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
@ur momisugly benfrommo says:
May 7, 2013 at 8:22 am
More measured than the organism is entitled to expect, and in any case, no matter how expressed, wasted on it.
There may however be some who read this who have a vestige of humanity that can be stirred into life. Not all can be as irredeemable as this thing.
squid2112 says:
May 6, 2013 at 10:53 pm
@milodonharlani says:
May 6, 2013 at 4:37 pm
2
—————————-
That CO2 has no net warming effect IMO is false, but thanks for replying.
IMO the effect is negligible & the human contribution trivial, but it is real, however small. Photons radiated by the Sun & surface of the Earth are absorbed & re-emited by atmospheric molecules such as of CO2, which keeps photons, even if of lower energy, in the air longer before radiating out to space. This effect can heat the atmosphere by about one degree C. for doubling of CO2 concentration from three molecules per 10,000 of dry air to six. Since we’re currently around four, even this small effect will take many more decades, at least.
Please tell me where I’m wrong.
benfrommo says:
May 7, 2013 at 8:22 am
————————————
A large percentage of the world’s grain supply is due to oil & natural gas, not just to run machinery, but as chemical fertilizers, pesticides & other essential products. Of course, the CO2 we’ve added to the air has also boosted yields. Petroleum fueled transport means fewer local famines.
Indigo apparently wants fewer but better humans, ie more like himself. Or perhaps none at all would be better.
Anthony,
I am extremely puzzled – there seemed to be no way to give more than $1 – is this deliberate? I gave my $1, but that doesn’t really buy much these days!
REPLY: You have to type in the amount in the box. Works for me. If you are unable to change the amount, try using a different browser. – Anthony
Thanks Anthony – I went forward through the various links, and didn’t notice the box part way a long! If you have got many $1 donations, it might be worth restructuring things a bit! I am glad you sorted that out because that video is exactly what we need in the UK before the lights go out!
@benfrommo Thanks for this long response. You have, like many people here, neatly captured my argument, which is that many people have so internatized the global and political economic order we have built, with fossil fuels at its foundation, that they simply cannot imagine that human civilization and progress can happen without them. I don’t question for a minute the extraordinary progress that humankind has achieved with fossil fuels, I just question whether progress isn’t possible without them. And indeed, countries like the US and Australia are reducing their CO2 emissions already while continuing to develop economically, socially and scientifically. So it clearly is possible.
@ur momisugly benfrommo says:
May 7, 2013 at 8:22 am
…wasted…
Nature of organism and point demonstrated.
@ur momisugly monkton / topher
so far critics have estimated costs of between one and thirty thousand dollars. can you give a brief run down of the 130,00 pls?
indigo says:
May 7, 2013 at 1:52 pm
“possible without them. And indeed, countries like the US and Australia are reducing their CO2 emissions already while continuing to develop economically, socially and scientifically. So it clearly is possible.”
The reduced CO2 output of the US is due to the replacement of coal with (shale) gas.
As for the development in the US, first of all they get richer.
By 85 billion USD a month.
nick says:
May 7, 2013 at 2:32 pm
@ur momisugly monkton / topher
so far critics have estimated costs of between one and thirty thousand dollars. can you give a brief run down of the 130,00 pls?
——————————————
Sort of in line with my back of the envelope numbers for production:
http://onemarketmedia.com/blog/2010/03/what-does-a-web-video-cost-25-factors-with-prices-that-affect-video-production-costs/
Roughly $1000 per minute, but Topher’s project could also include flying some interviewees to Australia or him & his crew to the US & Europe. Maybe he envisions higher quality than the standard corporate video.
Possibly costs more in heavily unionized Australia.
Indigo is ignoring the observations, results, and the destructive effects of worthless wind turbines on economies and energy prices.
Indigo is happy that the experiments are being run on people’s lives, and lying about the positive results.
Indigo is using manipulation of numbers and is falsely reporting success – two indicators that always follow government programs and the “remaking” of economies.
