Friday, September 27, 2013

IPCC Report Highlights - Summary for Policymakers

The first of the long awaited IPCC's Fifth Assessment Reports (AR5) has been released today.  It's from the IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) and focuses on the scientific basis of climate change and contains 14 chapters plus a lot of supplementary material.

In this post I will reprint highlights from the IPCC Working Group 1 report 
"Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis"

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Climate Change Deniers Owe Us A (scientific) Explanation - a "REPOST"

This morning I came across this article by Graham Wayne, hot off the press as they say.  
To me it seems speak directly to the obstacles being erected between the public and grasping the important scientific issues of the Global Warming argument.  

It's ironic coming on the heals of my delving into the contrast between Professor Tsonis's public utterances and the substance of his scientific work (the two are definitely not the same) - also, considering that it revolves around the Dana Nuccitelli article I added to my previous post I've decided to reprint Wayne's entire essay under the permission of Graham Wayne's website's Creative Commons license and with special thanks to Graham Wayne.  {I have added some highlights}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Why climate change deniers owe us a (scientific) explanation
SEPTEMBER 24, 2013

Monday, September 23, 2013

Prof. Anastasios Tsonis: The Art Of Misdirection (open letter 2)

Last week I wrote an open letter to Professor Tsonis, where he replied with the following

"I am not really sure who you are and what is your profession but it seems you have much more time in your hands to deal with all these issues than I do. You wrote to me and asked me questions. I answered them but obviously you did not understand my replies and asked more questions. I replied to your new request that I cannot continue an exchange of answers and questions for ever. I am dealing with a lot of people and I have a job to attend to. Now if you see this as an evasive action then you need to set back and relax.
All the best
Professor Anastasios Tsonis
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In reply I would say,
Professor Tsonis, it doesn't matter who I am, nor how much or little time I have at my disposal.

Furthermore professor, you most certainly did not answer my questions - instead you repeated the same old evasions and misdirection.

Thing is, a google search shows that you have been very active in trying to present a science fiction story that Earth as a planet has entered a cooling phase.

Your message flies in the face of known geophysical facts regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming.  It is in fact nothing more that a politically motivated attack on science and attempt to misinform and dumb down the public, when solid information is what they/we need the most. 

And it is about time you are taken to task for your misrepresentations.


After my post a Steven B came to your defense in a sort of backhanded way, he wrote:

"It would be informative for you to have a look at Tsonis' own research (with various colleagues) pertinent to the discussion. He argues that he has identified a long-term cycle in the climate system (basically a periodic synching and unsynching of known shorter-term ocean cycles like ENSO) that would mean that we're in a hiatus that will last several decades.  
After that, there will be a price to pay as the warm part of the cycle combines with the inexorably increasing radiative imbalance to create a sharp warming spike. Then lather, rinse, repeat. ..."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

OK, so Steven does make a good suggestion and we should look at some of your papers.

My complaint with you is that your often repeated public pronouncements (as opposed to your studies) are taken to mean that society doesn't have to worry about AGW and that our leaders and public should instead continue on with a business as usual attitude as though we don't have a critical situation demanding our immediate attention and action. 

Following your papers and my comments.   
I am including a 'Repost' of's recent article:
Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking

Admittedly, Akasofu's paper takes a different tack - Akasofu uses fancy statistical gamesmanship to rationalize that the current warming is merely a remnant of our planet "recovering" from the Little Ice Age.  But, it is also another example of creative science in a vacuum, where a limited number of considerations allow a disingenuous presenter to make unsupportable claims about the state of our climate.
The reason I'm reposting the Nuccitelli et al. (2013) article is because it spells out scientific clarifications that have a direct bearing on the issues you have learned to distortion and evade so well.

Friday, September 20, 2013

Open letter to Professor Anastasios Tsonis: Are you serious?

{I'm just a working guy and writing is a hobby so to speak, so please excuse the rough edges. 
But some of these issues and deceptive practices need to be exposed.
As for the writing I hope this evening's edits have helped a bit.   9/20/2013}
Also see  Prof. Anastasios Tsonis: The Art Of Misdirection (open letter 2)
Professor Anastasios Tsonis replies plus comments (open letter 3)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I would like to share the following open letter.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis,

We have exchanged a few emails and I must say I am very disappointed by your evasion.  A couple fundamental questions regarding the general scientific understanding of Earth's geophysical processes and you turn silent as a salt pillar.  

While our email exchange has taught me nothing about global warming, it has given me another insight into the perplexing mind of your typical denialist type.

It all started with a pal waiving a quote of yours in my face: "We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped."

