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, as a “denier” (your words not mine) that the “greenhouse effect” has anything to do with the average temperature of the Earth, why would I give up some of my cash so you can promote yet another misunderstanding of how energy flows through the Sun/Earth/Atmosphere/Universe system ? And what we might do about it to solve a problem that frankly does not EXIST (it is still not warming).
The “greenhouse effect” only delays the flow of energy through the system by causing some of it to make multiple trips thorugh the system at the speed of light. Just like a multilayer optical anti-reflection coating (without the optical interference), I still recommend that you read up a bit about how those work.
Of course, in your opinion I “do not understand radiative physics”, yet I make a good living at it.
Cheers, Kevin.
Anthony,
Just a comment.
I am not involved in any way with what ‘2fer’ is doing but I do encourage the nay sayers to check out his manner of delivery and his ability to present cogent facts by checking out what he has already done.
And if anyone doesn’t like it then do your own.
Its a case of put up or shut up!
Reich – you are stating facts not in evidence. Perhaps Moncton is putting up his own money but not all the money needed. We don’t know – you don’t know. But while you can assume and suggest anything, of course, you will look less foolish if you do so quietly.
He is crowdsourcing this project which allows us all (yes, I contributed in spite of my misgivings of letting the IPCC define the playing field) an opportunity to take an active role in setting the direction of climate policy. That can’t be a bad thing, and even if he did pay in full for the entirety of this film, involving the masses is still a good idea.
Reich.Eschhaus says:
May 2, 2013 at 8:22 pm
===========
Tried to dissect your name, to no avail.
If German, your writing hides it well.
Sounds like a form of “The science is settled”. Not a good position to take. Burned any books lately? (rhetorical statement to make a point)
I have donated.
I have not read all the comments , so I apologise in advance if I’m repeating what someone else has said.
I don’t see this video as being aimed at the warmists as such. I think it is and should be aimed squarely at the politicians ( and financiers). As I understand it, the promoters are saying ” Lets assume the IPCC is correct, so there is no distracting scientific arguments afterwards” This does not mean anyone is agreeing with the IPCC.Then lets just look at the economics based on what the IPCC says.
This whole issue has fundamentally been about politics and money — so that is why this idea is great. Show everyone what a waste of money it has and will be. This will get the politicians rattled when the public start asking awkward questions.
Reformed cowboys damn near slipped thru this one.
Please allow me to weigh in on some of the questions being raised by readers here on this thread.
Firstly, Paypal is on it’s way, unfortunately due to the ‘not for profit’ status of the Lord Monckton Foundation, the account has proven more complex to set up than a normal account. We are getting it done as a matter of top priority and we will let you know as soon as it’s able to be used.
I’ve seen a few people suggest that the project should not ‘assume the
IPCC is correct’. Some people feel that this is too much of a
concession and undermines the potential benefit of the project. I see
it differently and Ross P is spot on in his reasoning.
Ross P: “As I understand it, the promoters are saying ” Lets assume the IPCC is correct, so there is no distracting scientific arguments afterwards” This does not mean anyone is agreeing with the IPCC. Then lets just look at the economics based on what the IPCC says.”
My approach is that I am determined to INFLUENCE people. Influencing is
different to arguing. I could ‘argue a point’ which would be applauded
by many, but influence none.
The key to influencing someone is to meet them where they are at, and
THEN to shift them, not to start at YOUR position and try and drag them
over. Getting someone to go from ‘We’ll all be killed by AGW’ to
‘Whatever, there’s no problem’ in a single step is pretty much
impossible, but it is possible to shift people one small step at a time.
The hardest shift is the first one. That first shift, no matter how
small, is the key to releasing them to explore and discover for themselves.
The 7 minute video IS that first step, aimed at shifting people from ‘We
need carbon taxes to combat climate change’ to ‘carbon taxes are a
waste, we should adapt as necessary to climate change’. This is an
achievable shift.
