Scientific Skepticism | Dr. Steven J. Allen

97% is a number you might have heard a lot in the last few years. That’s the number of scientists who supposedly believe in global warming theory. That 97% claim is questionable, but let’s ask the more important question: why do we find the idea of consensus convincing at all? The terms “Global Warming Skeptic” and “Climate Change Skeptic” are insults, but those who use this line of attack ignore that science only works when there are skeptics. Science is rooted in replicable research and experimentation. A scientist examines an existing set of facts, and concocts a theory that explains those facts. He or she makes a prediction to test that theory. If the prediction comes true, that constitutes evidence to support the theory. If the prediction fails, that undermines the theory, and the scientist goes back to the drawing board. It doesn’t matter whether a scientist is on the payroll of the American Cancer Society or a tobacco company, whether he is a Communist, or a Jew or a Baptist, beats her spouse, or volunteers at a soup kitchen. Only the evidence counts.

But what happens when someone gets the evidence wrong and it needs correction? That’s what critical peer review, aka “skepticism,” is for. In biomedical sciences, non-replication rates are estimated to range between 75 to 90 percent. Venture capital firms now take it for granted that 50 percent of published academic studies cannot be replicated. Imagine what would be done in those cases if there were no skeptics. Business and medicine would be at a standstill. If climate skeptics end up being correct, those attempting to silence them will go down in history alongside the members of the “scientific consensus” that, in years past, agreed that the earth was the center of the universe, that continental drift was impossible, that canals existed on Mars, and that evils such as white supremacy and eugenics were scientifically true.

When told of a publication entitled “100 Authors Against Einstein,” Albert Einstein reputedly said, “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” Science cannot function if skeptics are harassed and ostracized. When someone is challenging a scientific consensus with facts and logic, that’s to be encouraged, not dismissed due to politics. Argument, not anathemas, is the way to approach scientific issues surrounding climate changes. To learn more, you can read our study on Climate Change advocacy at I’m Dr. Steven J. Allen, thanks for watching..

Environmental Econ: Crash Course Economics #22

Adriene: Welcome to Crash Course Economics. I’m Adriene Hill Jacob: And I’m Jacob Clifford. Economics is about choices, and how we use our scarce resources. It’s not just about producing and consuming, it can also be about conserving. Adriene: Maybe counterintuitively, economics has a lot to add to discussions of how we can balance our desire for prosperity and growth, with the need to protect our natural resources. Today we're going to look at environmental economics and think about how economics can help us keep our planet livable. [Theme Music] Pollution is going to happen, it’s a by-product of human existence and there is no way that we can get rid of it all. In fact, one of the ways we know about earliest the societies is by looking at their trash heap, something archaeologists call middens, because it sounds better than “dumps.” But the fact that humans produce all kinds of waste doesn’t mean that we have to embrace islands of trash floating in the oceans, a layer of smog over industrial cities, and toxic chemicals in our rivers. For sake of simplicity though, we’re going to focus on one type of pollution: carbon dioxide emissions. They’re one of the primary greenhouse gases.

These greenhouse gases basically blanket the earth and are causing climate change. CO2 levels are the highest they've been for millions years which is why environmentalists consider it a “planetary emergency.” There's a lot of effort going into how to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, how to make cities more resilient to climate change, but in the interest of time we’re going to focus on efforts to reduce the amount of new pollutants getting spewed into our atmosphere. Jacob: The economic solution is pretty simple. Step one, identify the sources of the most air pollution. Done. We know exactly what it is. It’s factories that burn fossil fuels for energy, industries that use oil and coal to produce things, and vehicles with internal combustion engines. Step two, decrease the supply of these technologies and products or decrease the demand for them. That’s it, it’s simple.

