Topher Fields talks about some of the issues raised in this WUWT thread, as well as announcing a new participant. Watch this video:
Topher Fields talks about some of the issues raised in this WUWT thread, as well as announcing a new participant. Watch this video:
Just to say Thank you to all who have kindly contributed to the making of the 50 to 1 video, and especially to Anthony for having promoted it so vigorously here at the ever-splendid WattsUpWithThat. As Topher said in his introductory video, this could be a game-changer.
A bit off topic but I have had an apology from Alison Bridger Re. the Book Burning. She claims that it was an attempt at satire that failed and the burning episode has been removed from the university web site.
If you are reading this Dr Bridger thank you.
At least a reply to a crit. which shows a good upbringing.
Definitely a worthy cause. Topher has done an excellent job of answering questions, particularly on the strategy of provisionally accepting the IPCC claims. Great news on getting Donna on board.
Donna Laframboise holds a Degree in ‘women’s studies’
Well, I guess they aren’t all neo-conservatives like Monckton.
Shouldn’t the ‘s’ in ‘Laframboise’ be pronounced?
@ Topher (and Monckton).
A final comment (from me) as to what might be effective in the video, and assuage some concerns expressed here. You are probably heartily sick of everyone throwing in their suggestions, since you presumably have a good idea, if not a finished script, of what you want to say and how you want to say it.
And in the beginning and the end such a thing cannot be done well by committee: its your job and you should be allowed to get on with it, otherwise it could turn into a dogs breakfast.
Having just said that, I will run the risk of contradicting it by suggesting the following, which you may or may not be planning to do in some way in any case, or, obviously you may feel it is either of no value or just doesn’t fit what you are trying to do.
———————————————————————————————————————-
A finishing comment something like this might be effective:
” Some people have questioned the balance or emphasis the IPCC has given to the science. It is after all not a scientific body – as many think – but a politically created one, with the aim of giving political advice.
We have not done that here. As we have said, we have accepted at face value all the claims and statements that the IPCC itself has made, and which they use to formulate conclusions and advice. This all comes from them.
As we have shown, using their own inputs, calculations, and projections, it is fifty times cheaper to adapt over time than it is to follow their official advice, as politicians have been doing in various countries, at great cost.
Fifty times cheaper. That is clear and undeniable.
The question then arises: why has the IPCC been presenting only one response as being possible when it is 50 times more expensive?
Did they calculate -as we have done – from their own material, the cost of the alternative?
If they didn’t, why not? It is the obvious thing to do.
If they did, why have they not published this and made it clear?”
————————————————————————————————————–
Something like the above would do three things.
1. By going beyond the actual conclusion as to cost, rather than leaving it there, it takes it as self-evident that the conclusion is established and irrefutable. This serves to emphasis its strength.
2. It is in effect a challenge to the IPCC for them to justify their basis for recommendations, given the question as to how this “oversight” has occurred, rather than presenting Monckton’s analysis as an alternative within the broader framework, and as something of a challenge but not necessarily one that needs to be acknowledged.
3. And finally, it makes clear that any viewer should ponder the basis for any IPCC pronouncement.
None of the above needs to be done in a heavy-handed or exaggerated way to be effective; it does not need to have the character of polemic. Just drawing attention to the obvious.
@ johnmarshall says:
May 8, 2013 at 4:04 am
“At least a reply to a crit. which shows a good upbringing.”
To a degree. Not much succor to be had from that as a preliminary to being lead to the gallows.
Laframboise? I think the ‘s’ should be pronounced. It is French for ‘raspberry’ if I remember correctly. Incidentally, there is a form of pyrite called ‘framboidal pyrite’ which resembles a raspberry.
I haven’t made a contribution to the project yet – that is next on my agenda.
“Laframboise? I think the ‘s’ should be pronounced” – I agree! 🙂
(In short, that’s ‘the phonetic ‘reason of being’ (= raison d’être) for the ‘e’)
‘the phonetic ‘reason of being’ – should have been: ‘the phonetic reason of being’, sorry!
Not always easy to play smart! 🙂
re: apology from Alison Bridger. I have it on good authority that the white hoods and burning crosses of the KKK were simply attempts at satire that were misunderstood. Shouldn’t we all just forget it ever happened, and tell them we’re sorry, we understand that comedy is hard?
And just to round out your raspberry (framboise) knowledge—this is definitely OT—the artificial raspberry flavor is provided by the anus of the beaver.
http://lifeinaskillet.com/2012/05/castoreum/
Can someone post a link to the paypal donate button. I can’t figure out how to contribute.