Some people will stop there, however there is another step wrapped up in
the project. The interviews. The interviews are what finish the job
once the 7 minute doco has caused someone to budge. There is no telling
how far someone might be influenced by the time they have watched the
whole project and been exposed to experts with logical, reasonable and factual counter-arguments to the consensus they thought existed, but it’s crucial we start with a SMALL step.
To be clear, my own personal view on the subject is that whilst Co2 IS a
‘greenhouse gas’ it is of negligible effect within the context of earths
climate and may in fact be beneficial. In no way do I personally accept
the IPCCs claims. I could ‘argue’ this point in a video and would gain
the applause of some, but it would influence no-one.
Thanks again for the incredible support so far and please, do whatever you can to spread the word!
IF it is CLEARLY ad argumentum, then I think this is an effective tactical maneuver in the Battle of AGW. We aren’t going to tell them that fairies are not real, just that the cost of trying to contain all the fairies whom the Cult of Climatology believes built the Castle of Doom is 50 times more than a wait-and-see approach.
I SURE WISH SOMEONE (Ben Stein?… Stein? …. Stein?….. Stein?…) would make a movie telling the truth about AGW and CO2 (and the Sun and the volcanoes and the oceans and plate tectonics, etc…) loudly and clearly: THE FAIRIES, EVEN IF THEY ARE REAL, (to, as Mark R? pointed out, meet the Cult on its own ground) COULD NOT MAKE THAT CASTLE BECAUSE THEIR HANDS ARE TOO TINY AND THEIR MAGICAL POWERS CAN’T DO THAT SORT OF THING.
*****************************************************************
2 SUGGESTIONS to FILMMAKER:
1) While punchy and quick-paced is good, SLOW THE NARRATIVE (unless it’s just me, the sample video’s auctioneer-pace rapid fire will make at least 25% of the script useless; the average listener (is this not for the general public?) can’t absorb at that pace information that is: 1) novel; and 2) counter to what it believes, in many cases.
LOTS of repetition at a varying pace, but mostly measured, will communicate effectively.
If the goal is to educate, SLOW DOWN. Less is more. Otherwise, it will just come off as a slick attempt to make a hard sell.
The narrator IS believable and not shifty per se, but AT THAT PACE he will persuade very few people to agree with him (unless they already do).
2) Change title to something more like: “IT COSTS FIFTY TIMES AS MUCH!” — “50:1” or “50 to 1” is FAR too clinical and sterile. While the narrative needs to be more measured, the title needs some emotive value. It appears from the sample video that a bit more attention to exactly who the target audience is (the average citizen, I think?) would be a good idea.
QUALIFIER: I grew up in the U.S.A.. Perhaps, the average native Australian or British citizen in general has a much quicker ability to absorb an oral presentation at that rapid rate of speaking. Perhaps, for those in the British Commonwealth, “50:1” will have a big impact. In the U.S, such an abstract title would only appeal to scientists.
GOOD LUCK WITH A FINE VENTURE!
Government is presently attempting to control fossil products – this plan asks goverment to take action over the conceded warming effects which will be imaginitively noted by the Corps of Engineers and others. I fear big government will be more invoved controlling both mitigation and adaption too.
PayPal and I am in on a modest contribution…….
Contribution made!
Topher – what is your response to the suggestion that there is need for inclusion of the animal kingdom in any adaption plan? Nobody is going to consider any adaption plan that leaves Bambi behind and the true zealots will in fact use that as a wedge against any adaption scheme. Worse, they may say any mitigation scheme has to include an adaption plan for the animal kingdom and just like that there is a new government teat out there. I can envision entire industries springing up to satisfy UN mandates that animals be provided for and PETA will be in the forefront. They will want to know what your measure of success is for adaption. What is it, anyway? How will you know when you are finished? To what shall we adapt? This point has hot button all over it. What will that 1 in 50 be spent on if you can’t identify what we are adapting to? You are suggesting taking 50 of 50 from them, and they won’t tolerate that. If we and they are seen as being of one mind on the threat of global warming it will be game over – The adaption advocates will be absorbed as a secondary priority.
