Help Launch Climate Skeptic Film Project: 50 to 1

This will be a top post for a day or two, new posts appear below. For those waiting…PAYPAL is now available

I’m participating in this, as are some other well known climate skeptics. The producer (Australia’s video pundit Topher Field) has 4 weeks (28 days) to get it funded in IndieGoGo. I ask your help to make it happen. Note, I have no financial interest in this film, I’m merely one of the people to be interviewed. Thanks – Anthony 

UPDATE from Topher:

What an incredible initial response! Thank you so much to everyone who has donated!

Paypal WILL be available soon (unless something goes horribly wrong). We are awaiting final confirmation from Paypal that our account is 100% set up and then we will enable Paypal donations.

UPDATE2: Topher responds to questions in this thread in comments, jump here

50-to-1 has the potential to shift the climate debate for good!

Watch the video to see how, or read on!

What if we could show you that trying to ‘stop’ climate change is 50 times more expensive than adapting to it?  And what if we could prove it using numbers and formulas accepted by the IPCC, CRU and other ‘consensus’ bodies?  Well that’s exactly what 50-to-1 does.

The original calculations were done by Lord Christopher Monckton who has since presented his conclusions to audiences of scientists, economists and mathematicians all over the world.  You can see the calculations and a FULL LIST OF SOURCES here: 50 to 1 calculations and sources 

Lord Monckton has now approached me to take the above and present it in a video and web package suitable for mass consumption on the internet.  If we can successfully help the general public to understand the futility of ‘stopping’ climate change and the relative value of adapting, then we can stop wasting money on useless schemes and start putting our money where it will ACTUALLY make a difference.

The 50 to 1 project is designed to get this message to the general public in three different, complimentary ways:

1. A 7 minute video. This video is designed to be fun, easily understood and contain everything you need to know in one tight and beautifully produced package. This 7 minute video is the centrepiece of the project.  It’s designed to be enjoyable, informative and SHORT enough that people will watch it and then pass it on via email and social media.  This in turn will encourage people who want to know more to go to…

2. … The 50 to 1 website. The website will host the video and more importantly will contain ALL the references for ALL the information contained in the video (see the link above for an example). Anyone who wants to fact-check or dispute the video will have open access to all our sources so they can see for themselves that the conclusions drawn in ’50 to 1′ are consistent with the science as understood by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  For those who really want to go deep into the issue and wrap their head around the current state of climate economics the website will also host…

3. … Expert Interviews. So far we have 7 confirmed interviewees, Former President Vaclav Klaus, Prof Henry Ergas, Prof Fred Singer, Anthony Watts, Prof David Evans, Christopher Essex, and Joanne Nova . Whilst excerpts of the interviews will be used in the 7 minute video, the real value is that we will be spending 30 minutes to 1 hour with each of them (so 3.5+ hours combined run time!) and the full interview with each of these internationally respected experts will be available on the 50-to-1 website as they share their thoughts and perspectives on climate change and in particular policy responses such as carbon taxes and trading schemes.

Each part of the 3 part structure is designed to work together, attracting people with the professionally produced, fun, funny and engaging 7 minute video, and then allowing them to fact check and explore on the website and discover for themselves through the interviews the true cost of ‘stopping’ climate change… which is 50 times more than adapting!

50 to 1 cuts across all the noise and fury surrounding the ‘climate debate’ and gets right to the point:  Even if the IPCC is right, and even if climate change IS happening and it IS caused by man, we are STILL better off adapting to it as it happens than we are trying to ‘stop’ it.  ‘Action’ is 50 times more expensive than ‘adaptation’, and that’s a conclusion which is derived directly from the IPCC’s own predictions and formulae!

This video, website and interview combination is a game-changer and could radically shift the climate debate.  But it will only have an impact if a large number of people watch the video.  The video needs to be so fun, fast paced and visually engaging that people will not only watch it, but also pass it on for their friends to watch.  7 minutes is an ideal length because it’s short enough to keep people’s attention, whilst being long enough for us to pack in all the information required to understand the maths and economics behind 50 to 1.  It’s effectively a short film which mixes the presentation of the maths and formulae with animations to illustrate every step along the way AND snippets of interviews with internationally respected experts lending the weight of their professional opinions to the subject.

President Vaclav Klaus, Professor Henry Ergas, Professor Fred Singer, Anthony Watts, Professor David Evans, Christopher Essex, and Joanne Nova have all agreed to be interviewed and we are still waiting to hear back from a few others.  Traveling with a production crew (to North America and Europe and back as well as around Australia) to get the interviews, as well as studio filming, editing, animating, colour grading and audio sweetening costs money.  That’s why I need your help.

The 50 to 1 project has the potential to shift the climate debate for good.  It has the potential to undermine political attempts to impose more taxes, stupid subsidies and the myriad of ‘green schemes’ which we’ve seen spring up in the last decade or so.  It has the potential to save us all a small fortune in years to come if we can totally undermine public support for ‘Action’ on climate change and shift the focus instead to adaptation as required.

I’ve enlisted the help of an award winning production company here in Melbourne Australia to ensure the highest possible standard of production.  All up we’ve calculated a budget (including all the travel etc) of $155,000 to do everything properly, although we can scrape by with less if we cut a few corners, potentially as little as $130,000, but any less than that and it will start to cost us money rather than enable us to pay our bills!

Your donation will help us to reach our minimum budget and once we get there it will be ‘game on’ and we will be able to get cracking and make 50-to-1 a reality.

Twitter Share Shortlink:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 2, 2013 12:17 am

thank you Andrew and Lord Monckton….

May 2, 2013 12:21 am

Contribution sent.

Jim Fletcher
May 2, 2013 12:32 am

This young man is brilliant, and I believe his youthfulness helps attract a larger audience.
I would like to donate, however paypal is not an option. Do we have an address where one could send a cheque.

May 2, 2013 12:38 am

I thought we were all funded by Big Oil /.Big Koch… 😉

Lew Skannen
May 2, 2013 12:48 am

I will definitely contribute.
By the way, have you approached a group called ‘Big Oil’ for funding? Apparently they have loads of money for this sort of thing, they are just difficult to actually locate…

May 2, 2013 12:54 am

Good luck with the venture.

May 2, 2013 1:00 am

To be honest, Topher’s is a human economy-centric view of the global warming problem and doesn’t consider the impact AGW may have on meerkats, desert donkeys, cranberries, and Al Gore’s carbon-friendly mansions. More seriously, if global warming is a reality Topher thinks we need to adapt to, and I have no doubt it is not, then humans are just one part of the picture. He’s got the whole world in his hands, now. He’s bit of a lot.
Topher’s adaption scheme, in itself an admission of AGW reality, then has to have solutions for the animal kingdom as well as our pocket books. Truth is it needs adaption planning for the plant world and the oceanic biome, too. If it leaves wildebeests and northern range muskox, manatees, tiger prawns, and hummingbirds as safe as you and I from Hansen’s floods and death trains then fine. If not he’s going to have to grow his tent to include even the lowly Brazilian flapping butterflies that started all this. This sounds like the beginnings of “Topher’s Arc”. And I absolutely love Topher’s presentations, but this one needs some deep thought about what it means to admit AGW is real and that we need to adapt to save our own asses, but also the asses of the rest of the family of living things. Particularly he needs to establish the scope of that “we” thing. If he can’t find a solution for saving hagfish from certain demise I’ll forgive him.

May 2, 2013 1:04 am

Complimentary (with an ‘i’): expressing a compliment, praising or approving, given or supplied free of charge. Complementary (with ‘e’): completing; forming a complement of two or more different things; combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize each other’s qualities.
I think it should read “different, complementary ways” (with ‘e’) – unless it is intended to mean (and legally commit to?) “supplied free”, when it could instead become a play on words such as “in different, complementary (and complimentary) ways”.
Just checking – could be either!

May 2, 2013 1:05 am

I would like to contribute, but as I only use PayPal on the net, it is not possible 🙁

Eric Harpham
May 2, 2013 1:12 am

Contributed. Lets go for it. Maybe this will be the tipping point in a return to sanity

Stephen Richards
May 2, 2013 1:15 am

50-to-1 has the potential to shift the climate debate for good!
Only if the national broadcasters use it.

Lawrie Ayres
May 2, 2013 1:26 am

Topher has produced several short videos of particular interest to Australians. This is the first that has an international interest. He does good stuff and his research is always accurate. I have supported him in the past and will do so again.

May 2, 2013 1:28 am

When will it be time to release the Climate Gate III files ?

wayne Job
May 2, 2013 1:31 am

To all the people who do not live in Australia Topher is a real gem, and his videos made on a shoe string are magic. This is why Monckton has singled him out, I am sure it will end a game set and match changer. Thank you Mr Watts.

May 2, 2013 1:41 am

Topher is a brilliant communicator. All of his work should be compulsory viewing for all schools everywhere.

May 2, 2013 1:58 am

Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
I’ve contributed $200 to this worthwhile project. I hope it gets enough support to go ahead and lay out the facts to a wide audience.

May 2, 2013 2:06 am

$100 sent

Frederick Davies
May 2, 2013 2:16 am

AUS$100 on their way.

May 2, 2013 2:38 am

Reblogged this on grumpydenier and commented:
Time to take them on using their own tactics and give them a Stern talking to.

Steven Devijver
May 2, 2013 3:05 am

One youtube video is not going to undo anti-CO2 policy in Europe. It’s not even going to make a dent. However, I would love to see this video.

May 2, 2013 3:13 am

Steven Devijver says:
May 2, 2013 at 3:05 am
One youtube video is not going to undo anti-CO2 policy in Europe. It’s not even going to make a dent. However, I would love to see this video.

Every journey needs a starting point and the ‘settled science’ is well entrenched. Showing folk how they are being hit in their wallets, needlessly, is likely to generate a faster response than waiting for Mother Nature to show these clowns up for what they are.

Bloke down the pub
May 2, 2013 3:13 am

I’ve become a film producer! Now, let’s see who’s on the directors casting couch.

May 2, 2013 3:30 am

dp says:
May 2, 2013 at 1:00 am
“Topher’s adaption scheme, in itself an admission of AGW reality, then has to have solutions for the animal kingdom as well as our pocket books.”
I agree entirely. There is nothing unique about our current climate and that should be the message driven home, rather than “we are affecting climate but not too badly and we don’t need to do anything soon”
There is now so much evidence showing a lack of causation between CO2 and climate variability, yet we feed the warming crowd these titbits. Thus we get the oft-repeated “even sceptics believe in AGW, it’s just a matter of degree!”

May 2, 2013 3:37 am

Great idea! donation made.

son of mulder
May 2, 2013 3:48 am

My good deed for the day done. Please don’t include anything that is not of cast iron provenance. If any money is left over why not use it as a prize for anyone who can find a substantive hole in the logic or provenance of the data being IPCC’s, that invalidates the thesis.

May 2, 2013 3:50 am

dp says:
May 2, 2013 at 1:00 am
” “

May 2, 2013 3:52 am

Its a great start, If the video goes on youtube it will also be important to defend it from trolls in the comments section. There is a heck of a lot of fighting over climate change vids on youtube. No moderation either, its bare knuckle.

May 2, 2013 4:03 am

Sent $100.
This is a worthy cause that could reach a large audience through the NET.

Heather Brown (aka Dartmoor resident)
May 2, 2013 4:22 am

Contribution sent – good luck! I hope this really will reach a big audience.

Phil Ford
May 2, 2013 4:26 am

My contribution has been pledged – I really hope this guy gets to his target as I consider his previous videos excellent and he is such a great communicator to old and young alike. Thanks to WUWT for bringing this to my attention – I’m very happy to help this effort.

May 2, 2013 4:32 am

Stopping the climate from changing is the gift that keeps on giving! 50 times the potential tax revenue!
Good luck, looking forward to seeing this. As noted previously, this effort could benefit from Paypal access (not hard to set up)

May 2, 2013 4:43 am

It is only fair that I contribute to this project.

Mark R
May 2, 2013 4:45 am

Monckton just ignores that the Australian carbon tax is partly offset by other tax reductions and that there are other benefits to health in reducing the use of coal. Send your money to the United Way or Red Cross.

May 2, 2013 5:09 am

SOunds like a great project, but it’s a shame to have to do it all all considering the disparity between the CO2 trend and the temperature record. How are they going to not mention this and keep the discussion on the cheapness of not fighting warming when we are cooling? It almost seems like an exercise in futility to convince people that it’s cheaper not to fight something that is not happening

May 2, 2013 5:11 am


May 2, 2013 5:13 am

Although we may respect Monckton (as I do ) he is well-stereotyped in the broader audience as a crank. And he comes up in line one. Perceptions matter…otherwise why make a movie?
As soon as you refer to the mooted title, you hand the gaffawwers a gigantic cache of ammo. Its controversial that title…so why mention it?
Anyone can make a movie but the challenge is getting people to watch it rather than hear it traduced in the media and go with the sheep.
UK Channel 4 aired a superb documentary: “The Global Warming Scam” (or some such title). That was a decade ago (and most people have not only forgotten the title but that it existed) Made not a blind bit of difference.
I cannot seethe point in banging your head against a wall.

May 2, 2013 5:15 am

Contribution sent – Good luck

May 2, 2013 5:21 am

Lets see how L Svaalgard handles this one LOL from Hockey Shtiick
“New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate
A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds tiny variations in solar activity over 11-year solar cycles have greatly amplified effects upon climate via changes in the Arctic Oscillation, North Pacific sea surface temperatures & sea level pressure, and via changes in stratospheric ozone from solar UV. The authors find the Arctic Oscillation evolves from a negative mode a few years before solar maximums to a positive mode at and following solar maximums. The IPCC claims the tiny variations in solar activity during solar cycles cannot affect climate, but this paper and many others demonstrate solar activity has greatly amplified effects upon climate via ocean oscillations, atmospheric oscillations such as the Madden-Julian oscillation and Quasi-biennial oscillation, stratospheric ozone, and sunshine hours/clouds”.
Journal of Climate 2013 ; e-View

stan stendera
May 2, 2013 5:21 am

His next project should be “Why hasn’t Anthony Watts won a Nobel” I don’t contribute to this kind of thing but I am making an exception.

stan stendera
May 2, 2013 5:23 am

The recent changes in WUWT, probably made to free up some of Anthony’s time, have born fruit. Ripe juicy fruit.

May 2, 2013 5:28 am

Anthony, I think you should really pin this post for a week or two – let’s give it the best possible chance for exposure and support. How often do we on the sceptical side get the chance to have someone of Topher’s obvious talent offer to make a professional, polished film in support of our side of the climate argument?

John Campbell
May 2, 2013 5:38 am

I wanted to contribute, but they only provide for payment by Credit Card. Why not PayPal? I won’t give my credit card details unless I’m 100% sure of the security measures provided. In this case I have no such assurance and so, alas, I am unable to contribute. Unless they provide for Paypal of course.

May 2, 2013 5:43 am

I don’t like basing an ‘economic’ argument on IPCC assumptions. It won’t sway the ideologue Climatists and their camp followers, who will just double down and tell us it’s the ‘moral’ thing to bite the expensive bullet and ‘fight climate change [global warming?]’. And the politicians and bureaucrats aren’t going to stop salivating at the prospect of carbon taxes, and ‘sustainability’, and ‘green energy’ schemes.
No, we have to hit them in the underbelly: the IPCC assumptions are all wrong: CO2 is a beneficial trace gas, essential for life, and burning coal, oil, and natural gas cannot affect the Earth’s climate in any measurable way.
Then you can make the economic argument: Any effort to do stop CO2 emissions will just be money down the drain, and will lead our economies to destruction.
Change the focus of the film and I’ll contribute.
/Mr Lynn

May 2, 2013 5:45 am

Erratum: “Any effort to do stop CO2 emissions. . .” should be “Any effort to stop CO2 emissions . . .”

May 2, 2013 5:46 am

The fact that paying to counter climate change will cost 50 times as much as doing nothing is totally besides the point and irrelevant.
The AGW thesis is a POLITICAL movement; it is an IDEOLOGY with all the characteristics of an extreme religious belief system.
Look, when DDT was to be banned many years ago and a prominent environmental “activist” was told that millions would die from disease, his response was ” well, we need to reduce the population of the earth and this will be a good start.” He simply did not care that millions would die (which did in fact occur and is still occurring in Africa). What matters, and what ONLY matters is their belief system.
The AGW movement is a left wing, neo-communist political movement that gained traction subsequent to the fall of the USSR. When their ideal nation-state expired – much to the chagrin of the self-anointed “intellectual” ruling elites – they needed a new vehicle to continue their ‘struggle” to establish world socialism.
Voila !! Eliminate man-made CO2 and that will bring down the evil capitalism.
There simply is NO cost to large to bear in terms of money, living standards, human suffering, mass deaths, etc., that the environmental wackos and the AGW proponents would consider unacceptable.
The ends justifies the means.

May 2, 2013 5:46 am

“People will be convinced…”
“game changer”
I’m going to contribute, but I in no way buy that this will alter the climate debate in some fundamental way. Bit of the old “pie in the sky.”

May 2, 2013 5:56 am

CLI FI makes dictionary here
n. A literary or movie genre featuring dystopian stories of Earth
affected by extreme climate change. [Climate + fiction.]
Example Citations:
Odds is the latest in what seems to be an emerging literary genre.
Over the past decade, more and more writers have begun to set their
novels and short stories in worlds, not unlike our own, where the
Earth’s systems are noticeably off-kilter. The genre has come to be
called climate fiction — “cli-fi,” for short.
—Angela Evancie, “So Hot Right Now: Has Climate Change Created A New
Literary Genre?,” National Public Radio, April 20, 2013

May 2, 2013 5:56 am

I agree with J.A. – we are dealing not with rational beings but with idiots – followers of a faith as sinister as any we have seen in recorded history.
Yes,, I’d like to contribute, but not by card – sorry. Paypal would be OK.

Bloke down the pub
May 2, 2013 6:08 am

Could I suggest that those who are uncomfortable with using their credit card on the internet make a contribution via paypal to Anthony’s tip jar instead?

May 2, 2013 6:14 am

No time to read the comments, but I did have time to contribute. I look forward to seeing the finished video. Thank you, Anthony!

May 2, 2013 6:17 am

50 to 1 is too low. We’re already, & have been adapting, however belated in some cases.

May 2, 2013 6:19 am

I suggest they set up a PayPal account for contributions.

Coach Springer
May 2, 2013 6:30 am

I’m thinking of Australia’s recent hostility towards freedom of speech re: climate and that if the US can jail a whack-job video maker in the US, this guy has a fair chance of being criminalized in Oz. And why does he want to drive women to prostitution anyway? (If you’re not up to speed with the US Congress, you really should be. It’s not ridiculous so much as it is scary.)

May 2, 2013 7:22 am

So… the IPCC is now deemed completely correct ???!!! ROTFLMAO 😉 🙂 🙄
It’s all CO2?? Stop thinking the sun affects the climate ??
Tell me, who just hacked WUWT?

Dodgy Geezer
May 2, 2013 7:22 am

…”What if we could show you that trying to ‘stop’ climate change is 50 times more expensive than adapting to it?…”
Good luck with trying to change a committed Warmist.
Remember that experiment when a presenter asked an audience of them if producing a magic wand and stopping CO2 emissions would be acceptable (if such a thing existed)? The audience said “No!”. They don’t want to ‘save the Earth’, they want to make humanity suffer….

May 2, 2013 7:23 am

I don’t think the justification for passing an Australian carbon tax has a whole lot to do with local damage over a ten-year period. If you want to “change the debate” perhaps you should examine the costs to Australia of 800-1100 ppm(how much carbon is in those clathrates everyone is so excited about?) over the next several centuries.
It is true that Australia alone can’t stop global BAU emissions, but thinking that this calculation is going to convince anyone who is worried about climate is just a little revealing of the average information level on this forum.

