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.
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/50-to-1-project-the-true-cost-of-action-on-climate-change
Twitter Share Shortlink: http://igg.me/at/50to1
Just sent in my contribution via paypal. Everything worked great.
Ten year delay saves $5 Trillion (USD) Globally
Before donating to the 50:1 project I decided I would give it a good sniffing. The arithmetic and the math seem sound but I’m not entirely convinced of the approach (the estimates based on a 10 year time frame seem clunking at best); so, I calculated the cost of global mitigation based on IPCC figures both with and without a large delay to a stabilization target as opposed to choosing a time frame.
Assuming:
– 5.35ln(CO2 final / CO2 initial) = d(W/m2).
– d(W/m2) for 2xCO2 = 5.35ln(2) = 3.7 W/m2.
– Sensitivity to 2XCO2 = 3 degrees C.
– $75 USD per ton cost to capture and store or otherwise eliminate emissions.
– 2 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration per year.
– 50% of emissions continue to be absorbed into natural sinks.
– No time value of money.
A 2 °C increase from pre-industrial target would be:
3°C/3.7W/m2 = 0.81 °C/W/m2
2 °C / 0.81 °C/W/m2 = 2.46W/m2 ≈ 2.5 W/m2 (forcing target)
(e^(2.5/5.35)) x 280 = 448 ppm CO2 concentration target or about 48 ppm increase from current.
A 448 ppm target @ur momisugly 2 ppm increase per year gives us 24 years to attain 50% annual reduction of emissions to have no further growth after 448 ppm if natural sinks continue to behave as they have been. (Now, we have a time frame that’s not arbitrary, IMO)
If we start in 2015 with a 2.2% reduction in CO2 emissions and increase our reduction by 2.2% every year thereafter until 2037 we will have attained our goal of 50% emission reduction emitting 17.3 billion tons of CO2 annually thereby stabilizing CO2 concentration @ur momisugly 448 ppm for a total cost of $15.9 Trillion USD.
If we start in 2023 with a 3.4% reduction in CO2 emissions and increase our reduction by 3.4% every year thereafter until 2037 we will have attained our goal of 50% emission reduction emitting 17.2 billion tons of CO2 annually thereby stabilizing CO2 concentration @ur momisugly 448 ppm for a total cost of $10.7 Trillion USD.
Does anyone contend that by 2023 we’ll still not understand the dominant climate drivers any better than we do today?
While I may not be 100% convinced in the veracity of the 50:1 claim (yet, still sniffing), I am absolutely positive that waiting is the right policy approach until at least 2023.
@ur momisugly jc says:
May 6, 2013 at 10:34 am
That is a lie. What you are really saying is that you are aware that human beings have been, are, and will be killed by your actions, but that you refuse to take any responsibility for that, and that such slaughter is secondary to your aims. At best.
———————————————————————————————————————–
Okay jc. Thanks for getting to the heart of the issue, which is that it isn’t about whether or not the world is warming but maintaining a system in which we absolutely must use fossil fuels no matter what, and that even suggesting that there might be or need to be an alternative is the moral equivalent of being 1000x the worst mass murderer in world history. Okay, would you accept that the use of fossil fuels in the world today is very iniquitous, i.e. that your average North American uses far more than your average African. Given your laudable concern for the poor and starving and quite correct understand of the tremendous problems we face in feeding an ever-growing population in parts of the developing world, to say nothing of housing and quality of life, would you think that it would a good idea for, say, the UN or some other global body to take control of all the world’s fossil fuel reserves to ensure that they are distributed evenly around the world?
indigo:
Everything in your post at May 6, 2013 at 2:08 pm was addressed in my post to you at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/02/help-launch-climate-skeptic-film-project-50-to-1/#comment-1298577
READ IT BEFORE POSTING MORE NONSENSE
Richard
Good project. Made small contribution today.
Anthony, I have been coming to WUWT almost religiously since its inception. I am losing interest more each day as you continue to post bomb with the various Willis BS “thought experiments” and now getting huffy because I do NOT believe there is any AGW effect. No, Anthony, it is NOT real and I am beginning to take offense to the nature in which you are approaching this conversation. This blog was once a bastion of openness for scientific discussion. Seems to be no more. This is a shame.
