Monday, September 2, 2013

Hmmm, The 50 to 1 Project - are they serious?

Hello, this is just a working draft and I'm putting it out tonight because I need to work tomorrow and it may be a while before I can come back to it.  Rough though it may be, I still want to toss these thoughts into the conversation, hoping someone might find something interesting in them.  
{Many people should be blogging and complaining about this sort of fraud that borders on down right criminal deception.  
You know: "you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own manufactured facts.}

This latest is about a just released series of videos 50 to 1 Project.  So far I've only listened to the introductory 9:30 minute video.  But, it's got plenty to complain about,  here's my first shot and I hope to improve on it soon.

"50 to 1 Project's"  Examining the claims and underlying philosophy.

As for all the claims and math, it's all hand waving,
and those numbers are so easy to manipulate by a smooth operator such as Topher.
I'll try to get some information on the Australian Carbon Trading scheme.

I'll be back  ;- )

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I received a comment on another post, that I think belongs in here since it nails the trick being used in this 50 to 1 denialist PR blitz.

Wotts Up With That Blog has left a new comment on your post "The Lord Christopher Monckton Files - an index":  
"The actual calculation is remarkable and just completely flawed. Yes, they can find a source for every number they've used but that does not mean that they've put these numbers together in a way that makes any form of sense (and it doesn't as you probably know). 
It's things like this that really get me down. I'm quite happy for people to be skeptical about climate science and to be uncertain (or disagree) with what should or should not be done. However when people promote something that is clearly garbage, it really does make me think that some are just trying to mislead and that there is no chance of any kind of honest debate. ..."

Read his excellent article which gives more details:

50 times more expensive! Don’t make me laugh!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Also here are links to where they have been tracking this story: 
Fifty to One Moncktonian Codswallop!
Talking of fruitcake and scumbags, Topher's lying video came out with an apt warning 
My advice to Topher Field - take the money and run!


The 50 to 1 Project
Topher Field
Published on Sep 1, 2013


0:01  -  and what if I could show you that it's fifty times more expensive to try and stop climate change than it is to adapt to climate change as
~ ~ ~
Suggesting we can "stop" climate change reveals that the man doesn't have a conception of what is happening with our planet's 'global heat distribution engine' 

This stuff can't be reduced to a cartoon.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0:09  -  and if it happens 

0:09  -  its 50 to 1 and I'll prove it using data that's accepted by the IPCC provide all my references along the way

0:20  -  and we'll even have time to hear from a few scientists researchers economists and investigative journalists that the mainstream media haven't told you about

0:25  -  You ready - {Oh oh, Topher does reduce this talk into a cute cartoon} 
"carbon tax and emissions trading schemes are supposed to reduce co2 emissions to reduce climate change but despite lots of talk all over the world atmospheric co2 continues to rise"

~ ~ ~ 
CO2 continues to rise precisely because "CO2 trading schemes" have been all talk and no action has been taken.  If people got serious about reducing CO2 it could be done... but it takes more than talk.

Only a mesmerist would try to blame non-existing carbon trading schemes for increasing greenhouse gas levels.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

0:37  -  and the IPCC predict three degrees {roughly 5 and a half F°} Celsius of warming by the end of the century 
~ ~ ~

IPCC's temperature projects cannot be summarized in one sentence -  it's folly to attempt it.  

Why not consider something all of can relate to?
What we do know is that in the past hundred years our global heat distribution engine has gained not quite 1°C and over the past four decades we have seen a marked increase in extreme weather events, and over the past couple decades that trend has brought us face to face with extreme infrastructure damaging events, with their increasing toll in humanitarian misery.

We know that the world's coastal cities and populations are going to be subjected to ever greater ravages from undeniable sea level rise and severe weather events.

We know that the world's farm lands are going to suffer ever more unpredictable torrential rains (erosion) and droughts and extreme heat events, 

We are finding that historical fairly predictable weather patterns are increasingly becoming unreliable indicator of future patterns. 