May 2, 2013 7:36 am

Would love to contribute, sadly don’t have the money to spare, and I find it difficult to stretch myself for a production that concedes that CO2 has any warming power on our planet at all, when it is painfully clear that it does not. I cannot in good conscience contribute to something that advocates something that does not exists (GHE). Sorry … 🙁

May 2, 2013 8:02 am

I’ll contribute. Make sure to install the best anti-DoS and other hacker safe guards on the site. You know it will be a target for the malevolent types out there. They will be funded by Big Green, a.k.a. the crony capitalist bunch, and the rent seekers from the “centers for higher education.”

May 2, 2013 8:02 am

It falls into the trap that AGW arguments are fundamentally based on science or reason. AGW is (at the core) really about collectivism (statism) vs. private individual rights. There are a dozen subplots but global socialism and its rationalizations are immune to science, logic or facts. AGW is a perfect proof of this reality.
Accepting IPCC figures is a detriment in the longer-term debate as they are a statist entity that must be ultimately rejected or destroyed. Skepticism is as dominated by this convention (winning through data) as the AGW is dominated by “fighting Big Oil” or other Earth Day meme’s. Facing the actual political reality of why thing are the way they are is essential so this argument is another distraction for a small audience. It also is rhetorically validating numerous false presumptions of the warming interests and that’s harmful.

William Astley
May 2, 2013 8:07 am

Thank-you for this initiative, you have my full support for the concept and my contribution.The carbon caping/trading and green scam mandates/spending is tranforming Western countries into third world countries and making no difference in total CO2 emissions.
Best wishes everyone.
The money spent on inefficient green scams has made almost no difference in total CO2 emissions in the EU. The majority of the EU CO2 emission reduction is due to massive transfer of manufacturing jobs to Asia. If the CO2 input used to create the Asian goods and transport the good which are purchased by EU consumers, the EU net CO2 emissions have increased.
The EU has managed to waste billions of dollars on green scams such as wind farms which raise the cost of electric power (the cost of power in Germany is roughly twice what it is in the US) and which do not significantly reduce the amount of CO2 emissions per Kw of power generated. The problem is the wind is chaotic, uncontrollable, and the energy produced is at the cube power of the wind speed. Energy in must always equal energy consumed in an electrical grid. The grid must be balanced. The extreme variability and randomness of the wind farm result in a net loss in grid efficiency as highly efficient (60% efficiency) combined cycle power plants (a combined cycle cannot be turned on and off on and off) must be shutdown and replaced with single cycle natural gas power plants (40% efficiency). If one includes the inefficiency of using a single cycle gas power plant vs using a combined cycle power plant and adds the CO2 emission cost to construct the wind turbines and install transmission lines and substations to step up to grid voltage and to handle grid stability issues there is only a minor reduction in total CO2 emitted. (i.e. The scheme fails to significantly reduce CO2 emissions.) The wind turbines are in the media quoted there rated design power which requires optimum wind speed (too much or too little they must be shutdown). Actual power produced is 21.7% of rated power in Germany and typically 30% in the US.
The scheme to convert food to biofuel is worse. There is all most no reduction in net CO2 emission if all energy inputs are considered: to grow, transport, and convert the food to biofuel. The greater problem with the scam (in addition to a massive subsidy and the increase in cost of electrical power to industry and the consumer) is that as there is a limited amount of agricultural land, virgin forests are being cut down to grow food to convert to biofuel which results in a significant increase in CO2 emissions and a loss of habitat. As people also eat food and the scam results increased malnutrition in third world countries.
Biofuels ‘crime against humanity’
Massive production of biofuels is “a crime against humanity” because of its impact on global food prices, a UN official has told German radio. “Producing biofuels today is a crime against humanity,” UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told Bayerischer Runfunk radio. Many observers have warned that using arable land to produce crops for biofuels has reduced surfaces available to grow food. Mr Ziegler called on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to change its policies on agricultural subsidies and to stop supporting only programs aimed at debt reduction. He says agriculture should also be subsidised in regions where it ensures the survival of local populations. Meanwhile, in response to a call by the IMF and World Bank over the weekend to a food crisis that is stoking violence and political instability, German Foreign Minister Peer Steinbrueck gave his tacit backing.,9171,1725975,00.html
The Clean Energy Scam
The U.S. quintupled its production of ethanol–ethyl alcohol, a fuel distilled from plant matter–in the past decade, and Washington has just mandated another fivefold increase in renewable fuels over the next decade. Europe has similarly aggressive biofuel mandates and subsidies, and Brazil’s filling stations no longer even offer plain gasoline. Worldwide investment in biofuels rose from $5 billion in 1995 to $38 billion in 2005 and is expected to top $100 billion by 2010, thanks to investors like Richard Branson and George Soros, GE and BP, Ford and Shell, Cargill and the Carlyle Group.
But several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it’s dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future, looks less green than oil-derived gasoline.
Meanwhile, by diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks, biofuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry. The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. Harvests are being plucked to fuel our cars instead of ourselves. The U.N.’s World Food Program says it needs $500 million in additional funding and supplies, calling the rising costs for food nothing less than a global emergency. Soaring corn prices have sparked tortilla riots in Mexico City, and skyrocketing flour prices have destabilized Pakistan, which wasn’t exactly tranquil when flour was affordable.
EPA’s RFS accounting shows corn ethanol today is worse than gasoline
Trillion-euro shortfall facing EU energy sector – Lords Committee
Investment totalling a trillion euros (£846bn) is required before the end of this decade if the European Union is to stave off an energy crisis.
Spain’s Default Risk Is Rising, Buiter Says: Tom Keene
Spain has never been so close to default and Greece, Ireland and Portugal may need further bailouts, Citigroup Inc. chief economist Willem Buiter said. “Spain is the key country about which I’m most worried,” Buiter, a former Bank of England policy maker, said in a radio interview today on “Bloomberg Surveillance” with Tom Keene and Ken Prewitt. “It’s really moved to the wrong side of the spectrum and is now at greater risk of sovereign restructuring than ever before.”
The Clean Development Mechanism delivers the greatest green scam of all
Profits on Carbon Credits Drive Output of a Harmful Gas
Profits on Carbon Credits Drive Output of a Harmful Gas
But where the United Nations envisioned environmental reform, some manufacturers of gases used in air-conditioning and refrigeration saw a lucrative business opportunity. … … The credits could be sold on international markets, earning tens of millions of dollars a year. So since 2005 the 19 plants receiving the waste gas payments have profited handsomely from an unlikely business: churning out more harmful coolant gas so they can be paid to destroy its waste byproduct. The high output keeps the prices of the coolant gas irresistibly low, discouraging air-conditioning companies from switching to less-damaging alternative gases. That means, critics say, that United Nations subsidies intended to improve the environment are instead creating their own damage.
Observations show major flaws
1. The missing heat is not in the ocean 8 – 14
2. Satellites show a warmer Earth is releasing extra energy to space 15 -17
3. The models get core assumptions wrong – the hot spot is missing 22 – 26, 28 – 31
4. Clouds cool the planet as it warms 38 – 56
5. The models are wrong on a local, regional, or continental scale. 63- 64
6. Eight different methods suggest a climate sensitivity of 0.4°C 66
7. Has CO2 warmed the planet at all in the last 50 years? It’s harder to tell than you think. 70
8. Even if we assume it’s warmed since 1979, and assume that it was all CO2, if so, feedbacks are zero — disaster averted. 71
9. It was as warm or warmer 1000 years ago. Models can’t explain that. It wasn’t CO2. (See also failures of hockey sticks) The models can’t predict past episodes of warming, so why would they predict future ones?
The solar death spiral has been long and ugly. Over the past year, there have been over a dozen stalwarts and startups that have headed to bankruptcy court.
Two companies even filed for bankruptcies in this week alone: manufacturer Q-Cells, which was the worlds largest solar cell maker in 2008 and power plant developer Solar Trust of America, which just a year ago was on its way to build a few gigawatts of solar projects in the American Southwest…. …The fate of Solar Trust, which is mostly owned by Solar Millennium, is a reminder of the difficulties of shepherding a power plant project to completion, even when all the permits are in hand. Solar Trust’s crown jewel project was the 1 GW Blythe Solar farm in California, and at one point the company was set to snag a $2.1 billion federal loan guarantee to build it before it decided to withdraw from the loan guarantee process last summer and change the technology it would use for Blythe.
Solar Millennium tried to sell Solar Trust to a fellow German company, Solarhybrid, only to see Solarhybird, too, file for bankruptcy last month.
Wind turbines operate under great turbulence, with consequences for grid stability
The researchers modeled the conversion of wind speed to power output using data from a rural wind farm. The results showed that the intermittent properties of wind persist on the scale of an entire wind farm, and that wind turbines do not only transfer wind intermittency to the grid, but also increase it. The findings highlight the importance of fully understanding the physics of wind turbulence in order to ensure future grid stability
They explain that today’s grids are powered mainly by a few large generators with controllable input (mostly gas, coal, hydraulic, and nuclear power plants). Power generation from these sources can be modified automatically in order to balance power generation and consumption, and thus ensure grid stability. But while today’s power sources are largely controllable, wind power is uncontrollable and highly intermittent.

Evert Jesse
May 2, 2013 8:13 am

Sorry, I agree with several commenters that this is most likely not going to work because it sends the wrong message: that AGW is real. I think many people feel that any disturbance of the natural flow of things (whatever that would be) by us human beings is basically wrong -unnatural has a bad ring to it- and somewhat frightening.
It would be much more effective when a good communicator shows that the climate tends to ignore our CO2 emissions, that the atmosphere has not warmed for a long time and that any perceived change of the climate in terms of extreme weather is therefore not caused by our CO2 emissions. Only when discussing the last stronghold of AGW, the precautionary principle, can you mention that the cost of adaptation is 2% of the cost of prevention. Or in other words, that it would be silly to pay a fire insurance premium of 50 times the value of your house.
Evert Jesse

The Other Phil
May 2, 2013 8:16 am

I just contributed.

Ian Weiss
May 2, 2013 8:24 am

This project looks swell, but what would really motivate me to donate would be a more humanitarian appeal. Climate change skeptics need to start emphasizing the dire need for energy infrastructure in poor countries where people die by the millions every year just because they lack heat, light, refrigerators, internet access, washing machines, transportation, et cetera. We need to start calling the alarmists out for the devastating effect that their campaign is having on poor people around the world.
John Christy’s story about giving people in Africa a lift in his van is a great example of how to get this message across. Watch it here, beginning at about 3:00 in.

Baa Humbug
May 2, 2013 8:50 am

I’m a big fan of Topher videos, alas this particular venture epitomises why us sceptics have not and can not win the AGW debate for decades to come. (Does everybody realise that the resurgence of the alarmists side is a mere El Nino away?)
Firstly, we fight too cleanly and honourably, like in old John Wayne movies. Reality is so much different.
Secondly, so long as we concede that AGW exists and the debate is a matter of degree, then the debate will last for as long as it takes for that degree to be narrowed down. That will be a life time or more away. In the meantime, the other side has annexed our universities, our institutions, our political parties and even the upper echelons of some of our biggest companies. Now they’re after primary and pre-schools. Good luck winning any debate whatsoever when these kids become voting adults.
In summary, I regretfully dub my side- the sceptics side -The Chamberlains.
My heart and mind wishes I could dub us The Churchills.

May 2, 2013 8:54 am

A question has to be asked: To what are we going to adapt to? Given that the climate has always been constantly changing, are we to adapt to the moving target known from the historic record or must we assume (love that word, don’t you?) the climate is changing along a known path going forward? If the latter, what is that path, why do you believe it is the one true path, and can you show your math?
If not the latter then what need we do that we have not been doing since before mankind had a written language?

May 2, 2013 9:06 am

“What if we could show you that trying to ‘stop’ climate change is 50 times more expensive than adapting to it?”
Well we can point out what a can of worms these IPCC tax-eating watermelons conjure up in their air conditioned ivory towers-
Some ugly trade-offs to chew on there for the true believers?

May 2, 2013 9:23 am

“Its controversial that title …”
No it isn’t. It is only controversial to non Brits who do not understand the difference between being a “Lord” and a member of the “House of Lords”.
His title of Viscount is hereditary. It is passed down from father to son. It is on his passport. In the UK you would call a Viscount: Lord. So the title is 100% genuine.
In days gone by, every Lord would automatically have been eligible to sit in the House of Lords. However, and this is where it gets difficult, our members of parliament have made some new rules stating that that is no longer the case. This allows them to select the members of the upper house in an attempt to stop them chucking out all their proposed legislation.
The question remains, although parliament has made some new rules, were they entitled to do it and should they have any effect? You might think that what parliament says, goes, but we have the Queen involved here as well. Parliament may be trying to change something that only the queen can change, technically. His Lordship, ever a stickler, is merely pointing this out. I appreciate that 99% of the world will probably not understand and it gives scope for his enemies.
So, in summary, he is a Lord but for all pratical purposes he is not a member of the House of Lords, but, even so, he may actually be a member on a technicality.

May 2, 2013 9:31 am

There has been considerable criticism of this video’s concessions to AGW theory and use of IPCC assumptions. While it is unfortunate to have to stoop as low as that, I believe it can be a very effective position to start from. Remember, when dealing with a public that is bleary-eyed from years of CAGW drivel and numb to any reasonable arguments against it, a great approach can be to take the very stick the warmists use–and knock them on the head with it. Having gained their attention, then lead them to the website, and finally to expert interviews of Singer, Watts, Nova et al.
The point is, it’s hard to reason with some people about this until you convince them that their deeply-held beliefs might be flawed. Start on their turf and walk them over to reality.

Greg House
May 2, 2013 9:33 am

“The original calculations were done by Lord Christopher Monckton who has since presented his conclusions to audiences of scientists, economists and mathematicians all over the world.”
I remember Monckton referring a couple of times to other scientists who allegedly proved that thing about future costs. Now the calculations have become his own? This is not a good sign.
Second, he never presented even a more or less convincing outline of such a study. Everyone can claim to have proven whatever. My guess is that Monckton does not have a case here, just speculations.
Third, making a film based on assumption that the IPCC is right and speculations on the other side is a bad service, wrong strategy and distraction from the core issues. It is a good strategy only for warmists, because such an approach gives the public the impression that the IPCC is indeed right, because why would anyone make a film assuming that the IPCC is right if they were wrong.
Fourth, it is much easier to demonstrate that the IPCC is wrong on the core issues. In short, the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC (warming by back radiation) is even in theory physically absurd and therefore impossible. “Global warming” is practically impossible to prove scientifically, like any other “global” warmings and coolings in the past. Attributions (global warming causes…) are simply illogical, because they contradict the definition of “global warming”. All this is very simple to demonstrate in such a way that laypersons like politicians and journalists could understand it.

John Tillman
May 2, 2013 9:45 am

Why does the film crew need to travel at all? Either fly the European & American interviewees to Oz, conduct the interviews remotely or hire local videographers to shoot the talking heads, if they can’t shoot themselves with sufficient expertise & quality of product. Some shooters might work for free, as an in-kind donation or to promote their freelance careers.
And why not produce a partner video on the reality of climate change, showing that catastrophic, runaway, Hansenian Venusian global warming is a vanishingly small risk (arguably impossible on earth), & that even sea level rise is unlikely to be a problem, while accepting that doubling CO2 from three to six molecules per 10,000 molecules of dry air (currently almost four) might raise worldwide average temperature by one to two degrees F? So, no worries. It’s a good thing.

Billy Liar
May 2, 2013 9:45 am

dp says:
May 2, 2013 at 8:54 am
We got to where we are now (almost) by ignoring climate. The present obsession with it can be viewed as a political strategy or a mental illness (fear of the unknowable).

May 2, 2013 9:54 am

The ’50-to-1′ project may be effective but I think only if it first resolves its problematic false unstated premise that it bypasses by starting with cost calculations based on the IPCC’s bias against burning fossil fuels. The project’s false unstated premise is that there is a net harmful impact on life from burning fossil fuels.
The project must, I think, dispose of that presumption of the myth’s truth first before calculating costs.
Otherwise, I am sure that the fanatical ideologically committed supporters of CAGW will just smile with derision at the strategy of the ’50-to-1′ project and say we must do the right thing about stopping the bad fossil fuel burning even when doing the right thing has costs so high that it seriously harms our lives.
I applaud the ’50-to-1′ project efforts, but am concerned its strategy starts with a non-fundamental, so misses the essential argument against CAGW.
If it fixes that, I would support the ’50-to-1′ project.

May 2, 2013 10:00 am

He chose some wrong interviewees
REPLY: Why Harry? Because he didn’t ask your office buddy at UCAR, Trenberth? Sour grapes. – Anthony

May 2, 2013 10:09 am

Anthony – GW has not been shown to be a permanent trend. AGW is still a theory awaiting analysis of the sign of the forcings. CO2 will only take you so far up the thermometer, and then the feedbacks have to do the rest. We have no clue what those feedbacks will do, but we do know they do not do what the IPCC has claimed they will do.
The current pause puts the entire subject under a microscope. I’m skeptical, hence the question – to what are we to adapt? That is actually no more knowable than Hansen’s claims of water front property at the 3rd floor level in downtown Manhattan.

Erik Christensen
May 2, 2013 10:12 am

$100 sent

May 2, 2013 10:17 am

Pardon me for being crass, but who the heck cares how animals and elusive species of plants adapt to climate change? The climate has been changing for billions of years on this planet and if some unfortunate trees or animals die, this is the way it goes. I think we should conserve wildlife and to conserve what we need especially as humans, but that goes without saying and goes into “costs for humanity to adapt.”
As for trees, if one species goes extinct, another will take its place or perhaps a new species will evolve. This is the science. If we start playing God and telling the planet that “you must stop changing the climate now..” Well we are just setting ourselves up for failure. Enjoy nature responsibly, but do not worry about nature adapting. I am sure it can adapt just fine especially if we leave it alone. The more we meddle, the more messes we create. The best plan of being an environmentalist is the minimalist approach where we do the least amount necessary to keep the biome full of checks and balances so as to make sure it self-regulates. Anything more and we risk once again making the same mistakes as the US Government in relation to yellowstone and other locations.
At the very least, we should study an ecosystem in full detail over several decades before we even begin to meddle. But then again, most of our ecosystems have been maintained by natives (here in the states) and land-owners who have a certain drive to maintain their own land so as to make sure it stays profitable and/or pretty. The worst thing we could ever do for the environment is to meddle blindly on human emotion. That as yellowstone has shown is a sure way to destroy a pristine wilderness.
In other words, by putting Government in control of ecosystems is the sure-fire way to guarentee that a certain land is going to be maintained poorly and that issues will be addressed either not at all or to such an extreme level (such as fire control in yellowstone) that the resulting inferno will make even the most socialistic green blush.
This is why film projects like this are so important. We can as sceptics show that fool-hardy nature of trying to control the weather through expensive taxes on carbon. We can show how such taxes benefit the environment a lot less than claimed and normally that money just ends up in rich people’s bank accounts while the rest of us folks end up poorer. We don’t need indulgances and other feel-good measures, that will accomplish nothing.
What will accomplish something is responsible environmentalism where people do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The people and their interaction with the environment is more important than anything else. Any group that focuses on other issues is not a true environmental agency but rather a political group attempting to enlicit political change by using the false flag of environmentalism. This is what we should as sceptics focus on.

Benjamin P.
May 2, 2013 10:21 am

So, is saying we should adapt to climate change an admission that the climate is changing?

May 2, 2013 10:28 am

For the price of a movie, $10, you can help make the (7-min) movie you actually want to see.

May 2, 2013 10:29 am

Sent $50..
Thanks Anthony only gave because of your recommendation

May 2, 2013 10:47 am

Mark R says:
May 2, 2013 at 4:45 am
Monckton just ignores that the Australian carbon tax is partly offset by other tax reductions and that there are other benefits to health in reducing the use of coal. Send your money to the United Way or Red Cross.
Hey Mark,
When everyone finally realises that CAGW is complete horseshit, do you think the Aussie government is going to stop collecting the “carbon” tax.
Don’t hold your breath.

May 2, 2013 10:48 am

@Benjamin P.
Has anyone here said the climate is not changing?

Bill Curry
May 2, 2013 10:51 am

What is the point of having a 16mm projector in the background? Are you going to waste the money editing a steinbeck instead of an Avid?

May 2, 2013 10:58 am

Although I support this sort of effort, I still think we’re fighting the wrong battle. I’m sure there is a portion of the CAGW crowd that truly believes that higher CO2 levels is a serious problem and will lead to catastrophe. That’s not really the group we need to be most concerned about. The real problem group is the socialist left that has adopted CAGW as another means to implement their agenda which is to control the world through government with them in charge as the elite ruling class. Right or wrong in the CAGW debate is irrelevant to these people. They only need to have enough low information people on board with them and to convince enough politicians to implement their policies. Of course this is a lot easier when they are already in high government positions. You’ll never see these people debate the CAGW issue because they can’t win a rational debate and therefore it doesn’t serve their purpose. Ignoring the truth and repetition of the lie is what works for them.
The mainstream media will be of no help in this battle because they consider themselves part of the left elite. For over 4 years now I’ve heard President Obama stand in front of the gathered media and lie about all sorts of things. The latest is that the Head Start preschool program makes a significant difference in the lives of children in the long run and therefore we need more of it. Nearly all studies on the subject conclude the difference is erased by the end of the first grade. The media is unquestioning. The truth doesn’t matter because truth is not the agenda. The agenda is to indoctrinate children as young as possible in the socialist “government is a vital part of your life” mindset.
The battle we need to be fighting is that the socialist left agenda is wrong and we need to get them out of power. If that were to happen then all these schemes like CO2 regulation whose real purpose is to control your behavior would disappear.
Although it’s necessary to have the correct scientific and economic analyses available to refute the true CAGW believers, it’s of no help to defeat the socialist left and their agenda of controlling the world.

May 2, 2013 11:02 am

Coach Springer says:
May 2, 2013 at 6:30 am
I’m thinking of Australia’s recent hostility towards freedom of speech re: climate and that if the US can jail a whack-job video maker in the US, this guy has a fair chance of being criminalized in Oz. And why does he want to drive women to prostitution anyway? (If you’re not up to speed with the US Congress, you really should be. It’s not ridiculous so much as it is scary.)
One of the radio talk back programs I listen to said something along the lines of …. “so climate change is going to drive women to prostitution eh? How about economic hardship when we flush what is left of the economy down the toilet with these green schemes?”
As a US citizen, I agree ……. the stupidity of our congresspeople IS frightening sometimes.

May 2, 2013 11:07 am

I’d like to see Hurricane Bill Gray on camera, unless another old white male scientist would be too un-PC, no matter how distinguished.

May 2, 2013 11:22 am

I’m in once Paypal is set up.

May 2, 2013 11:31 am

I donated because Christopher is a great presenter and it is about time for an easy to understand youtube climate video bite that I can send to everybody I know.
I also suggested to provide the video with subtitles (closed captioning it is called?) in several languages, to enlarge the target group. I offered to translate into Dutch.
Anybody here who speaks German/French/Spanish/Portugese/Japanese/etc and willing to translate? Let Christopher know at the link above!

May 2, 2013 11:35 am

Anthony Watts says:
May 2, 2013 at 9:14 am
Pardon me, but, AGW is a real effect, you folks that don’t think so, get over it, you sound like the slayers/principia cult.
The real questions are. How much? How sensitive is our atmosphere to CO2, and how many, how much do feedbacks contribute/retard depending on whether they are positive or negative?
Trying to sell “AGW isn’t real” won’t fly, no matter how you frame it, because rational skeptics, from Dr. Richard Lindzen right on down acknowledge the reality of it in literature with sensitivity studies and essays. Lindzen and Choi pointed out the sensitivity was small, less than 1C, and thus not a real concern. . .

But, Anthony, Prof. Lindzen does not come up with “numbers and formulas accepted by the IPCC, CRU and other ‘consensus’ bodies” (to quote the film-maker above). He comes to quite a different conclusion. Would a 1º C temperature increase from doubling atmospheric CO2 make a measurable difference, have destructive effects of any kind, or require any kind of ‘adaptation’? The answer is almost certainly no, aside from extending the growing range of crops a little. The warming effect of CO2 may be real, but small, and the anthropogenic contribution even less.
The point has to be, not that solving the ‘problem’ is too expensive, but that there is no problem. With all due respect, I think the enterprise has got the shoe on the wrong foot.
/Mr Lynn

Laurence Clark Crossen
May 2, 2013 11:54 am

Global warming should add one hundred times as much wealth to the world as it takes away.
Please see:
Thomas Gale Moore’s
Global warming : a boon to humans and other animals
& Climate of fear : why we shouldn’t worry about global warming

May 2, 2013 12:00 pm

CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 80 times as many molecules capturing 560 times as much heat making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
See The Two Minute Conservative via Google or: When you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.

Big D in TX
May 2, 2013 12:01 pm

John Tillman says:
May 2, 2013 at 9:45 am
Why does the film crew need to travel at all? Either fly the European & American interviewees to Oz, conduct the interviews remotely or hire local videographers to shoot the talking heads, if they can’t shoot themselves with sufficient expertise & quality of product.
Several reasons.
First, a busy person in America or Europe can probably find an hour in their schedule to sit down for an interview. Much less so might they be able to schedule an international trip to the opposite end of the earth, even with all expenses paid. (This is versus the film crew, whose literal job is making the movie, including travel to location.)
Second, consider that this project is on the side of the underdog, and it may be very difficult to thoroughly vet the candidates for hire to conduct the interview/film for the project, without ever meeting them in person. Have you ever heard the phrase, if you want something done right, you must do it yourself? Also, it may be difficult to find someone who can work within the low budget this project will appear to have.
Third, it is a very different viewing experience to see a real live interview conducted, with natural and un-prompted responses, from watching someone read off a teleprompter or deliver prepared replies to a questionnaire. Audiences can tell the difference, and the real deal is much more engaging and effective.
I could go on, about the quality standards of footage obtained, and ability to change things on the fly, etc., but suffice to say, anyone who has conducted business and traveled for it understands the difference between dealing with someone in person, and doing business over the phone or via video call.

May 2, 2013 12:05 pm

With all due respect, those who think the video should oppose the existence of AGW, or discuss climate sensitivity, or promote ultra-right politics, or etc.. are mistaken. They are all very mistaken.
People are where they are. If you want them to move to where you are then, first, you need to meet them where they are. Only then can you ‘hold their hand’ and lead them to where you want them to be.
At present many people think AGW is real and are accepting policies justified by AGW. They will only question those policies if they think the policies are misguided. And they are able to hear arguments about costs and benefits because those things affect – so interest – them. But the reality and the so-called ‘science’ of AGW don’t affect – so don’t interest – them.
So, when people know the costs cannot be worth the benefits then they will be open to other issues, but not before.
And adaptation to climate change is NOT new. It is the oldest known political policy in the world.
Climate changes. It always has and it always will, everywhere. As climate changes then people do what they need to do; for example, farmers change their crops. And good governments prepare for it by preparing for bad times when in good times.
According to Biblical legend this policy of preparing for bad times when in good times was suggested by Joseph (the one with the Technicolour Dream Coat). That legend demonstrates the policy has existed for at least three millennia, and until recently all sensible governments adopted it.
The policy is sensible because governments can cope with people complaining at taxes in the good times, but governments fall if there are food riots in the bad times.
But that sensible policy on dealing with climate change – which is tried and tested over thousands of years – is being abandoned in hope of controlling the climate instead. The new and untried policy cannot work because – whether or not the climate can be controlled – the tried and tested policy is much cheaper for the same benefits. Every reasonable person can understand that.

John Tillman
May 2, 2013 12:10 pm

Dr. Singer is retired, as is Pres. Klaus, who also must travel to the US for his work at the Cato Institute. They and Anthony might welcome the opportunity to travel to Australia and meet colleagues there, as well as to facilitate making the video. I’d ask how they felt about that before flying the whole crew to the NH and across the Pacific and Atlantic or the Eurasian landmass.

John Tillman
May 2, 2013 12:22 pm

Not that being retired implies lack of business. But why not at least afford the esteemed interviewees that choice, as it would also make the video on a smaller budget?

Jim B in Canada
May 2, 2013 12:41 pm

Come on! 130 THOUSAND for a 7 minute video?? Who’s he getting Tom Cruise to do the narration? He just did a 4 minute video for free and he wants $130,000 to do a seven minute video with facts readily available on the internet already! Look I’ve donated to lots of skeptic causes over the years but this is BS, the guy just want to get a free vacation and most likely a nice house on our dime.
Give me 130 THOUSAND DOLLARS and I’ll give TEN 7 minute videos, hell make it a HUNDRED, if all I have to do is a simple interviews and a website.
Give your money to Anthony, he deserves it and has PROVEN he deserves it!
As for this guy, show him how to use Skype, a webcam and wordpress. A web page and a 7 minute video can be done for well under $100.

Benjamin P.
May 2, 2013 12:41 pm


May 2, 2013 12:42 pm

Waiting for PayPal. I do NOT use credit cards on the internet.

May 2, 2013 1:14 pm

I am most grateful to everyone who has been so very generous in contributing to the cost of the 50 to 1 video, and especially to Anthony for promoting it on his formidable website. The cost of doing a professional job, interviewing everyone from heads of state to leading academics, is substantial.
Those who are concerned that I am selling the pass by using the IPCC’s and Stern’s own numbers and methods should not be. The case will be presented ad argumentum – for the sake of argument. If it is 50 times more expensive and less cost-effective to mitigate even the IPCC’s 3 K global warming today to avoid the cost of adaptation the day after tomorrow, then a fortiori it is still more expensive and still less cost-effective if there is little or no problem to mitigate.
As Topher Field clearly explains in his video, the ad-argumentum approach cuts away all opposition on the ground that “the science is settled”, because even if it were settled there would be no case at all for spending a single red cent on doing anything about it. That is why this argument is so powerful.
Those who suggest that the argument is unsound or originates elsewhere will be relieved to know that this is indeed not only an original result (which is in line with, but more detailed than, other results in the reviewed economic literature) but also a reviewed result. I have just corrected the page-proofs and the underlying paper will appear in the 45th Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists, to which I presented the calculations last August. Aside from a suggestion from a true-believer that I should adopt a zero inter-temporal discount rate (which, though it is counter to the interests of future generations, I have done), the meeting was unable to find fault with the calculations, which I presented in detail during a 25-minute talk.
Those who say no rational argument will ever move the true-believers should not despair. If we gently but firmly persist in arguing rationally, the fact will become evident and the truth of what we say will be recognized. Have courage!
Thank you all very much again.

May 2, 2013 1:21 pm

@Jim B:
While agreeing with your point overall, I can see a reasonable budget of over $13,000 US rather than 130 grand.
Assume a lighting tech & video/sound cam operator, each at ~$100/hour for four or five hours filming & set-up. Call it $1000. Say a day to edit, for another grand. Topher’s narration & interview time the same. We’re at $3000. But double that to $6000.
Flying three or four interview subjects round trip to the Antipodes from North America & Europe, maybe another $6000, plus accommodation, meals & in-country transport, etc, up to $2000.
Total $14,000, with generous fudge factors. Since I’m liable to have overlooked something, let’s say $20K.
Please correct me, if wrong. I realize that your estimate assumed no travel & largely donated labor. Those with more video production experience than I, please also comment. Thanks.
Nevertheless, I’ll donate when PayPal is up.

Jim B in Canada
May 2, 2013 2:00 pm

@milodonharlani “Assume a lighting tech & video/sound cam operator, each at ~$100/hour for four or five hours filming & set-up. Call it $1000.” 10 hours of labour for a 7 minute final product??? can I work for you PLEASE! I thought the civil service was slow! I say again this is just a money making scam.
If you want to donate to someone Anthony Watts has done more with less, and has done it better than this guy ever could.
Anyone donating to the sad little youtube video should at least give an equal amount to Anthony for all this YEARS of service.
You know, I donated to WUWT years ago, maybe it’s time to donate again.

May 2, 2013 2:06 pm

Anthony Watts says:
May 2, 2013 at 11:40 am
. Lynn. From what I know, pointing out that it isn’t a problem worth worrying about is the main thrust. I’m sure he’s open to comments on framing the argument, but if some people simply take a “it isn’t framed like I want it to be” it will never get done. Don’t be snooty, help out, then lobby the framing.

That’s not the impression I got from the introduction at the top. Perhaps Topher Field could tell us how he plans to structure the argument. Seven minutes isn’t a lot of time for comments by the host of interviewees he has listed, so it will have to rely on bullet points, which he could present here for discussion.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘snooty’; I’m just making a basic point. When you are dealing with ideologues, you can’t turn their heads without challenging their assumptions. I don’t think the “Even assuming what you say is true” tactic will work.
Just using the phrase ‘climate change’ is a mistake: it’s a Climatist buzzword designed to obfuscate the argument. The question is: will continuing to burn ‘fossil fuels’ (natural gas?) cause catastrophic global warming? It won’t, so there’s no problem. That’s where the argument has to start.
/Mr Lynn

May 2, 2013 2:17 pm

Benjamin P. says:
May 2, 2013 at 12:41 pm

You got a link(s) or reference?
I’ll be interested to see who here doesn’t think the climate changes.

Richard G
May 2, 2013 2:33 pm

No matter how the climate changes, up down or sideways, the stark unavoidable reality is :
every 100 gigatons of CO2 added to the atmosphere equals 67 gigatons of carbohydrate equivalent biomass.
More CO2 = More sugar!
Now that, my friends, is how climate change Feeds the world.

David Blackall
May 2, 2013 2:39 pm

I have HD video of Plimer and Monchton at the Sheraton in Sydney and a number of rallies that you are welcome to.
May 2, 2013 2:54 pm

I feel the premise is wrong. Those who are dilligent enough to understand this issue deeply, are going to understand this(and they come here every day of course!). We are the choir. Those who don’t, which is most the public, believe we are facing certain death and this proposal will present as some kind of measly cash tradeoff. Perhaps a documentary spelling out that AGW as theorized is debunked completely and that there is nothing to worry about, or pay for, and here’s why, would have a better chance of resonating. That’s my 000.000.02c worth

May 2, 2013 2:59 pm

It is a nice idea, but it is not a new one (the substance of the economic argument, not the idea of turning it into a video). Many economists have made the same point. For example, Bjorn Lomborg has long argued that, accepting everything the IPCC says about climate change as accurate, it still makes no sense to adopt hugely expensive measures to address it — that was the central theme of his book, Cool It! (2007), aimed at a non-technical (in econ, not climatology or physics) audience, and his many op-eds since then. William Nordhaus reached broadly similar conclusions in his book, A Question of Balance (2008), and has expanded on the theme in lots of follow-up in the economic literature since then as well.

Chad Wozniak
May 2, 2013 3:06 pm

@Lew Skannen –
Unfortunately. BIg Oil is =financing the alarmists because it expects to make more money on higher energy prices and be able to profit from otherwise uneconomic renewables projects. The one exception appears to be the Koch brothers, David and Charles. I’m not sure whether they would be open to being apoproached, as they have tried to stay out of, inter alia, the Keystone Pipeline debate. Perhaps someone shoud try and appeat to their patriotism.

Chad Wozniak
May 2, 2013 3:16 pm

Anthony, I am disappointed that you would concede the “reality” of AGW. Human activity is a statistically insignificant fraction of an infinitesimal factor in climate change. Whatever effect it does have is way too small to separate it from the thousands of other factors driving climate change. Is that a “reality”?
The Oregon Petition statement has it right: there is no discernible effect. That is what skepticism should proceed from. We have an airtight (pun intended) case, why make concessions like that? All that does is let the alarmists say, “AHA! You believe it too,” with the corollaries that “You’re lying after all,” and “SEE! We’ve been right all along.”
Sorry, but I see no good reason to leave them that kind of opening. What do other posters here think?

and I’m disappointed that you don’t pay any attention to absorption spectra. My involvement isn’t a debate – I’m already promoting this. Please, either help or get out of the way. – Anthony

May 2, 2013 3:38 pm

@Chad Wozniak
The Oregon Petition states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
It does recognize the greenhouse effect and does not deny that “human release of carbon dioxide…” has any effect at all other than it will not “cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere…”.
I see no conflict with what Anthony is saying.

May 2, 2013 3:43 pm

Chad Wozniak:
Your post at May 2, 2013 at 3:16 pm concludes by asking

Sorry, but I see no good reason to leave them that kind of opening. What do other posters here think?

Well, I am one poster who has stated what he thinks about that, and my post explained why you are plain wrong.
Had you really wanted to know what other posters think then you would have read my explanation and attempted refutation of it as part of your post. Therefore, I understand your question to be a request for your view to be supported and not a genuine call for the opinions of others.
My post is at May 2, 2013 at 12:05 pm and in the unlikely event that you want to read it then this link jumps to it

William Astley
May 2, 2013 3:45 pm

In reply to Ian,
Ian Weiss says:
May 2, 2013 at 8:24 am
Thank-you Ian.
This is an interesting video of John Christy on how the cost of energy affects the life of poor people in Western countries and in third world countries.
I thought it was interesting that John Christy worked as a teacher in Africa. Christy is a ‘skeptic’ and Christy obviously cares about people, including the poor. There is a mistaken view that the so called ‘skeptics’ do not carry about the poor and third world countries. As Christy notes in video, the ‘green’ policies adversely affect the poorest people of the world. Cheap reliable energy is the key reason why Western countries have a high standard of living.
The resultant of the green scams and the carbon cap/carbon trading programs is to double the cost of energy with no significant reduction in net CO2 emitted. (An example is Germany where the cost of electrical power is roughly twice that of the US.)
For a person who has a good job in a Western country a doubling of the cost of energy will reduce our living standard but we will still be able to reap the benefits of energy in life. We do not need to carry water to our homes or carry fire wood to our house for cooking. Our homes are warm in the winter and comfortable in the summer. We have refrigeration so we have refresh food available anytime. Our supermarkets are full of fresh fruit and vegetables winter or summer. We have safe clean refrigerated meat available anytime. Each of these practical benefits is due to energy.
The anti energy stance of the green parties affects poor people more than the middle class. The ‘green’ parties are elitist; they create policy for a fairy tale world where the ‘good’ people do not use energy. In their fairy tale world the state has infinite money to spend. Engineering reality and costs do not apply in their fairy tale. They ignore massive unemployment as jobs are transferred to other countries as a direct result of their policies. For example the last refinery has closed in France.
Energy makes our life better.

Chad Wozniak
May 2, 2013 3:50 pm

Anthony, I do pay attention to absorption spectra, but regardless of these or other properties of carbon dioxide its effect on climate is nugatory. Such properties as CO2 does have do not make it a discernible factor in climate change, in the circumjstances, and with human activity representing a tiny percentage of CO2 activity, human activity is even less of a factor.
I’m sorry if you perceive this as “getting in the way.” My object in commenting here is to share whatever perspectives I have and help to rally the troops – and more personally, to support your efforts, not hinder them. You are doing a tremendous service and the last thing I want to do is get in the way of it. But I also see a need for a solidly united front on the issue, if we are to make any headway against alarmism.

May 2, 2013 4:05 pm

Yes, do nothing to stop man-made global warming, there is so little of it, and it is good.

May 2, 2013 4:12 pm

Standing on the sidelines accomplishes nothing. Any effort to educate the low information folks is critical to our future. Remember they vote in many different ways! Just look at the USA and how that is working out! Then take a peek at the EU and down under and see how much of the “other people’s money” is flushed away under the guide of CAGW.

Eric Anderson
May 2, 2013 4:18 pm

I second the notion of trying to get Bjorn Lomborg interviewed for the project as well. Some skeptics feel he is too accommodating of the ‘climate-change-is-bad’ idea, but the concept of “even if climate change is real, we’re better off not spending money on it” is very much along the lines of what he has been saying for years. Even if he can’t be interviewed, I would hope he would still be mentioned positively, due to all his work in this area.

May 2, 2013 4:25 pm

My last comment is stuck in the “awaiting moderation” zone,
probably because I used the “d” word.

May 2, 2013 4:29 pm

Jim B in Canada says:
May 2, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Agree donating to Anthony is more important, but another video is a useful tool, IMO. I use them to help educate friends & co-workers, along with links. People are more likely to play a video on YouTube than read a scientific paper. The excellent Channel 4 program was too long:
I’ve had luck of late with Burt Rutan’s material & the astronaut & NASA mission controllers’ anti-Hansen letter, among other references to counter the “97%” lie (usually taken to mean of all scientists, not just 77 “actively publishing climate scientists”, ie activists).

May 2, 2013 5:42 pm

This video seems aimed at VERIFYING the false claims of bad science while weakly advocating that we have to adapt to the false claims. Its only argument is economic, and it’s pretty clear that the EU Parliament is already acting on the economic problem by canceling subsidies. So what’s the point in persuading the public of the economic problem while helping to advance the bad science?
Sorry, no support here.

john robertson
May 2, 2013 7:11 pm

Every bit helps when hacking at the blinders of true believers.
Will kick in when Pay Pal is up.

May 2, 2013 7:33 pm

Oh dear!
Lord Monckton encourages you to make a video, but his lordship doesn’t have the cash at hand to make it happen? So he doesn’t put his money where his mouth is? Is his money tight at the moment, or does he simply prefer to let others pay for an insecure investment?

May 2, 2013 7:46 pm

It’s not your money, so what’s your complaint?

Reply to  dbstealey
May 2, 2013 7:49 pm

I am not complaining. 😀

May 2, 2013 8:10 pm

Reich.Eschhaus says:
May 2, 2013 at 7:33 pm
” …………prefer to let others pay for an insecure investment?”
When/if I invest, it won’t be for the return on investment (cus it’s like a donation).
Is Paypal up yet ?

Reply to  u.k.(us)
May 2, 2013 8:22 pm

I agree, people will donate to projects they consider right, even when they don’t get a return on investment. No clue about PayPal though…

May 2, 2013 8:32 pm

Anthony, as a “denier” (your words not mine) that the “greenhouse effect” has anything to do with the average temperature of the Earth, why would I give up some of my cash so you can promote yet another misunderstanding of how energy flows through the Sun/Earth/Atmosphere/Universe system ? And what we might do about it to solve a problem that frankly does not EXIST (it is still not warming).
The “greenhouse effect” only delays the flow of energy through the system by causing some of it to make multiple trips thorugh the system at the speed of light. Just like a multilayer optical anti-reflection coating (without the optical interference), I still recommend that you read up a bit about how those work.
Of course, in your opinion I “do not understand radiative physics”, yet I make a good living at it.
Cheers, Kevin.

May 2, 2013 8:48 pm

Just a comment.
I am not involved in any way with what ‘2fer’ is doing but I do encourage the nay sayers to check out his manner of delivery and his ability to present cogent facts by checking out what he has already done.
And if anyone doesn’t like it then do your own.
Its a case of put up or shut up!

May 2, 2013 8:55 pm

Reich – you are stating facts not in evidence. Perhaps Moncton is putting up his own money but not all the money needed. We don’t know – you don’t know. But while you can assume and suggest anything, of course, you will look less foolish if you do so quietly.
He is crowdsourcing this project which allows us all (yes, I contributed in spite of my misgivings of letting the IPCC define the playing field) an opportunity to take an active role in setting the direction of climate policy. That can’t be a bad thing, and even if he did pay in full for the entirety of this film, involving the masses is still a good idea.

May 2, 2013 8:57 pm

Reich.Eschhaus says:
May 2, 2013 at 8:22 pm
Tried to dissect your name, to no avail.
If German, your writing hides it well.

May 2, 2013 8:59 pm

Its a case of put up or shut up!

Sounds like a form of “The science is settled”. Not a good position to take. Burned any books lately? (rhetorical statement to make a point)

May 2, 2013 9:22 pm

I have donated.
I have not read all the comments , so I apologise in advance if I’m repeating what someone else has said.
I don’t see this video as being aimed at the warmists as such. I think it is and should be aimed squarely at the politicians ( and financiers). As I understand it, the promoters are saying ” Lets assume the IPCC is correct, so there is no distracting scientific arguments afterwards” This does not mean anyone is agreeing with the IPCC.Then lets just look at the economics based on what the IPCC says.
This whole issue has fundamentally been about politics and money — so that is why this idea is great. Show everyone what a waste of money it has and will be. This will get the politicians rattled when the public start asking awkward questions.

May 2, 2013 9:38 pm

Reformed cowboys damn near slipped thru this one.

May 2, 2013 10:10 pm

Please allow me to weigh in on some of the questions being raised by readers here on this thread.
Firstly, Paypal is on it’s way, unfortunately due to the ‘not for profit’ status of the Lord Monckton Foundation, the account has proven more complex to set up than a normal account. We are getting it done as a matter of top priority and we will let you know as soon as it’s able to be used.
I’ve seen a few people suggest that the project should not ‘assume the
IPCC is correct’. Some people feel that this is too much of a
concession and undermines the potential benefit of the project. I see
it differently and Ross P is spot on in his reasoning.
Ross P: “As I understand it, the promoters are saying ” Lets assume the IPCC is correct, so there is no distracting scientific arguments afterwards” This does not mean anyone is agreeing with the IPCC. Then lets just look at the economics based on what the IPCC says.”
My approach is that I am determined to INFLUENCE people. Influencing is
different to arguing. I could ‘argue a point’ which would be applauded
by many, but influence none.
The key to influencing someone is to meet them where they are at, and
THEN to shift them, not to start at YOUR position and try and drag them
over. Getting someone to go from ‘We’ll all be killed by AGW’ to
‘Whatever, there’s no problem’ in a single step is pretty much
impossible, but it is possible to shift people one small step at a time.
The hardest shift is the first one. That first shift, no matter how
small, is the key to releasing them to explore and discover for themselves.
The 7 minute video IS that first step, aimed at shifting people from ‘We
need carbon taxes to combat climate change’ to ‘carbon taxes are a
waste, we should adapt as necessary to climate change’. This is an
achievable shift.
Some people will stop there, however there is another step wrapped up in
the project. The interviews. The interviews are what finish the job
once the 7 minute doco has caused someone to budge. There is no telling
how far someone might be influenced by the time they have watched the
whole project and been exposed to experts with logical, reasonable and factual counter-arguments to the consensus they thought existed, but it’s crucial we start with a SMALL step.
To be clear, my own personal view on the subject is that whilst Co2 IS a
‘greenhouse gas’ it is of negligible effect within the context of earths
climate and may in fact be beneficial. In no way do I personally accept
the IPCCs claims. I could ‘argue’ this point in a video and would gain
the applause of some, but it would influence no-one.
Thanks again for the incredible support so far and please, do whatever you can to spread the word!

Janice Moore
May 2, 2013 10:17 pm

IF it is CLEARLY ad argumentum, then I think this is an effective tactical maneuver in the Battle of AGW. We aren’t going to tell them that fairies are not real, just that the cost of trying to contain all the fairies whom the Cult of Climatology believes built the Castle of Doom is 50 times more than a wait-and-see approach.
I SURE WISH SOMEONE (Ben Stein?… Stein? …. Stein?….. Stein?…) would make a movie telling the truth about AGW and CO2 (and the Sun and the volcanoes and the oceans and plate tectonics, etc…) loudly and clearly: THE FAIRIES, EVEN IF THEY ARE REAL, (to, as Mark R? pointed out, meet the Cult on its own ground) COULD NOT MAKE THAT CASTLE BECAUSE THEIR HANDS ARE TOO TINY AND THEIR MAGICAL POWERS CAN’T DO THAT SORT OF THING.
1) While punchy and quick-paced is good, SLOW THE NARRATIVE (unless it’s just me, the sample video’s auctioneer-pace rapid fire will make at least 25% of the script useless; the average listener (is this not for the general public?) can’t absorb at that pace information that is: 1) novel; and 2) counter to what it believes, in many cases.
LOTS of repetition at a varying pace, but mostly measured, will communicate effectively.
If the goal is to educate, SLOW DOWN. Less is more. Otherwise, it will just come off as a slick attempt to make a hard sell.
The narrator IS believable and not shifty per se, but AT THAT PACE he will persuade very few people to agree with him (unless they already do).
2) Change title to something more like: “IT COSTS FIFTY TIMES AS MUCH!” — “50:1” or “50 to 1” is FAR too clinical and sterile. While the narrative needs to be more measured, the title needs some emotive value. It appears from the sample video that a bit more attention to exactly who the target audience is (the average citizen, I think?) would be a good idea.
QUALIFIER: I grew up in the U.S.A.. Perhaps, the average native Australian or British citizen in general has a much quicker ability to absorb an oral presentation at that rapid rate of speaking. Perhaps, for those in the British Commonwealth, “50:1” will have a big impact. In the U.S, such an abstract title would only appeal to scientists.

Leo Danze
May 2, 2013 10:23 pm

Government is presently attempting to control fossil products – this plan asks goverment to take action over the conceded warming effects which will be imaginitively noted by the Corps of Engineers and others. I fear big government will be more invoved controlling both mitigation and adaption too.

Brian Johnson UK
May 2, 2013 10:34 pm

PayPal and I am in on a modest contribution…….

May 2, 2013 11:05 pm

Contribution made!

May 2, 2013 11:27 pm

Topher – what is your response to the suggestion that there is need for inclusion of the animal kingdom in any adaption plan? Nobody is going to consider any adaption plan that leaves Bambi behind and the true zealots will in fact use that as a wedge against any adaption scheme. Worse, they may say any mitigation scheme has to include an adaption plan for the animal kingdom and just like that there is a new government teat out there. I can envision entire industries springing up to satisfy UN mandates that animals be provided for and PETA will be in the forefront. They will want to know what your measure of success is for adaption. What is it, anyway? How will you know when you are finished? To what shall we adapt? This point has hot button all over it. What will that 1 in 50 be spent on if you can’t identify what we are adapting to? You are suggesting taking 50 of 50 from them, and they won’t tolerate that. If we and they are seen as being of one mind on the threat of global warming it will be game over – The adaption advocates will be absorbed as a secondary priority.
Devil’s advocate here: What if the response is “Adaption, at one 50th the cost of mitigation, is cheap insurance. Let’s do that too – the skeptics are with us on that”. I can already hear the rallying cry “Mitigate and Adapt Now”. The 1 in 50 is pledged and the entire project has just gotten more expensive by 2%.
I’m invested in your project now and really would like some details and answers.

David, UK
May 2, 2013 11:46 pm

[i]”Janice Moore says:
May 2, 2013 at 10:17 pm
“50:1″ or “50 to 1″ is FAR too clinical and sterile… In the U.S, such an abstract title would only appeal to scientists.”[/i]
Okay, I’m not from the U.S. but I disagree wholeheartedly. “50:1” is punchy and to the point, like the “350” campaign, except this is based on reason and logic, not some arbitrary number.
I do see your point about the fast talking though. We Brits and the Auzzies do talk naturally faster than our American friends, therefore are probably more adept at absorbing spoken information a little quicker.

May 3, 2013 12:04 am

Where are the NASA scientists and astronauts? They sent a letter to the NASA administrator making the score 49 for science and 1 for the CAGW activist Dr Hansen

Greg House
May 3, 2013 12:12 am

Topher Field says (May 2, 2013 at 10:10 pm ): “My approach is that I am determined to INFLUENCE people. Influencing is different to arguing. … The 7 minute video IS that first step, aimed at shifting people from ‘We need carbon taxes to combat climate change’ to ‘carbon taxes are a waste, we should adapt as necessary to climate change’. … Co2 IS a ‘greenhouse gas’…”
Yeah, and there is “global warming”, right? I know the narrative. Monckton is never getting tired to convey this core IPCC message, he’s just inserted it again in his post on the parallel thread.
Your alleged determination does not prove that you have a case about costs. And why did you tell people that the calculations are Monckton’s original? So far I see a further promotion of the core IPCC claims. On the other side, Monckton could have presented the calculations long ago, since he mentioned it a few times.
What I see at the moment is that you are asking people for money. Yes, you have apparently influenced a few already here, but now I suggest you start arguing by presenting you calculation or whatever. Until you have done that, I do not see any reason to believe that you really have a case.

May 3, 2013 12:13 am

I’m with Janice and David regarding speaking slowly, in particular for listeners for whom English of any variety is not their first language.

May 3, 2013 12:26 am

dp, thanks for your question. The key to my answer is that I will be advocating adaption AS and IF necessary. I won’t be going any deeper than that in the space of 7 minutes for obvious time reasons, but were I to be asked what that means I would say firstly that adaptation will mostly happen naturally (assuming for the purposes of the question that there is anything to actually adapt to) as part of free market decisions made by each individual according to what they deem best at the time, not top-down policy responses by politicians. If there is to be a ‘policy’ for adaptation then it needs to be evidence based and shown to be necessary, not based on modelling or theory, and certainly not based on ‘precautionary principles’ stemming from perceived threats from computer models, which is where we are now.
To be clear, ‘adaption’ is not a POLICY response which can be advocated, argued over and paid for out of taxes. Adaptation is a MARKET response as people respond to the price signals generated by changing conditions (again assuming that things do actually change).
For your own interest, I’d encourage you to look up the book ‘The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science’ by Prof Ainsley Kellow of the Uni of Tasmania. He blows apart many of the claims from environmental groups of X number of species going extinct every year and what have you. In fact he even demonstrates that animals which never existed have made it onto the ‘endangered species’ lists used for fundraising purposes by various animal welfare groups.
At it’s core his book demonstrates beyond doubt the dangers of making policy decisions based on ‘virtual’ science (computer modelling) and has equipped me for dealing with people who advocate such. Given your evident interest and thoughts around the ‘animal’ aspect of AGW theory and the use of animals to manipulate policy responses, I think you’d find it a pretty good read.

May 3, 2013 12:37 am

Greg House, with respect, did you look at the fundraiser? You will see in the description a clearly linked document named ’50 to 1 calculations and sources’.
I believe you will find all the details you could ever need regarding the ‘case’ I have in that document should you care to review it.
I state that they are Monckton’s because he claims they are. He took existing work which calculated the amount of warming the Aus carbon tax would save and then applied simple economic modelling to it which unless I misunderstood him, he claims that economic work as his own. If you take exception to that claim I invite you to take that up with him.
Greg House says:
May 3, 2013 at 12:12 am
Yeah, and there is “global warming”, right?
Greg, if you feel the need to put words in my mouth then I suspect you’re not the kind of person whose support I’m hoping to gain. If you read my words for what they ACTUALLY said you would clearly see that I stated that Co2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’ (scientific fact) but that it is of negligible effect within the context of earths climate. How you got from there claiming that I was saying there is ‘global warming’ is a mystery to me.
Have a good day.

Ian H
May 3, 2013 12:55 am

Only 50? Must be using very conservative figures.

May 3, 2013 1:02 am

how much has come in?

Andrew Mc.
May 3, 2013 1:12 am

Hey topher, another Devil’s Advocate question…
The warmists will say:
“Yes of course adaptation is 50 times cheaper than mitigation, that’s because it’s 50 times more profitable to offer a treatment than a cure, but prevention is way better than cure so we should still subsidise the prevention and renewable energy.”
The video will have to sow the seeds of a counter argument against this kind of attack too.
Countering the renewables argument specifically is easy, just point out how solar and wind don’t deliver a benefit of reliable energy regardless of what cost you believe you’re mitigating.
But I’m not sure how you counter the general argument of mitigation without moving out of economics and into the realm of questioning the IPCC consensus that you say you are going to accept. Perhaps highlighting that any argument by analogy (eg a medical illness) is ultimately a logical fallacy would get you halfway there, but raising doubt about mitigation is not as effective as providing certainty about the do-nothing alternative, and only real science can do that.

Chuck Nolan
May 3, 2013 1:12 am

David, UK says:
May 2, 2013 at 11:46 pm
[i]“Janice Moore says:
May 2, 2013 at 10:17 pm
“50:1″ or “50 to 1″ is FAR too clinical and sterile… In the U.S, such an abstract title would only appeal to scientists.”[/i]
Okay, I’m not from the U.S. but I disagree wholeheartedly. “50:1″ is punchy and to the point, like the “350″ campaign, except this is based on reason and logic, not some arbitrary number.
That’s why they control the discussion. It’s no longer about science, it was never about reason or logic and we cannot gain control talking about money.
It’s not science because the journals offer little scientific rebuttal of CAGW although there is plenty of contrary research out there worth discussion.
It’s not logic because the initial emergence of CAGW and its progress forward through so many phases and explanations (or lack there of) shows no amount of logic will get the people to change their beliefs.
It’s about emotion, period.
I see the “50 to 1” as a logical concept that will fail to draw the right emotion. The people will not grasp it and the media will totally ignore it.
The only emotion you draw from complaining about the money is negative. e.g. You’re too greedy to save the poor from instant death and long term misery.
Government money is an abstract concept to people. They think there is plenty of it and all the feds have to do is print some more. A million dollars or a billion dollars or a trillion dollars is like the difference between 10 dollars and 100 dollars and 1000 dollars. People don’t comprehend money or the value it represents. Remember the lady during the first campaign “Gonna get me some of that Obama money”)
Also, I believe the subject of money hurt Mitt Romney, a lot.

May 3, 2013 1:58 am

Topher Field says:
May 2, 2013 at 10:10 pm…………
I agree with the strategy. However it might be a good idea at the end of the video to give a point by point bullet style type rebuttal with voice over. It could be compacted into 1 minute with an intro pointing out that “even though this video started by assuming the IPCC is correct here are some sceptical points for you to look up for yourself. Don’t believe me, look it up for yourself”.
* 15 years of flat temps in face of rising co2 (not projected by most models)
* Show the IPCC divergence graph
* Sea levels have been rising since ice age & no acceleration
* Antarctic near maximum extent
* Hurricanes, no trend to worse
* They predicted less snow for Europe now we have more & they now ‘predict’ more.

May 3, 2013 2:02 am

Oh, and the missing hotspot.

“It is demonstrated that even with historical SSTs as a boundary condition, most atmospheric models exhibit excessive tropical upper tropospheric warming relative to the lower-middle troposphere as compared with satellite-borne microwave sounding unit measurements. It is also shown that the results from CMIP5 coupled atmosphere–ocean GCMs are similar to findings from CMIP3 coupled GCMs. The apparent model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming represents an important problem…”

May 3, 2013 2:18 am

The Warmists from have also got a new film out.
The Do The Math Movie!
The Do The Math documentary is a 42-minute film about the rising movement in the United States to change the terrifying maths of the climate crisis and challenge the fossil fuel industry. While it is set in the United States, the maths the film outlines apply globally — making it important for all of us to watch. It is in English with the option of subtitles in Chinese, French, German, Portuguese or Spanish.

May 3, 2013 2:37 am

PLEASE, PLEASE DON’T CONFLATE ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE WITH WEATHER. If we let them get away with that, every unusual weather event and more besides (even earthquakes & asteroids!) will be attributed to “climate change”. Note that the alarmists have not only ditched ‘global warming’ but they are now dropping the ‘anthropogenic’ part of ‘climate change’ so that by omission, all adverse weather/climate events, warming, cooling or whatever, is the fault of human activity – especially carbon/methane emissions. They have abandoned science long ago and are now well into the war of words to bring everyone into the fold of the true faith. Climate scientists are going back to their day jobs – the perks from AGW research are drying up. The science bubble has burst as the spin doctors move in to take the money.
Threatened with facts, the alarmists are tuning to promote mass hysteria and, I fear, they will make more progress with that than they ever could with promoting science – even junk science.

May 3, 2013 3:35 am

I am a bit disppointed by some of the comments here.
While we can have a discussion about the science and debate whether climate sensitivity is more likely to be something under 2 rather than over 3, there most important debate for us as it will effect our lives and the lives of our children is the policy debate.
Topher’s strategy is exactly what is needed in the public domain. If the it can be said that the policy of mitigation makes us worse off – and by a large margin – we should wait and adapt to actual outcomes. This is what soceity has typically done for all slow moving issues. And this is definately a slow moving one.
My only suggestion to Topher, along with my encouragement, would be not to ignore the potential (fallacious) rebuttal that could come from alarmist. If they felt the mititgation argument was lost, they could demand rapid, centrally planned (and expensive) adaptation policy. We could end up in the same heavily taxed, hevily regulated world with unwarranted public directed investment and subsidy for private investment in things that will not be needed.

May 3, 2013 4:41 am

Many good points already raised as far as I can see – but I’ll add my few cents worth.
Target Audience? – this is one hell of a thing to decide – but for my money, it is not worth targeting say 40+somethings, as most will have either a reasonable understanding or will not be bothered to change their ‘media-fed’ opinion. I reckon it is best to target the age range from say teenagers up to the 30 somethings, as they are the ones who have to really understand the message (i.e, the factual truth as opposed to the media shite) and influence future policy. Hence, any narrative needs to be catchy, and preferably undertaken by several ‘modern’ presenters rather than a single ‘lecturer’ style. I’m not advocating it being a rap video by any means – but it deffo needs to be watchable by the younger generation. Also – the fact that it is or will be the younger generation that ends up actually paying for the current (bad) policy decisions – these must surely be the primary target?
We all know that kids are brainwashed in school today – and for the last decade or more – it is those that have been so affected by constant newsbite hype snippets drip fed into their daily lives that need to be more advised. Us older types know full well not to believe the media hype about anything – the young uns have been spoon fed the stuff for years and this is what needs to corrected – in other words of all things, the presentation MUST make these folk THINK and question both themselves and the science/policy………
The way I see it is this – kids today don’t want to save for their retirement – and understandably so – I’m sure we were all the same! – but this is all about a future where economic ruin as a result of fallacy or false based policies will ensure no-one has a ‘retirement’ (I’m ignoring the financial elite here) and will end up in relative ‘energy’ poverty.
They have to be made to understand that the potential ‘cost’ of this ‘problem’ (i.e. AGW ‘prevention’ and/or ‘mitigation’) makes the current debt crises look like an error in the office tea-room petty cash tin!
I read a an article about a rich-list divorce – whereby the woman got some horrendous multimillion award AND a silly percentage of the ex-husbands FUTURE income. This is the kind of thing that we are trying to explain here.
just my opinion.

May 3, 2013 4:48 am

Adaptation to what ? With the cooling that a lot of people seem to predict for the coming years , the adaptation would not be the same as for warming.

May 3, 2013 5:15 am

Topher Field says:
May 2, 2013 at 10:10 pm
Please allow me to weigh in on some of the questions being raised by readers here on this thread.
I’ve seen a few people suggest that the project should not ‘assume the
IPCC is correct’. Some people feel that this is too much of a
concession and undermines the potential benefit of the project. I see
it differently and Ross P is spot on in his reasoning.
Ross P: “As I understand it, the promoters are saying ” Lets assume the IPCC is correct, so there is no distracting scientific arguments afterwards” This does not mean anyone is agreeing with the IPCC. Then lets just look at the economics based on what the IPCC says.”
My approach is that I am determined to INFLUENCE people. Influencing is
different to arguing. I could ‘argue a point’ which would be applauded
by many, but influence none.
The key to influencing someone is to meet them where they are at, and
THEN to shift them, not to start at YOUR position and try and drag them
over. Getting someone to go from ‘We’ll all be killed by AGW’ to
‘Whatever, there’s no problem’ in a single step is pretty much
impossible, but it is possible to shift people one small step at a time.
The hardest shift is the first one. That first shift, no matter how
small, is the key to releasing them to explore and discover for themselves.

The first shift surely should be to make them sit up and take notice? Do you really think this economic argument is strong enough to do this? It does not have enough punch, imo, regardless you give it a snappy title. It is too wishy washy a theme which makes for good discussions possibly, but without any concentrated emotional involvement in the outcome for the viewer.
If you really want to influence people to get them to explore further then give them something they can get really their teeth into, a real point onto which they can focus their attention.
Regardless of the other possible science arguments, which in context of only a 7 minute slot for the message will only further dissipate attention, I suggest a concerted look at the actual temperature frauds upon which all the global warming scaremongering is based.
We’ve been conned, no one likes to be conned. Whatever the initial reactions to learning one has been conned, if the con can be clearly shown then one cannot dismiss it. A small step back to reality.
We are three years on from when this aspect was most talked about, the shear amount of information and examples which come to light have had the same effect of dissipating the message and attention moved on. Yet, this is the one aspect on which there is actual proof that a science fraud has been committed to our, the general public’s, great detriment.
The presentation of this science fraud of temperature manipulation should stay focused to this point, there are several examples of deliberate, and mind blowing, fraud that cannot be disputed, such as this:
The deliberate tampering with the world’s actual temperature records.
This is a massive fraud.
The more talked about such as the Hockey Stick, One Tree Yamal and Anthony’s UHI findings of station placements, soon lose their shock effect without the basic temperature fraud to hold them together – they become a ‘look at what the cheats do’ instead of ‘look at what the cheats to in order to con that there is a global warming problem’.
The latter is the hub of the con. CRU particularly involved in temperature data tampering, not only at home but elsewhere they had influence, New Zealand, Russia for example.
Without a clear picture of this the further tampering of science method, to produce for example the Hockey Stick by the removal of the LIA and MWP and recent IPCC shenanigans dismissing real science data gathering because it conflicts with their fake science models, can’t be fully appreciated.
We have been conned is the message, but without the facts of how this was done by temperature tampering of records dissipates the message.
The problem with the AGW narrative is that it has a myriad of fascinating aspects showing fraudulent science in and through many different science disciplines to distract from the con, but this first step temperature record doctoring is the basic fraud where it all began.

Lady in Red
May 3, 2013 5:34 am

Sadly, most of the “believers” I have worked with over time will never watch the film. Never! They *want* those carrots in their ears!
If Monckton is associated with the film they will dismiss it, out of hand, as propaganda. “Monckton’s a well known…. Let’s just agree to disagree on the matter,” they will sneer smugly.
“McIntryre and McKitrick are shills of Big Oil….” “I’ve *seen* pics of the melting ice caps and, thus, global warming is real….”
They will search for a ThinkProgress factoid, hold it to their bosom and use that as an excuse to ward off information.
Sadly, the film will be watched by “the usual suspects,” but never by the believers. They don’t *need* to watch: they know the truth and the film will not be that. …Sadly.
….Lady in Red

May 3, 2013 6:51 am

I agree with Kev-in-Uk above that it is important to have a clear understanding of who the target audience is. I think he is probably right about older people, and it is also probably true that You-Tube is by nature going to potentially reach a much larger proportion of younger than older.
Even if an impact on older people can be made, I still think as a general principle with anything to do with AGW, getting a message across to under 30’s is most important.
And I also think they will be receptive. Despite relentless imprinting all their lives, it seems that this has failed. A major Mission Australia Youth Survey for 2012 (taken June 2012, released Dec 2012) covering 15 -19 yo showed that concern about “Climate Change” fell from being the number one issue in June 2011, rated at 37%, to the number 6 issue at 17% in 2012.
This Survey covered about 1.5% of the population. Unless there is something very wrong with the methodology, there has been a Weather Event comparable to a Tsunami, which of course at any time clearly proves a Climate Change. In this case, anyway, it does. Something turned over that one year period, and “commitment” or much more likely, acquiescence, collapsed. With that sort of rate of decline, this issue must now be of significance to only a core group: the Believers in Teacher, and the Spawn of Climate Rightousness. These are incorrigible and don’t matter, but it seems that 90% will be more than willing to listen.
Having previously been part of the support for this, this is remarkable. But they will need real reasons that they probably don’t currently have to assert that they do not consider this an important issue. They are not currently allowed to.
If under 20’s feel that are on firm ground to make a stand, then they will influence their parents.
If this is true for under 20’s then there must be some resonance for older people, up to 30. I suspect that in fact this collapse is actually across all age groups, to a greater or lesser degree.
Some here are concerned that by addressing the financial aspect, not science, this will be too dry. That may be the case. But by suggesting and illustrating that the costs of adaption are much less it does two things.
It removes the foreboding of looming doom that has been a major major part of this. And in itself by showing it can be “managed” it reduces it to simply a – potential – problem of an undramatic sort. By doing this it indirectly addresses “The Science”. But instead of being helplessly subject to The Findings, it drags (apparent) science back into the domain of human utility.
This depends of course how it is done, but I can see that it could be.
In any case as many others know, this is not about science it is about cultivating a response to existence in a manner designed to achieve certain aims. Whilst the validity of the claim has rested on science, the ensemble of responses has been psycho-sociological and has been intended to be. So these things are inseparable. Put a hole in it and the rest can collapse.
Whether it is the best approach I don’t know. As part of any change however, it is important.
What I wonder, given the1000000 trillion videos on You-Tube is how anyone will ever encounter it. It has always been a mystery to me how anything can be found, and I suspect 95% of the “content” has never been seen by anyone outside the maker and friends.
As with anything on the internet, genius will not only go unrecognised but will simply never be seen unless there is a very good understanding and strategy about how to make that happen. Otherwise its just make it and hope for luck.
Is there any reason to believe it can be placed effectively?
As producer, is this part of Topher’s role?
Has he triggered the viral mechanism previously?
Does producer also in effect incorporate writer/director?
Is Topher known for producing videos that use spread sheets to visually show the difference between abundance and poverty, life and death?

May 3, 2013 6:58 am

I do like Topher’s videos. His free speech video should have won awards.

Neil Catto
May 3, 2013 7:29 am

Topher, In Al Gores film, the glacier falling apart had a major influence for many people to change their minds. Using the same/or similar clip might be useful. Because what that actually showed was a growing glacier. Through gravity, growing glaciers find their way downhill using travel of least resistance until they meet the warmer water and calve (break off). Glaciers melt from lower warmer levels up to colder higher levels.
Also if you need filming in UK, I may be able to help.

May 3, 2013 7:36 am

Chad Wozniak says:
May 2, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Central planning adaptation rhetoric is another of many false flags. The goal is to defund the junk science agenda at the roots. The green movement is dominated by a Marxist narrative as is the b-child of hell in AGW.
Perhaps many of the skeptic/lukewarm warriors are living in their own false status quo? Neither peace or victory can be expected any time soon with pandering ideas like accepting IPCC meme’s.

May 3, 2013 7:56 am

Your post at May 3, 2013 at 7:36 am displays complete misunderstanding of the existing reality.
It says

Perhaps many of the skeptic/lukewarm warriors are living in their own false status quo? Neither peace or victory can be expected any time soon with pandering ideas like accepting IPCC meme’s.

In reality we climate realists have won and the warmunist defeat was conceded at Copenhagen years ago.
The priority now is to limit the damage from the AGW-scare as it fades away.
Clearly, you have missed my explanation of this need to limit the damage so I will repeat it.
The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen. I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.
Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.
Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.
As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.
The message of the proposed video is precisely what needs to be publicised at this time.

May 3, 2013 9:07 am

“this whole issue has fundamentally been about poitics and money — so that is why this idea is great. Show everyone what a waste of money it has and will be. This will get the politicians rattled when the public start asking awkward questions.”
The politicians will never get rattled. They have a get out of jail clause where they blame scientists for mis-representating the data. All this means is that they go onto other ways to fleece the public for their own agendas. Don’t focus on politicians, focus on the money being wasted. Focus on teaching the public how THEIR money is being wasted on frivolous and incompetent research. Focus on the people. They are the ones who have the power to “un-elect politicians” and to “stop giving money to green charities”. Remember that it is not about the truth as much as what people believe. Perhaps this is a post-modern nonsense, but we are not talking science either.
even if you make the politicians scared to even mention AGW (such as Obama) the scare goes on because they can pay lip-service to the movement by transferring funds to them through policy. And so the gravy train goes on.
Until the people get wise and vote out any crony politician such as Obama who enriches his campaign contributers and of course friends and family through policies that fleece the public for these people….well that process will continue because it is frankly lucrative.
No, you must focus on the people. I think the best way to visualize the way the AGW “scare movement” operates is to visualize it. Jo Nova has an excellent flow chart here:
Basically if you want to derail the establishment you have to find the weak link. The public are the ones being fleeced, so you can do all you want to the politicians but as long as they can fleece the public, how in the world are you going to change their minds? Focus on the people and the rest will fall like dominos.

Greg House
May 3, 2013 9:48 am

Topher Field says (May 3, 2013 at 12:37 am ): “You will see in the description a clearly linked document named ’50 to 1 calculations and sources’.”
Thanks, I opened it ( and see my argumentation confirmed.
The point there is, in short, that local Austalian carbon tax has little influence on global warming. It is self-evident. A part is less than the whole. What a scientific discovery.
So, I suggest again that you present right here, where you are asking people to give you money, your or whoever’s calculations proving that GLOBALLY “mitigation would cost more than adaptation”. Until now neither you nor Monckton have done that, either here or anywhere else.

May 3, 2013 10:00 am

I’ve contributed. The economic argument is an important one. With Western economies generally already in decline, I think whoever encounters this video will be receptive to information that shows how much economic damage is bring done through CAGW government policies. I hope the burden on the middle class and especially the poor will be highlighted. In previous arguments with a ‘believer’ colleague, I think it was my concern for how hard CAGW policies will hurt the poor that made the deepest impression on him.
My main worry is that enough people will see the video.

May 3, 2013 10:10 am

In response to those who wonder how a CO2 tax in Australia can be of worldwide relevance, the Australian example is a good one because, near-uniquely, the Opposition put up a fight against the tax and smoked out the numbers on the basis of which a respectable intertemporal investment appraisal can be done.
The closing stages of the chain of reasoning specifically consider what would happen if Australian-style CO2 taxes were implemented worldwide.
The underlying paper (I’ve just returned the page-proofs to the publisher: it will appear this August in the 45th Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists) considers numerous case histories and establishes that the Australian CO2 tax is quite typical of any measure to attempt to mitigate CO2 emissions. It comes quite close to the European/New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, for instance.
The bottom line is simple enough to understand. If it is 50 times less cost-effective to mitigate today in Australia than to adapt the day after tomorrow, then scaling up globally will give much the same ratio: there are no handy economies of scale to take advantage of.

May 3, 2013 10:23 am

Greg House has a point. It perhaps needs to be established that the costs associated with the Australian example can legitimately be extrapolated across all other countries. If not done, then the claims in the video will attract criticism – beyond what it will get anyway.
This may or may not matter, since virulence in denunciation is likely to have a proportional effect on wider public attention, which would draw attention to the issue and invite discussion perhaps to a degree it might not get otherwise.
And it is awareness and discussion that is critical. Those particularly who fancy themselves as “intellectual” do not like straightforward facts. There is no room for their “contribution” and it is in the “conversation” that they allow themselves to “adjust” their position in a furtive manner which they translate as dignified because obvious humiliation is avoided.

May 3, 2013 10:27 am

Just saw Monckton’s comment above as I posted my previous, which may make it redundant.

May 3, 2013 10:41 am

To summarize the investment appraisal method explained in the paper:
From the fraction of global CO2 emissions that a mitigation scheme will abate over its term, the fall in CO2 concentration and hence in CO2 forcing the scheme will achieve at the end of the term is found. The abated CO2 forcing is multiplied by a term-dependent climate-sensitivity parameter to yield the global warming the scheme will abate. The scheme’s cost is divided by the abated warming to obtain its mitigation cost-effectiveness per degree of warming mitigated, which is multiplied by projected global warming over the term to give the global mitigation cost of mitigating that warming by worldwide measures as cost-effective as the scheme. Finally, the global mitigation cost is compared with the benefit in the avoided cost of adapting to projected global warming over the term.
Now you see why I need Topher to translate this lot into English. But it should be clear that the “global mitigation cost” is, as it says, global, and not just local to Australia.

David Schofield
May 3, 2013 10:51 am

You guys thought about ‘Kickstarter’ as a way to get funding?p

May 3, 2013 10:53 am

@ Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 3, 2013 at 10:41 am
Fair enough. Personally, I have seen enough of the Product of Esteemed Economists to regard their specific declarations and insisted calculations to be meaningless. It is sufficient to know that it can’t cost more – at least for me – which is obvious anyway. If people continue to want to believe the prognostations of such gurus as Garnaut despite overwhelming reason not to, that is the basis on which things must be addressed.

Greg House
May 3, 2013 11:29 am

Monckton of Brenchley says (May 3, 2013 at 10:10 am): “The bottom line is simple enough to understand. If it is 50 times less cost-effective to mitigate today in Australia than to adapt the day after tomorrow, then scaling up globally …”
The bottom line is that you are asking people for money here presenting to them a claim that you apparently have never proven to be correct. Otherwise you would not have beaten around the bush, but instead presented your calculations already.
My strong impression is so far that you are selling a fiction here. You might well be able to make a propaganda film based on a fiction or on unproven claims. One important problem of this approach, however, as I told you before, is that your claim can be easily dismissed, but your support of the core IPCC claims will not get unnoticed by the viewers, so in effect you would effectively strengthen the core IPCC position, what you in fact have been doing all the time by posting on climate blogs, despite some critique you expressed concerning minor or secondary inconsistencies.

May 3, 2013 11:55 am

Greg House:
The Australian data is so clear that it can be used as a sample for all similar policies.
You are wrong. Accept it. Live with it.

James Allison
May 3, 2013 12:09 pm

Topher says further up thread. “…….. be influenced by the time they have watched the whole project and been exposed to experts with logical, reasonable and factual counter-arguments to the consensus they thought existed,”
Some years ago the following comment was made on this webste.
“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. En-vironmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a re-ligion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a re-sult of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. AGW theory has become part and parcel of this growing Pantheist ideology.”
My concern is based on my own experiences, that people are not interested in facts and data irrespective of how cleverly presented. They are driven by emotional and irrational beliefs that no amount of data and facts wil budge. They believe there is a consensus and the experts say lots of money needs to be spent to save the planet for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
In my opinion only the climate itself (Mother Gaia) has the capacity to shake the foundations of these people’s religious beliefs. And that will take a long time.
However this is my personal opinion and it may be entirely wrong. I sincerely hope so and wish you good luck and look forward to viewing the video.

May 3, 2013 12:12 pm

@ Greg House says:
May 3, 2013 at 11:29 am
I can see your reason for concern. To even acknowledge the IPCC as something to be addressed, or to utilize any part of its doings, is to have been incorporated into its programme.
In a normal manner of conducting an argument, which is what Monckton is doing, to use points made by your protagonist to show the inadequacy of their position is effective. But that is only in the case of the rational. And most importantly, the honest. And that is not how this business has proceeded.
I agree that this is problematic for the public in the way it is perceived. Any response from the Believers will not have any relationship with rationality (except to disable it). So, it could, if not handled well, just become a shell with vindication of the IPCC left as the only (seemingly) clear point.
I can’t say I know what position to take on this. I think it may come down to execution. If, somehow, it comes across very clearly that the IPCC is untrustworthy, and that despite their machinations they can be undone on their own terms, I think it can succeed.
Personally, I think it is overtime for a tone of contempt to be adopted in dealing with these people. Their abuses more than justify it they demand it. As has been said elsewhere, ridicule is effective. When it is is without doubt justified it can be scathing – and robust on examination.
Without knowing exactly how the video is to be paced and structured, and how and what will be emphasized, its not really possible to make a judgement on the type of risk you bring up.

May 3, 2013 12:48 pm

@James Allison says:
May 3, 2013 at 12:09 pm
You may be right about the strength of the adherence to this orthodoxy. But you may also have become a prisoner of the propaganda yourself. We constantly hear cries that the “people” demand action on AGW from their governments. That is simply a huge f… lie.
There are a very small number of agitators, with a committed support base. Those that are religiously inviolate is not large. Those that have accepted the orthodoxy is much larger, but still, is not the majority. And they don’t all think that something should be done at any cost.
The core problem in countering this is that there has not been a coherent alternative position available. People must have something to hand their hats on. If they are rejecting a comprehensive package, it is much easier to do – maybe impossible to do otherwise – if there is an equally complete alternative. From the above, Topher seems to understand this.
I think you are assuming that this must cut through with the truly committed. It won’t and it doesn’t have to. This is a matter of getting through to those who think there is (or might be) a problem but have no where to go with this. And for those already disinclined to adhere, to give them a solid base to strengthen resolve and from which to refute.
Unrelated to the video, I found your relationship with foundational aspects of Christianity interesting. Indeed a very close fit, and perhaps not surprising. I think one thing that can be done, apart from waiting on Gaia to lose fever, is to show to people to what degree these adherents have in effect inhabited the carcass of a human religion and replaced it with something essentially non-human, devoid of human values and morality.
They can be shown to be parasites and degraders in this way. Again, it doesn’t matter what the Believers think. With a change in perception, they isolate themselves.

May 3, 2013 1:10 pm

It seems a paid troll is intent on sniping childishly in a wearisomely familiar fashion. The latest of three or four snide comments he has made is to the effect that my results are “unproven”. Well, they were subjected first to the Fifth Los Alamos Climate Conference in Santa Fe, then to the World Federation of Scientists’ annual meeting on planetary emergencies, neither of which could find any serious fault with the method or results. A suggestion at both meetings that a zero discount rate be adopted to remove one remaining ground of potential contention has been adopted.
After review by the Federation in its customary fashion, which included a rigorous, line-by-line scrutiny of the argument by a senior member very much on the climate-extremist wing, the underlying paper is to be published in the 45th Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists, one of the oldest scientific journals in the world.
In any event, in the sciences – as anyone but a paid troll would acknowledge – proof is very rarely available. The art of science is to constrain uncertainty. If the paid troll is unable to understand the elementary calculations that are available to him, elementary textbooks of economics and of climatology are available.
Oh, and if the paid troll is a troll but not paid to be a troll by – to name but one – the ClimateWorks Foundation, why does he waste his time and ours on useless, childish points? He has never yet contributed a constructive thought to any of the discussions here. I’d tell him to grow up, but there’s only one cure for second childhood.

Greg House
May 3, 2013 1:19 pm

jc says (May 3, 2013 at 12:12 pm): “If, somehow, it comes across very clearly that the IPCC is untrustworthy, and that despite their machinations they can be undone on their own terms, I think it can succeed. … Without knowing exactly how the video is to be paced and structured, and how and what will be emphasized, its not really possible to make a judgement on the type of risk you bring up.”
There is no reason to believe, that it can “come across very clearly that the IPCC is untrustworthy” on economic issues, because nobody has presented anything scientific that proves that point. So far we have only heard/read repeated claims by Monckton. At first it were references to other people, now it has become Monckton himself, but if you read the linked document they provided, you will only find a ridiculous comparison between a part and the whole.
Therefore “how the video is to be paced and structured, and how and what will be emphasized” can have some propaganda effect, right, but again, they do not seem to have a scientific point. I do not like propaganda, sorry. As I do not like supporting the core IPCC statements for no scientific reasons, what Monckton has been doing all the time.

May 3, 2013 1:22 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 3, 2013 at 10:41 am
Let me understand this, we have one side that wants to conduct “Climate Trials” with possible death sentences, has turned public school science programs into Mao like reeducation camps on climate, burns books, refuses to disclose key data sets, refuses to discuss “settle science” and generally is promoting a Neo-Marxist global agenda wrapped in climate policy. A key instrument being the IPCC to this purpose.
You want to pander to this with some middling “adaptation” policy which seems to carry many of the false flags of Judith Curry or Lomborg talking points?
This isn’t a proportional reaction to what the rational world is up against.

Peter Thomas
May 3, 2013 1:35 pm

Here in Australia, Topher has form (see TophersUnpopularView channel on YouTube). I consider him an excellent communicator and more than able to carry the argument forward. Since Australia’s Carbon Tax is being used as the prime example, it is encouraging to see an Australian pushing against it for all the world to see.
My suggestion is to make the movie, then follow up with a series of short ‘Myth Busters’ type videos that focus on individual Green porkies such as polar bears, 100m sea rise, Great Barrier Reef, etc, etc. etc.
Good luck Topher, I will be making a contribution via Paypal.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
May 3, 2013 1:52 pm

I’m with Topher on this one … as he says above:

The hardest shift is the first one. That first shift, no matter how small, is the key to releasing them to explore and discover for themselves [emphasis added -hro]

Let’s keep our eye on that prize!
Think about it … How many of us here “migrated” from unthinking, uncritical acceptance of “science says … therefore we must” to investigating for ourselves before arriving at the skeptical position – and the realization that the “science” had become a (you should pardon my use of the word!) “proxy” (and, in hindsight, quite possibly a diversionary one at that!) for the politics?
One of the CG2 emails (2428.txt) – from the U.K.’s John Ashton, a man whose bio indicates that he is “equally at home in the worlds of foreign policy and green politics” – was, IMHO, quite telling in this regard. As I had noted in a recent post, in 2004, Ashton had written:

The problem at present is not the absence of propositions that offer stabilisation and that are scientifically, technologically and economically, credible. Two such broad propositions are biomass energy and capture and storage: both deserve attention within a portfolio of possible responses.
That is, I am sure, why [Blair’s] recent speech concentrated on putting across, more starkly than he has done before, the scale and urgency of the challenge. Abrupt climate change is a crucial piece of that jigsaw – and you can make more impact with it at present by simply highlighting the danger without going too far into any particular set of responses. [emphasis added -hro]

More recently, Ashton’s “diplomatic” rhetoric – delivered, circa April 11, to the U.K. Met Office, “a jewel in the crown, of British and global science” – has escalated to such memorable heights as:

here is a challenge that is Promethean. We have stolen the secret of fire for our own use, unleashing punitive forces inherent in the system of which we are ourselves part
we must accomplish this urgently, in little more than a generation, while building resilience to the climate insecurity we can no longer avoid.
Promethean, imperative, transformational, urgent.
[emphasis added -hro]

So, let’s fight … uh … fire (and icons and images of hockey-sticks, polar bears and symbolic book-burnings) with fire, I say! It is “imperative”, it could well be “transformational” … and it is “urgent” 😉 At the very least, it is “Mission Possible”! But I digress …
Some have suggested that Topher’s pace is too fast for the Uninformed Lay Person (ULP) to absorb his message. I respectfully disagree. Any ULP with a modicum of critical thinking skills will get it! And besides, Topher has demonstrated that he is quite capable of modulating and varying his pace – as he did, for example, in “The Little Government that Could”

May 3, 2013 1:53 pm

richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 7:56 am
Your post at May 3, 2013 at 7:36 am displays complete misunderstanding of the existing reality.
It says
“Perhaps many of the skeptic/lukewarm warriors are living in their own false status quo? Neither peace or victory can be expected any time soon with pandering ideas like accepting IPCC meme’s.”
In reality we climate realists have won and the warmunist defeat was conceded at Copenhagen years ago.
The priority now is to limit the damage from the AGW-scare as it fades away.
Clearly, you have missed my explanation of this need to limit the damage so I will repeat it.
The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen. I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.
Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.
Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.
As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.
The message of the proposed video is precisely what needs to be publicised at this time.

I find your post rather confusing. How have we won and how will this scam fade away when the only example you give is of the machinary of scams continuing and growing stronger – we’ve lost.
We’ve lost because we will continue to be penalised by the destructive policies to the poor and middle class and outside of the cartels businesses while those who think themselves the elite sitting on the top of pile will continue to use the emotional energy of the oik greenies to make sure their perch is secure by taking over control of every aspect of our lives.
The theme of this in itself is, quite frankly, too boring to warrant a short film which should be punchy and should offer some possibility of active response against this scam, but as others have noted, the only message it puts across is that the IPCC and therefore the whole global warming and demonisation of carbon dioxide propaganda it is manipulating by its unscientific models and use of data fraud is not an issue for sceptics.
It is a propaganda film for the warmists and for those controlling, or thinking they control, the show.
The damage is best limited by destroying the base on which this scam was built, it will follow naturally when the science fraud of temperature manipulations are addressed – that they at the highest levels of science have been hiding the fact that temperatures haven’t risen for nearly two decades while continuing temperature manipulations for their ever more shrill scaremongering to boost the destructive social and economic policies which they have helped put in place and which have grown like topsy in that time, is the only story worth telling as a sound bite short film, imo..

May 3, 2013 2:04 pm

And, it shouldn’t be allowed to fade away. This is the biggest science fraud perpetrated to date, it affects most of us globally to our detriment by the policies put in place by it promotion, but, it also affects our science base globally, it has thoroughly trashed science. This should be remembered, not forgotten.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
May 3, 2013 2:23 pm

Forgot to add my real name to the above: Hilary Ostrov (memo to self … change your WP settings so that you don’t have to remember to add this!)

Alan Clark, paid shill for Big Oil
May 3, 2013 2:29 pm

Is this what Agnew meant by “Nattering nabobs of negativism”? Some people have fallen into the trap of typing every stupid thing that comes to their minds. If you don’t want to play, then don’t. Harping at the players from the sidelines is not welcome.
$500 Canadian (Big Oil money) from me to you in the hope that this will be as powerful for AGW as FrackNation was for frac’ing.

May 3, 2013 2:50 pm

I read your question addressed to me. But I have learned from painful experience the difficulty of providing you with explanations. So,instead, I will inform you of how to find out how AGW was killed at the Copenhagen CoP and why that now gives us a problem.
The 2009 Copenhagen CoP was intended to agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
Read the records of the massive changes that were proposed at Copenhagen, the names of the world leaders who attended, what they promised in the lead-up to that conference, and the complete failure to agree anything at that Conference.
Then read the records of the subsequent annual CoPs, how they each discussed only nonsense, agreed nothing, and were attended by no senior politicians from any country.
Then again read what I wrote and you quoted.

May 3, 2013 3:21 pm

Contribution made.

May 3, 2013 3:42 pm

Richard – I read your post, I’m confused by your claim that we have won because the rip off machinery is already in place, the Copenhagen set back has done nothing to stop the continued proliferation of economic and social policies detrimental to the majority of the world’s population built on this science fraud.
“As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.”
The message of the proposed video is precisely what needs to be publicised at this time.

They will continue to win when the best defence you think possible is to tell them you’d be ever so grateful if they should see fit to limit their greedy consumption of our goods, chattels and freedoms by not creating any more perks for themselves..
We’ve lost already, the draconian measures are already in place and goverments fully behind it all, we’re the one’s running around like headless chickens.
More of the same in one variation or another is inevitable unless this science fraud on which it was all built is brought into the consciousness of all. No one likes to be conned, not even the greenie oiks who have been so easy to manipulate, as Maggie used them..

May 3, 2013 5:19 pm

@ dp
`’Reich – you are stating facts not in evidence. Perhaps Moncton is putting up his own money but not all the money needed. We don’t know – you don’t know. But while you can assume and suggest anything, of course, you will look less foolish if you do so quietly.
He is crowdsourcing this project which allows us all (yes, I contributed in spite of my misgivings of letting the IPCC define the playing field) an opportunity to take an active role in setting the direction of climate policy. That can’t be a bad thing, and even if he did pay in full for the entirety of this film, involving the masses is still a good idea.”
Agree, I don’t know if his lordship contributes with money. In any case others are asked for to pay to have his opinion on film.

Joe Born
May 3, 2013 8:07 pm

Although the following comment may incline one to infer otherwise, I am in fact a great admirer of Lord M’s, and I wish him and his colleagues only the best in this endeavor. But what I’ve observed leads me to urge those colleagues to restrain two of his tendencies. In particular, please, please, PLEASE:
Don’t let him over-egg the pudding. Ninety-eight percent of what Monckton says is admirably adequate to make his point. Try not to let him compromise it by that debatable two percent he seems unable to help himself from throwing in.
Lose the Latin. A contemporary of his who similarly was ill-advised enough to study (in my case, four years of) that dead language, I appreciate the temptation, but I strongly suspect that to most people it more bespeaks pedantry than it does erudition.

May 3, 2013 8:23 pm

I would leave you with this.
Interpretation in the end, is the end ,no?

May 3, 2013 9:12 pm

“The bottom line is simple enough to understand. If it is 50 times less cost-effective to mitigate today in Australia than to adapt the day after tomorrow, then scaling up globally will give much the same ratio” -Chris
Scaling out to multi-decadal or century time scales however, will not. It is surprising that many comments on this thread can understand that costs will affect people beyond the ten-year mark but somehow nobody has realized that warming keeps going too…

May 3, 2013 9:24 pm

I remain unconvinced an argument based on a 50 to 1 savings will win anyone over, especially given the alarmist fanatics are willing to destroy entire economies, destroy what remains of an industrial presence, and advocate for a power grid that will have rolling blackouts as a design feature. These are not people who care much for fiscal responsibility except that they are fiscally responsible for the collapse of western civilization. If this last the the hidden message that is hoped will prevail, forget it – it won’t fly in Twitter.
Popcorn’s on – I’ll watch from the cheap seats now.

John Trigge (in Oz)
May 3, 2013 11:16 pm

Contributed – where do I make my tax claim?
,blockquote>Australian Screen Production Incentive
The Australian Screen Production Incentive is the Australian Government’s primary mechanism of supporting film and television production.
It provides generous tax incentives for film, television and other screen production in Australia and is available in three streams:
the Producer Offset, to encourage the production of Australian film and television projects. For information on this offset visit Screen Australia which administers this scheme
the Location Offset, a 16.5 per cent rebate which supports the production of large-budget film and television projects shot in Australia
the PDV Offset, a 30 per cent rebate which supports work on post, digital and visual effects production (PDV) in Australia, regardless of where a project is shot.

May 4, 2013 12:18 am

Agree, I don’t know if his lordship contributes with money. In any case others are asked for to pay to have his opinion on film.

Maybe you can make the case that this is a good or bad thing rather than stating the obvious. Simply asking others to help fund his PSA project is not a characteristic unique to 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. I would draw your attention to public broadcasting in the US that produces a largely leftist view of world events using public support. Same with the US education system. No creating heads full of conservative mush to be found there.

May 4, 2013 12:40 am

Ryan takes issue with my statement that if it is 50 times less cost-effective to mitigate today in Australia than to adapt the day after tomorrow, then scaling up globally will give much the same ratio. He says scaling out to multi-decadal or centennial time-scales will not give the much the same ratio. Not only warming will continue (if the usual suspects are right) but also the costs, and in approximately the same proportion, so the ratio will remain broadly similar throughout.
Many commenters continue to struggle with the notion of my accepting the IPCC’s central climatological estimates for the sake of argument. The worst that can happen if anyone actually believes that in adopting the IPCC’s position for the sake of argument I have adopted it altogether is that my argument that even on the basis of the IPCC’s own estimates it is 50 times costlier to mitigate today than to adapt the day after tomorrow will be seen to have still greater force.
Finally, it is suggested that I use too much Latin and tend to over-egg the pudding. Well, the whole point of getting Topher to present the case is to make sure that it is in plain English; and the whole point of adopting the IPCC’s climatology ad argumentum is to under-egg the pudding. As the underlying paper for the Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists makes clear, the assumptions on which the calculations are based are conservative throughout.
I continue to be very grateful to all those who have been kind enough to contribute. To those who whine about whether I have myself contributed, I reply that I have worked more than full time, and largely unpaid, for several years on trying to get reason and truth back into science and public policy. I cannot afford to do so for very much longer.

Baa Humbug
May 4, 2013 1:41 am

As much as I admire the good intentions, fighting yesterdays wars is a waste of time.
The commies of the EU are well ahead of you in regards to the question of to mitigate or to adapt. They are already well on the way to ADAPTATION. Bureaucracies are being set up, new laws and regulations are well on the way.

“The European Commission today presents a package to advance action on adaptation to climate change:”
As much as I love and respect Monckton and Courtney et al, they have been caught in a pincer movement of mitigation and adaptation.
In the meantime, the AGW juggernaut is rolling on.
p.s. Anthony Watts..”Rational skeptics” Anthony? (May 2, 2013 at 9:14 am)
Did you really mean to write that, implying the rest of us are irrational?
Have you considered the implications of setting out in this direction i.e. negative labelling of those who don’t agree with you?

Baa Humbug
May 4, 2013 1:45 am

OOps not quite the right link in my comment above (though that will do as well)
here is the correct link to the EU report

May 4, 2013 1:54 am

the campaign total to: $19,171!
At this time!

May 4, 2013 3:14 am

Aren’t you a little embarrassed by how childish the ‘backup calculations’ provided by Monckton are?

May 4, 2013 3:20 am

At May 4, 2013 at 3:14 am you ask

Aren’t you a little embarrassed by how childish the ‘backup calculations’ provided by Monckton are?

I can only answer for myself, and the answer is NO.
But I am embarrassed for someone who would ask your silly question, and you have my sympathy.

May 4, 2013 3:27 am

Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 4, 2013 at 12:40 am
Many commenters continue to struggle with the notion of my accepting the IPCC’s central climatological estimates for the sake of argument. The worst that can happen if anyone actually believes that in adopting the IPCC’s position for the sake of argument I have adopted it altogether is that my argument that even on the basis of the IPCC’s own estimates it is 50 times costlier to mitigate today than to adapt the day after tomorrow will be seen to have still greater force.
Should we have to read your mind in a seven minute film? If it is made clear first of all that there is no problem, that the IPCC has created the illusion of AGW by faking “the consensus of climate scientists”? As you succinctly pointed out some time ago when showing that Santer admitted he had cooked the 95 report by excising the real consensus of the climate scientists that there was no AGW discernible*.
If you first informed that Houghton brought in Santer to re-write the report so as to fraudulently claim through the ‘authority’ of the IPCC that AGW was a fact when it clearly was not and the science has been corrupted ever since by the IPCC, then who wouldn’t continue to listen to the rest, however entrenched they were in the fake fisics memes of anthropogenic global warming?
Which was relaunched as “climate change” because the charlatans knew there was no global warming..
.IPCC’s Santer Admits Fraud
December 18, 2009 • 10:16AM
“Ben Santer, a climate researcher and lead IPCC author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, admitted last night on Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory national TV show, that he had deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change. Accusing Santer of altering opinions in the IPCC report that disagreed with the man-made thesis behind climate change, Lord Monckton told the program, “In comes Santer and re-writes it for them, after the scientists have sent in their finalized draft, and that finalized draft said at five different places, there is no discernable human effect on global temperature — I’ve seen a copy of this — Santer went through, crossed out all of those, and substituted a new conclusion, and this has been the official conclusion ever since.””
Then follow with the milk sop of 50 to 1.
That will certainly give them a solid first step into exploring the science corruption promoted by the IPCC and from this promoted by all the once great science bodies now in control of the same agenda which informed Houghton and the IPCC contrived.

