This will be a top sticky post for a day or two, new articles will appear below this one.
UPDATE: podcasts are now available, see links below.
Readers may recall that back in May, I helped with obtaining funding for the 50 to 1 project out of Australia. During the summer, the project organizers made good on their promises to interview a number of people on the skeptical side of climate science, yours truly included. There’s also the main video which sums up the state of climate science and politics in just under 10 minutes.
My video interview is presented mostly as it happened, with only some very light editing done to the one on one interview in my office, and it runs almost an hour and covers several topics. The main theme video, hosted by Topher Field, who is the producer, is also available below:
The main video:
The 50 to 1 website: http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/
It also has the data and calculations (in a PDF) for support of the video, along with full length interviews from other contributors.
UPDATE: Reader Mark aka “Jabba The Cat” has converted audio from the videos into podcasts for listening to while driving or other activities. He writes:
These links are to the mp3 audio files, at Tubescoop, that I stripped out from the Topher interview videos on Youtube so that WUWT readers can load them into their iPhones, Android devices and music players.
Anthony Watts
Fred Singer
Joanne Nova
Donna Laframboise
David Evans
Henry Ergas
Christopher Essex
Marc Morano
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is there a link to the transcripts?
Rud Istvan says:
September 2, 2013 at 1:34 pm
” The CO2 climate question is whether upper troposphere relative humidity stays constant with induced warming.”
In spite of the fact that this doesn’t happen, why does Climate Science say the same thing it predicts with increasing CO2 concentrations won’t happen with no or much smaller CO2 concentrations, using only water vapor? I don’t understand something.
Grey Lensman sez:
You would think that ash is ash – once burned there’s nothing left to consume, but plants use ash as food. Same with CO2 – it is another kind of ash, like water, that is the result of combining with oxygen. Both, you would think are at the end of their usefulness, but again, plants use both CO2 and water, nature’s perfect ash, to flourish.
Here is the story of the discovery of how nature’s ash becomes the foundation of all life – the ultimate recycling process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Baptist_van_Helmont
I recall reading this as a kid in Hawaii in the 1950s when I was trying to understand how Hawaiian flora and fauna could exist in such abundance on old lava flows – essentially the sterile regurgitation of stone and gas and steam from the bowels of the earth. What I learned was the answer to “how could it not?”.
Massive banana tress grew in my storm drain. Solid concrete, all they had to grow was water until the roots broke through, even then there was just about zero nutrients in the rubble underneath, yet they flourished and fruited.
I see “sustainable” as being their next “hot issue” and needs rational debate and science now. 90% of so called rubbish/waster problems can be simply fixed by implementing a “no rubbish left behind” policy. Think about it.
Please , how do we get rid of the Norse sub titles ?
Really annoying
I’m pleased to see that you can divorce politics from the divisive rhetoric surrounding the CAGW issue. I’m sure you’d be surprised, but there are a whole lot more “tree hugger” types that are right of center than you could possibly suspect. Or did you think CAGW was the ONLY thing the media was lying to you about?
You’re absolutely right, and I’ve posted to that affect here often. The CAGW farce will wreak havoc on true environmentalism. Once the hoax is well and truly exposed (and it will be), there will be a backlash. In a parallel to “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”, some genuine environmental issue will be ignored because they’ve lied to us so many times before and with such grave consequences.
As were many of those Topher interviewed, I too was a firm believer in the global warming scam. It took me a while and some careful study to finally call into question the “accepted wisdom” being fed to us. I’m pleased to see you’ve made that same journey. You’re well placed to quietly spread word through your own peer group that they might want to look into this issue a little more closely than they have been so they can avoid looking like fools down the road. As Dr. Singer suggested, it’s good to be a sceptic – just don’t be an ~early~ sceptic. We’re past that point now.
Eccellent. Using their own numbers. Hoisted none-the-less on their own debunked pertard.
Of course the entrenched warmista will not be swayed. However. I’m sure the target audience are the fence-sitters. They’re just waiting for some sensible succinct information: one would think. Some info just like this.
How to get everyone to see it though?
Bryan S says:
September 2, 2013 at 12:02 am
“… but I’m a liberal late 20s Obamaniac who despises the GOP and almost everything they represent. ”
Sir, sometimes it’s good to remind ourselves that the largest political party in the United States
is ” No Party Affiliation”
I don’t want to toot my horn either, but I wear that badge proudly
(I’m best described Libertarian)
Cheers.
Great Job, Anthony! Marc Morano was his usual entertaining self although that man could speak in an Olympic event for his country! Joanne was her usual charming self and Fred Singer was the epitome of wise experience and studied knowledge. My favourite was Donna, though – she was full of humour and wit! Topher does a great, very even-handed interview in each case.
I was one of the funders, so needless to say I’m more than happy with the results.
Anthony-
I think it important this be out on social media, and the twits at Twitter have blocked the site as unsafe even though it is perfectly safe according to Google. Any chance the 50to1.net site could be mirrored as a page in your site so it can be tweeted?
Great interview, Anthony. Looking forward to see the rest.
