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
Proud to be a small contributor to this effort; great job all who were involved! Anthony, thanks for all you do to promote the truth!
Bill H
The guy at that site (skeptics.com) also seems to lack listening skills just like others who have made negative comments on the video. I don’t know how Topher could have made it simpler or explained his position more clearly.
Having watched all the videos, I am so impressed with Topher’s style and control and his beautiful interviewing method. The whole set deserves to go viral on the internet. It is a beautiful expose of the whole awful un-scientific scam.
@ur momisuglycolorado ” head for the young spruce” made laugh as hard as I have some time,thanks ( I “visualize” honestly, now you gave me a gut ache, but a nice healthy one ) and @ur momisugly Janice M let it go it aint worth it. LOL
forgot what a great interview of a well rounded human being , thanks AW..
Reblogged this on Cornwall Wind Watch and commented:
Great stuff, the cost of trying to stop climate change vs adaption. The shear arrogance that some of these politicians think they can control climate is amazing! Keep it up WUWT and all others fighting the good fight, the truth will out no matter how hard the likes of the BBC tries to hide it.
Hey, OssQss — your reply was in moderation (you invoked the name of A-th-y :)) when I wrote just above. Glad you saw my greeting. You’re welcome!
*********************
@Tobias — Huh? Not holding onto anything (that I know of, anyway!). Thanks, though, for your concern for my holding onto something that I should not be.
Nobody else bothered to fisk this miserable thing, so I did. I find that Topher Field’s analysis is off by a factor of 20,000 . http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-wrongest-denial-ever.html
mtobis (@mtobis):
re your assertion at September 13, 2013 at 1:20 pm.
If you have a case then state it.
If you did have a case then you would not need to set people homework.
And asking us to go to your web site implies you don’t have one.
Richard
The case is too long for a blog comment. There are six errors that contribute directly to the 20000-fold error plus several others that are thrown in as distractions.
Among the errors I find are that 1) the *total* cost for mitigation is compared to the *annual* cost of no-mitigation, and 2) the benefit of ten years of mitigation is only evaluated at the end of the ten years, not in the long run improvement. These errors alone account for a factor of fifty.
mtobis (@mtobis):
Thankyou for answering my post at September 13, 2013 at 1:36 pm with your post at September 14, 2013 at 12:07 pm. Your answer says
I understand that answer to say you don’t have a case with any merit.
I anticipated a copy of the Abstract of your paper because that may have encouraged me to read the paper. But your reply was the pathetic reply I have quoted.
Your answer says you have found “six errors that contribute directly to the 20000-fold” but you only state two.
Why state only two? Why not state all six?
And why state two which – you say – are relatively trivial?
You say that together they only provide a factor of 50, but you claim the total error is a factor of 20000. Those four other direct and “several other” indirect asserted errors must be BIG if your assertion is true.
Furthermore, you make a ridiculous claim when you say the “several other errors” are thrown in as distractions”. Nobody would “throw in” errors as “distractions”. That would be a hostage to fortune.
Anyway, “distractions” from what and why?
And how many of these “several other” distracting errors do you claim exist?
Your inability to count them does not suggest your analysis is worthy.
Frankly, anyone who presents that justification of an apparently absurd assertion needs to be ignored. Your answer certainly does not convince me I should bother reading your “analysis”. On the basis of your answer it seems my time would be more productively spent watching paint dry.
Richard
Adrian says:
September 3, 2013 at 8:30 pm
That is the most confused, least informative, most convoluted combination of words I can recall ever reading. If that is economics reasoning by modern economists, no wonder modern governments fail their economic policies, tax policies, and energy policies.
The root failure is the assumptions of future costs of NO growth and limited energy futures for ALL compared to the LACK OF BENEFITS caused BY the CAGW requirements and assumptions, assumptions of the current – and continuing! – costs of mitigation in the futile attempt to limit NATURAL temperature increase, and the utter failure of assuming that limiting CO2 will limit temperature increase. If the temperature continues to increase at all.
That is: First, if the current temperature is NOT caused by an increase in man-released CO2, then ALL costs (failure to permit growth, costs and penalties of killing present and future human potential, and limiting current growth) are a penalty of CAGW dogma.
Thus, the cost-to-benefit ratio is 1.3 trillion per year/”zero” times 100 years. For the US alone.
Second, if man-released CO2 abatement and containment and disposal does NOT influence the growth of CO2, then it does not matter if CO2 affects temperature anyway. So, again, a near-infinite cost-to-benefit ratio. This would happen if, for example, man-released CO2 were only 4% of total CO2 change. Then, at best, total limits of all man-released CO2 would not affect anything more than 4% of whatever temperature change might have happened. And, of course, right now, temperature is not increasing anyway, so it is impossible to claim that temperature increases are going to happen in the future.
Next, why can they claim that there will be no advantages to either an increase in CO2 OR an increase in temperature? How have they run their claim of economic balances to pretend that 100 years of guaranteed and known and absolute better tree and plant and feed and fodder and food growth is out-balanced by a “perhaps” benefit of mitigation (which is trivial!) but which WILL cost a tremendous amount? (This ignores the COSTS of the CAGW dogma outlined above. )
All of the CAGW dogma cost-benefit statements are based on ASSUMED costs of CO2 increasing, ASSUMED costs of temperature increasing, ASSUMED costs of requiring CO2 abatement and mitigation, ASSUMED benefits of mitigation. And in ASSUMED “benefits” of both mitigating CO2 or even attempting to limit natural temperature increases. None of the realistic and extremely high world-wide COSTS of trying (futilely!) to limit temperature increases have been included.
An earlier writer tried to make the comparison of CO2 mitigation to an insurance policy. If so, the cost of that insurance policy for a $250,000.00 home is 1,250,000.00 per year, and that policy will only pay if the house is burned by an exploding water heater during a blizzard after the roof has been blown off a hurricane in Montana.
Also,