When I investigated I discovered that you were considered a distinguished professor in your field.  That's when I decided to write you and ask about the statement.  In truth, I was expecting a bit of explanation that would reveal that your words were taken out of context and that they did not actually mean you believed our planet's warming trend had reversed itself.

Just in case I was wrong, I included these questions:

          "Weren't the 2000s the warmest decade on record?"

          "Where does that claim leave the matter of 'greenhouse gases' and the imbalance in Earth's radiative budget?"

          "What about the heat that is being absorbed by the oceans?"
~ ~ ~ 

To my surprise you acknowledged the quote and it's implication that greenhouse gas driven global warming had actually stopped and reversed itself.

To my first question, you suggested the top of the mountain is always the highest point and that it means nothing, since we are now going down the other side.  - Sort of weird logic... if the warming of the 80s, 90s stopped - how can the 2000s be warmer than the "top of the mountain" 90s?  {Sounds like a variation on that denier's optical illusion know as the "global temperature escalator" }

You altogether ignored the question regarding our planet's radiation budget imbalance: "I don't have a comment on this. It's an open question"

To the third question, about the increasing heat being stored in the oceans, you reply "it is another argument without solid proof."  

I guess here we can go into a philosophical discussion regarding "solid proof".  I mean, it can be argued that there is no "solid proof" the sun will rise tomorrow morning, either.  

In my email, I politely asked for a more detailed response, you said you were too busy to answer any such questions.  But, that doesn't seem to be stopping you from going around making claims that can only be interpreted as denying the basics of well known GHG geophysical facts!  You compound the impression of deceit by denying ARGO deep ocean observations.  Not to mention that you are ignoring our planet's cryosphere observations.

HOW can you justify ignoring such huge chunks of fundamental evidence and understanding?

Sunday, September 15, 2013

David Rose's latest myths courtesy of UK's "Mail"

I made a mistake in labeling Rupert Murdoch as owner of the Daily Mail and Sunday Mail.  It is the Rothermere clan that owns the Mail.  Although, their pedigree is as frightening as it gets - and it's no wonder they feel so comfortable misrepresenting serious science:

It appears David Rose is at it again.  Here Peter Hadfield summarizes  the latest in a four minute video.  Following that I link to a few articles that detail the reporter's many recent deceptions.  It goes back to something I was complaining about in my previous post - the more overwhelmingly clear the science and Earth observations get, the more extreme and outlandish denialists claims are becoming.
David Rose's latest myth from the Mail on Sunday: Arctic ice has returned

Published by potholer54 on Sep 13, 2013 

Australian MP Dennis Jensen trusts Lord Monckton. Why would that be?

I came across the following article from the Australian news source
"The Age - Federal Politics"

"Climate sceptic MP Dennis Jensen wants to be science minister"
by Jonathan Swan  -  9/12/2013
Coalition MP Dennis Jensen, who is a vocal climate science sceptic, has called on Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott to appoint him as science minister... 
"In the climate area there is appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, neither of which is scientific at all," Dr Jensen told Fairfax Media on Thursday... 
{In truth, it's down to Earth evidence that's driving the scientific understanding.} 
The colourful Englishman, Lord Christopher Monckton, who toured Australia to debunk the "bogus science" of global warming, was closer to the mark, Dr Jensen suggested.
"Most of the stuff [Lord Monckton] says is entirely reasonable," Dr Jensen said.
"Some of it I don't agree with but on the whole a lot of what he says is in my view correct." 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

What I find amazing is that MP Dennis Jensen has no problem with the fact that Lord Monckton is a confirmed serial liar.  Now admittedly Monckton is a first class political performer, but his scientific understanding is superficial and his claims are calculated to mislead.  The Lord's many claims are easily exposed - as has been done by many people, many times over. 

To be clear, Monckton's claims hold no weight in the serious world of grown-up professional climatologists and other Earth scientists.  Why should they hold weight with the leaders of nations?

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Considering Topher's "50 to 1 Project" #A

Thoughts on Topher Field's performance.

Topher Field's "50 to 1 Project" 
Published on Sep 1, 2013
0:01  -  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 and if it happens.
~ ~ ~

Last week I put together a transcribed copy of Topher Field's introduction video for his "50 to 1 Project" along with some rough notes.  This evening I got back to it and haven't gotten past Topher's first sentence.  It really does say it all and exposes this guy for the con-artist that he is.

To begin with Topher actually suggests perhaps global warming isn't happening: "and if it happens" - oh, pleaze!  

