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.
The Warmists from 350.org have also got a new film out.
The Do The Math Movie!
http://act.350.org/signup/math-movie/
The Do The Math documentary is a 42-minute film about the rising movement in the United States to change the terrifying maths of the climate crisis and challenge the fossil fuel industry. While it is set in the United States, the maths the film outlines apply globally — making it important for all of us to watch. It is in English with the option of subtitles in Chinese, French, German, Portuguese or Spanish.
PLEASE, PLEASE DON’T CONFLATE ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE WITH WEATHER. If we let them get away with that, every unusual weather event and more besides (even earthquakes & asteroids!) will be attributed to “climate change”. Note that the alarmists have not only ditched ‘global warming’ but they are now dropping the ‘anthropogenic’ part of ‘climate change’ so that by omission, all adverse weather/climate events, warming, cooling or whatever, is the fault of human activity – especially carbon/methane emissions. They have abandoned science long ago and are now well into the war of words to bring everyone into the fold of the true faith. Climate scientists are going back to their day jobs – the perks from AGW research are drying up. The science bubble has burst as the spin doctors move in to take the money.
Threatened with facts, the alarmists are tuning to promote mass hysteria and, I fear, they will make more progress with that than they ever could with promoting science – even junk science.
I am a bit disppointed by some of the comments here.
While we can have a discussion about the science and debate whether climate sensitivity is more likely to be something under 2 rather than over 3, there most important debate for us as it will effect our lives and the lives of our children is the policy debate.
Topher’s strategy is exactly what is needed in the public domain. If the it can be said that the policy of mitigation makes us worse off – and by a large margin – we should wait and adapt to actual outcomes. This is what soceity has typically done for all slow moving issues. And this is definately a slow moving one.
My only suggestion to Topher, along with my encouragement, would be not to ignore the potential (fallacious) rebuttal that could come from alarmist. If they felt the mititgation argument was lost, they could demand rapid, centrally planned (and expensive) adaptation policy. We could end up in the same heavily taxed, hevily regulated world with unwarranted public directed investment and subsidy for private investment in things that will not be needed.
Many good points already raised as far as I can see – but I’ll add my few cents worth.
Target Audience? – this is one hell of a thing to decide – but for my money, it is not worth targeting say 40+somethings, as most will have either a reasonable understanding or will not be bothered to change their ‘media-fed’ opinion. I reckon it is best to target the age range from say teenagers up to the 30 somethings, as they are the ones who have to really understand the message (i.e, the factual truth as opposed to the media shite) and influence future policy. Hence, any narrative needs to be catchy, and preferably undertaken by several ‘modern’ presenters rather than a single ‘lecturer’ style. I’m not advocating it being a rap video by any means – but it deffo needs to be watchable by the younger generation. Also – the fact that it is or will be the younger generation that ends up actually paying for the current (bad) policy decisions – these must surely be the primary target?
We all know that kids are brainwashed in school today – and for the last decade or more – it is those that have been so affected by constant newsbite hype snippets drip fed into their daily lives that need to be more advised. Us older types know full well not to believe the media hype about anything – the young uns have been spoon fed the stuff for years and this is what needs to corrected – in other words of all things, the presentation MUST make these folk THINK and question both themselves and the science/policy………
The way I see it is this – kids today don’t want to save for their retirement – and understandably so – I’m sure we were all the same! – but this is all about a future where economic ruin as a result of fallacy or false based policies will ensure no-one has a ‘retirement’ (I’m ignoring the financial elite here) and will end up in relative ‘energy’ poverty.
They have to be made to understand that the potential ‘cost’ of this ‘problem’ (i.e. AGW ‘prevention’ and/or ‘mitigation’) makes the current debt crises look like an error in the office tea-room petty cash tin!
I read a an article about a rich-list divorce – whereby the woman got some horrendous multimillion award AND a silly percentage of the ex-husbands FUTURE income. This is the kind of thing that we are trying to explain here.
just my opinion.
Adaptation to what ? With the cooling that a lot of people seem to predict for the coming years , the adaptation would not be the same as for warming.
Topher Field says:
May 2, 2013 at 10:10 pm
Please allow me to weigh in on some of the questions being raised by readers here on this thread.
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 first shift surely should be to make them sit up and take notice? Do you really think this economic argument is strong enough to do this? It does not have enough punch, imo, regardless you give it a snappy title. It is too wishy washy a theme which makes for good discussions possibly, but without any concentrated emotional involvement in the outcome for the viewer.
If you really want to influence people to get them to explore further then give them something they can get really their teeth into, a real point onto which they can focus their attention.