Sorry,
Robbin
johnmarshall says: “I have had an apology from Alison Bridger Re. the Book Burning. She claims that it was an attempt at satire that failed and the burning episode has been removed from the university web site.”
Good, but what was the ultimate destination of the book(s)? Were they thrown out? Or do they now reside in a library where they can be accessed by students? I think I know what the answer is, but I’d like confirmation from the esteemed Dr. Bridger. Without further attempts at satire.
@Robbin. Just go through the normal donation process at the project’s page at indiegogo and PayPal will be one of the payment options.
I’m glad His Lordship has appeared today. Maybe He and Anthony can explain this:
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-extensive-antarctic-campaign-cold-bias.html#nRlv
REPLY: Pretty simple really. In the abstract: “Despite the cold bias, however, the satellites do tend to properly represent the atmospheric temperature profile’s shape.” So as you and your Rommulan friends like to tell everyone, absolute temperature offsets aren’t important, the trend is. There’s a slight offset, less than 1C, but the satellite data gets the trend right. Sorry, no cigar – Anthony
jc makes a good point.
Topher, I appreciate your videos tremendously, I not only agree with your views (that I’ve seen so far), but I truly value your argumentative style. However, I had to mention this…
This:
…is intended as humor, and as such, it’s funny. However, lets pretend the people who are trying to find something wrong with us have no sense of humor. In that case, I think it might be best to just play it straight since we have facts on our side.
Again, I love your videos, I think it’s a shame that you didn’t win major awards for your short video on free speech. Keep up the good work.
I listened to Topher Fields’ video recorded update on the status of the ’50-to-1′ project.
On the WUWT thread that first announced the idea of the ’50-to-1′ project I said I would withhold supporting it until there was a plan to include references to the IPCC’s false premise that there is net harm to life from burning fossil fuels.
In Topher Fields’ video recorded update there appears to me to be sort of a plan to not address the IPCC’s false premise in the the first 7 minutes of the ’50-to-1′ project, however it appears that the IPCC’s false premise might be addressed in the ~9 interviews that follow the first 7 minute portion. That is if any of the people being interviewed agree to address the topic of the IPCC’s false premise. Anyway, that is my understanding of what Topher said.
QUESTION => Is there an explicit intention by Topher to press the IPCC false premise topic during all the nine interviews?
If I get some confirmation that the IPCC’s false premise discussion will be an active part of the interview process then I will actively contribute to the ’50-to-1′ project.
I eagerly await confirmation so that I can contribute.
John
Here’s a tangent on body-disposal:
re John Whitman
I think the purpose of the videos is self evident. I dont believe you will be able to “buy” statements.
– – – – – – – –
Man Bearpig,
Thanks for your comment.
If by your expression ” ‘buy’ statements” you mean that I will only support the ’50-to-1′ project if it is reasonable to expect the IPCC’s premise of harm from anthropogenic CO2 to be addressed either in the 7 minute part and/or in the second interview part, then why do you think merely asking the question of interviewers is buying statements?
I think most of the 9 people being interviewed will in some respect affirm that the premise of the IPCC has some merit and say it is not overtly false as I maintain. My request to have the ’50-to-1′ project ask the question goes toward a balanced approach about the IPCC.
How is asking the question as a precondition of my financial support considered as an attempt to ” ‘buy’ statements”?
John
Yeah. The “-se” in Laframboise should be pronounced: as a “z”.
Also, I totally get why the focus is on why, even if the IPCC is correct, proposed actions are useless. However, I can’t see the harm in saying in one last sentence:
“We have shown why, even if the IPCC is correct, its proposed actions are useless. But if it is incorrect, how much worse is it?”
Does anyone know how Donna herself pronounces her last name? Just curious.
Well, color me still skeptical. I still don’t know whom this is aimed at. I’m sure 99% of the people in the world have no idea what the ‘IPCC’ is, nor what their assumptions are. All they know, those in the West, at any rate, is what they’ve been hearing on TV for the past three decades: the world is warming up; it’s caused by man burning ‘fossil fuels’ that make CO2; and if we continue generating CO2 the glaciers will melt, the oceans will rise, and the crops will all dry up and turn to dust.
The beauty (if that is the word—hey, a diamondback rattler can be beautiful to look at) of Algore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is that it was a feature-length, dramatic presentation that could be understood by low-information voters and schoolchildren—especially schoolchildren. Never mind that it was rife with misrepresentations and lies. It succeeded because it was a brilliant piece of propaganda, and fed into Everyman’s appetite for drama and alarm, and into every schoolteacher’s desire to tout the do-gooder enviro line.