REPLY: Jeff, thanks for your comment, and I’m sorry you feel that way, but I call them as I see them. This thread is about a science documentary, and the AGW effect is not under debate in the documentary.
I find it odd that on one hand you lambast a lack of “openness for scientific discussion”, while on the other lambast Willis for invoking thought experiment discussions. Your position is therefore incongruous with your complaint.
I’m lambasted no matter what I do, so your voice is just part of the chorus. – Anthony
squid2112 says:
May 6, 2013 at 2:48 pm
————————————
Please state what you do believe.
1. That humans add no CO2 to the air;
2. That CO2 has no net warming effect, or
3. That the human contribution is too small to detect, given the already low effect on global temperature of the tiny by geological historical standards, of present CO2 levels?
Or some combination thereof or something else.
Thanks.
@ur momisugly Chad Wozniak says:
May 6, 2013 at 12:03 pm
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.
I agree. We ave nothing to adapt to but our adaptation.
@ur momisugly Chad Wozniak says:
May 6, 2013 at 12:03 pm
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.
I agree. We have nothing to adapt to but our adaptation.
As promised, donated through Paypal.
Here’s hoping the project goes well.
Climate Change is real and within certain parameters, always happening.
Global Warming is real, although somewhat stalled for awhile and maybe heading for cooling.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming by CO2 emissions is not so real and expending vast sums of money on the concept when the funds could be used to feed the hungry, provide medical services to the infirm, and generally increase the living conditions of the worlds poor, arguably, as stated by some in this thread, is criminal.
I believe this bears repeating:
“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. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” – The Petition Project
(
indigo says:
May 6, 2013 at 2:08 pm
@ur momisugly jc says:
May 6, 2013 at 10:34 am
That is a lie. What you are really saying is that you are aware that human beings have been, are, and will be killed by your actions, but that you refuse to take any responsibility for that, and that such slaughter is secondary to your aims. At best.
———————————————————————————————————————–
“Okay, would you accept that the use of fossil fuels in the world today is very iniquitous, i.e. that your average North American uses far more than your average African. Given your laudable concern for the poor and starving and quite correct understand of the tremendous problems we face in feeding an ever-growing population in parts of the developing world, to say nothing of housing and quality of life, would you think that it would a good idea for, say, the UN or some other global body to take control of all the world’s fossil fuel reserves to ensure that they are distributed evenly around the world?”
———————————————————
No.
Because it doesn’t work.
The UN does some good things. It would hardly be possible for it to be otherwise given that there are many attracted to working under its auspices because of stated aims, and because of the very large amount of money expended through it. To achieve absolutely nothing worthwhile would be impossible, and is in any case against the interests of those who benefit from its existence and operations in ways supposedly not intended and often not readily see. Like the IPCC.
There is no reason at all to think that “some other global body” would be either effective or even primarily interested in achieving such a thing. And every reason based on experience to think it wouldn’t.
Standing on the mountainous piles of corpses of the dead, as you unthinkingly do in garnering anything you think might distract and give the appearance of justification is sickening.
Your cold-blooded pretence of concern as you drag a corpse into partial view and prop it up to obscure yourself, by quoting African misery, in large part maintained though abuse of governance facilitated by your “global body”, and now depredation of fuel and food stocks by your very actions, is grotesque.
————————————————
“Okay jc. Thanks for getting to the heart of the issue, which is that it isn’t about whether or not the world is warming but maintaining a system in which we absolutely must use fossil fuels no matter what…”
————————————————-
You can only be described as a perverter of human interaction. It is right through you, to the exclusion of all else.
You have refused to even respond to comments about the reality of AGW. You care only for your aims. If reality does not conform, it is discarded.
I have never seen on this site anyone say that fossil fuels must be used “no matter what”.
They are the only thing that allows human life. You know that perfectly well. You reject this because the outcome is not what you require, and to try to create a fake opposition is an integral part of the strategy born of the subterrainian channels of desire you call thought.
———————————————–
“and that even suggesting that there might be or need to be an alternative is the moral equivalent of being 1000x the worst mass murderer in world history.”
————————————————–
You suggest nothing.
You demand.
Your participation in human exchanges of ideas and thoughts is dedicated to destroying them.