Indigo is ignorant of the history of the use of science to destroy countries in the past, such as eugenics/population control and Lysenko.
Indigo is attempting to sound reasonable but is destroying rationality by advancing causes that have no basis in science and are destructive of families and nations.
Zeke says:
May 7, 2013 at 3:09 pm
——————————–
Indigo obviously cares little for the birds & bats massacred by wind mills, but no surprise, given his hatred of humans.
indigo says:
May 7, 2013 at 5:45 am
“Looks like the Australian Energy Market Operator has come up with a model for how most of Australia could run on renewable energy. ”
I didn’t bother to read the link; I’m sure the plan includes stopping to sell coal to nations who will only burn it. And the wind turbines and solar panels can then simply be bought by printing more Australian Dollars.
indigo says:
May 6, 2013 at 2:08 pm
“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?”
Haha, yeah, give the UN control over all fuel: wouldn’t that be a great idea.Just wonderful. We have an imagined problem so we fix it by letting the UN decide who lives and who dies, with Ahmadinedjad as the boss of the Human Rights Council, just great. For an alarmist chicken you’re quite funny, Indigo.
milodonharlani says:
May 7, 2013 at 3:24 pm
Yes, Indigo does not object to the fact that worthless wind turbines are almost always fast tracked through the impact statement process. She should acquaint herself with the fact that these are objected to universally by local communities, and that they are being approved closer and closer to homes.
Indigo must acknowledge the subsidies and restraint payments given to wind turbine owners, which are added on to rate-payers electricity bills. Restraint payments are unaccountable and have been known to be 4 times the going rate paid back to the worthless wind turbine owner. There is no oversight of these payments back to worthless wind turbine owners in cases that have been audited and researched.
She also should educate herself on the intermittency and price volatility of wind energy. She needs to understand that there is no storage of wind energy and the cost of developing and adding storage is unknown. She should be aware that wind’s intermittency also destabilizes the grid by turning coal and gas plants off and on to meet the demand when wind is down. She should understand that magick fwee seabreezes do not come when there is too much wind, or too little, that is to say, when it is needed most on hot days, freezing nights, and during winter storms.
And finally, Indigo cannot demonstrate why any of this destructive, anti social policy should be implemented, when there is nothing wrong with fire and man’s use of it. She may like to try to research what allowed civilization to develop in the first place and ask herself why she is opposed to the gifts of life that make human life enjoyable and prosperous.
Not to mention that wind mills use tons of evil CO2 producing cement & require coal-fired plant backups.
Thanks, Zeke. We really are that the heart of the issue. It’s about how we absolutely must burn fossil fuels no matter what. Funnily enough, energy use in Australia is declining overall and CO2 emissions are falling, and within that broad picture, in parts of Australia, energy demand from coal-fired power stations is falling dramatically because of an explosion is PV solar rooftop installations in people’s homes. And yet civilisation remains intact and millions are not starving. It’s called progress.
Yes, it is concerning to consider the size of the cement bases required to erect a 450′ tall worthless wind turbine. If at the tips of the blades there are speeds of over 100 mph, the stress on the cement pads is enormous. Once cracked, what can be the result of the further vibrations from the operation of the worthless wind turbine?
Perhaps the cracks in the huge cement bases is the real reason so many of them are turned off. People who read a report and insist a whole country can be powered by sunshine and seabreezes must be very confident of the lifespan of actual worthless wind turbines in practice, not just in theoretical government reports. Remember, legislators claim lifespans of years for CFLs, but they never have an actual warantee of over 1 year. Also, legislators write strict CAFE standards to mandate mpg, but currently you cannot gaurantee mpg on a car. The take home point is, after the mandate, it is fake reporting all the way down.
Australia digging holes the size of swimming pools and filling them with cement and placing infrasound emitting vibrating metal poles, probably made in China? Would Aussies really do that instead of simply digging up coal? Cement pads the size of swimming pools all over the farm land of that tiny island, Britain?