Regardless of the other possible science arguments, which in context of only a 7 minute slot for the message will only further dissipate attention, I suggest a concerted look at the actual temperature frauds upon which all the global warming scaremongering is based.
We’ve been conned, no one likes to be conned. Whatever the initial reactions to learning one has been conned, if the con can be clearly shown then one cannot dismiss it. A small step back to reality.
We are three years on from when this aspect was most talked about, the shear amount of information and examples which come to light have had the same effect of dissipating the message and attention moved on. Yet, this is the one aspect on which there is actual proof that a science fraud has been committed to our, the general public’s, great detriment.
The presentation of this science fraud of temperature manipulation should stay focused to this point, there are several examples of deliberate, and mind blowing, fraud that cannot be disputed, such as this:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/hansen-the-climate-chiropractor/
The deliberate tampering with the world’s actual temperature records.
This is a massive fraud.
The more talked about such as the Hockey Stick, One Tree Yamal and Anthony’s UHI findings of station placements, soon lose their shock effect without the basic temperature fraud to hold them together – they become a ‘look at what the cheats do’ instead of ‘look at what the cheats to in order to con that there is a global warming problem’.
The latter is the hub of the con. CRU particularly involved in temperature data tampering, not only at home but elsewhere they had influence, New Zealand, Russia for example.
Without a clear picture of this the further tampering of science method, to produce for example the Hockey Stick by the removal of the LIA and MWP and recent IPCC shenanigans dismissing real science data gathering because it conflicts with their fake science models, can’t be fully appreciated.
We have been conned is the message, but without the facts of how this was done by temperature tampering of records dissipates the message.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
The problem with the AGW narrative is that it has a myriad of fascinating aspects showing fraudulent science in and through many different science disciplines to distract from the con, but this first step temperature record doctoring is the basic fraud where it all began.
Adding to Jimbo’s Missing Hot Spot link: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/ipcc-plays-hot-spot-hidey-games-in-ar5-denies-28-million-weather-balloons-work-properly/
Sadly, most of the “believers” I have worked with over time will never watch the film. Never! They *want* those carrots in their ears!
If Monckton is associated with the film they will dismiss it, out of hand, as propaganda. “Monckton’s a well known…. Let’s just agree to disagree on the matter,” they will sneer smugly.
“McIntryre and McKitrick are shills of Big Oil….” “I’ve *seen* pics of the melting ice caps and, thus, global warming is real….”
They will search for a ThinkProgress factoid, hold it to their bosom and use that as an excuse to ward off information.
Sadly, the film will be watched by “the usual suspects,” but never by the believers. They don’t *need* to watch: they know the truth and the film will not be that. …Sadly.
….Lady in Red
I agree with Kev-in-Uk above that it is important to have a clear understanding of who the target audience is. I think he is probably right about older people, and it is also probably true that You-Tube is by nature going to potentially reach a much larger proportion of younger than older.
Even if an impact on older people can be made, I still think as a general principle with anything to do with AGW, getting a message across to under 30’s is most important.
And I also think they will be receptive. Despite relentless imprinting all their lives, it seems that this has failed. A major Mission Australia Youth Survey for 2012 (taken June 2012, released Dec 2012) covering 15 -19 yo showed that concern about “Climate Change” fell from being the number one issue in June 2011, rated at 37%, to the number 6 issue at 17% in 2012.
This Survey covered about 1.5% of the population. Unless there is something very wrong with the methodology, there has been a Weather Event comparable to a Tsunami, which of course at any time clearly proves a Climate Change. In this case, anyway, it does. Something turned over that one year period, and “commitment” or much more likely, acquiescence, collapsed. With that sort of rate of decline, this issue must now be of significance to only a core group: the Believers in Teacher, and the Spawn of Climate Rightousness. These are incorrigible and don’t matter, but it seems that 90% will be more than willing to listen.
Having previously been part of the support for this, this is remarkable. But they will need real reasons that they probably don’t currently have to assert that they do not consider this an important issue. They are not currently allowed to.
If under 20’s feel that are on firm ground to make a stand, then they will influence their parents.
If this is true for under 20’s then there must be some resonance for older people, up to 30. I suspect that in fact this collapse is actually across all age groups, to a greater or lesser degree.
Some here are concerned that by addressing the financial aspect, not science, this will be too dry. That may be the case. But by suggesting and illustrating that the costs of adaption are much less it does two things.
It removes the foreboding of looming doom that has been a major major part of this. And in itself by showing it can be “managed” it reduces it to simply a – potential – problem of an undramatic sort. By doing this it indirectly addresses “The Science”. But instead of being helplessly subject to The Findings, it drags (apparent) science back into the domain of human utility.
This depends of course how it is done, but I can see that it could be.