Will the 50 to 1 Project examine this dark side of climate change?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0:44  -  but never fear Australia is here 
~ ~ ~ 
Here we go, play the juvenile comic sarcasm game... it's as though Topher has no appreciation for the stakes we are gambling with.  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0:48  -  despite a lack of action elsewhere in the world the land down under stepped up in 2012 and introduce the most ambitious and expensive carbon tax anywhere in the world it's been estimated that it kept the co2 emissions by 5 percent which give us try these emissions are 1.2 percent of the global total the scheme would have reduced global co2 emissions by 0.06 percent

1:10  -  what that means is that instead of atmospheric co2 rising to 410 pasqua million by the end of the decade it would rise to a mere 400 9.9 I'd 8 pots committee which isn't a particularly useful number if we calculate the result in cuts a climatic co2 forcing which as you know in this case is 5.3 five times the logarithm a 410 divided by phone at 9.9 iight or 0.0001 six what's per square meter obviously and then multiply that by the 10-year climate sensitivity parameter points 3 of 4 per square meter we finally know how many degrees the Australian captain tax would have saved after 10 years - 0.00005 degrees celsius one 20,000 of a degree 

2:02  -  now the smallest global temperature change we can reliably detect is 1/20's of a degree.  So even if the Australian carbon tax had worked as advertised the temperature change after 10 years would have been one thousand times smaller than what we can measure.

2:17  -  Up to now this is a problem that affects every carbon emissions reduction scheme ever invented.  Mark Morano former journalist and editor of said it best "Because I not a single proposal that they've ever done with any detectable impact on global warming using their science."

2:32  -  So after ten years the Australian tax would changed the global temperature by 1/20 thousands of 1 degree but that's not all that 20,000 of a degree would have come at a cost $260 billion dollars

2:46  -  which means if we theoretically expanded the Australian scheme international and made it big enough to save a full degree of warming t would cost three-point two quadrillion dollars.  For one degree, ouch.

2:55  -  Joanne Nova:  "So how many millions of dollars wasted and people have worked hard to pay their taxes and see the government is pouring down the sink

3:08  -  David Evans  -  "The thing we need to do is look at this is all about money

3:12  -  so how much he's 3.2 quadrillion dollars well a column a 3.2 quadrillion Australian one dollar coins would go from earth around the for this planet in the solar system no clue that we've been through this you not a planet anymore and back again via the Sun with $600 million in loose change and would weigh as much as 72 millions fully laden 747s with 3.2 quadrillion dollars you could spend a million dollars every day for the next eight and a half million years and still be richer than Bill Gates its
a lot of money and although that needs to be spent to save one degree celsius

3:55  -  "you can take so-called action and do all manner of harm and and that of course is not part of the calculation because you have to talk about cost benefits and all directions not just one direction" 
~ ~ ~ 
We OK where are your considerations of the damages that increasingly torrential storms and wind events will play on coastal cities? VIDEO

Why not ask:
How dependent are we on a healthy global agriculture and transportation network?
How dependent is agriculture on predictable and relatively moderate weather events?

Where are your calculations for farm land exposure to increasing, unpredictable and extreme torrential rains and their erosion.


Climate Change and Food Security

Have you calculated in the cost of shut downs to nuclear power plants because of over heated cooling water or insufficient cooling water? 

How about subways and sub-surface utilities in coastal cities throughout the world, have you calculated their cost when the next cyclone driven storm surge floods them with salt water?

Are you folks aware of the recent World Bank report?

When I hear this sort of arm waving I can't help but think these people have no conception of how complex, interdependent, if not fragile, and certainly vulnerable all our modern marvels actually are, before the implacable might of natural forces during the extreme event's that are going to be increasing - simple physics: warmer weather and the global heat distribution machine will increase it's performance. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4:11  -  let's bring this back to earth shall we predicted global warming for the next decade is .17 the moment agree just to stop that point 17 we could be dispensed
540 trillion dollars that's seventy-seven thousand dollars for every man woman or child on us its eighty percent of the entire world's GDP.  That means effectively that we would have to cap average economic activity and therefore the average standard of living to one fifth of what it is worldwide just to ensure that it doesn't get a little bit warmer this decade. 

~ ~ ~
Do people really buy such juvenile games?

The Australian "CO2 trading schemes" is a tiny start at something that needs to happen, that something is to reduce the amount of CO2 we are putting into the air.

At some point society will radically decrease it's CO2 injections -
The question is will we do it easy or will we do it hard.  

