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.
Anthony – GW has not been shown to be a permanent trend. AGW is still a theory awaiting analysis of the sign of the forcings. CO2 will only take you so far up the thermometer, and then the feedbacks have to do the rest. We have no clue what those feedbacks will do, but we do know they do not do what the IPCC has claimed they will do.
The current pause puts the entire subject under a microscope. I’m skeptical, hence the question – to what are we to adapt? That is actually no more knowable than Hansen’s claims of water front property at the 3rd floor level in downtown Manhattan.
$100 sent
Pardon me for being crass, but who the heck cares how animals and elusive species of plants adapt to climate change? The climate has been changing for billions of years on this planet and if some unfortunate trees or animals die, this is the way it goes. I think we should conserve wildlife and to conserve what we need especially as humans, but that goes without saying and goes into “costs for humanity to adapt.”
As for trees, if one species goes extinct, another will take its place or perhaps a new species will evolve. This is the science. If we start playing God and telling the planet that “you must stop changing the climate now..” Well we are just setting ourselves up for failure. Enjoy nature responsibly, but do not worry about nature adapting. I am sure it can adapt just fine especially if we leave it alone. The more we meddle, the more messes we create. The best plan of being an environmentalist is the minimalist approach where we do the least amount necessary to keep the biome full of checks and balances so as to make sure it self-regulates. Anything more and we risk once again making the same mistakes as the US Government in relation to yellowstone and other locations.
At the very least, we should study an ecosystem in full detail over several decades before we even begin to meddle. But then again, most of our ecosystems have been maintained by natives (here in the states) and land-owners who have a certain drive to maintain their own land so as to make sure it stays profitable and/or pretty. The worst thing we could ever do for the environment is to meddle blindly on human emotion. That as yellowstone has shown is a sure way to destroy a pristine wilderness.
In other words, by putting Government in control of ecosystems is the sure-fire way to guarentee that a certain land is going to be maintained poorly and that issues will be addressed either not at all or to such an extreme level (such as fire control in yellowstone) that the resulting inferno will make even the most socialistic green blush.
This is why film projects like this are so important. We can as sceptics show that fool-hardy nature of trying to control the weather through expensive taxes on carbon. We can show how such taxes benefit the environment a lot less than claimed and normally that money just ends up in rich people’s bank accounts while the rest of us folks end up poorer. We don’t need indulgances and other feel-good measures, that will accomplish nothing.
What will accomplish something is responsible environmentalism where people do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The people and their interaction with the environment is more important than anything else. Any group that focuses on other issues is not a true environmental agency but rather a political group attempting to enlicit political change by using the false flag of environmentalism. This is what we should as sceptics focus on.
So, is saying we should adapt to climate change an admission that the climate is changing?
For the price of a movie, $10, you can help make the (7-min) movie you actually want to see.
Sent $50..
Thanks Anthony only gave because of your recommendation
Mark R says:
May 2, 2013 at 4:45 am
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.
===========================================
Hey Mark,
When everyone finally realises that CAGW is complete horseshit, do you think the Aussie government is going to stop collecting the “carbon” tax.
Don’t hold your breath.
TR
@Benjamin P.
Has anyone here said the climate is not changing?
What is the point of having a 16mm projector in the background? Are you going to waste the money editing a steinbeck instead of an Avid?
Although I support this sort of effort, I still think we’re fighting the wrong battle. I’m sure there is a portion of the CAGW crowd that truly believes that higher CO2 levels is a serious problem and will lead to catastrophe. That’s not really the group we need to be most concerned about. The real problem group is the socialist left that has adopted CAGW as another means to implement their agenda which is to control the world through government with them in charge as the elite ruling class. Right or wrong in the CAGW debate is irrelevant to these people. They only need to have enough low information people on board with them and to convince enough politicians to implement their policies. Of course this is a lot easier when they are already in high government positions. You’ll never see these people debate the CAGW issue because they can’t win a rational debate and therefore it doesn’t serve their purpose. Ignoring the truth and repetition of the lie is what works for them.
The mainstream media will be of no help in this battle because they consider themselves part of the left elite. For over 4 years now I’ve heard President Obama stand in front of the gathered media and lie about all sorts of things. The latest is that the Head Start preschool program makes a significant difference in the lives of children in the long run and therefore we need more of it. Nearly all studies on the subject conclude the difference is erased by the end of the first grade. The media is unquestioning. The truth doesn’t matter because truth is not the agenda. The agenda is to indoctrinate children as young as possible in the socialist “government is a vital part of your life” mindset.
The battle we need to be fighting is that the socialist left agenda is wrong and we need to get them out of power. If that were to happen then all these schemes like CO2 regulation whose real purpose is to control your behavior would disappear.
Although it’s necessary to have the correct scientific and economic analyses available to refute the true CAGW believers, it’s of no help to defeat the socialist left and their agenda of controlling the world.
Coach Springer says:
May 2, 2013 at 6:30 am
I’m thinking of Australia’s recent hostility towards freedom of speech re: climate and that if the US can jail a whack-job video maker in the US, this guy has a fair chance of being criminalized in Oz. And why does he want to drive women to prostitution anyway? (If you’re not up to speed with the US Congress, you really should be. It’s not ridiculous so much as it is scary.)
==============================================================
One of the radio talk back programs I listen to said something along the lines of …. “so climate change is going to drive women to prostitution eh? How about economic hardship when we flush what is left of the economy down the toilet with these green schemes?”
As a US citizen, I agree ……. the stupidity of our congresspeople IS frightening sometimes.
I’d like to see Hurricane Bill Gray on camera, unless another old white male scientist would be too un-PC, no matter how distinguished.
I’m in once Paypal is set up.