Your demands do not even have the quality of openness. They are vocal in intent but surrepticous in method. You propose nothing that can form part of any inquiry. You pass off willful blindness as a certainty that has been derived from others contributions.
You insinuate.
You insinuate lies.
Born of the worm that animates you. Which is you.
You are a thing that seeks the extermination of people, and by that, Humanity.
There is no denying or escaping that.
jc says:
May 6, 2013 at 6:23 pm
Born of the worm that animates you. Which is you.
You are a thing that seeks the extermination of people, and by that, Humanity.
————————————————-
Okay, this is really really crazy. By the way, do you know that US CO2 emissions are actually declining? Coal and gasoline usage is down while natural gas usage is up, but that’s ok because it’s a cleaner fuel. Now I personally think that this is all good but whatever one’s position on global warming, the fact is that US CO2 emissions are declining, and the use of two key fossil fuels is falling, but somehow humanity is not being exterminated. Go figure.
[snip – policy violation -fake email address – noreply@hotmail.com is not a valid email address, one is required to comment here -mod]
[snip – clickbargains@hotmail.com – another fake email address – mod]
@indigo –
So US consumption of fossil fuels is “iniquitous”? How would you characterize the enviro-fascists who go to India and butt in to stop a hydroelectric project that would have provided clean water and cheap electricity to millio ns of people? How would you characterize the enviros who go to Uganda and get the government to confiscate thousands of acres tilled by subsistence farmers (who have no other livelihood) so that trees can be planted to “sequester CO2”? How do you characterize a world “leader” who goes to a poor African country (Ghana) and tells them to rely on biomass and not develop theuir fossil fuel resources and in the meantime die by the thousands from the diseases and pareasites they catch from doing as this “leader” wishes? Might such actions by these extremists be the real reason why these poor countries burn less fossil fuel than we do in the US? Isn’t that the source of the “iniquitous” use of fossil fuels?
Every one of those people in India who dies as a result of unclean water in that district is a murder victim, and the anviros are the murderers. Every one of those farmers in Uganda who now starves because of the loss of his land is a murder victim, and the enviros are the murderers. And every one of those people in Ghana who dies from shit-borne diseases and poarasites is a murder victim – and wouldn’t their murderer, at least after his condescending lecture to them telling them not to develop their fossil fuel resources, be the “leader” himself? A stretch? If so, then who is responsible for policies that cause unnecessary deaths and suffering?
Next, there are the thousands of people in England and Germany that died during the past three winters – the severest in 70 years – because carbon taxes, fuel supply restrictions, and electric rates jacked up to wind-power (uneconomic) cost equivalents made them unable to afford to heat their homes. As far as I am concerned, carbon tax advocates are also these people’s murderers and, as I said before, should be dealt with accordingly.
We should lose no time compiling the statistics for the deaths resulting from enviro and AGW alarmist actions.
As we build our case here, let’s don’t forget (1) that there is no such thing as unintended consequences of acts by government – if harm is done, harm is intended; and (2) anyone in a position of responsibility or policymaking is responsible for not only what he/she does know, but what he/she should know. “Oh, I didn’t know that was going to happen” doesn’t excuse what they do, and it’s a lie in any case because the alarmies know full well what the murderous effects of their actions are. After all, they’re calling for world population to be reduced post-haste.
Kudos to cwon14 and jc. KUTGW, and put this mollusk in his place.
I would extend that to this thread. It has become a pissing contest which is even more effective than invoking Nazis for killing a thread. When the intent of a post satisfies the “Why are you up so late?” “Someone is wrong on the internet and I have to correct them!!” dialog it is time to get out the pruners.
Nobody doesn’t recognize inane posts when they see them, and yes, it takes longer to get to a million posts if you take out the stupid, but nobody should take pride in a +20% inane post index.
@ur momisugly indigo says:
May 6, 2013 at 7:10 pm
You are a thing beyond the pale. Your squirmings to hide yourself mean nothing.
Beyond hope, beyond possibility: beyond the reach of humanity.
@ur momisugly dp says:
May 6, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Death is not inane. And neither are those that promote it.