Devil’s advocate here: What if the response is “Adaption, at one 50th the cost of mitigation, is cheap insurance. Let’s do that too – the skeptics are with us on that”. I can already hear the rallying cry “Mitigate and Adapt Now”. The 1 in 50 is pledged and the entire project has just gotten more expensive by 2%.
I’m invested in your project now and really would like some details and answers.
[i]”Janice Moore says:
May 2, 2013 at 10:17 pm
“50:1″ or “50 to 1″ is FAR too clinical and sterile… In the U.S, such an abstract title would only appeal to scientists.”[/i]
Okay, I’m not from the U.S. but I disagree wholeheartedly. “50:1” is punchy and to the point, like the “350” campaign, except this is based on reason and logic, not some arbitrary number.
I do see your point about the fast talking though. We Brits and the Auzzies do talk naturally faster than our American friends, therefore are probably more adept at absorbing spoken information a little quicker.
Where are the NASA scientists and astronauts? They sent a letter to the NASA administrator making the score 49 for science and 1 for the CAGW activist Dr Hansen
Topher Field says (May 2, 2013 at 10:10 pm ): “My approach is that I am determined to INFLUENCE people. Influencing is different to arguing. … The 7 minute video IS that first step, aimed at shifting people from ‘We need carbon taxes to combat climate change’ to ‘carbon taxes are a waste, we should adapt as necessary to climate change’. … Co2 IS a ‘greenhouse gas’…”
=====================================================
Yeah, and there is “global warming”, right? I know the narrative. Monckton is never getting tired to convey this core IPCC message, he’s just inserted it again in his post on the parallel thread.
Your alleged determination does not prove that you have a case about costs. And why did you tell people that the calculations are Monckton’s original? So far I see a further promotion of the core IPCC claims. On the other side, Monckton could have presented the calculations long ago, since he mentioned it a few times.
What I see at the moment is that you are asking people for money. Yes, you have apparently influenced a few already here, but now I suggest you start arguing by presenting you calculation or whatever. Until you have done that, I do not see any reason to believe that you really have a case.
I’m with Janice and David regarding speaking slowly, in particular for listeners for whom English of any variety is not their first language.
dp, thanks for your question. The key to my answer is that I will be advocating adaption AS and IF necessary. I won’t be going any deeper than that in the space of 7 minutes for obvious time reasons, but were I to be asked what that means I would say firstly that adaptation will mostly happen naturally (assuming for the purposes of the question that there is anything to actually adapt to) as part of free market decisions made by each individual according to what they deem best at the time, not top-down policy responses by politicians. If there is to be a ‘policy’ for adaptation then it needs to be evidence based and shown to be necessary, not based on modelling or theory, and certainly not based on ‘precautionary principles’ stemming from perceived threats from computer models, which is where we are now.
To be clear, ‘adaption’ is not a POLICY response which can be advocated, argued over and paid for out of taxes. Adaptation is a MARKET response as people respond to the price signals generated by changing conditions (again assuming that things do actually change).
For your own interest, I’d encourage you to look up the book ‘The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science’ by Prof Ainsley Kellow of the Uni of Tasmania. He blows apart many of the claims from environmental groups of X number of species going extinct every year and what have you. In fact he even demonstrates that animals which never existed have made it onto the ‘endangered species’ lists used for fundraising purposes by various animal welfare groups.
At it’s core his book demonstrates beyond doubt the dangers of making policy decisions based on ‘virtual’ science (computer modelling) and has equipped me for dealing with people who advocate such. Given your evident interest and thoughts around the ‘animal’ aspect of AGW theory and the use of animals to manipulate policy responses, I think you’d find it a pretty good read.
Greg House, with respect, did you look at the fundraiser? You will see in the description a clearly linked document named ’50 to 1 calculations and sources’.