May 4, 2013 4:02 am

@ cwon14 says: And others.
May 3, 2013 at 1:22 pm
“This isn’t a proportional reaction to what the rational world is up against.”
No, it’s not.
This, apart from rationality, which is an expression of a capacity, is about Humanity, Morality, and Values.
On the one hand, there is an anti-Human instinct, expressed in AGW, incorporating a division between those whose intent is to place themselves in a position of supremacy over humanity to satisfy their own demands, and who relentlessly abuse the very characteristics that define humanity to achieve this, by a limitless betrayal of trust: dishonesty, deceit and manouvering.
On the other hand, there are the things they abuse, and the coherence, meaning and dignity they reflect and sustain: which is called Humanity.
It is a choice between Good and Evil.
These have not disappeared, not become irrelevant, are not a lifestyle option, are not an abstraction, are not the creation of any religion, and despite being obscured, and attempts to dissect, deny, traduce and inhabit by those who are the enemy of Humanity, are unchanged, irreducible, and immutable.
But this issue, like all others, is multifaceted: from its motivations to the details of its expression.
Whilst the core of what is involved, and what is at stake, should not only not be put to one side, or allowed to be mitigated for apparent convenience, excuses, or rationales dressed as reasonableness – it must increasingly come to the fore and be the ultimate determinant and judgement – dealing with manifestations is also required.
This is, in part, what this video seeks to do. It cannot be the totality of response, or what it advances be the template for change. It can form part of that however.
Such a video does not preclude responses from a different base. If successful, it will form part of a reconstruction of reality which is essential.
Whilst some will focus on this, at the moment, others must focus on the deeper issues, whether they be science itself, and the place of this in it, and what it says about the expectations and practices of science, or similar that can be claimed as authority to gain authority, through to what is right or wrong, what is Human, and what is not.
These things cannot be secondary, they are all intimately linked, inseparably linked, and can, when the air is made clearer, and things can be seen for what they, come together to allow the properly integrated form they should be.
Rather than see this as a distraction, or accommodation, it should be seen as part of allowing a unified and meaningful position, one that can be shared by all who define themselves as Human.
Proponents of this have usurped Human morality: this is the greatest travesty.
People should have a rage, and it should be maintained and increased. The real, defining, issue is one of Human values and behaviour. Those that are at odds with that must be confronted directly with that. And morality and values reclaimed from those who have perverted them.

May 4, 2013 4:18 am

House says:
May 3, 2013 at 1:19 pm
“There is no reason to believe, that it can “come across very clearly that the IPCC is untrustworthy” on economic issues, because nobody has presented anything scientific that proves that point.”
That the IPCC is untrustworthy is established. It is the very spawn of that.
You have revealed yourself.
You are a creature a deceit.
An abuse of human trust.
Read my post of 4.02am above.
It describes you. You are an offense to all things of real value.

May 4, 2013 4:54 am

richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 7:56 am
“Adaptation” and “The precautionary principle” are retreat and warehouse actions of the warming movement. If centrally planned it is exactly the sort of disease we should be trying to eradicate on a global basis. Pandering to IPCC authority is exactly the wrong way to go. AGW fear politics has to die and there is no reason to throw it a life line by accepting IPCC figures that are born of a corrupt academic and political agendas they propagated.
I respect Lord Monckton but the focus should remain on the political contrivance of the warming community and the fundamental political corrupt core that the movement represents. AR4 included the word “significant” to describe human impact and that was quickly followed by labeling dissent “holocaust deniers”. Lord Monckton is certainly on “blacklist” if for what ever reason climate change fever might swing back into the extreme globally. Slated for trials and execution in the name of the “cause”.
This isn’t the best way to respond to Greenshirt terror politics tacitly supported by the IPCC and “consensus” core.

Lady in Red
May 4, 2013 5:10 am

I continue to suspect the people who need to see this will not watch. If they do, they will dismiss the math as tricky skeptic math, not what the “scientists” know….
What about a tv series, plus availability on YouTube, in a debate format. Every week an expert skeptic on an aspect of the problem will debate a “climate scientist.” Citizen scientists would be encouraged to participate…. The AGW “climate scientists” won’t debate? Ok. List the credentials of all the ones invited to participate and make an honest effort to portray their thinking through research papers and news comments. Put a mannequin in the chair.
Next week repeat the exercise with another expert citizen scientist, or Lindzen or Pat Michaels or Fred Singer or…. against yet another mannequin.
Force the engagement the AGW folk refuse to have.
Here’s a list of possible topics I just copied from Cook’s SKS site, with their vapid uninformed rebuttals. Take ’em out, on every subject, not merely cost.
Global Warming & Climate Change Myths
Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, by popularity, in a print-friendly version, with short URLs or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.
Climate Myth vs What the Science Says
1 “Climate’s changed before” Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
2 “It’s the sun” In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
3 “It’s not bad” Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
4 “There is no consensus” 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
5 “It’s cooling” The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
6 “Models are unreliable” Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
7 “Temp record is unreliable” The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.
8 “Animals and plants can adapt” Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.
9 “It hasn’t warmed since 1998” For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.
10 “Antarctica is gaining ice” Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.
11 “Ice age predicted in the 70s” The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
12 “CO2 lags temperature” CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
13 “Climate sensitivity is low” Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
14 “We’re heading into an ice age” Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
15 “Ocean acidification isn’t serious” Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains.
16 “Hockey stick is broken” Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
17 “Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy” A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
18 “Hurricanes aren’t linked to global warming” There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.
19 “Al Gore got it wrong” Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.
20 “Glaciers are growing” Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.
21 “It’s cosmic rays” Cosmic rays show no trend over the last 30 years & have had little impact on recent global warming.
22 “1934 – hottest year on record” 1934 was one of the hottest years in the US, not globally.
23 “It’s freaking cold!” A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.
24 “Extreme weather isn’t caused by global warming” Extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming.
25 “Sea level rise is exaggerated” A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.
26 “It’s Urban Heat Island effect” Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.
27 “Medieval Warm Period was warmer” Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.
28 “Mars is warming” Mars is not warming globally.
29 “Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle” Thick arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat.
30 “Increasing CO2 has little to no effect” The strong CO2 effect has been observed by many different measurements.
31 “Oceans are cooling” The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.
32 “It’s a 1500 year cycle” Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans.
33 “Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions” The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
34 “IPCC is alarmist”
Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.
35 “Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas”
Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse.
36 “Polar bear numbers are increasing” Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.
37 “CO2 limits will harm the economy”
The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.
38 “It’s not happening”
There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.
39 “Greenland was green” Other parts of the earth got colder when Greenland got warmer.
40 “Greenland is gaining ice” Greenland on the whole is losing ice, as confirmed by satellite measurement.
41 “CO2 is not a pollutant”
Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant
42 “CO2 is plant food”
The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors
43 “Other planets are warming” Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.
44 “Arctic sea ice has recovered” Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.
45 “There’s no empirical evidence” There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming.
46 “We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age”
Scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming
47 “There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature” There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term.
48 “It cooled mid-century” Mid-century cooling involved aerosols and is irrelevant for recent global warming.
49 “CO2 was higher in the past” When CO2 was higher in the past, the sun was cooler.
50 “It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low” Early 20th century warming is due to several causes, including rising CO2.
51 “Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????”
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.
52 “Satellites show no warming in the troposphere” The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.
53 “It’s aerosols” Aerosols have been masking global warming, which would be worse otherwise.
54 “It’s El Niño” El Nino has no trend and so is not responsible for the trend of global warming.
55 “2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells” A cold day in Chicago in winter has nothing to do with the trend of global warming.
56 “It’s a natural cycle” No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
57 “Mt. Kilimanjaro’s ice loss is due to land use” Most glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, notwithstanding a few complicated cases.
58 “There’s no tropospheric hot spot” We see a clear “short-term hot spot” – there’s various evidence for a “long-term hot spot”.
59 “It’s not us” Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.
60 “It’s Pacific Decadal Oscillation” The PDO shows no trend, and therefore the PDO is not responsible for the trend of global warming.
61 “IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers”
Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 1000 page IPCC report.
62 “Scientists can’t even predict weather” Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail.
63 “Greenhouse effect has been falsified” The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations.
64 “2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory” The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed.
65 “CO2 limits will hurt the poor”
Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change.
66 “The science isn’t settled” That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.
67 “Clouds provide negative feedback” Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.
68 “Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated” Sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting.
69 “It’s the ocean” The oceans are warming and moreover are becoming more acidic, threatening the food chain.
70 “IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests” The IPCC statement on Amazon rainforests was correct, and was incorrectly reported in some media.
71 “Corals are resilient to bleaching” Globally about 1% of coral is dying out each year.
72 “Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans” Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
73 “CO2 effect is saturated” Direct measurements find that rising CO2 is trapping more heat.
74 “Greenland ice sheet won’t collapse” When Greenland was 3 to 5 degrees C warmer than today, a large portion of the Ice Sheet melted.
75 “CO2 is just a trace gas” Many substances are dangerous even in trace amounts; what really matters is the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
76 “It’s methane” Methane plays a minor role in global warming but could get much worse if permafrost starts to melt.
77 “CO2 has a short residence time” Excess CO2 from human emissions has a long residence time of over 100 years
78 “CO2 measurements are suspect” CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations across the globe, all reporting the same trend.
79 “Humidity is falling” Multiple lines of independent evidence indicate humidity is rising and provides positive feedback.
80 “500 scientists refute the consensus” Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
81 “Neptune is warming” And the sun is cooling.
82 “Springs aren’t advancing” Hundreds of flowers across the UK are flowering earlier now than any time in 250 years.
83 “Jupiter is warming” Jupiter is not warming, and anyway the sun is cooling.
84 “It’s land use” Land use plays a minor role in climate change, although carbon sequestration may help to mitigate.
85 “Scientists tried to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature” The ‘decline’ refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.
86 “CO2 is not increasing” CO2 is increasing rapidly, and is reaching levels not seen on the earth for millions of years.
87 “Record snowfall disproves global warming” Warming leads to increased evaporation and precipitation, which falls as increased snow in winter.
88 “They changed the name from global warming to climate change” ‘Global warming’ and ‘climate change’ mean different things and have both been used for decades.
89 “Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun” The sun has not warmed since 1970 and so cannot be driving global warming.
90 “CO2 is coming from the ocean” The ocean is absorbing massive amounts of CO2, and is becoming more acidic as a result.
91 “IPCC overestimate temperature rise” Monckton used the IPCC equation in an inappropriate manner.
92 “Pluto is warming” And the sun has been recently cooling.
93 “CO2 is not the only driver of climate” Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change.
94 “Peer review process was corrupted” An Independent Review concluded that CRU’s actions were normal and didn’t threaten the integrity of peer review.
95 “Arctic was warmer in 1940”
The actual data show high northern latitudes are warmer today than in 1940.
96 “Southern sea ice is increasing” Antarctic sea ice has grown in recent decades despite the Southern Ocean warming at the same time.
97 “CO2 limits will make little difference”
If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale.
98 “Sea level rise is decelerating”
Global sea level data shows that sea level rise has been increasing since 1880 while future sea level rise predictions are based on physics, not statistics.
99 “Renewable energy is too expensive”
When you account for all of the costs associated with burning coal and other fossil fuels, like air pollution and health effects, in reality they are significantly more expensive than most renewable energy sources.
100 “It’s microsite influences” Microsite influences on temperature changes are minimal; good and bad sites show the same trend.
101 “Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995” Phil Jones was misquoted.
102 “Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate” Humans are small but powerful, and human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
103 “Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity” Lindzen and Choi’s paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climate scientists.
104 “Dropped stations introduce warming bias” If the dropped stations had been kept, the temperature would actually be slightly higher.
105 “It’s too hard” Scientific studies have determined that current technology is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid dangerous climate change.
106 “It’s not urgent”
A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.
107 “It’s albedo” Albedo change in the Arctic, due to receding ice, is increasing global warming.
108 “Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960” This is a detail that is complex, local, and irrelevant to the observed global warming trend.
109 “It’s soot”
Soot stays in the atmosphere for days to weeks; carbon dioxide causes warming for centuries.
110 “Hansen’s 1988 prediction was wrong”
Jim Hansen had several possible scenarios; his mid-level scenario B was right.
111 “Roy Spencer finds negative feedback” Spencer’s model is too simple, excluding important factors like ocean dynamics and treats cloud feedbacks as forcings.
112 “It’s global brightening” This is a complex aerosol effect with unclear temperature significance.
113 “Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain” Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.
114 “It’s a climate regime shift” There is no evidence that climate has chaotic “regimes” on a long-term basis.
115 “Earth hasn’t warmed as much as expected” This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet’s thermal inertia.
116 “Solar cycles cause global warming” Over recent decades, the sun has been slightly cooling & is irrelevant to recent global warming.
117 “Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming” Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
118 “Ice isn’t melting”
Arctic sea ice has shrunk by an area equal to Western Australia, and summer or multi-year sea ice might be all gone within a decade.
119 “Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project” The ‘OISM petition’ was signed by only a few climatologists.
120 “IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period”
The IPCC simply updated their temperature history graphs to show the best data available at the time.
121 “Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted” Weather is chaotic but climate is driven by Earth’s energy imbalance, which is more predictable.
122 “It’s ozone” Ozone has only a small effect.
123 “Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored” An independent inquiry found CRU is a small research unit with limited resources and their rigour and honesty are not in doubt.
124 “The IPCC consensus is phoney”
113 nations signed onto the 2007 IPCC report, which is simply a summary of the current body of climate science evidence
125 “Sea level is not rising” The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations.
126 “Climate ‘Skeptics’ are like Galileo” Modern scientists, not anti-science skeptics, follow in Galileo’s footsteps.
127 “Tuvalu sea level isn’t rising” Tuvalu sea level is rising 3 times larger than the global average.
128 “A drop in volcanic activity caused warming” Volcanoes have had no warming effect in recent global warming – if anything, a cooling effect.
129 “Trenberth can’t account for the lack of warming” Trenberth is talking about the details of energy flow, not whether global warming is happening.
130 “Renewables can’t provide baseload power”
A number of renewable sources already do provide baseload power, and we don’t need renewables to provide a large percentage of baseload power immediately.
131 “Ice Sheet losses are overestimated” A number of independent measurements find extensive ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland.
132 “CRU tampered with temperature data” An independent inquiry went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU’s results.
133 “Naomi Oreskes’ study on consensus was flawed” Benny Peiser, the Oreskes critic, retracted his criticism.
134 “Melting ice isn’t warming the Arctic” Melting ice leads to more sunlight being absorbed by water, thus heating the Arctic.
135 “Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup” By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.
136 “Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures” Temperature errors in the Great Lakes region are not used in any global temperature records.
137 “Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature” Soares looks at short-term trends which are swamped by natural variations while ignoring the long-term correlation.
138 “We’re heading into cooling” There is no scientific basis for claims that the planet will begin to cool in the near future.
139 “Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural” Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.
140 “CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration” That humans are causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 is confirmed by multiple isotopic analyses.
141 “The sun is getting hotter” The sun has just had the deepest solar minimum in 100 years.
142 “It’s waste heat” Greenhouse warming is adding 100 times more heat to the climate than waste heat.
143 “Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming” This possibility just means that future global warming could be even worse.
144 “It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940” The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940.
145 “An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature” CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we decrease emissions, global warming will accelerate this century.
146 “Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009” Winter snow cover in 2008/2009 was average while the long-term trend in spring, summer, and annual snow cover is rapid decline.
147 “Mauna Loa is a volcano” The global trend is calculated from hundreds of CO2 measuring stations and confirmed by satellites.
148 “Venus doesn’t have a runaway greenhouse effect”
Venus very likely underwent a runaway or ‘moist’ greenhouse phase earlier in its history, and today is kept hot by a dense CO2 atmosphere.
149 “Antarctica is too cold to lose ice” Glaciers are sliding faster into the ocean because ice shelves are thinning due to warming oceans.
150 “Positive feedback means runaway warming” Positive feedback won’t lead to runaway warming; diminishing returns on feedback cycles limit the amplification.
151 “Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC?” Official records, Editors and emails suggest CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of IPCC rules.
152 “Water levels correlate with sunspots” This detail is irrelevant to the observation of global warming caused by humans.
153 “CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician” The sun was much cooler during the Ordovician.
154 “CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused” Many lines of evidence, including simple accounting, demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human fossil fuel burning.
155 “It’s CFCs” CFCs contribute at a small level.
156 “Scientists retracted claim that sea levels are rising” The Siddall 2009 paper was retracted because its predicted sea level rise was too low.
157 “Warming causes CO2 rise” Recent warming is due to rising CO2.
158 “Coral atolls grow as sea levels rise” Thousands of coral atolls have “drowned” when unable to grow fast enough to survive at sea level.
159 “It’s internal variability”
Internal variability can only account for small amounts of warming and cooling over periods of decades, and scientific studies have consistently shown that it cannot account for the global warming over the past century.
160 “Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass” Greenland’s ice loss is accelerating & will add metres of sea level rise in upcoming centuries.
161 “DMI show cooling Arctic” While summer maximums have showed little trend, the annual average Arctic temperature has risen sharply in recent decades.
162 “Renewable energy investment kills jobs” Investment in renewable energy creates more jobs than investment in fossil fuel energy.
163 “CO2 limits won’t cool the planet” CO2 limits won’t cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels
164 “Royal Society embraces skepticism” The Royal Society still strongly state that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming.
165 “It’s only a few degrees” A few degrees of global warming has a huge impact on ice sheets, sea levels and other aspects of climate.
166 “It’s satellite microwave transmissions” Satellite transmissions are extremely small and irrelevant.
167 “CO2 only causes 35% of global warming”
CO2 and corresponding water vapor feedback are the biggest cause of global warming.
168 “Sea level fell in 2010” The temporary drop in sea level in 2010 was due to intense land flooding caused by a strong La Nina.
169 “Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past”
Current Arctic sea ice extent is the lowest in the past several thousand years.
170 “We didn’t have global warming during the Industrial Revolution” CO2 emissions were much smaller 100 years ago.
171 “Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick”
Ljungqvist’s temperature reconstruction is very similar to other reconstructions by Moberg and Mann.
172 “Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater”
Hansen was speculating on changes that might happen if CO2 doubled.
173 “Removing all CO2 would make little difference” Removing CO2 would cause most water in the air to rain out and cancel most of the greenhouse effect.
174 “Postma disproved the greenhouse effect” Postma’s model contains many simple errors; in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect.
Many thanks to Dr. Jan Dash, Director of the UU-UNO’s Climate Portal for writing many of the one line responses in ‘What the Science Says’, with some edits by John Cook.
(free to republish)
The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism
Smartphone Apps
© Copyright 2013 John Cook

Lady in Red
May 4, 2013 5:47 am

The show format would be inexpensive — but powerful. Possibly, something along the lines of William Buckley’s “Firing Line,” or the fine PBS series, “The Advocates,” where each team, in debate format had an “advocate,” plus two expert witnesses who were questioned and cross-examined. (That format might be a bit difficult with a bunch of mannequins…. but… smile…)
It is important to deal with the absurdity of the Team’s nonsense arguments, which never engage….. Like Marcott’s carefully worded FAQ in response to nothing germane which McIntyre questioned, but…. then, in time, the problem goes away. Gleick is back. Mann is esteemed. It doesn’t change — without head to head engagement and, if they won’t do it themselves, use their words, their interviews….. Mann’s disgusting TedTalks lecture…. There’s fodder there to be refuted. And, if they don’t like what happens, invite them to engage. And keep inviting them. That will wake up the public. ….Lady in Red

Frank Legge
May 4, 2013 6:06 am

The curious responses of so many commenters here that this idea of focusing on the cost of adaptation versus the cost of attempting to block climate change is to throw a life-line to the IPCC and global warmists in general, is cause for concern. Surely it is obvious that it does no such thing. Surely it is obvious that to say “even if the IPCC is right about CO2 and man-made global warming, it will be far cheaper to adapt than to suppress CO2 production” does not help the IPCC or warmists. What it does is destroy their entire case for spending large sums of money on reduction of CO2 emissions.
However, as so many commenters seem to think it does help the IPCC and warmists, it will be very important in the construction of the 50 to 1 argument, to explain in very simple terms why it does not. I will make no attempt to set out how this should be done as it is self-evident, but strongly advise the authors of the project to take on board how resistant some people obviously are to the simple logic of the case.