I am happy I contributed to the project. I realized today how easy you make it for me to direct my contributions. Your knowledge of the players and your scientific integrity guarantee it will go to worthwhile efforts. I wish I could say the same about my taxes.
Thank you.
Bryan S says:
September 2, 2013 at 12:02 am
… I’m a liberal late 20s Obamaniac …
Sorry to hear that but your prognosis is good. Facts are stubborn things. You’ll get better.
… yes, I’ve hugged trees before …
So did I. That’s a risk inherent in the sport and it happened to most of us. Wear a helmet, focus on edge control and look way ahead as you maintain your fall line. Choose tree runs with fresh snow and fewer deep ruts. If tree skiing is what you do most and you can’t avoid hard pack ruts it helps to get dedicated shorter skis, by about 5 cm.
And if a hug becomes unavoidable, avoid the trunks of mature lodgepoles and head for a young spruce.
Just sent emails to my senators and congressman with the link. I also sent it to my Governor (WA) and Seattle Mayor, along with a number of green-industry leaders in the area.
Consider sending it to every building contractor, architect, and engineer you know. Do not provide any negative introductory language, lest it get trashed. (What is being implied could negatively affect their income.)
Bryan S says:
September 2, 2013 at 12:02 am
…I don’t mean to toot my own horn (oh heck, yes I do)… but I’m a liberal late 20s Obamaniac.
+++++++
You sound like a smart and very nice person Bryan. It seems you have a good handle on how to seek truth with respect to climate. I feel very bad for people of your age, who will have the burden of paying for the debt that Obama is bestowing upon the youth. Our tax revenues have not dropped over the past 4 years, but our spending rose greatly. That grotesque spending that raised our national debt from almost 10 Trillion to 17 Trillion in just a little over 4 years, while doing everything possible to quell prosperity will pay negative dividends for a long long time. It is your generation that needs to figure out how we got here and do something about it. We’re counting on you!
Rhetoric, flowery and otherwise, aside, the only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce economic activity worldwide. That is not going to happen. So it remains that the only thing that the taxes/fees do is fuel corruption of the governments involved. Follow the money.
I just finished watching your interview. Clear, concise and precise. A “Thanks” to you and 50 to 1.
Love ya….And thats why i can tell you this….Not worth a sticky.
Re: B.S. at 1:31 (“love” — NOT — I would never say such a thing, of no constructive value, designed only to discourage, to someone I deeply cared about, much less to one I loved…. you don’t know the meaning of the word, THAT is obvious).
“When kicked by a jackass, consider the source.”
You have a gift, Anthony, of being able to present in a clear manner – something that not many of those prominent in the “global warming” debate (on either side) possess.
Brian says:
September 2, 2013 at 5:42 am
…
So how do we get past the stigma of 3 horrible disasters in nuclear history, 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and of course recently Fukishima. …
The first thing to do is to quit using words like “horrible.” The only one of the three that even stacks up as “bad” is Chernobyl. At Three Mile Island everything worked. The fail-safe system failed properly and the total local radiation was about what you would get moving to Colorado. Similarly, Fukushima, while designed with the typical Japanese penurious approach to using space, still doesn’t approach “bad.” Radiation releases were trivial in comparison with Chernobyl. Even the current episode is of negligible importance and could be thoroughly mitigated by serious dilution. The worst aspect of Fukushima is that the “ooh scary” quality of “nuclear” accidents overshadowed the real disaster and enormous tragedy of the earthquake and tidal wave. Letting that happen is criminal.
The rationale that Topher uses to argue his 50:1 claim appears to be flawed. Here is a good analysis from Skeptics.com
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17584/is-the-cost-of-preventing-climate-change-50-times-higher-than-the-cost-of-adapti
First, thank you Jannis !
Now to my other point.
I reviewed all of the video interviews and I offer this for those who probably did not get a chance to view them.
It is imerative to follow the logic.
Joanne, Dennis, Marc, David, Christopher, Anthony, great job and powerful stuff from all of you! Thank you! .
The IPCC writes the data used for policy, no? How do they do?
Pay attention and read the book ..
Have any of you actually read this? It is quite important in creating policy on a global scale as the IPCC arm of the UN makes happen. It is the CO2 vehicle manufacturer in the ehd.
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=23&menu=35
Now, pay attention to this information and assess the economics of such from one perspecitve of understanding. Quite simple in the end.
Think aboiut it!
Boil it down.
Oh dear! Even with the preview option (which somehow did not appear on this old PC), I failed the spelling test. Mod’s help,,, Please add Fred too !
Be well all, and remember, you decide in the end. Did you?
Adrian says:
September 3, 2013 at 8:30 pm
The rationale that Topher uses to argue his 50:1 claim appears to be flawed. Here is a good analysis from Skeptics.com
=============================
It seems that the math ability of that site is challenged at best… LOL
They are trying but they are failing miserably…
OssQss! Did you have a happy birthday? I tried to greet you above (9/2 at 6:36pm). Hope you had a good day, yesterday. Take care.