Help Launch Climate Skeptic Film Project: 50 to 1

There is still a flawed assumption that you can “stop” climate change at any cost, large or small. This is because the net effect of water vapour outweighs that of carbon dioxide by at least 100:1 and probably more like 1000:1.
And water vapour cools because, contrary to common opinion, research shows that equivalent cities have lower mean maximum and minimum daily temperatures if their precipitation levels are high, and warmer such temperatures if it is lower. Wetter = cooler; drier = warmer. You cannot disprove this fact based on climate data research.
The reason is because of the well known fact that water vapour causes a less steep wet adiabatic lapse rate. Hence, for radiative equilibrium to be maintained (as it will be) the temperature plot in the troposphere must intersect the surface at a lower temperature. It rotates around a pivoting altitude which may be calculated to be at about 3.0 to 3.5Km – the level where outward flux (including that from the surface through the atmospheric window) is equal above and below.

@ur momisugly Martin Rettig (@ur momisuglyminer333) says:
May 5, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Thanks. Or maybe you left off the sarc tag!

If you are going to put this on Youtube someone needs to keep a close eye on the comments,and weed out the more idiotic of them,as needed,as it detracts from the effect if the usual ad-homiem comes into play..

Thanks to everyone for the overwhelming support, more than 320 people have so far backed the project!
Paypal is now working, so for the many people who have commented that they would love to support the project through Paypal, now you can!
The best and most important thing that supporters can do for us now is help to spread the word. Post on facebook, twitter, blogs, anywhere and everywhere you can. We are on track to make budget before the time expires, but there’s still a long way to go! So every little bit of publicity helps.
Thanks again,
Topher Field.

@ur momisugly jc Goodness, what an outrageous thing to say. All because I have dared to suggest that using fossil fuels and human progress aren’t the same thing.

For a few minutes of reading I actually thought Indigo was a paid shrill but seeing the last few comments made me laugh so much I now see he/she is nothing of the sort and merely a devotee and an ignorant one at that. Note to self, ignore in future.

Richard, I think you are being extraordinarily and absurdly alarmist. I’ll set aside the gratuitous insults. There is no doubt that fossil fuels have powered perhaps the most remarkable period ever of human progress, an era in which human capacity has been so multiplied by our ingenuity that we have ended up literally changing the earth’s climate. There is no doubt, too, that adjusting to a new energy mix will be difficult and test humanity’s ingenuity all over again. But, the idea that human progress can be thought of only in terms of fossil fuel use is bizarre and tragic. You have so internalized the politics of fossil fuels that you cannot imagine any alternative and being asked to drives you to a fit of rage and irrationality.

I still have misgivings about ANY concession to AGW. If it’s too small to measure and impossible to isolate from other factors, it is statistically equivalent to/indistinguishable from zero. It’s just as likely that human activity has a (similarly statistically insignificant) effect in the other direction – causing cooling instead of warming.
I personally don’t see a need to concede the point at all. Again I can hear the alarmies saying “See? We were right all along! You skeptics are finally admitting your error! Told you so!”, etc.
Perhaps the film will do some good , but keep in mind that the alarmies have never responded to economic arguments or facts. I don’t think it will impress them in the least that prevention is 50 times as costly as adaptation. The science of economics is at least as much anathema to these people as genuine physical science, given their obvious Marxist orientation. And it’s all driven by perverse motives, including a quite open intention to kill off “excess” population, create a world in which a few kleptocrats take everything while everyone else is pauperized and enslaved, and just generally destroy civilization.