I donated because Christopher is a great presenter and it is about time for an easy to understand youtube climate video bite that I can send to everybody I know.
I also suggested to provide the video with subtitles (closed captioning it is called?) in several languages, to enlarge the target group. I offered to translate into Dutch.
Anybody here who speaks German/French/Spanish/Portugese/Japanese/etc and willing to translate? Let Christopher know at the link above!
But, Anthony, Prof. Lindzen does not come up with “numbers and formulas accepted by the IPCC, CRU and other ‘consensus’ bodies” (to quote the film-maker above). He comes to quite a different conclusion. Would a 1º C temperature increase from doubling atmospheric CO2 make a measurable difference, have destructive effects of any kind, or require any kind of ‘adaptation’? The answer is almost certainly no, aside from extending the growing range of crops a little. The warming effect of CO2 may be real, but small, and the anthropogenic contribution even less.
The point has to be, not that solving the ‘problem’ is too expensive, but that there is no problem. With all due respect, I think the enterprise has got the shoe on the wrong foot.
/Mr Lynn
@Mr.. Lynn. From what I know, pointing out that it isn’t a problem worth worrying about is the main thrust. I’m sure he’s open to comments on framing the argument, but if some people simply take a “it isn’t framed like I want it to be” it will never get done. Don’t be snooty, help out, then lobby the framing.
Global warming should add one hundred times as much wealth to the world as it takes away.
Please see:
Thomas Gale Moore’s
Global warming : a boon to humans and other animals
& Climate of fear : why we shouldn’t worry about global warming
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 80 times as many molecules capturing 560 times as much heat making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
See The Two Minute Conservative via Google or: http://tinyurl.com/7jgh7wv When you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.
John Tillman says:
May 2, 2013 at 9:45 am
Why does the film crew need to travel at all? Either fly the European & American interviewees to Oz, conduct the interviews remotely or hire local videographers to shoot the talking heads, if they can’t shoot themselves with sufficient expertise & quality of product.
************************************************
Several reasons.
First, a busy person in America or Europe can probably find an hour in their schedule to sit down for an interview. Much less so might they be able to schedule an international trip to the opposite end of the earth, even with all expenses paid. (This is versus the film crew, whose literal job is making the movie, including travel to location.)
Second, consider that this project is on the side of the underdog, and it may be very difficult to thoroughly vet the candidates for hire to conduct the interview/film for the project, without ever meeting them in person. Have you ever heard the phrase, if you want something done right, you must do it yourself? Also, it may be difficult to find someone who can work within the low budget this project will appear to have.
Third, it is a very different viewing experience to see a real live interview conducted, with natural and un-prompted responses, from watching someone read off a teleprompter or deliver prepared replies to a questionnaire. Audiences can tell the difference, and the real deal is much more engaging and effective.
I could go on, about the quality standards of footage obtained, and ability to change things on the fly, etc., but suffice to say, anyone who has conducted business and traveled for it understands the difference between dealing with someone in person, and doing business over the phone or via video call.
Friends:
With all due respect, those who think the video should oppose the existence of AGW, or discuss climate sensitivity, or promote ultra-right politics, or etc.. are mistaken. They are all very mistaken.
People are where they are. If you want them to move to where you are then, first, you need to meet them where they are. Only then can you ‘hold their hand’ and lead them to where you want them to be.
At present many people think AGW is real and are accepting policies justified by AGW. They will only question those policies if they think the policies are misguided. And they are able to hear arguments about costs and benefits because those things affect – so interest – them. But the reality and the so-called ‘science’ of AGW don’t affect – so don’t interest – them.
So, when people know the costs cannot be worth the benefits then they will be open to other issues, but not before.
And adaptation to climate change is NOT new. It is the oldest known political policy in the world.
Climate changes. It always has and it always will, everywhere. As climate changes then people do what they need to do; for example, farmers change their crops. And good governments prepare for it by preparing for bad times when in good times.
According to Biblical legend this policy of preparing for bad times when in good times was suggested by Joseph (the one with the Technicolour Dream Coat). That legend demonstrates the policy has existed for at least three millennia, and until recently all sensible governments adopted it.
The policy is sensible because governments can cope with people complaining at taxes in the good times, but governments fall if there are food riots in the bad times.
But that sensible policy on dealing with climate change – which is tried and tested over thousands of years – is being abandoned in hope of controlling the climate instead. The new and untried policy cannot work because – whether or not the climate can be controlled – the tried and tested policy is much cheaper for the same benefits. Every reasonable person can understand that.
Richard
Dr. Singer is retired, as is Pres. Klaus, who also must travel to the US for his work at the Cato Institute. They and Anthony might welcome the opportunity to travel to Australia and meet colleagues there, as well as to facilitate making the video. I’d ask how they felt about that before flying the whole crew to the NH and across the Pacific and Atlantic or the Eurasian landmass.
Not that being retired implies lack of business. But why not at least afford the esteemed interviewees that choice, as it would also make the video on a smaller budget?
Come on! 130 THOUSAND for a 7 minute video?? Who’s he getting Tom Cruise to do the narration? He just did a 4 minute video for free and he wants $130,000 to do a seven minute video with facts readily available on the internet already! Look I’ve donated to lots of skeptic causes over the years but this is BS, the guy just want to get a free vacation and most likely a nice house on our dime.
Give me 130 THOUSAND DOLLARS and I’ll give TEN 7 minute videos, hell make it a HUNDRED, if all I have to do is a simple interviews and a website.
Give your money to Anthony, he deserves it and has PROVEN he deserves it!
As for this guy, show him how to use Skype, a webcam and wordpress. A web page and a 7 minute video can be done for well under $100.
@JohnWho
Yes.
Waiting for PayPal. I do NOT use credit cards on the internet.