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
At this rate, Indigo will next be informing us that we just lack imagination and are clinging to our old ways of using irrigation, domestic animals, high yield cultivars, chemical fertilizers, and finally, internal combustion engines.
I suppose we could agree with her that all of the ills and complaints of modern life and liberty would be gone without these things.
What she conceals is that the ills of Neolithic life under totalitarian government would be far far worse, and the facts of history show it would soon turn lethal quickly for most people. If she had any honor she would be compelled to disclose this to the youth who do not have the critical skills to see through these anti-social policies she purveys.
Zeke says:
May 7, 2013 at 6:13 pm
Are you deliberately not reading what I am saying? I say repeatedly that fossil fuel use has driven the greatest period of progress in human history. It’s also been a period of terrible disaster, such as WWI and WWII, monstrous regimes in Russia and China, and the crisis of nuclear war. But progress means moving on from technologies that have outlived their use and for which the costs start to outweigh the benefits. Fossil fuels have had their day and we can work on the transition to a new era.
Some of you guys need to quit banging your gums and do some contributing. I would like to thank myself for contributing to such a worthy cause. I would also like to thank the rest of the contributors who realize that if this CAGW BS isn’t stopped soon, we will all pay in spades.
@ur momisugly Zeke says:
May 7, 2013 at 6:40 pm
You almost anticipated it! But not quite!
Fossil fuels are responsible for all wars! Take that!
It has to be admitted that in this things world, the populations that might fight wars will mostly be dead. And the rest will be so feeble, they couldn’t do much. And anyway it’s hard to get an army together when everyone has to get to the battlefield on foot. This would be more satisfactory for those who want to fly over the remnants on their way to their pristine private beaches and rainforest experiences.
@ur momisugly Zeke says:
May 7, 2013 at 6:40 pm
Oh and you did also elicit a different type of response. It is reaching a point when it will not tolerate any indication that its dictats are not fully complied with. It has repeated continuously that it knows everyone here is just a slave to fossil fuels, the only comment it feels it needs to make. Yet still you talk.
Indigo you cite that there was a “mass explosion is PV solar rooftop installations in people’s homes.” You may have missed the fact that the subsidy for the said PV solar rooftop was drastically slashed when the NSW state government changed as it was unaffordable and the Federal Government removed the scheme for Solar rooftops installation entirely as it had to rein in it’s own out-of control budget. Is this the “progress” you speak of,where the taxpayer foots the bill for so-called “renewables” that seem to need a very generous subsidy to even survive? Maybe this would interest you http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/the-worlds-biggest-solar-pv-seller-was-worth-13bn-now-bankrupt/
jc says: 7:53
Hi jc. Indigo has expressed concern about the deaths of the last century, so let’s attempt to meet on this common ground, because the last century was brutal. It is more important to understand this and not to ignore or dismiss what really happened than anything else we might discuss. Let’s be of service to her any way we can.
Indigo is misattributing the deaths caused by totalitarian and authoritarian governments to fossil fuels.
There is some very important research done by a man named RJ Rummel on the subject, which demands attention. He has painstakingly assembled the data in thousands of lines of tables comparing the death rates in democracies, authoritarian systems, and totalitarian regimes. It is very clear that authoritarian and totalitarian governments are far more lethal first to their own citizens, and are also much more belligerent towards other countries.
Let’s look at the casualties in WWII as broken down in Rummel’s Death by Government:
Essentially, Rummel said that it is only democracies do not attack each other and do not commit anywhere near the democide that powerful centralized governments do. So, if his data and theory are correct, than European states, having become democracies, would not go to war against each other. If there is any genuine concern for peace, then open societies that protect individual liberties – not the elimination of affordable energy from fossil fuels – are clearly the way to attain that admirable goal.
@Zeke says:
May 7, 2013 at 6:40 pm
You bring up an interesting point, one that touches on something that occurred to me. In forlornly suggesting this thing might have the capacity to encourage critical skills in youth by informing them of something contrary to its agenda, you (by implication) suggest it is not young itself.
I did wonder how old it was. It seems to me extraordinary that a fully adult thing, of any capacity to simulate human behavior and function, could get to the age of perhaps 25, and not have ANY of the characteristics of self-awareness, rationality, or human responses that this thing shows.
It has only its own response based on its own primaeval agenda. It reacts to nothing else. It absorbs nothing of experience in a way that shows any habit of having any RELATIONSHIP with an experience, let alone try to incorporate that in a way that could be called rational, loosely defined. As I said there is no self-awareness evident at all. No indication that it has a complexity of responses possible, and that this might give a sense of itself in the world. And very clearly, no human identification, rather, presumably, just an association with whatever number of similar things it exists within. If in fact it does that.
