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.
Here’s something I bet you haven’t thought of. . .
You know that whole shouting match about global warming?
[Foil {wearing Viking-type hat}: Yeah! And I’m sick of it! {Explosion
with smoke—BOOM!}]
What’s with the hat and smoke?
[Foil (aside): I’ll be playing devil’s advocate. Lay off—it’s
the best I could do for horns and brimstone.]
Okay. I know it seems like such a noisy mess that it’s easy to
tune out. But here’s a thought for you: while we debate whether
humans can really change the climate or not, we are at the same
time running the experiment. The kicker is, no matter what the
outcome of the experiment, we’re in the test tube! So it seems
clear that we’d better get to the bottom of the controversy as
quick as possible.
[Foil: But how do you know which side to believe?]
Well, what if I told you I’ve got a way to look at it where you
don’t need to believe anyone, but can still decide with confidence
what we should do?
[Foil: What’re you smokin’? That sound impossible.]
Yeah, I thought so too, so I put it out there in a video, and
after being critiqued by thousands of people, I think I’ve now
got a conclusion that is pretty much undeniable.
[Foil: We’ll see about that. FLASH]
[0:55]
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.
This
video-article is part of an advanced listening activity for advanced
learners of English. 
The video on Youtube:
