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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My good deed for the day done. Please don’t include anything that is not of cast iron provenance. If any money is left over why not use it as a prize for anyone who can find a substantive hole in the logic or provenance of the data being IPCC’s, that invalidates the thesis.
dp says:
May 2, 2013 at 1:00 am
” “
Its a great start, If the video goes on youtube it will also be important to defend it from trolls in the comments section. There is a heck of a lot of fighting over climate change vids on youtube. No moderation either, its bare knuckle.
Sent $100.
This is a worthy cause that could reach a large audience through the NET.
Contribution sent – good luck! I hope this really will reach a big audience.
My contribution has been pledged – I really hope this guy gets to his target as I consider his previous videos excellent and he is such a great communicator to old and young alike. Thanks to WUWT for bringing this to my attention – I’m very happy to help this effort.
Stopping the climate from changing is the gift that keeps on giving! 50 times the potential tax revenue!
Good luck, looking forward to seeing this. As noted previously, this effort could benefit from Paypal access (not hard to set up)
It is only fair that I contribute to this project.
Monckton just ignores that the Australian carbon tax is partly offset by other tax reductions and that there are other benefits to health in reducing the use of coal. Send your money to the United Way or Red Cross.
SOunds like a great project, but it’s a shame to have to do it all all considering the disparity between the CO2 trend and the temperature record. How are they going to not mention this and keep the discussion on the cheapness of not fighting warming when we are cooling? It almost seems like an exercise in futility to convince people that it’s cheaper not to fight something that is not happening
HES GOT MY ATTENTION,LOOKING FOWARD TO SEEING
THIS PLAN IN ACTION
THE TROUBLE IS…
Although we may respect Monckton (as I do ) he is well-stereotyped in the broader audience as a crank. And he comes up in line one. Perceptions matter…otherwise why make a movie?
As soon as you refer to the mooted title, you hand the gaffawwers a gigantic cache of ammo. Its controversial that title…so why mention it?
Anyone can make a movie but the challenge is getting people to watch it rather than hear it traduced in the media and go with the sheep.
UK Channel 4 aired a superb documentary: “The Global Warming Scam” (or some such title). That was a decade ago (and most people have not only forgotten the title but that it existed) Made not a blind bit of difference.
I cannot seethe point in banging your head against a wall.
Contribution sent – Good luck
Lets see how L Svaalgard handles this one LOL from Hockey Shtiick
“New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate
A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds tiny variations in solar activity over 11-year solar cycles have greatly amplified effects upon climate via changes in the Arctic Oscillation, North Pacific sea surface temperatures & sea level pressure, and via changes in stratospheric ozone from solar UV. The authors find the Arctic Oscillation evolves from a negative mode a few years before solar maximums to a positive mode at and following solar maximums. The IPCC claims the tiny variations in solar activity during solar cycles cannot affect climate, but this paper and many others demonstrate solar activity has greatly amplified effects upon climate via ocean oscillations, atmospheric oscillations such as the Madden-Julian oscillation and Quasi-biennial oscillation, stratospheric ozone, and sunshine hours/clouds”.
Journal of Climate 2013 ; e-View
His next project should be “Why hasn’t Anthony Watts won a Nobel” I don’t contribute to this kind of thing but I am making an exception.
The recent changes in WUWT, probably made to free up some of Anthony’s time, have born fruit. Ripe juicy fruit.
Anthony, I think you should really pin this post for a week or two – let’s give it the best possible chance for exposure and support. How often do we on the sceptical side get the chance to have someone of Topher’s obvious talent offer to make a professional, polished film in support of our side of the climate argument?
I wanted to contribute, but they only provide for payment by Credit Card. Why not PayPal? I won’t give my credit card details unless I’m 100% sure of the security measures provided. In this case I have no such assurance and so, alas, I am unable to contribute. Unless they provide for Paypal of course.
I don’t like basing an ‘economic’ argument on IPCC assumptions. It won’t sway the ideologue Climatists and their camp followers, who will just double down and tell us it’s the ‘moral’ thing to bite the expensive bullet and ‘fight climate change [global warming?]’. And the politicians and bureaucrats aren’t going to stop salivating at the prospect of carbon taxes, and ‘sustainability’, and ‘green energy’ schemes.
No, we have to hit them in the underbelly: the IPCC assumptions are all wrong: CO2 is a beneficial trace gas, essential for life, and burning coal, oil, and natural gas cannot affect the Earth’s climate in any measurable way.
Then you can make the economic argument: Any effort to do stop CO2 emissions will just be money down the drain, and will lead our economies to destruction.
Change the focus of the film and I’ll contribute.
/Mr Lynn
Erratum: “Any effort to do stop CO2 emissions. . .” should be “Any effort to stop CO2 emissions . . .”
The fact that paying to counter climate change will cost 50 times as much as doing nothing is totally besides the point and irrelevant.
The AGW thesis is a POLITICAL movement; it is an IDEOLOGY with all the characteristics of an extreme religious belief system.
Look, when DDT was to be banned many years ago and a prominent environmental “activist” was told that millions would die from disease, his response was ” well, we need to reduce the population of the earth and this will be a good start.” He simply did not care that millions would die (which did in fact occur and is still occurring in Africa). What matters, and what ONLY matters is their belief system.
The AGW movement is a left wing, neo-communist political movement that gained traction subsequent to the fall of the USSR. When their ideal nation-state expired – much to the chagrin of the self-anointed “intellectual” ruling elites – they needed a new vehicle to continue their ‘struggle” to establish world socialism.
Voila !! Eliminate man-made CO2 and that will bring down the evil capitalism.
There simply is NO cost to large to bear in terms of money, living standards, human suffering, mass deaths, etc., that the environmental wackos and the AGW proponents would consider unacceptable.
The ends justifies the means.
“People will be convinced…”
“game changer”
etc.
I’m going to contribute, but I in no way buy that this will alter the climate debate in some fundamental way. Bit of the old “pie in the sky.”
CL FI? NPR SAYS SO
http://www.wordspy.com/words/cli-fi.asp
CLI FI makes dictionary here
cli-fi
n. A literary or movie genre featuring dystopian stories of Earth
affected by extreme climate change. [Climate + fiction.]
Example Citations:
Odds is the latest in what seems to be an emerging literary genre.
Over the past decade, more and more writers have begun to set their
novels and short stories in worlds, not unlike our own, where the
Earth’s systems are noticeably off-kilter. The genre has come to be
called climate fiction — “cli-fi,” for short.
—Angela Evancie, “So Hot Right Now: Has Climate Change Created A New
Literary Genre?,” National Public Radio, April 20, 2013
I agree with J.A. – we are dealing not with rational beings but with idiots – followers of a faith as sinister as any we have seen in recorded history.
Yes,, I’d like to contribute, but not by card – sorry. Paypal would be OK.
Could I suggest that those who are uncomfortable with using their credit card on the internet make a contribution via paypal to Anthony’s tip jar instead?