The point is, under what circumstances can this actually function? What set of conditions allows this? Anyone – or anything – that exists has to have some “social” context, and at least some imitation of a function.
I find it genuinely difficult to picture what that might be for this thing. How can a thing be so insensate?
Although this thing and the interactions with it might seem to be unrelated to the video under discussion, I don’t think it is. A great deal of the issue has been – not just for commentators here, but for Topher himself – about how this will be perceived, who it is aimed at, and how responsive viewers can be expected to be.
Quite obviously, a thing such as “indigo” is in every sense a waste of time and effort. I have recently become more interested in what AGW proponents actually are, and how they behave, and on WUWT have engaged with a few. The general run, although – and I do not at all mean this as a cheap shot, – not seeming terribly bright, (whether intrinsically or just in functional capacity in this circumstance), I have to say show the consistent nature, reflected in methodology, of dishonesty. It is a deliberate dishonesty, more than a self deception.
This one is somewhat distinct. There is a sense that it is bringing everything it has to the table, although there is discernible manouvering amongst the blank delivery of its basic, essentially single, position.
It is difficult to believe there are many so absolutely incorrigible as this one. But to the degree there are, it is obviously pointless expecting anything from such a thing encountering the video. Within the more actively, and routinely in strategy and delivery, dishonest, they do, because of that, have to engage. They have to acknowledge that a response is required that in some way might be seen as real, even if only by a fool. So they are “open” in a way this thing is not.
Personally, I think on discovery of either the later type, or the openly non-human, no engagement is justified. But I can see the later as conceivably being forced to absorb enough from this video to undermine their strategies.
The question is, how many of each type – which I accept will occur on a continuum – are there? What proportion of the population is beyond this human reach?
I am extremely confident that they are minute in number, if only because the range of functions they could fill is limited, and in a thing such as “indigo”, hard to imagine.
Anecdotally, I just saw something in the Guardian on-line, which I refer to sometimes as a way of gauging movement on certain issues. This was an article about some student “protest” “movement”, just imported from the US, about forcing institutions to divest Big Oil holdings, and about how they were turning their attention on Big Green – their description – as well. Apart from the fracturing and the urge to cannibalism evident, what was interesting were the number of formal groups (which pre-exist this “protest”) and the number of “active” participants. There were 50 groups at tertiary campuses and 79 at secondary, for a total of 129. They had a total of 2000 people supposedly. These groups, of course, receive government funding. So they had about 15 people average, backed by money, and without doubt many either completely initiated by nominal teacher or academic, or encouraged.
I did not check population demographics, but obviously, if each “active” person could muster another 10 or 15 with real interest, then we are talking about a negligible proportion of the population, maybe 1 – 2 % who “really care” to the degree that they would MIX with the two types dealt with here.
So they are irrelevant.
It is impossible to do anything but guess, but on the assumption that 1-2% cannot be reached by this video in any meaningful way, then it may be that 95% of the population can. So it may well be worth providing it to apparently hostile demographics, who do not define themselves as (fully) ideologically driven, but may have many of the habits which suggest they are.
Along the gradient from the non-human through degraded and dishonest, to innocent simple Believer, and Socially Responsible (as instructed), there must be a point of receptivity.
That is, totalitarian and authoritiarian governments killed 45 million of their own citizens in WWII, while the battle dead amounted to 15 million.
That means that democide – governments killing their own citizens – outstripped military dead by a factor of 3.
@Zeke says:
May 7, 2013 at 6:40 pm
Firstly, I have to say there will be no common ground found with this thing “indigo”. It has made its position quite clear: it has no concern for humanity. Any references at all to things that suggest otherwise, are just utilizing them for its own benefit. Re-read the above, it is all apparent.
I wasn’t aware of Rummel or of a attempt to break down these deaths in that way. It is sobering reading.
I can’t say I’m surprised. Those that seek to control do so for a reason. And they invariably have a sense of being distinct from those they wish to control. Just as the thing “indigo” does. They will always be inclined at any time to kill those who are “inconvenient” and are indifferent when this is put into action.
Indigo= paid troll. DNFTT.
@ur momisugly TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:
May 7, 2013 at 10:04 pm
I agree that nothing can be gained by engaging with it now. If there was anything to be learned by doing so, that’s done.
Please calm down, jc. Referring to me as “it” is very unappealing and kind of bizarre. It makes you seem a bit irrational.