The thing that people like Field want everyone to ignore is that recently our atmosphere's CO2 level topped 400 ppm, a concentration not experienced on Earth in at least 2 million years... of course, for those who have convinced themselves that Earth's story is written in a manmade book that claims our life giving planet is only about 6 thousand years old, this presents a problem - but it's a problem within their individual heads and hearts - not a problem with the physical reality of our Earth.  

As for the geophysical realities of our planet, not only are atmospheric CO2 concentrations higher than they have been in millions of years, but their rate of increase is over a hundred times faster than in the past. 

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Topher Field's "50 to 1 Project"

The latest round in the Global Warming Awareness Wars has been a series of videos by an actor who thinks that with a lot of "cramming" and caffeine drinks, he can pass judgement on people who have a life-time worth of learning, experience and expertise in their various fields.  Ironically, Topher, has no experience with science or economics that I can make out - it seems he has spent his life trying to become an actor and break into show business.

In any event, Topher has been peddling his politically provocative videos for a number of years but now he has stepped into the Big Top, joining forces with super-stars such as Sir Lord Monckton and Mr. A Watts plus other luminaries of the climate science denial community.

Friday, September 6, 2013

WUWTBlog: "50 times more expensive! Don’t make me laugh!"

I've got to run off all day again, but I do have a few minutes to share a most insightful article reviewing some of the "flaws" in Topher Field's "50 to 1 (denial) Project"

I wasn’t going to discuss Topher Field’s 50-to-1 project as the premise is rather ridiculous and I don’t really want to give it any undue publicity. However, it sometimes seems better to at least try and address such things so that those who are uncertain can get an alternative view. I also thought I might add to what Sou – who has recommended that Topher takes the money and runs – has already said.

The basic argument that Topher Fields is making is that it is 50 times more expensive to stop climate change than to simply do nothing now and to then adapt as it when it become necessary. Let me make it clear that this is a ridiculous claim and I will do my best to explain why below. Topher claims that everything is based on published work and is fully referenced. I don’t dispute that one can find sources for all the numbers that he uses. The problem is how they’re combined to give the answer that he is presenting. I should make it clear that the initial calculation was done by Christopher Monckton and not by Topher Fields.

The basic calculation is as follows.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

The Lord Christopher Monckton Files - an index

I was looking at the actor Topher's "50 to 1 Project's" "supporting data" - it is a single sheet titled  "Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective?" and it was composed by none other than the infamous Lord Christopher Monckton.  

Some fancy terms, lot of numbers tossed out so that the uneducated is expected to be impressed and accept it's veracity, simply because it looks so impressive.  {like that "Oregon Petition" thing}

Thing is, it looks like something a con-man would offer up to convince the gullible to part with their money: "I figured it all out, look at my numbers, we can't go wrong, trust me, now give your cash already!"

As it happens, exactly three years ago I was giving Christopher Monckton's claims a lot of attention.  In fact, we even had a short lived email correspondence going, which lead to a whole series of further emails that I posted at my citizenschallenge.blogspot.

Considering Christopher Monckton seems to be Topher's Braintrust for his 50 to 1 project  - these links to reviews of this scoundrel and serial liar is in order.  Admittedly, I'm no professional writer and these posts were written three years ago, so expect some untidiness, still the information within is sound and supported by links to authoritative sources.  I've also added a few videos.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

The Lord Christopher Monckton Files - an index

Who Is Lord Christopher Monckton?

The Donna LaFramboise Files... an index

Being semi-retired means I need to semi-work and today will be yet another work day and I won't be able to focus on the most recent assault on science and sanity, namely that "50 to 1 Project."  However, I did receive an email from an old classmate of Donna LaFramboise and it has inspired me to post this.  The writer is perplexed by Donna's extreme {and I dare say shallow} attacks on working scientists.  And since Donna is one of the prominent  "experts" featured in the '50 to 1' videos, I figure it would be timely.

The email also got me to thinking, that besides sharing a quote - I should take a few minutes to put together an index of past Donna LaFramboise posts.  

Quoting a portion of an email from someone who prefers to remain anonymous - but who did want to share the following observations:

"With reference to Donna Laframboise, what are her credentials really?   
She has an undergraduate degree from the University of Toronto in Women's Studies. But has she ever held down a full-time job? Credentials usually mean listing employment, but she's never listed a job as part of hers.   
And that's because she's never had a job, apart from writing a weekly column, for about a year, for the Canadian newspaper, the National Post. Her husband's income is such that he supports them both.   
There's nothing wrong with that, but it is still ironic that she is assailing others for their credentials when hers are flimsier than most."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
INDEX of posts regarding Donna LaFramboise's brand of 'crazy-making'.

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}