In any case as many others know, this is not about science it is about cultivating a response to existence in a manner designed to achieve certain aims. Whilst the validity of the claim has rested on science, the ensemble of responses has been psycho-sociological and has been intended to be. So these things are inseparable. Put a hole in it and the rest can collapse.
Whether it is the best approach I don’t know. As part of any change however, it is important.
What I wonder, given the1000000 trillion videos on You-Tube is how anyone will ever encounter it. It has always been a mystery to me how anything can be found, and I suspect 95% of the “content” has never been seen by anyone outside the maker and friends.
As with anything on the internet, genius will not only go unrecognised but will simply never be seen unless there is a very good understanding and strategy about how to make that happen. Otherwise its just make it and hope for luck.
Is there any reason to believe it can be placed effectively?
As producer, is this part of Topher’s role?
Has he triggered the viral mechanism previously?
Does producer also in effect incorporate writer/director?
Is Topher known for producing videos that use spread sheets to visually show the difference between abundance and poverty, life and death?
I do like Topher’s videos. His free speech video should have won awards.
Topher, In Al Gores film, the glacier falling apart had a major influence for many people to change their minds. Using the same/or similar clip might be useful. Because what that actually showed was a growing glacier. Through gravity, growing glaciers find their way downhill using travel of least resistance until they meet the warmer water and calve (break off). Glaciers melt from lower warmer levels up to colder higher levels.
Also if you need filming in UK, I may be able to help.
Chad Wozniak says:
May 2, 2013 at 3:16 pm
1+
Central planning adaptation rhetoric is another of many false flags. The goal is to defund the junk science agenda at the roots. The green movement is dominated by a Marxist narrative as is the b-child of hell in AGW.
Perhaps many of the skeptic/lukewarm warriors are living in their own false status quo? Neither peace or victory can be expected any time soon with pandering ideas like accepting IPCC meme’s.
cwon14:
Your post at May 3, 2013 at 7:36 am displays complete misunderstanding of the existing reality.
It says
In reality we climate realists have won and the warmunist defeat was conceded at Copenhagen years ago.
The priority now is to limit the damage from the AGW-scare as it fades away.
Clearly, you have missed my explanation of this need to limit the damage so I will repeat it.
The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen. I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.
Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.
Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.
As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.
The message of the proposed video is precisely what needs to be publicised at this time.
Richard
“this whole issue has fundamentally been about poitics 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.”
The politicians will never get rattled. They have a get out of jail clause where they blame scientists for mis-representating the data. All this means is that they go onto other ways to fleece the public for their own agendas. Don’t focus on politicians, focus on the money being wasted. Focus on teaching the public how THEIR money is being wasted on frivolous and incompetent research. Focus on the people. They are the ones who have the power to “un-elect politicians” and to “stop giving money to green charities”. Remember that it is not about the truth as much as what people believe. Perhaps this is a post-modern nonsense, but we are not talking science either.
even if you make the politicians scared to even mention AGW (such as Obama) the scare goes on because they can pay lip-service to the movement by transferring funds to them through policy. And so the gravy train goes on.
Until the people get wise and vote out any crony politician such as Obama who enriches his campaign contributers and of course friends and family through policies that fleece the public for these people….well that process will continue because it is frankly lucrative.
No, you must focus on the people. I think the best way to visualize the way the AGW “scare movement” operates is to visualize it. Jo Nova has an excellent flow chart here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/map-the-climate-change-scare-machine-the-perpetual-self-feeding-cycle-of-alarm/
Basically if you want to derail the establishment you have to find the weak link. The public are the ones being fleeced, so you can do all you want to the politicians but as long as they can fleece the public, how in the world are you going to change their minds? Focus on the people and the rest will fall like dominos.
Topher Field says (May 3, 2013 at 12:37 am ): “You will see in the description a clearly linked document named ’50 to 1 calculations and sources’.”
========================================================
Thanks, I opened it (http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/Is_CO2_mitigation_cost-effectove_Single_Page_Lord_Monckton_Foundation_Briefing_20130411.pdf) and see my argumentation confirmed.
The point there is, in short, that local Austalian carbon tax has little influence on global warming. It is self-evident. A part is less than the whole. What a scientific discovery.
So, I suggest again that you present right here, where you are asking people to give you money, your or whoever’s calculations proving that GLOBALLY “mitigation would cost more than adaptation”. Until now neither you nor Monckton have done that, either here or anywhere else.
I’ve contributed. The economic argument is an important one. With Western economies generally already in decline, I think whoever encounters this video will be receptive to information that shows how much economic damage is bring done through CAGW government policies. I hope the burden on the middle class and especially the poor will be highlighted. In previous arguments with a ‘believer’ colleague, I think it was my concern for how hard CAGW policies will hurt the poor that made the deepest impression on him.