Rather than dreaming all the ways to ignore the reality out there - we should be putting our heads together to improve on Australia's pioneering, if feeble, first attempt.

We know that the longer we ignore this problem, the worse it's going to be for our younger children's generation.

So we got two schools of thought going here
A)  It's too late to do anything - so let's ignore the problem
B)  We got a problem and let's work together to figure out ways to address the need for mitigation.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4:47  -  surely there are better things to do with that money.  "We could have improved their lives we could improve the lives of others in countless ways with that sign money and effort and here we are wasting it"

4:54  -  "the greatest thing you can have for rising seas for extreme weather for hurricanes and storms and tsunami is well of wealth to invest in infrastructure wealth to invest in dams wealth to invest and all sorts invest or mitigation efforts and that is what they're denying the developing world." 
~ ~ ~ 
And the sheople eat this stuff up, or what?
Look at the real world out there... the big money is going to weapons and war
and to financial instruments for the wealthy to make more wealth and the luxury industry.

If any of these altruistic professions were real, these folks would be admitting that the science of global warming is real and solid.  You know, what the full-time experts tell us is true and it means the warming is arriving and life is going to get tougher.

It's time to tuck away our ideological games and our ego driven hubris and get down to this serious business of confronting the future that is barreling down on us. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5:12  -  So stopping climate change using the carbon taxes and trading schemes will cost about eighty percent of global GDP but that's only half the equation.  Remember I said that I would show that it's 50 times more expensive to try and stop climate change
that it is to adapt to it as and if it happens 

~ ~ ~ 
This is one of the uglier tricks in this introduction.  Dancing out the possibility that global warming isn't even happening.  It's down right criminal to ignore the amount of evidence that has been accumulated regarding the basic facts of our human driven warming of our one and only Earth.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5:25  -  well what is the cost of adapting to climate change many people say that carbon taxes and trading schemes are like taking an insurance policy it's worth spending the money just in case, right.  Better safe than sorry we need to know what climate change might cost us if we don't stop it.   thankfully we have the answer in the 2006 Stern report on climate economics it concludes that if the planet warms by three degrees this century it would cause damage 0 to 3 percent of GDP.  So climate change will cost us roughly 1.5 percent of global GDP if we simply adapt to it as required. Or eighty percent of GDP if we try and stop it.  

6:10  -  50 to 1 that sounds like a bad deal to me.  "This idea that we should do it because its insurance that comes up all the time is just crazy if you had a fifty thousand dollar car and someone said the insurance for it for he was gonna cost you fifty thousand dollars you would barking mad to say yes please"   "Would you buy an insurance policy in your home that was cost more than the house is work and they would pay out nothing if your house burned down that's the snake-oil selling they are selling us.

~ ~ ~
The big lie here is that - it's not like insurance.

It's like:  Dude, we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere, physics tells us it will cause dangerous warming - we need to do anything and everything possible to slow the rate of CO2 injections into our atmosphere.

Insurance doesn't have a thing to do with it  -  consideration for the world we leave behind and our future generations has everything to do with it.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6:40  -  Australian cabin tax in its original form set the highest price per ton of co2
anywhere in the world by a long shot but even then the price wasn't high enough to make a measurable difference to the temperature now after only a year this last happened twice reduce the cost to this game but cutting the price makes the scheme even less effective so the cost-benefit ratio remains immeasurable."

7:05  -  "all that means is a tremendous waste not only of effort but of money and resources it is not addressing the right problems." 
~ ~ ~
So says the tobacco advocate, scientist for hire?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7:15  -  "We're smart we're ingenious we are creative and we will solve the problems that come our way and so were our children and grandchildren."
~ ~ ~
Oh dear, can we add anymore patriot melodrama to this? - it sounds more like a line from a Disney movie than a look at what's going on in our world.  

If we are so smart at solving problems, why don't we tackle our society created, fuel burning, greenhouse gas produce life line that we have.  Instead of pretending there is no problem.