But, the implementation of these policies gets complicated. Let’s look at decreasing supply. As we mentioned in the last video, one of the biggest problems with having countries independently enforce environmental regulations is the Tragedy of the Commons. No one owns the atmosphere, so there is very little incentive for countries to keep it clean and switch to expensive green technologies if no one else is going to. It’s not like there is some global environmental police punishing countries for polluting. While a country like Trinidad and Tobago has a huge carbon output per capita, its small population means it’s only producing a small fraction of global CO2. The other option is to decrease the demand for fossil fuels, possibly by finding alternate green energy sources. But we’re already very reliant on fossil fuels, and markets have made the production of those fuels very cheap. So, any new type of energy will have a hard time beating the established system.

So we can either wait patiently for new technologies to develop and get cheaper, or we can speed up the process by manipulating markets with government subsidies, taxes, and regulations. Adriene: In the case of pollution, there are long-term side effects, like climate change, that consumers often don’t take into account when they buy products. Remember negative externalities? When the full cost of a product doesn’t line up with the costs that manufacturers or consumers pay? Pollution represents a market failure — a situation where markets fail to produce the amount that society wants. To address this, some economists argue that government intervention is not only justified, but essential. There are all kinds of different ways intervention can happen — all of them meant to encourage producers and consumers to choose to pollute less.

One solution is for the government to come out and set very specific rules about how much specific industries can pollute. Forget markets. You're gonna follow our pollution rules. Another way governments encourage people to pollute less is by providing price incentives. Those incentives can encourage individuals to make choices that are better for the environment. The government could add taxes to gasoline purchases, or, on the other hand, provide subsidies for people who drive electric cars. Governments can also create permit markets — basically setting a limit on how much firms can pollute, and allowing those firms to buy and sell pollution permits. You’ve probably heard these called “cap and trade”. Proponents of cap and trade argue that it can successfully limit emissions, without creating hard and fast rules that might hinder economic growth.

And, governments can subsidize the development of a specific technology or industry—in an effort to make that technology more competitive with the alternatives. A country might help support the development of solar or wind energy. As of 2014, around 10% of the energy consumed in the United States came from renewable sources, which is pretty much in line with the global average. Current predictions are that by 2040 15% of the world energy consumption will come from renewable sources. But, alternative energy sources, for the most part, just aren’t cheap enough yet, so the majority of our energy is likely to continue to come from non-renewable sources, at least for now. Jacob: We don’t have the time to sit back and wait for new technologies to get cheaper, and there's no guarantee that the technologies that the government picks will be cost effective. Perhaps the solution is not to get rid of fossil fuels, but instead be more efficient with those fuels. But that has drawbacks, too. Some energy economists argue that the expected gains from energy saving technologies, are offset by something called the rebound effect. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble.

Adriene: Let’s say Hank uses a gallon of gas to drive to work everyday. Then, partially to help the planet but mostly to help his wallet, he buys a new fuel efficient car that only takes half a gallon of gas for the same commute. He saves money and there's less pollution. It is a win-win. But the rebound effect says that the benefits of energy efficiency might be reduced as people change their behavior. With the money he saves, Hank might start driving more than he normally would or he might go on a vacation in Hawaii. That leads to more consumption and possibly even more emissions. Also, if greater fuel-efficiency makes driving less expensive it might encourage more people to buy cars and increase the overall use of gasoline. And even if people didn't increase their driving, the new fuel efficiency could decrease the demand for gas, making fossil fuels cheaper and more readily available for other uses. The possibility of the rebound effect doesn’t mean we shouldn’t invest in energy saving technologies. It just means that we have to keep in mind how consumers will behave. It’s also the reason why it's important to have economists involved in the discussion of environmental policy.

The tools of economics can help analyze the incentives and figure out what might work best. Thanks Thought Bubble. Okay, so we’ve identified another problem. But before you get so angry that you kick over a barrel of oil and light it on fire, keep in mind that there is hope. Most countries are actively trying to address the problem of greenhouse gases. The international community has been trying for decades to work together to protect the environment with varying success. There are international treaties that commit countries to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. UN negotiations are underway to create a new climate change agreement — that could be adopted in December 2015. Private companies and governments are also funding research into green technology. In the U.S. the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated billions to fund renewable energy.