My main worry is that enough people will see the video.
In response to those who wonder how a CO2 tax in Australia can be of worldwide relevance, the Australian example is a good one because, near-uniquely, the Opposition put up a fight against the tax and smoked out the numbers on the basis of which a respectable intertemporal investment appraisal can be done.
The closing stages of the chain of reasoning specifically consider what would happen if Australian-style CO2 taxes were implemented worldwide.
The underlying paper (I’ve just returned the page-proofs to the publisher: it will appear this August in the 45th Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists) considers numerous case histories and establishes that the Australian CO2 tax is quite typical of any measure to attempt to mitigate CO2 emissions. It comes quite close to the European/New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, for instance.
The bottom line is simple enough to understand. If it is 50 times less cost-effective to mitigate today in Australia than to adapt the day after tomorrow, then scaling up globally will give much the same ratio: there are no handy economies of scale to take advantage of.
Greg House has a point. It perhaps needs to be established that the costs associated with the Australian example can legitimately be extrapolated across all other countries. If not done, then the claims in the video will attract criticism – beyond what it will get anyway.
This may or may not matter, since virulence in denunciation is likely to have a proportional effect on wider public attention, which would draw attention to the issue and invite discussion perhaps to a degree it might not get otherwise.
And it is awareness and discussion that is critical. Those particularly who fancy themselves as “intellectual” do not like straightforward facts. There is no room for their “contribution” and it is in the “conversation” that they allow themselves to “adjust” their position in a furtive manner which they translate as dignified because obvious humiliation is avoided.
Just saw Monckton’s comment above as I posted my previous, which may make it redundant.
To summarize the investment appraisal method explained in the paper:
From the fraction of global CO2 emissions that a mitigation scheme will abate over its term, the fall in CO2 concentration and hence in CO2 forcing the scheme will achieve at the end of the term is found. The abated CO2 forcing is multiplied by a term-dependent climate-sensitivity parameter to yield the global warming the scheme will abate. The scheme’s cost is divided by the abated warming to obtain its mitigation cost-effectiveness per degree of warming mitigated, which is multiplied by projected global warming over the term to give the global mitigation cost of mitigating that warming by worldwide measures as cost-effective as the scheme. Finally, the global mitigation cost is compared with the benefit in the avoided cost of adapting to projected global warming over the term.
Now you see why I need Topher to translate this lot into English. But it should be clear that the “global mitigation cost” is, as it says, global, and not just local to Australia.
You guys thought about ‘Kickstarter’ as a way to get funding?p
@ur momisugly Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 3, 2013 at 10:41 am
Fair enough. Personally, I have seen enough of the Product of Esteemed Economists to regard their specific declarations and insisted calculations to be meaningless. It is sufficient to know that it can’t cost more – at least for me – which is obvious anyway. If people continue to want to believe the prognostations of such gurus as Garnaut despite overwhelming reason not to, that is the basis on which things must be addressed.
Monckton of Brenchley says (May 3, 2013 at 10:10 am): “The bottom line is simple enough to understand. If it is 50 times less cost-effective to mitigate today in Australia than to adapt the day after tomorrow, then scaling up globally …”
======================================================
The bottom line is that you are asking people for money here presenting to them a claim that you apparently have never proven to be correct. Otherwise you would not have beaten around the bush, but instead presented your calculations already.
My strong impression is so far that you are selling a fiction here. You might well be able to make a propaganda film based on a fiction or on unproven claims. One important problem of this approach, however, as I told you before, is that your claim can be easily dismissed, but your support of the core IPCC claims will not get unnoticed by the viewers, so in effect you would effectively strengthen the core IPCC position, what you in fact have been doing all the time by posting on climate blogs, despite some critique you expressed concerning minor or secondary inconsistencies.
Greg House:
The Australian data is so clear that it can be used as a sample for all similar policies.
You are wrong. Accept it. Live with it.
Richard
Topher says further up thread. “…….. 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,”
Some years ago the following comment was made on this webste.
“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. En-vironmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a re-ligion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a re-sult of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. AGW theory has become part and parcel of this growing Pantheist ideology.”
My concern is based on my own experiences, that people are not interested in facts and data irrespective of how cleverly presented. They are driven by emotional and irrational beliefs that no amount of data and facts wil budge. They believe there is a consensus and the experts say lots of money needs to be spent to save the planet for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
In my opinion only the climate itself (Mother Gaia) has the capacity to shake the foundations of these people’s religious beliefs. And that will take a long time.
However this is my personal opinion and it may be entirely wrong. I sincerely hope so and wish you good luck and look forward to viewing the video.