@milodonharlani says:
May 6, 2013 at 4:37 pm
2
Chad Wozniak says:
May 6, 2013 at 12:03 pm
I agree. It’s crazy to embrace the same erroneous definition of climate change as the alarmists. It makes no sense. Hopefully, the filmmakers intend to lay out a clear groundwork at the beginning that echoes what has been (in my opinion) a notable hallmark of Anthony’s website: We don’t know what causes climate to change. Those who claim otherwise are charlatans. Climate changes constantly, and will continue to do so irrespective of our puny efforts to alter it. (But then, taking it to the next step) Let us examine some actual strategies for dealing with the changing climate that won’t needlessly waste our money.
I’ve probably missed the point, but I keep reading this lengthening thread hoping somebody will define for the movie’s “underwriters” what is meant by “adapt”, giving clear examples. If I Google “mitigating the next Sandy”, it appears from the over-four-million “hits” that internet readers are interested in learning many specific things about that storm specifically, but about storms in general: increasing hospital beds, setting up generators, letting insurance rates rise in dangerous areas, throwing money at FEMA, etc… the list represents the broad range of interests of the everyone from its immediate victims to those of us who will be taxed to help them. The policy issues are endless. I mention this because if (Mr. Fields) you are serious about the 50 to 1 theme, then you need to seriously address the social policies which will be altered by your spending. What are they? Everybody on this site now believes that our big-spending government just wants to dig the hole of debt deeper. If that “50” represents billions (and likely it’s more) then the “1” means you’re to become the executors of a one billion dollar estate without provisos. What do you intend to do with it?
I’ll say one more thing. Bjorn Lomborg is conspicuous by his absence here. No one has so clearly fleshed out the pragmatic alternatives to wasteful government spending. He leaps over the discussion of climate, deeming it pointless, instead concentrating his discussion on concrete alternatives (“adaptations”), accompanied by specific examples and dollar values for each. In a famous table in “Cool It”, he suggests there are many policies that can benefit mankind (if you want to spend money) that far exceed the the pointless mandates of the Kyoto protocol. One (the latter may make us “Feel Good”, but it takes some careful actuarial planning to actually “Do Good”. His ratio, not that I endorse it, is closer to 3:1, (180 billion to 52 billion annually). Perhaps even those most frightened climate hysterics can calm down if we just shift the discussion away from their lurid imagination to a far more mundane (boring) perspective. As Lomborg puts it:
@JC, no sarcasm tag implied or warranted. Paypal donation sent. God Speed 2Fer and Anthony. Anyone that does twitter knows about #uniteblue, it took me a day or two to remember Indigo is a deep shade of blue. Still laughing.
Donation sent.
I think many of you are demanding too much of this one effort. Let it be flawed but let it be one of many.
I would suggest that Don Easterbrook’s astonishing presentation to the US senate should be considered as the scientific support for the assertion that atmospheric CO2 rise does not cause any significant warming as opposed to dangerous warming. (Please see Easterbrook’s presentation for details.)
The 20th century warming is not unusual and there is clear indication now of global cooling.There are 20 periods of warming in the last 500 years. The past period of warming were not caused by atmospheric CO2 rise. Planetary temperature has been higher than current for the majority of the last 10,000 years.
The Antarctic ice sheet average temperature is -50C. There is no melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, the Antarctic ice sheet is adding mass.Sea level is rising at 7 inches/century due the recovery from the Little Ice age there is no indication that it will increase to 20 feet/century.
I would highly recommend that anyone who has an interest in climate science to watch the entire presentation. It would be helpful to this and other discussions to have a permanent link to Easterbrook’s presentation.
The presentation which we are discussing in this thread is the very important question: What is the cost of the ‘green’ scams? What is the cost to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 40%? What difference would a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions make? There are a set of myths that have pushed along with extreme AGW concerning ‘green’ energy.
Easterbrook’s statements are each backed up by data which unequivocally supports the assertion that that based on the paleo record and current temperature changes increase in atmospheric CO2 does not cause significant global warming.
During the presentation Senator Kevin Ranker (D) provides questions using warmist position data and papers. It is interesting to hear Don Easterbrook’s responses.
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013030153#start=627&stop=5945
Easterbrook’s Presentation to US Senate Energy & Environment Committee
Preamble:
Easterbrook notes he has 50 years experience in the climate science, has no political affiliation, and his research is not paid for by big oil.
As he notes, the data which he provides justifies his statements.