Meanwhile, did I say that fossil fuels cause war? I don’t think so. I said that in the history of the progress of humanity there have been some terrible events, the worst of which (and this relevant here) were ideologically-driven. I am thinking of the madness of Communism and Fascism. In other words, progress is a complex journey, and we can look back on systems of government and beliefs and be happy that we have progressed. A bit like how we will one day look at the total commitment to fossil fuel usage. One day, we will have a sustainable mix of solar, wind, hydro, biofuels, and even a bit of natural gas and gasoline in moderation, and our air and our rivers will be cleaner, our climate stable and our economies less dependent on those limited places rich oil that have distorted our geopolitics. Is this the worst thing you could imagine?
@TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:
May 7, 2013 at 10:04 pm
I think you are almost certainly correct when you describe it as a paid troll. It had occurred to me when writing the above that such a context – with indeterminant function – could be one of the few areas in which it could exist.
The completely rote nature of it does suggest a continuous reinforcement which would likely come from a constant – and severely circumscribed – exposure to the same. So it is likely to be actively making money from its desire to exterminate. A complete, toxic, parasite on humanity.
Wait, I could get paid for this?
But progress means moving on from technologies that have outlived their use and for which the costs start to outweigh the benefits. Fossil fuels have had their day and we can work on the transition to a new era.
I don’t think you realize what progress actually is. Progress is society moving onto what is best for society as a whole. You can not force “a paradigm shift” without having a paradigm in existance that is better than what we have. This is the problem with green philosophy that until addressed is just another fascist philosophy that promotes a fascist solution to “your imagined problems.”
You have to first come up with a solution that is better than what we have. Solar and wind do not cut it, and cheap abundant power is the mainstay of society. So until you come up with a cheaper form of power that is actually BETTER than what we have, you are just another fascist among many who want to control the day to day activities of the world. Your cause of “saving the world” is just another iteration of religious fanaticism bordering on the insane. There is no problem worth enslaving the entire society over. I don’t think you really learned the lessons of history from the 20th century since you allude that this was caused by fossil fuels. No, the problems of the 20th century were caused by fascism in general where Governments told the people what they can and can not do. Then they dictate what they thought “a better world was”. And so you continue in this fine fascist tradition by wanting to tell people that they can not use fossil fuels. What gives you the right to be this way? Your way will result in the deaths of millions if not billions and yet you take no responsibility for what happens. This is the way of the fascist….blaming everyone else for the problems in the world except for their own loony ideas. History has a long record of people like you who came to power, slaughtered millions to “save the country or world or whatever”.
Something to think about, but if fossil fuels were really that bad, why is it that the most developed nations in the world with the best pollution levels are the ones using them? If this was so bad environmentally, wouldn’t you expect to see countries that did NOT use fossil fuels to have the best record on the environment? Your imagined problem is just that. Fossil fuels are fine. It is your view on the world that is wrong.
For any green I talk to, I tell them the easy solution to find out that I am right is to look at society in the 19th century before pollution controls went into affect. Look at the amount of farmland society used. Look at the deaths due to lung disorders caused by burning wood in the fireplace.
And once you look at that, you will realize that society pollutes less, uses less farm land and above all else is the best we have ever been environmentally speaking DUE to fossil fuel usage. And this is with a MUCH LARGER population today. Industrialization is not always about pollution and being stuck in the land of Mordor, it is also about progress environmentally as well.
and the worst thing of all about what you propose? That is that you want to actually pollute more, use more farm-land and burn more wood from forests. That is not green, that is just plain silly. Why should poor people stuck on fixed incomes have to resort to burning biomass in general? Just because you think the world is better off without fossil fuels? because they are bad? Make your case for why fossil fuels are bad. I have yet to meet a green who has done so. Until you can justify “changing the world” you are just another fascist who wants to change the world for rather arbitrary and silly reasons.
Just a note to people: Talking to “trolls” or “greens” can often times bridge a gap. I find the illustration of this video that is being promoted here as a good illustration. In both of these examples you will never convert a true radical who has their mind made up about the world and refuses to learn, but if you convince just 10 people for instance who might just be reading out of boredom you have made it that much easier to show that the green movement itself is predicated on false claims and basically fascist tendencies.
And this is what we are stuck in. Does the world stay stupid and keep ignoring history like we have been with green philosophy? Or do we embrace humanity and celebrate everything we accomplish while we move forward and accomplish even more? Its all about your philosophy or view on the world. Some people will always see fossil fuels as bad and something needed to be replaced with an iron fist. But if most of the people laugh at the fascists and discount their arguments as insane and non-sensical….than those people will not get a say on the future.