Chad Wozniak says:
May 6, 2013 at 10:08 am
1+
What get to me Chad is after all the years, decades in fact, some (skeptics) are still talking as if this isn’t largely a political consensus tool. I’m all for hashing out science arguments but if you leave the rather obvious political motivations off the table harm has been done. This is a cousin of many false debates, such as; “Is there left-wing bias at the NYTImes?” Only an idiot and/or left-wing member could take such a byline seriously. That “questions” like this are presented and false arguments and defenses still go on is absurd.
Of course AGW is a left-wing meme with academic (leftist enclave) roots, supported by the Earth Day derived “Climate Community” linked to the IPCC which is linked to the U.N. which in its very nature is Anti-American and Leftist in predisposition. It’s about increased regulation and expropriation (of a totalitarian level). The “experts” ruling over the Proletariat to “save the Earth and humanity”. Save the Earth use to be “save the worker”. The subjects and words change but the agenda is exactly the soap box socialism seen many times before. Hansen, Mann, Jones, Trenberth, Gore? The list goes on forever, all activist left-wing central planners by deed and/or verse. It’s often never brought up in certain skeptic circles. All while be called “oil shills”.
Why skeptics are so divided on the obvious, why appeasing the IPCC is such a bad idea is worth talking about. Then again there are so many skeptics that are arguing for all sorts of other reasons that the political is just a distraction of their niche. The other issue is that the other side would never make such a weak presentation, they’re playing to win even if they are losing. They’re talking about climate trials for skeptics, burning books, settled science, dominate education with propaganda (child abuse). They make zero concessions despite 24/7 science failures. I have no idea what Monckton is thinking about, he really does know better much of the time.
As for “adaptation” rhetoric as a “middle ground” you can forget it. There is no middle ground, AGW policy making must be crushed and destroyed with the usual suspects to be cast into hell.

@cwon14 –
I agree completely with what you say. This is indeed a political battle, far more than a scientific or economic battle, which is another reason (which I perhaps neglected to mention in my post) for conceding nothing to the alarmies – and as you suggest, going after them for their unconscionable political ambitions. The message should not be, “if it’s happening we can adapt,” it should be “global warming alarmism is mass murder, and alarmists are mass murderers and should be dealt with accordingly” – and proceed to demonstrate this with the facts we already have.
How about we take Al Gore’s riches and George Soros’s riches and Warren Buffett’s riches and Jeff Immelt’s riches and Michael Mann’s riches and use those monies to compensate the families of the thousands of people who died these last three winters in England and Germany because the carbon taxes these blatherskites advocated made them unablr to afford to heat their homes.
And if anything is left over after that, let’s use it to build fossil-fueled power plants in poor African countries. In your face, alarmies!
That would be justice, methinks. But it still would be letting them off easy, considering what the usual penalties are for murder – and considering that the alarmiers are calling for skeptics to be murdered, along with their other victims.

Plant a Seed of Doubt in Their Minds
I support the idea behind the 50:1 video but I do not think it will have as much impact as we hope.
The true believers and the average person who has not been following Climate Change generally will not read or watch anything that might upset their world view. There is too much conflicting information, too many competing scientists, theories and studies. Therefore I have condensed what I think is the strongest argument into a short letter which is below. I have had amazing sucess with opening minds with this simple message which plants a seed of doubt in their mind and leads them to the Economist article. A simple graph like Vuk’s will also work and even better if it has a CO2 line on it.
Climate Sensitivity May Have Been Overestimated.
The Economist Magazine has a new article on Climate Sensitivity that is a must read.
See http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
The top climate scientists in the world have acknowledged that the global temperatures are trending way below their forecasts despite higher CO2 releases. The Climate Sensitivity to changes in CO2 may have been over estimated. This means that something may be wrong with the theories in the computer models.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has three main theories that each depend on the previous theory. The first theory is that the first doubling of CO2 will cause about 1 C of warming due to back radiation from the increased CO2. Subsequent doublings have minimal effect due to the logarithmic decline in back radiation.
The second theory is called the amplification or positive feedback theory. The 1 C warming should cause higher humidity and more low clouds which should trap more heat. The problem is that clouds can also reflect sunlight or condense into precipitation which will cause cooling. The net effect may even be negative so the models may be way off. The article refers to various new peer reviewed studies that now estimate climate sensitivity to be less than 2 C.
The third theory is that the estimated warming will large enough to be bad. The world has warmed about .8 C so climate sensitivity estimates of a total of 2 C are very unlikely to lead to extreme weather as there is no scientific mechanism for CO2 to influence the climate without warming. Mild warming has many benefits like less fuel use, less cold deaths (see Europe for last 2 winters), minor sea level rise and easier lives. Mild warming combined with higher CO2 concentrations also increases crop yields and greens the earth.
This will be great news for the world if the Climate Crisis has been over estimated and overstated. The 150 billion dollars that the world has spent to date is gone (not counting 100’s of billions on wind and solar) but the world may not have to spend the trillions that scientists and politicians forecasted. The Climate Sensitivity Questions need to be resolved as quickly as possible but we may have to wait for actual temperatures to be the judge.