I want to see the counterweight. I want a comparable piece of propaganda called “The Convenient Lie” (or something) that exposes the Climatists and Warm-mongers for the charlatans and statists they are. And I think it has to start by denouncing the premise that CO2 is bad and is going to wreak havoc on the Earth. I don’t think a seven-minute economic argument for ‘adaptation’ on YouTube is going to make a dent in the thick skulls of the average guy or his children. Sorry to be negative, but that’s what I think.
/Mr Lynn
Topher Fields, I am not going to repeat here what I already said on the other thread on this topic about your concept. But as far as your financing is concerned, I would like to save people their money by suggesting that you reduce your planned travel costs, this would be very easy.
Instead of traveling throughout the world to just conduct interviews like it was done 100 years ago, you can simply use software like Skype. Everyone has a PC and an access to the internet. You can even pay for web cameras if some of your interlocutors do not have one. You do not really need that much money.
I think the idea that this is a game changer is a little over confident (call me skeptical!). When Watts appeared on PBS, the general outrage was that he was not a person of authority, and Hari from the News Hour even made an online “correction” stating that Anthony was not a scientist. Never mind that he was cool, calm, and collected, and made perfectly good sense.
Clearly, people think authority /consensus is what counts. Nasa, Met orifice, etc.
Just a bit of potentially powerful content for any expanded version (reposted and expanded from my comment on another thread):
The point, about the logarithmic decline in the ‘greenhouse gas’ effect of CO2 with concentration, and Bob Tisdale’s point, that the long-wave infrared radiation re-emitted back towards the surface in the ‘greenhouse gas CO2’ model can only penetrate the all-important ocean surface by a few mm and probably just increases surface evaporation, are very big flaws in the ‘greenhouse gas CO2’ hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
I think both are essential points to make in the Youtube movie.
A very good layman’s illustration of the logarithmic (ie. DRASTIC) reduction in the ‘greenhouse gas warming’ effect of CO2 as its concentration increases was given by another commenter on another thread: “adding a tenth blanket to your bed doesn’t do much more to keep you warm than the first two or three”
And a very good layman’s illustration of Bob’s point, re the deep ocean penetration of directly incoming shortwave solar radiation from the sun, but the ocean’s opacity to CO2-re-radiated, longer wave infrared radiation from CO2 is this: the simple fact that the deep sea is blue and cold! It is mostly the shortest wavelengths of incoming blue sunlight light that penetrate it. Some longer wavelength green, yellow and red light does get down to shallow depths (hence the visible colours of corals and tropical fish when snorkelling in shallow water), but colours below blue don’t get down very far at all, and the sub-visible, longer wavelength, infra-red heat that is re-radiated by CO2, does not get down more than a couple of millimetres.
And it in global warming, it is only the ocean that counts. It’s heat capacity vastly exceeds that of the atmosphere and it is the ocean’s temperature that ultimately determines the heat over the adjacent (much smaller areas of) land
John Whitman says:
May 8, 2013 at 10:15 am
Listen sport, Stop being pretentious & precious, Cough up your $5 minimum & let’s all move on; unless you are considering bunging in the whole $155,000, in which case, I humbly withdraw my comment and thank you profusely from the bottom of my heart.
Thanks, Clive! You raised the campaign total to: $38,968!
our Perk: No Perk
Your contribution will be shown on the campaign page as:
Clive Debell, $20 Change your visibility
John … you wrote …
Man Bearpig,
Thanks for your comment.
…..
How is asking the question as a precondition of my financial support considered as an attempt to ” ‘buy’ statements”?
John
—————-
I can’t and don’t speak for the producers and they may well take your points and act on them.
Your question above (”How is asking the question as a precondition of my financial support considered as an attempt to ” ‘buy’ statements”?”)
Because you make it a pre-condition of your contribution. Of course everyone has the option to help finance the production or not. But to do so based on an potentially expensive excursion from script is not fair on the producers. They have given a synopsis of the video, calculated their costs and presented you with the information you need to make your decision.
Then there is of course the standard methodology in any fair documentary, in that if the IPCC are criticised, then they have a right to respond to that criticism.
Whilst your idea is basically a very good one, I think it would be another story for another day.
Sorry the pronunciation of my surname causes so much difficulty.
La – as in “laugh”
fram – as in ” palm”
boise – as in “was”
La – fram – bwas