I believe you will find all the details you could ever need regarding the ‘case’ I have in that document should you care to review it.
I state that they are Monckton’s because he claims they are. He took existing work which calculated the amount of warming the Aus carbon tax would save and then applied simple economic modelling to it which unless I misunderstood him, he claims that economic work as his own. If you take exception to that claim I invite you to take that up with him.
Greg House says:
May 3, 2013 at 12:12 am
Yeah, and there is “global warming”, right?
Greg, if you feel the need to put words in my mouth then I suspect you’re not the kind of person whose support I’m hoping to gain. If you read my words for what they ACTUALLY said you would clearly see that I stated that Co2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’ (scientific fact) but that it is of negligible effect within the context of earths climate. How you got from there claiming that I was saying there is ‘global warming’ is a mystery to me.
Have a good day.
Only 50? Must be using very conservative figures.
how much has come in?
Hey topher, another Devil’s Advocate question…
The warmists will say:
“Yes of course adaptation is 50 times cheaper than mitigation, that’s because it’s 50 times more profitable to offer a treatment than a cure, but prevention is way better than cure so we should still subsidise the prevention and renewable energy.”
The video will have to sow the seeds of a counter argument against this kind of attack too.
Countering the renewables argument specifically is easy, just point out how solar and wind don’t deliver a benefit of reliable energy regardless of what cost you believe you’re mitigating.
But I’m not sure how you counter the general argument of mitigation without moving out of economics and into the realm of questioning the IPCC consensus that you say you are going to accept. Perhaps highlighting that any argument by analogy (eg a medical illness) is ultimately a logical fallacy would get you halfway there, but raising doubt about mitigation is not as effective as providing certainty about the do-nothing alternative, and only real science can do that.
David, UK says:
May 2, 2013 at 11:46 pm
[i]“Janice Moore says:
May 2, 2013 at 10:17 pm
“50:1″ or “50 to 1″ is FAR too clinical and sterile… In the U.S, such an abstract title would only appeal to scientists.”[/i]
Okay, I’m not from the U.S. but I disagree wholeheartedly. “50:1″ is punchy and to the point, like the “350″ campaign, except this is based on reason and logic, not some arbitrary number.
———————————————
That’s why they control the discussion. It’s no longer about science, it was never about reason or logic and we cannot gain control talking about money.
It’s not science because the journals offer little scientific rebuttal of CAGW although there is plenty of contrary research out there worth discussion.
It’s not logic because the initial emergence of CAGW and its progress forward through so many phases and explanations (or lack there of) shows no amount of logic will get the people to change their beliefs.
It’s about emotion, period.
I see the “50 to 1” as a logical concept that will fail to draw the right emotion. The people will not grasp it and the media will totally ignore it.
The only emotion you draw from complaining about the money is negative. e.g. You’re too greedy to save the poor from instant death and long term misery.
Government money is an abstract concept to people. They think there is plenty of it and all the feds have to do is print some more. A million dollars or a billion dollars or a trillion dollars is like the difference between 10 dollars and 100 dollars and 1000 dollars. People don’t comprehend money or the value it represents. Remember the lady during the first campaign “Gonna get me some of that Obama money”)
Also, I believe the subject of money hurt Mitt Romney, a lot.
cn
Topher Field says:
May 2, 2013 at 10:10 pm…………
I agree with the strategy. However it might be a good idea at the end of the video to give a point by point bullet style type rebuttal with voice over. It could be compacted into 1 minute with an intro pointing out that “even though this video started by assuming the IPCC is correct here are some sceptical points for you to look up for yourself. Don’t believe me, look it up for yourself”.
* 15 years of flat temps in face of rising co2 (not projected by most models)
* Show the IPCC divergence graph
* Sea levels have been rising since ice age & no acceleration
* Antarctic near maximum extent
* Hurricanes, no trend to worse
* They predicted less snow for Europe now we have more & they now ‘predict’ more.
etc………………
Oh, and the missing hotspot.