China is also vowing to clean things up, and, in fact, leads the world in renewable energy investment. So, now that most countries recognize there is a problem, the hope is that they’ll figure out a way, or more likely a lot of ways, to start addressing it. Environmental economists say that is not just governments and producers that need to change, it’s also consumers. Conserving and consuming more thoughtfully likely need to be a part of our daily lives if we want to protect the environment. But just bringing our reusable grocery bags to the store isn’t going to save the planet, even if it says it on the bag. Bigger and more costly interventions like improving insulation and changing thermostats might have more impact, but we need to recognize individual action alone isn’t going to be enough. Industries, governments, and individuals; we’re in this together. Thanks for watching, we’ll see you next week.

Crash Course Economics is made with the help of all these fine people. You can support Crash Course at Patreon, a voluntary subscription service where your support helps keep Crash Course free for everyone forever. And you get great rewards! Thanks for watching and DFTBA..

Climate Change Threatens Costal Power Plants With Flooding

America we remembered is a couple years ago in 2011 when there with the tsunami that sent forty-nine foot wave crashing through the nation of Japan and destroying them Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan a new study has come out indicating that a lot of the nuclear power plant a kiss on the east coast to this country could be underwater in just a couple years so a lot of our power plants are built close to water and that's because you have sort of I i'm not a nuclear scientist but something with water just used to wash the staffing but the outer while because of the sea level rise due to climate change or global warming arm is a good possibility that you know we would be a lobbyist and the predicted that the the novice level rather than ever thought would rise to the level where it would affect the nuclear power plant the currently that are currently in operation that are on call in coastal areas but nobody predicted that we would be such a high level high sea level rise because up I'm a changing global warming but it is happening and that means that we can possibly see a lot of our nuclear power plants just like the one in Fukushima and up underwater now there's a particular the couple be that we're talking about there's one particular Salem and hope Creek nuclear generation station which if possible the back and underwater on there's the Turkey Point their Saint Lucie there's Brunswick there's Seabrook their South the South Texas project there's millstone and there's program all that these plans to Turkey Point nuclear which is in Florida in homestead florida could be underwater by 2033 very mysterious issues here the same lose the power plant could be underwater by 2043 the Brunswick steam electric plant could be underwater by 2036 the Seabrook station could be underwater by 2030 these are all new scientific predictions and we don't act now to reverse climate change will never ever ever ever archive you'll never be able to retire recover who have kids born with like 10 like 14 fingers or maybe four fingers where home.

World War II, A War for Resources: Crash Course World History #220

Hi, I’m John Green and this is Crash Course World History and today we’re going to talk about World War II. But we’re not going to look at it as a battle between good and evil, but instead as a war for resources, particularly a war for food. Wait, Mr. Green, Mr. Green, what about like Rosie the Riveter and Pearl Harbor and Nazis and Hitler? Yeah, Me From the Past, I mean if the question is was Hitler evil? Then, yeah. But evil people generally can’t, like, cause massive world wars on their own. So instead of talking about, uh, you know, the personality driven model of history, I want to talk about resources, specifically my favorite resource: food. So the story of World War 2 is commonly told as a narrative of good vs. evil, and it is. But we can also look at the second world war through the lens of resource allocation, and I think if we do it tells a story of both causes of the war and one of the ways that it impacted both soldiers and civilians.

The presence or absence of food affected everyone involved in World War II. In the most stark terms, the absence of food led to the deaths, directly or indirectly, of at least 20 million people during those years, as compared to 19.5 million military deaths. Now, of course, both the Nazis and the Japanese were militaristic and expansionist in the 1930s. And they were both definitely motivated by nationalism, but they were also seeking something called autarky. You can remember this term by conjuring the feeling one gets near Thanksgiving: “Aw, turkey”. You can also remember it when thinking about the collapse of the Ottoman Empire: “Aw, Turkey”. Anyway, autarky is a form of self sufficiency in a world where, increasingly, people were reliant on world trade, and that made nations more and more dependent upon each other to meet basic needs. Both Germany and Japan lacked the resources within their borders that they needed to build their growing industrial states, and the resource that concerned them most was food.