The first slide in Easterbrook’s presentation”
Slide 1
“What the news media isn’t telling you
-Global warming ended in 1998
– There has been NO global warming in 15 yrs. Global warming from 1978 to 1998 was been replaced by global cooling.
– The Antarctic ice sheet is growing not melting.
– Sea level is rising 7 inches per year not 20 ft.
– Snowfall is not below normal. Four of the past 5 years have set snowfall records.
– CO2 cannot cause global warming
– Sever storms are not more frequent than normal
– The oceans are not acid (William: acidic)
Slide 2
Graph (see presentation for details)
Summary
Global warming occurred 1915 to 1945 without increase in CO2. (0.174C/decade)
Global cooling occurred from 1945 to 1977 during sharping increasing CO2, showing that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming.
Slide 3
Temperature last 500 years.
20 periods of warming in the last 500 years that were not caused by CO2.
Slide 4
Planetary temperature last 10,000 years.
Planetary temperatures in the last 10,000 years was in almost all cases significantly warmer than current temperatures.
Slide 5
Temperature manipulation 1930 to 2011 (US temperature records)
Presents original data in record compares 1930 to 2011.
Easterbrook provides proof that the 1930’s temperature data was changed, adjusted. The multiple adjustments of the temperature data reduced temperature in the 1930s and increase temperatures post 2000.
Please watch presentation for further details.
Looks like the Australian Energy Market Operator has come up with a model for how most of Australia could run on renewable energy. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/4/29/renewable-energy/100-renewables-feasible-aemo
Does that make them members of the environmentalist mass death cult that jc and others here have identified?
No Indigo. What makes people members of a mass death cult is supporting ideas that kill off people and likewise accomplish that. I thought that was obvious. I think other people think the same thing. I don’t see why you are driving your beliefs home here when the topic of discussion is a film that discusses how your “plans to change society” will cost 50 times more than simply ignoring the issue.
You desire to change society by eliminating (or severely reducting )fossil fuel usage. But you refuse to change yourself, and still use fossil fuels. you take advantage of everything the first world has to offer. You get first rate medical care, on demand power, ability to cook and eat out for a good price, and likewise you probably take advantage of numerous other things that modern fossil fueled society offers. And yet you want to tell other people that they should use more expensive energy and in most cases go without in the third world? You want to tell people today in the first world that they should go without as well. You think that wind power and other intermitent power sources which were abandoned in favor of fossil fuels are better and yet provide no evidence. We provided evidence that mitigation will cost 50 times more than simple adaptation, and yet you do not challenge these figures but just simply state that its “the right thing to do.”
How charitable of you. You must really love people to be able to tell them how they can live and how they can not live, while at the same time being a hypocrite and unable to “put your money where your mouth is” and live off the grid and live without the benefits of a “fossil fueled society.”
Until you yourself live off the grid and live completely without the benefits of fossil fuels you are nothing but another fascist who just wants to tell people how to live in this case based on an irritational belief that fossil fuels are bad for the planet. How does this make you any different than any other fascist who wants to tell people how to live based on their own irritational beliefs?
How does not using fossil fuels actually benefit the planet? You have to prove your case because simply repeating your belief that fossil fuels are bad is not evidence for anything other than your own self-serving delusions. How are they bad? How is additional CO2 bad for the planet? Why should we spend 50 times more in money for policies that will kill many many people? You must answer these questions or be just thought of as another fascist who just wants to control people based on flimsy self-serving reasons. And once you have figured out the cost of using fossil fuels, I have a ton of benefits that I think will far outweigh your so-called costs. From using less farm-land, to emitting less pollution, there are tons of benefits of using fossil fuels as opposed to straight bio-mass and simply burning tons of forests to provide power.
There are tons of reasons that humanity as a whole switched to fossil fuels, and many of these include environmental reasons. We use less farm-land today than we did 100 years ago. This is directly attributable to modern industrial farming which is depended on fossil fuels. Do you think this is a bad thing? Should we carve up many billions of square miles world-wide of virgin forests just to feed the more people we have today? Should we start burning wood in fire places as the only solution to stay warm or cooking? Another environemental benefit of fossil fuel usage.
The problem with simply telilng the world that fossil fuels are bad without anything but emotion shows that you do not actually care about the people or the environment. You only care about your own delusions and your own beliefs and likewise on foisting your own will on other people.