May 4, 2013 6:45 am

Thankyou for the reply to me which you provide at May 4, 2013 at 4:54 am.
Please be assured that I am fully aware of “Greenshirt terror tactics” having been a recipient of them for many years.
It seems that you and I are united on the objectives and on the reasons for them. But we disagree on the tactics. OK. I hear that, but – as I explained in my posts at May 2, 2013 at 12:05 pm and May 3, 2013 at 7:56 am (which you have replied) – I think the video is the ‘right way to go’.
For the benefit of others I provide links which jump to my explanations.
Obviously, I and those who think like me could be wrong. But be assured that we are sincere, and there is nothing to lose by giving this video a chance.

May 4, 2013 6:55 am

Simply claiming that ten-year C/B analysis can be extended indefinitely does not make it true.
The rising cost of adaptation is very gradual. The effects of any mitigation are also gradual. The costs of mitigation might be longterm, but they will be nearly instantaneously apparent. I don’t think anyone on the “warmist” side who has any idea what they are talking about would be surprised that ten-year costs of mitigation might exceed adaptation. I personally would have assumed it was true already, and it certainly hasn’t made me worry about warming any less.
I once attended a lecture by a traveling creationist speaker at a small church in Oklahoma. In it, he talked about Jurassic Park. He said Jurassic Park was Lucifer’s way of making kids love Charles Darwin. And so he set about debunking the science behind the movie(not the book, I don’t think he was a reader). The audience ate it up. The guy looked smart to them. I was young, about 15, but I still thought it was amusing, as did most of my friends. Why? Because every advocate of keeping creationism away from schools already knew that Jurassic Park was fiction.
He was arguing against a point nobody was making.
Likewise, this film will be arguing against a point nobody is making. It will only make for easy cannon fodder in the greater debate. If you want me to believe that a complete anti-regulatory stance is reasonable, you’re going to have to disprove the points that actually are being made, not the scarecrows you set up.

Lady in Red
May 4, 2013 7:01 am

Here is an excellent, easy to understand, expose on the lunacy of cap and trade, created years ago by “greenie” Annie Leonard:
It has not made a dent. …..Lady in Red

May 4, 2013 7:12 am

re your post at May 4, 2013 at 6:55 am.
If you choose to spend money preventing goblins from hiding under your bed then feel free to do so. But don’t demand that I pay for your precautions against the threat which you imagine.
Similarly, for your fears about imagined AGW.

May 4, 2013 7:35 am

I don’t think this is really the thread to discuss who is imagining threats. This is about a video debunking things that nobody is saying.

May 4, 2013 7:45 am

Although I expect the ’50-to-1′ project about the economic costs of harm from burning fossil fuels will be stimulating to the ongoing climate dialog, it contains a logically unjustifiable acceptance of the fundamentally false premise of harmfulness .
I recommend to include a introductory building block reference to the following central discussion in the ’50-to-1′ economic cost project and then I will enthusiastically support it.
The missing fundamental concept in the ’50-to-1′ project, in my thinking, is that burning fossil fuel is not reasonably shown to have a net harmful impact to life. Again, please include that concept . . . make a ~9 minute video instead of a 7 min video.
The dialog continues . . .

May 4, 2013 7:50 am

At May 4, 2013 at 7:35 am you write in total

I don’t think this is really the thread to discuss who is imagining threats. This is about a video debunking things that nobody is saying.

At May 4, 2013 at 6:55 am you wrote a long-winded whinge about how we now need to take expensive actions to mitigate imagined effects of AGW.
At May 4, 2013 at 7:12 am I refuted that saying if you want to pay to mitigate the threats you imagine then you pay but don’t force me to pay.
You have replied with the post I am answering.
The issue we are discussing is a video to promote adaptation instead of the much more expensive mitigation of future and imagined AGW. Climate changes naturally – it always has and always will – so adaptation will occur whether or not AGW becomes a discernible effect on climate.
Mitigation requires costs which must be met now and will not be needed unless your fears of AGW eventually turn out to have some substance.
You pay if you want to. I will support the video and its message.

May 4, 2013 8:23 am

I didn’t write anything long-winded, lol. And I certainly wasn’t attempting to advocate for climate action. I’m just saying that the central claim of the video is one that many non-conspiracy individuals will agree with.
The reaction from the left to this video will be summed up in one word:

May 4, 2013 8:52 am

Ryan says he is not surprised at the result of my calculation demonstrating that over a ten-year term the cost of attempting to mitigate global warming at the rate predicted by the IPCC is 50 times greater than that of attempting to mitigate it over a century. He has misunderstood the extent to which I have bent over backward to give as much advantage as possible to those who believe we should mitigate today rather than adapting the day after tomorrow. I have assumed that, proportionately, the same cost will arise from adapting to ten years’ predicted warming as the cost of adapting to a century’s predicted warming: i.e., 1.5% of GDP. In practice, up to 1-2 K warming this century will be harmless and beneficial.
I have studied a shorter period than a century because reasonably good figures are available for the ten-year Australian CO2 tax. However, mitigating 3 K warming over a century will cost no less, as a percentage of global centennial GDP per Kelvin mitigated, than mitigating 1/6 K warming over a decade. Welcome to the concept of mitigation cost-effectiveness, which is well understood in economics.
To those who are still do not understand the notion of accepting an opponent’s premise for the sake of argument, let me explain how Socratic elenchus works. One begins by inviting one’s opponent to confirm that he believes in a premise of his own: here, the premise that it is necessary to prevent 3 K warming this century. One then invites him to accept various conclusions drawn from his own premise, such as the conclusion that adapting to 3 K warming this century will cost 1.5% of global GDP.
Next, one invites the opponent to accept a premise of one’s own – a premise with which no rational person would be expected to disagree. In the present argument, one might put forward the premise that it would not be cost-effective to mitigate global warming today if the cost of mitigation today significantly exceeded that of adaptation the day after tomorrow. Most rational people would accept that.
One then draws conclusions from one’s own premise – in the present argument, a step-by-step determination of the cost of mitigating warming today. The conclusion is that it is one or two orders of magnitude more expensive and less cost-effective to mitigate today than to adapt tomorrow. The opponent is then invited to decide which premise to abandon – the opponent’s premise that it is necessary to prevent 3 K warming this century, or the premise that it would not be cost-effective to mitigate global warming today if the cost of mitigation significantly exceeded that of adaptation.
To those who say the calculations are too simple, I respond by pointing out that the climatological equations used by the IPCC are themselves simple – indeed, the President of the World Federation of Scientists was surprised at how simple they were. If you would like more complexity at the climatological end, then that is a matter for the IPCC, not for me. Inter-temporal economic analysis is not particularly complex either. And, as my forthcoming paper points out, greater complexity in the analysis would not much alter the conclusion, save that removing most of the simplifications would worsen the cost/benefit ratio still further.
Finally, there are those who say they would prefer other videos to be made. Well, just go to YouTube and search for Monckton: you will find hundreds. And if you want other videos made, it’s a free country (well, it was), so go ahead and make them. Don’t whine from the sidelines. If you can do better, just do it.
I have chosen the economic argument because it is straightforward, it is robust, it does not even challenge the scientific conclusions of the usual suspects, and it leaves remarkably little wriggle-room even for the most dishonest climate-extremist, which is why the only real kickback here has come from the usual trolls who have nothing better to do with their time than whine. The effect of these calculations on audiences – particularly scientific, academic and political audiences – is overwhelming. I take the audience step by step through the calculations, so they can see exactly how everything is done. They begin to laugh, as the World Federation of Scientists did, when I reveal that having rather than not having Australia’s CO2 tax would reduce global CO2 emissions at the end of the ten-year term from the IPCC’s projected 410 ppmv to – wait for it – 409.988.
They laugh again when they learn that the warming mitigated – all of 1/20,000 K – is only 1/1000 of the minimum global temperature change we can measure, so that even if the tax succeeded we’d have no means of measuring that it had.
They gasp when they realize every man, woman and child on Earth would have to contribute $77,000 to prevent just 1/6 K warming over the ten-year term of Australia’s CO2 tax. And it’s all over when I hit them with the punch-line: that it’s 50 times more expensive and less cost-effective to mitigate today than to adapt the day after tomorrow.
The video is timed to appear at the same time as the paper comes out. In that way, those who find that equations are not easy to follow will have a brilliantly clear explanation of the point that is being made. It is worth making the effort to explain published scientific results in simple terms. The other side have been doing it for years. Why should we not learn from them and do it too?

Louis LeBlanc
May 4, 2013 8:59 am

Wasn’t this concept more or less the basis of Bjorn Lomborg’s book 10-12 years ago? It got good coverage and sales, and he was on talk shows, etc., but did it change the attitude of the warmists or the great unwashed? These are the same folks who will insist that “you can’t put a price on human life.” I’d like to contribute if I saw something really new here, but I think it would be a big mistake to give any ground on global warming as being permanent or man-caused, especially with the film being promoted as a game-changer through WUWT. I would expect a barrage of out-of-context attacks regardless of how meticulously it was put together. Mother Nature seems to be clearing it up anyway, which is really the only way we will win the argument politically.

Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
May 4, 2013 10:40 am

I wish only that you were correct and that Mother Nature would prove the alarmists wrong. We are all human and constantly deny the evidence of our own eyes – while we speak of the sun rising and setting we know that it is the earth rotating; while we assume a flat earth when driving a car, we adopt the idea of a globe when navigating by sea or air.
I expect that all the nonsense apparatus that AGW has prompted will remain in place long after the alarmists are dead and gone. Cap and trade may die the death but carbon taxes will take its place to justify the inordinate costs of renewables. Energy prices will remain so high that homes will have to be muffled up in double glazing and roof insulation to keep us warm. There will be smart meters, smart appliances and energy rationing ‘in the interest of generations to come’ and lots of people will make lots of money although there is no need for high energy prices and no need to save the planet from AGW. Coal. oil and gas in various forms will be there for the taking long after man has vacated the planet.
The assumption that underlies all this rubbish about future generations is that they will be illiterate and passive, unable to fend for themselves and entirely dependent on their heritage from the present generation for their survival. Indeed there are signs that some of our descendants are becoming Eloi and others Morlocks. Good luck to them!
As soon as Paypal is available, I shall drop my penny in the box, but I doubt that all the huffing and puffing will have the slightest effect while so many are making a living out of this new religion.

May 4, 2013 8:59 am

Richard Courtenay to Ryan
Very good. This program defeats the last hiding place of the CAGW crowd; THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE that is always trotted out when they run out of arguments. I believe the climate changes, I believe CO2 probably has some small effect, but having just come back from skiing which I have done for over 60 years, I am not very worried about having to adapt a lot. What this project does is kill the Precautionary Principle because it shows how bad and wasteful the idea of the principle is.
Tell these people to go was the Bank of America “Dust Bowl” series. Poor farming practices and a short term change in the weather can wreak havoc. The weather changes we are seeing now are nothing.
The Precautionary Principle must go while we recognize that CO2 is much less of an issue than deforestation in developing countries, overfishing, “true” pollution control and farming practices.

May 4, 2013 9:08 am

Sorry – go “watch” the Dust Bowl series.

May 4, 2013 10:03 am

Mr. leBlanc is right that Bjorn Lomborg and others have pointed out that it is not cost-effective to mitigate global warming. Indeed, that – for those who like to defy a millennium of tradition in the philosophy of science by obtaining results by consensus – is the overwhelming opinion in the reviewed literature on climate change economics.
However, until I applied the IPCC’s climatology to the problem directly, no one had realized that it is not just a little bit more expensive to act now than to adapt tomorrow – it is one or two orders of magnitude more expensive. The purpose of the video is to let people know that. The brighter ones will then work out for themselves that they should be shutting down the IPCC and all climate-change spending.

Lady in Red
May 4, 2013 10:16 am

The government troughs are too big and run too deep. The system has become corrupted and even the “bright ones” aren’t balking. The “bright ones” will never shut down the IPCC. Peter Gleick lives, lectures at Oxford and Cambridge. If the “bright ones” don’t even care about that, why try to swim upstream against the IPCC? Go with the flow; get your pension; retire early.
And, the “dumb ones” read SKS. ….Lady in Red

Reply to  Lady in Red
May 4, 2013 11:10 am


May 4, 2013 10:34 am

Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 4, 2013 at 8:52 am
In the U.S. Lord Monckton we have a term for the Republican Party, “The Stupid Party”. Its meaning has been twisted many times over the decades but an original usage was to describe the tendency of the GOP as being hopelessly logical and principled on a political debate without connecting with a majority and losing based on emotions. It comes to mind as I read your arguments and watch your presentations.
AGW isn’t about science or logic to believers. Media, academia, the “consensus” and even close to half the electorate aren’t making their judgements by anything close to “logic”. Your effort here will at best do no harm but I doubt it will move anything on the margin. Certainly the “consensus” will dismiss it based on the “credentials” monopoly they maintain. Here are the rules “they” are living by;
The rules;
“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
“Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
You’re clearly misunderstanding Rule #4 by validating the IPCC for them. You’re making a weak Luke-warmer, Precautionary Principle point which fits into their range of meme’s. The warmer’s goal is to control carbon through taxation and regulation rationalized by the basic evil nature of carbon itself. If it’s peoples need to hate “big oil” or self-hatred either emotion is useful to the green advocate. Allowing the basic canard of trace human co2 sensitivity a pass is a failure.
Its skeptics separating logic (science) from the boarder political framework that drives the consensus process and these isolated efforts could be doing more harm than good. We would do better if skeptics crossed the Rubicon and acknowledged the specific political culture that is the global driver of AGW belief. Public awareness of this is what has slowed the AGW movement and flat temperature stats against the asinine claims made in recent decades. Adaptation is just a back-story skeptics should pan.

May 4, 2013 10:43 am

Frank Legge says:
May 4, 2013 at 6:06 am
The curious responses of so many commenters here that this idea of focusing on the cost of adaptation versus the cost of attempting to block climate change is to throw a life-line to the IPCC and global warmists in general, is cause for concern. Surely it is obvious that it does no such thing.

The fact that this very point is the most discussed in this thread is obvious evidence you are wrong.

May 4, 2013 11:03 am

@ Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 4, 2013 at 10:03 am
One thing I am not clear about, which I (and others) wondered about above.
I read above your description of the effectiveness of your personal presentation of the facts you want to get across in this video. Presumably, the audiences were of a specialist sort, with or without an established (putative) knowledge of the area, but with an interest in engaging.
Is that the target audience? Those who are possibly in a position to have a more direct influence than the average person? Or who at least feel already they should devote some attention to this?
Or is it aimed at general consumption by those who might otherwise not make an effort to establish the facts?
One reason for asking is that a great deal of the argy-bargy around this, and what people actually respond to or take seriously, seems to occur within the already established groups with an interest, and, it seems to me, suffers somewhat because of it, with endless rehashing of positions and re-statements of the obvious. It’s a bit of a cul-de-sac.
These types of exchanges seem to carry over into the more public arena when they (rarely) appear at all. For all the detail, it seems likely to me that the single most effective piece of information presented to the public – which I know you have used to effect also – is the Sunday Mail publication which in essence consisted of a statement that no warming had occurred for 16 years and which was shown graphically.
Do you intend the video to communicate at that simple – but not simple minded – level?
After all, what is most extraordinary about this issue is its lack of complexity at an intellectual and policy level, regardless of scientific detail, and the apparent impossibility of getting that across.
And that has occurred because of endless, intentional, presentations which rely on the idea that this is by nature arcane and impenetrable to the outsider, a level which those trying to refute it seem to, on the whole, feel obliged to join.

May 4, 2013 11:30 am

dp says:
May 4, 2013 at 10:43 am
When ever there is a large split politically factions form. Luke-warming and technocrats drive too much of skeptic talking points. You have to be half-asleep not to see the problem for skeptics in adaptation rhetoric.
I don’t want AGW fear monger politics warehoused as it falls from current favor with adaptation rationalizations to keep it on life-support. I want it destroyed and ring leaders punished. It does seem to me that there are many who like the middling approach of a never ending public debate.
The focus should be on post-normal science and political abuses involved. They should receive no reward for 40 years of social decline associated to AGW propagation. Central planning adaptation is appeasement of the worst ideas.

May 4, 2013 12:18 pm

cwon14 says:
May 4, 2013 at 10:34 am
“AGW isn’t about science or logic to believers.”
BUT outside the Transcendentally Religious, who on the whole are not publicly presentable except as extras since all they can say is “I feel it”, the proponents themselves DO think they can process information. It is part of their delusion and conceit that they have a more penetrating understanding of True Fact, so it at the least makes them uncomfortable when something actually undeniably factual is presented to them. Witness even their Champions extreme reluctance or outright refusal to debate or even come into contact with a purveyor of reality.
“Media, academia, the “consensus” and even close to half the electorate aren’t making their judgements by anything close to “logic”.”
Agreed again.
BUT as with the active believers and proponents they THINK they are functionally intelligent. Even if avoided – but known to exist – they will be inclined to SHUT UP because they run the risk that they will be revealed as being irrational. And the very fact that there is an alternative interpretation in the ether is a challenge to the monolithic inscrutability that underpins such a blindly accepted faith rather than a considered one. Diversity is a threat to the required equanimity of such a mind.
“You’re clearly misunderstanding Rule #4 by validating the IPCC for them.”
A real risk, as many have pointed out.
Can it be not just mitigated but turned to advantage? I think so. The IPCC is an expression of politics as the runs is an expression of rotten food. Can this be shown in the video? Surely. Will it be? Don’t know.
“We would do better if skeptics crossed the Rubicon and acknowledged the specific political culture that is the global driver of AGW belief.”
Agreed -partially.
To be greeting-card mawkish: “It takes all sorts”. There is and will be an important role for those focused on “the science” even to the complete exclusion of acknowledging its context. But it is true that regardless of any “science” what happens is dependent on and compelled by other factors. This is where I would qualify your focus on political structures as easily defined by general ideology or claims to it – although I don’t for a minute dispute these exist. I think, as i’ve said elsewhere, this must be viewed fron a very fundamental place based on values. This position is how to make sense of both perversions to science and corruptions of social and civic structures. Without starting, and holding to this base, things degenerate into “politics” of the us and them sort, as is seen precisely in “The Science” of this. Rather than “political culture” it is “personal and societal values” that count, and political structures, ambitions, and methodologies will stand starkly apart from these and therefore be able to be identified and dealt with.