, and how fast it will happen. That should tell you something.

The second rule of thumb--and the easier of the two--is to see what statements float to the top of that whole bruising process of peer-review and scientific debate. You do that by looking at what the professional associations are saying, because generally, only the most robust, well-tested, agreed-upon ideas will be adopted by those organizations of scientists. Their pronouncements are about as close as we can get to a gold standard of “What science knows.” Unfortunately, that process takes time to play itself out.

Fortunately, on the subject of human-caused climate change, that’s largely already happened. In the last couple years, two of the world’s most respected scientific bodies--the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)--have both published statements essentially saying: the climate is changing, humans are the ones primarily doing it, it’s gonna be bad, and we’d better get started doing something ASAP.

I shared this in a previous video, but it’s worth repeating here. The AAAS statement said: “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.”

It also pointed out that:“The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.”

You catch that? More expensive. This isn’t a bunch of hippies. This is as close as you get to the Science Establishment (capital letters). These are the nerdiest people on the planet.

The NAS statement said:“The scientific understanding of climate change is nowsufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.”and calls on world leaders to “Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clearand increasing.”

Why are we still talking about this? In matters of science, you don’t get any more authoritative that the National Academy or AAAS. I gotta tell you folks, if that’s not good enough for you, then nothing from science ever will be.

Sometimes you hear “there is no consensus amongst scientists about global warming.” New flash! There is no consensus amongst scientists on anything. There will always be scientists who disagree. You know why—because science is uncertain!

Pick the most well-known, well-established scientific law you can think of. The Law of Gravity, right? Guess what? There’s no consensus on it! We’ve got a satellite up there right now, Gravity Probe B, testing to see if we can disprove our current understanding of gravity. If you’re waiting for there to be no dissent at all, then you’ll wait forever, no matter what the scientific issue.

Science is never certain. So why listen to it all? Because it’s the best we’ve got. And the best science we have, articulated by the most well-respected organizations in the world, is that: the globe is warming, we’re the ones driving it, it’s gonna be bad, and we’d better do something about it quick.

If you’d like to argue any of those points, feel free. But you better come loaded for bear, because you’ll be going up against two of the premier scientific bodies in the world. So you’d better bring with you some extraordinary evidence, and not just a couple ideas that sound good, like “Mars is warming too, you know,” or that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record. Both true. Both irrelevant. Do you think these guys don’t know what they’re doing?

You can think what you’d like about what the future might hold, but you can’t deny that we are essentially running an experiment right now on what sorts of effects we can or cannot have on the global climate. The kicker is, whatever the outcomes of the experiment, you’re in the test tube.

And that’s why it’s in your interest to do whatever you can to increase public demand for policies that take significant and immediate action on climate change. Make no mistake: anything less, and you would be explicitly denying the best that science has to offer.

[Beat]

Okay, I see you’re still not convinced. You’re a tough nut to crack. How about this:Imagine you’re back in WWII, and the new possibility of an atomic weapon was public knowledge, instead of top secret. Would you have insisted on understanding the finer points of atomic physics before agreeing to the funding for the Manhattan Project? Would you have been against it until every scientist interviewed by the media said that it was possible? No. You would have agreed that just the potential of Germany possessing a super weapon was a great enough threat to justify putting our best and brightest on the job. To have them work with the greatest urgency towards an end that no one was certain they could achieve.

Well, if the possible threat of an atomic weapon in the hands of Germany—just the possibility—was enough to justify the Manhattan project, don’t the statements from AAAS and NAS—our most authoritative scientific bodies--give us enough already to justify a similar project for climate change? To get our best and brightest and have them do this grid, with numbers and all, right away.

Let’s not kid ourselves anymore. You can ask about solar activity, or natural cycles, or proxy data, but the climate is way too complex for you or me to do armchair evaluation of this stuff in the face of so much peer-reviewed science Let’s get the big boys (and girls) on it. Don’t we deserve that? I am not talking about forming another commission to “study the problem further.” We’ve been doing that for 20 years, and the statements I shared earlier make it clear that that time is past.

I’m talking a project on the scale of the Manhattan project and the Apollo project put together. We could even call it the Manpollo Project. One with the greatest national urgency and resources, drafting the best scientists, political economists, historians, and analysts on the planet to bring their greatest effort to bear, to work round the clock on what our best scientists say may be the greatest challenge we’ve ever faced.

In fact, there’s a silver bullet! Both sides of the debate will agree that we should have such a Manpollo, project, and here’s why: because each side thinks the project will get us closer to the truth, and dispel the untruths that the other side has spun. So we all want this, because everyone thinks they’re right, and would love further ammunition to prove the other side wrong. Wouldn’t that be worth the cost?

Because a Manhattan Project is not going to cause a global depression. An Apollo Project is not going to going to bankrupt the US, or lead to government control of your life. So what’s to lose? If we have a Manpollo project and it finds that human-caused climate change turns out to be bunk, then hey--okay, we diverted some government jobs from one sector to another.Isn’t reducing the uncertainty about this at least worth that cost? Let’s get to it!

[Break]

If you find an error in my assumptions or reasoning, please tell me where. And if you can’t, then for Pete’s sake, don’t just sit there! Spread the word! Talk to your friends! Forward this to others. Get clickin’! Let’s make this the chain letter that maybe ended up saving our collective ass!

[Beat]Sorry. I get kind of worked up about this. Anyway, that’s my understanding of things. But I could be wrong.[Reverse explosion.]

Speaking activity:

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