Indigo, lowering co2 emissions is not a success and is a worthless benefit. Solar panels are paid for by the rate users and do not produce in the evening when people come home from work. You have not demonstrated any progress, but instead a destructive add-on expense, which is not necessary because co2 is a trace gas and the weather systems are all independent regionally and are not understood.
Zeke says:
May 7, 2013 at 4:25 pm
Australia digging holes the size of swimming pools and filling them with cement and placing infrasound emitting vibrating metal poles, probably made in China? Would Aussies really do that instead of simply digging up coal? Cement pads the size of swimming pools all over the farm land of that tiny island, Britain?
———————————————
I know! Cement pads the size of swimming pools instead of the picturesque life-giving beauty of an open-cut coal mine or the glorious scenery of Canada’s tar sands mines. To say nothing of the eyesore of PV solar panels on people’s roofs. And let’s not forget the sweet, healthy, invigorating air of Beijing.
In my field work, I can tell you that the high BTU coal of Indiana and Illinois has been mined all over those states. The truth is that the coal was removed and the clay underneath is impermeable and many small lakes and ponds dot the landscape. They are all former coal seams. Some of them are now protected natural reserves!
And what is the problem with cleaning up the tar sands?
The volumes of cement required for worthless wind turbines also require roads and trucks to these areas, many of them wilderness such as the hills of Vermont. To actually meet emissions reductions targets with wind would necessitate thousands of these public nuisances, and even deep thinking progressives and hippies are starting to figure out that there is not that much co2 emitted from power plants, but their own cars are the source of co2. There is no reason to dig holes and fill them with cement. This accomplishes nothing and in fact is a negative to the economy, families, and the landscape.
“I know! Cement pads the size of swimming pools instead of the picturesque life-giving beauty of an open-cut coal mine or the glorious scenery of Canada’s tar sands mines. To say nothing of the eyesore of PV solar panels on people’s roofs. And let’s not forget the sweet, healthy, invigorating air of Beijing.”
The open cut coal mines can be regenerated and they disappear into the natural landscape – the cement blocks are there to stay as there is no removal clause in any of the contracts.
indigo says:
May 5, 2013 at 5:22 pm
Richard and Elizabeth, as I was saying the idea that the global and national political and economic order will have to change because human activities are altering the climate in potentially devastating ways is hard for some people to accept. So hard, that they would rather either simply deny the climate is changing at all or construct elaborate explanations for why under no circumstances can it possibly be human activity, so as to hold onto the order we currently have.
Wow, Just wow.
Again, it is helpful to consider what advancements brought about civilization in the first place; the use of fire certainly lifted man from his primitive state, and Indigo opposes this.
Next, we note that mining was the catalyst for prosperity, creativity, and trade which lifted mankind from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. By digging minerals from the ground and utilizing them, art, science, daily life, travel and agriculture were revolutionized and radiated rapidly, improving life for all people. Indigo should study how long mankind has been mining the earth, what innovation and creativity has resulted, and should really ask herself why she opposes all of the things that make life prosperous and happy for mankind.
@ur momisugly milodonharlani says:
May 7, 2013 at 2:59 pm
I had been wondering about the cost of the video myself. However, when I went to the link you provided, and saw a comment about how it is much cheaper to do “talking heads” than something more elaborate, it reminded me that the proposal includes 20 -30 minute (?) interviews with, I think, 9 people now. So perhaps a further 250 minutes, on top of the video. This makes more sense of the budget, and also of taking a crew around the world (?) to do this.
That said, I think it would have been – would be – helpful to provide a breakdown as you suggest.
BTW, as I think you realize, the organism “indigo” is impervious to basically anything. No point raised will mean anything to it. There is no self-awareness, rationality, or resonance with anything human, such as might be expected in even a straightforward and inconsequential social exchange, let alone when reference is made to things that define humanity and the ability to express that. There is nothing there. It is empty.