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:
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