And this was a big part of what motivated their imperialist expansionism. Like, Hitler talked all the time about expanding German territory to acquire “lebensraum,” or living space. But what this meant, of course, was agricultural land to feed Germans, that’s what living space is really about on Earth. And most Germans of the time remembered the blockade during World War I, which had led to acute food shortages. For the Nazis, to quote Collingham, “Lebensraum would make Germany truly self-sufficient and immune to blockade and this would eventually enable Germany to challenge British and American hegemony.” Meanwhile, in Japan the need for food was also spurring imperial ambitions. If anything, Japan’s limited space created a sense of crisis and made colonies seem necessary. Like Japanese colonies in Korea and Formosa, taken in the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895, provided 20% of the Japanese domestic rice crop by 1935.

And then the Great Depression and Japan’s growing population made the situation appear even worse and probably led to the decision to annex Manchuria after 1931. So the Germans’ plan was to open up Poland, and eventually parts of Russia, to German farmers. The Japanese plan was to resettle farmers in Manchuria to provide food for the homeland. So if the desire for more food was one of the initial causes of World War 2, it also shaped the actual strategy of the war. This was especially true with one of the stupidest decisions of the war, Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union. A German agronomist named Hans Backe put forth something called “the Hunger Plan”, and in doing so convinced Hitler that in order to become self-sufficient, Germany had to invade the Soviet Union. And everyone knows that you cannot successfully invade Russia unless you are the Mongols. Anyway, the plan was the Ukraine and western Russia would be transformed into a huge breadbasket that would feed both the German armies and German civilians. This was never fully implemented, because, you know, the Nazi’s could never successfully nail down all of the territory, but Collingham argues that it was a primary motive for Hitler’s disastrous invasion of the USSR.

And then on the Western front, the so called “Battle of the Atlantic” was largely about shipping arms, material, and food from the U.S. to Britain. This was incredibly important in the opening years of World War 2. Like, Winston Churchill once said that “the Battle of the Atlantic was the dominating factor all through the war. Never for one moment could we forget that everything happening elsewhere, on land, at sea or in the air, depended ultimately on its outcome.” In short, it was Britain’s dependence upon other parts of the world that ultimately made it stronger than Germany’s attempts at self-sufficiency. Starvation never became an issue for the Brits, but fear of running out of food, especially of running out of food for the troops, led to policies that made starvation a reality for many people in British colonies.

In British Africa, for instance, colonial policy forcing production for the war instead of for domestic food consumption meant shortages that were only made worse by wartime inflation. Crop failure in Rhodesia in 1942 meant widespread hunger and famine. And, in an echo of what happened at the end of the 19th century, World War II and British colonial policy spelled disaster for India. Japan had seized Burma in early 1942, cutting off 15% of Bengal’s rice supply. And when harvests failed later that year, hunger turned to famine. Now, the British could have alleviated the suffering but they were afraid to use supply ships that might be needed for the war effort to bring food to starving people in India. When you take into account hunger-associated diseases, between 1.5 and 3 million Indian civilians died, more than the total number of Indian combatants killed in World War 1 AND World War 2 combined. In the United States, meanwhile, there was no starvation, but there was some rationing.

And this was, especially relative to most recent American wars, some shared sacrifice. Americans gave up coffee and chocolate so that the troops could be well fed. So Americans and Britons hardly suffered from hunger. Neither did the Germans, actually, where memories of World War I made feeding the civilian population a top priority. Of course, millions of civilians weren’t being fed because they were being murdered or worked to death in concentration camps. But in Britain, World War II might have actually improved people’s diets. Now, Britons largely despised the whole-meal National Loaf of bread, but it was more nutritious than white bread and its flour took up less cargo space. It’s amazing to think that British people would dislike good food when there’s so much of it in their country. Stan, this is the part where in the comments all the British people say, “We are not a country, we’re four separate countries!” The “dig for victory” campaign encouraged ordinary people to plant gardens, and so they ate more vegetables. Full employment and higher wages meant that working class people also had more access to nutritious foods.