And so I celebrate fossil fuels and everything it has given our society. From better pollution and smog levels in major cities (where the smog was so bad due to cooking fire and open smelters that contributed HIGHLY toxic chemicals to the air) to the usage of less land for 100 times more food, we can change this world through technology and still be environmental in the process. But that is only if we do not force the poor people of the world to strip the forests just to stay warm or to cook. If you make the price of energy too high, the environmental cost is much higher. This is why true environementalists will research the issues and come to the conclusion on their own. And after that, people will do the right thing as long as there is a cost-effective option. Solar and wind were given up as major power sources for a reason. There is no reason to go back to using them when modern society is depended on on-demand power and cheap power as well.
Anyone who pushes for this like I said in my last post is just another fascist forcing their will on other people. They do not care about the consequences of their actions because “saving the world” from “imagined problem X” always trumps common sense and reason. This is why emotional people should never be given any form of power. And greens as a rule are always the most emotional people I have ever talked to. And I have conversed with many.
@ur momisugly benfrommo says:
May 8, 2013 at 7:10 am
“Just a note to people: Talking to “trolls” or “greens” can often times bridge a gap.”
Of course that is true. Sometimes even an apparently small point can get through and start people thinking. Once they start, it all opens up.
BUT there is a simple reality. There MUST be at least some level of honesty involved. Not just in discussion but in the person themselves. This “indigo” has had all sorts of opportunity to acknowledge simple things. It refuses to do this at all. It REALLY is beyond the pale.
benfrommo says:
May 8, 2013 at 7:10 am
Thanks for these points, which are all pretty standard arguments and nicely validate my overall point. I am not disputing at all the tremendous benefits to humankind that fossil fuel usage has enabled. I have made that point … er… several times. I would add cities that aren’t swimming in horse manure to your list. I am glad that you recognize the environmental damage caused by human activity like 19th century farming and industrial practices that we as societies recognized we had to move on from. And we did. We face a similar moment now, just on a bigger scale.
But when you say that fossil fuels themselves have caused this progress, not the ingenuity and creativity of individuals and societies, then you fundamentally misunderstand progress. Humankind using fossil fuels is not in itself a natural process, like evolution or the shifting of tectonic plates. Fossil fuel use is a choice, one which some Saudi billionaires and Exxon Mobil shareholders are smiling about right now, probably.
Indigo:
Hydrocarbons are presently a necessity, not a choice, if the earth is to support present & near future human population.
Windmills & solar panels are not viable alternatives to fossil fuels for industrial scale energy production, & themselves cause grievous environmental harm. We could use more nuclear power, but going all “green” is not currently an option. Besides which the subsidies squandered on green energy have cost the global economy dearly in lost productive investment humanity can ill afford.
To say nothing of the many other uses of hydrocarbons, such as in growing food & fiber & in productivity-enhancing plastics. I don’t like world-wide plastic bag pollution, but getting people to give them up will require economical alternatives.
So there it is. After all the bluster and righteous indignation about greenies and enviro-fascists wanting to tell us how to live, after all of jc’s hysterical rantings, and the insinuations about climate scientists duped by their own group-think and ideology, the message comes down to:
Fossil fuels: you don’t have a choice.
I believe in human freedom. We do have a choice. And we can indeed choose to use fossil fuels. But unless we are two year-olds, our choices have consequences, and fossil fuels are being shown to have serious consequences.
The consequences of not using fossil fuels are orders of magnitude worse than using them. If you think you can get by without them, please start doing so. Tell us how that works out for you.
For starters – one of the beneficial consequences would be that we did not have to waste time deleting so much repetitive bilge from our mailers.
@milodonharlani says:
May 9, 2013 at 5:22 pm
As with numerous others you have tried to communicate the realities that underpin the position assumed and propagated by this thing. As for others, and all the various points carefully made, it comes to nothing.
The reasons and mechanisms for this have been made clear. The usurping, purloining and perversion, used to simulate human characteristics including morality, is shown in this reference to consequences, as being a claim on both understanding and responsibility.
This is – as made abundantly clear in these exchanges viewed as a whole – most accurately described as a disguise, which is used by this thing to obscure its real intent. No other conclusion is possible: there is nothing to which these things relate that is genuinely there.
Apart from its utility in any contemporary accountability, this thread will from a valuable part of the historical record, illuminating as it does the truth of the degraded nature of the things behind this impulse to subjegate and feed off, and their anti- and in- human constitution.
@ur momisugly indigo
“…crazy…”, no.
“…hysterical…”, no.
No.
Moral taxonomy.
Distinguishing between those properly made as human, and those incomplete; malformed; alien; and empty.
You have revealed yourself. Judgement made.