She talks of problem solving but wants people to ignore the problem.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7:23  -  the numbers don't lie this so-called insurance if the Australian carbon scheme
was fifty times more expensive than the cost of adapting to climate change
as and if it happens 50 to 1 and the revised Australian scheme as well as the European emissions trading scheme the now-defunct Chicago scheme and any other schemes are politicians might dream up in the future will all suffer the same basic flaw if they are expensive enough to be effective by asking to be affordable,  and if they're affordable they aren't going to be effective so what should we do

~ ~ ~
Throughout Topher is basically pretending that greenhouse gases are not a problem.

Considering the consequences we are talking about that is either a nasty mesmerists delusion or a fraud's criminal act.

It's not about insurance, it's not about us having any choice.
Haven't we done enough?
Haven't we delayed and willfully ignored enough genuinly honorable and honest and hard working scientists from every field of Earth Sciences.

Rather than listening to professionals parade of spinmeisters in this 50/1 Production,
why not look at the serious evidence

That's the sad part, it's all been said, but if people refuse to look at the evidence they'll never know
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
7:55  -  I just think we don't need to be so worried and just take a pragmatic approach to increasing efficiency improving our energy production and going down different pathways for energy production and we'll get to where people say we should be without having to tax people and without having to change our lifestyles.

~ ~ ~
Come on now,  more Hollywood thinking and that notion that we are in control.
You really think it's that simple?
To me it sounds like: 'if you wish it hard enough - it's gotta be?"

OK... we do control What We Do.
But we can't control the geophysical reaction of the planet's atmosphere

What we aren't in control - what Topher's friends ignore:
our global infrastructure is extremely complex and more vulnerable than we dare think.

There is no option here.

The less we act, the rougher it's going to make the lives of those young kids you see running around these days.  The full spectrum of Earth observation evidence and scientific understanding are clear on that. 

There are no serious scientific counter argument, thus the powers that be have unleashed this monstrosity of a deception focused on tossing a bunch a numbers and claims around.  Then they base their "facts" on the claims of the infamous Lord Monckton serial liar extraordinaire.  

You folks are just trying to weasel out of your moral responsibilities - it's seems like personal immediate finances is your real collective interest.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

in anegative way pretending we can't stop climate change is a waste of time money and opportunity and may actually be doing more harm than good you can see the mass behind the fifty to one project as well as extended nterviews with all the people you see in this video at fifty to one dot net my name's Tozer
8:32and these is the fifty to one project stop being afraid
8:36I think that's the most important single most important thing
8:40stop being afraid start thinking on

{I'll be back}


Earthling said...

The 50 to 1 Project seems accurate to me.
Reducing an already minuscule amount of atmospheric CO2 to slow warming that's already stopped might just be a complete and utter waste of money that could be put to much better use.

citizenschallenge said...

Earthling, your comment about the "minuscule" amount of atmospheric CO2 reveals a profound ignorance about Greenhouse gases in particular and also biological functions in general.

"Minuscule" amounts of elements and chemicals play essential key rolls in all sorts of processes - but then you would have to have some genuine curiosity and desire to LEARN to find out about that stuff.

In short, dear Earthling you speak from ignorance -
tragic part is you seem proud to embrace willfully ignoring the evidence at hand.

Get an education:

SourceCheck said...

It might seem accurate at first glance (they sure do their best to make a comprehensible and convincing story). However, a source check tells a whole different story.

The Stern Report from 2006 actually states that the estimated costs for dealing with the damage of climate change of '1.5% GDP' is old and was too optimistic (page ix of the Executive Summary). It currently predicts costs between 5 and 20%, more likely on the upper than lower side (page x & xi). This would change the project's tagline to The 5:1 Project.

However, the Stern Report also thoroughly calculated the costs of intervening and predict it around 1% GDP (page xiii). So according to the report, we would end up with '1:15 Project' in which letting everything play out costs 5-20% more than intervening now. It actually suggests we should intervene as this is most likely the cheapest option. Quote on page x/xi:

Much (but not all) of the risk can be reduced through a strong mitigation policy, and we argue that this can be achieved at a far lower cost than those calculated for the impacts. In this sense, mitigation is a highly productive investment.

The reason that this report comes to a different conclusion than the 50:1 Project, is because the project only looks at the costs of the Australian carbon tax. Perhaps that tax is indeed not a cost effective measure, but there are many more measures that can be taken which are neglected in 'the project' but included in the Stern Report's calculation.