Also, you know, they had the benefit of Canada growing like, a gajillion acres of wheat. Although both the British and the Germans saw an overall reduction in caloric intake, it was nothing compared with what was happening in the USSR, Japan and China. In Russia, daily caloric intake by the end of the war was half of what it had been in 1940. And I will remind you that things were not great in 1940 in Russia, because Stalin. The daily caloric ration for Japanese women workers fell to 1476 calories, which was bad, but in China, where the corrupt Nationalist army was known to sell rice to the Japanese for profit, a famine in Guangdong claimed the lives of as many as 1.5 million peasants. And without doubt, much of the civilian suffering in the war was related to the massive amounts of food needed to keep soldiers fighting. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. In World War 2, the US and Britain made a massive effort to make sure that their soldiers were well fed, and for the most part it paid off, even though the food that they got was sometimes pretty gross.

The British World War I diet of biscuits and bully beef eventually gave way to the appetizingly named “composite ration.” American soldiers may have complained a lot about their infamous C and K rations, but they were the best fed soldiers in the world, receiving a whopping 4,758 calories per day, including meat at every meal, because, you know… America. As you can probably guess, Soviet soldiers did not fare so well, especially when the Germans invaded because it was their policy to live off the land, which meant scrounging as much food from the Russian countryside as they could. German troops weren’t as well fed as Americans or the Brits, but they still managed to scarf down a respectable 4000 calories per day. No combat soldiers were as consistently hungry, however, as the Japanese. Japanese soldiers were expected to feed themselves and were not provided with field kitchens.

Often this meant that Japanese soldiers were fueled by little more than rice. And as the war turned against them it became more and more difficult for Japanese troops to feed themselves. On Guadalcanal the Japanese attempted to re-supply their troops with floating barrels dropped from passing ships, but by December 1942 between 120 and 130 soldiers were dying of starvation every day. The Japanese commander there estimated that while 5000 of his soldiers died in combat, 15,000 starved to death. Overall, it’s estimated that more than 1 million of the 1.74 million Japanese military deaths were caused by starvation or malnutrition. Thanks Thought Bubble. So, a quick look at the history section in your local bookstore or an IMDB search will tell you that there are hundreds if not thousands of ways to tell the story of World War II.

And this is just one history of the war, certainly not a definitive one. But examining the role of resources, especially food, in the second world war tells a story that has at least one advantage over the narrative of the triumph of Allied good over Axis evil. Because it helps us to see that the war was not only about the soldiers fighting, and it gives us a window into the way the war affected everyone who lived at the time. It also allows us to see World War II from a global perspective in a way that focusing on strategy or tactics or pivotal battles doesn’t. Like very little fighting went on in Sub-Saharan Africa or most of India, but these places were deeply affected by the war in ways that don’t often make it into history books.

Also, we live today in a thoroughly globalized world, but so did the people of the 1930s, and it’s very interesting to see some of their responses to it. That hyper nationalist idea, that we can take care of ourselves and don’t need help from outside, as long as we annex a lot of territory that’s currently outside of us – that idea is a response to globalization. But I think history shows us that it’s a horrible response. It’s a dangerous business when humans imagine others as less, when they think their land needs to become our land so we can feed our people. And in that sense at least, you can’t separate ideology from resource allocation, and as long as we live in a world of finite resources, the potential for conflict will always be there. Knowing that, hopefully, will help us to avoid it. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is filmed here in the Chad and Stacey Emigholz studio and it's made with the help of all of these nice people and also with the help of our Subbable subscribers.

Subbable is a voluntary subscription service that allows you to contribute directly to Crash Course so we can continue its mission of keeping it free for everyone forever. So thank you for making Crash Course possible, thanks for watching, and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome..