Climate Change: The 50 to 1 Video Project
A video-based activist in Australia has started a new project reviewing the costs and benefits of the carbon credit schemes popping up around the world. Since he’s from Oz, a country that implemented a carbon tax in July 2012, Topher Field takes a look at the cost of the program as compared to the benefits in his home country.
Climate change and “global warming science” is seriously complicated. We all understand we should not be waisting energy and we should use land in a way that is sustainable. Heck, the Christmas tree farms figured that out decades ago. What’s hard to understand is the global scale of all of this. Personally, I think it is the definition of arrogance to think humans can reverse climate trends on a global scale. To put faith in Al Gore’s climate predictions 10, 20 or 50 years from now is incomprehensible. They can’t tell us what the weather will be a week from now for goodness sakes.
And yes, there is a huge difference between weather and climate. Weather in no-way an indication of climate change. Back to Topher Field, who finds it would be 50 times more expensive to try and stop global warming/climate change than it would be to make changes and adapt to the higher or lower temperatures if it happens. Hence, The 50 to 1 Video Project and it’s introductory segment.
Field uses numbers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the group the climate change warriors love and support – to prove his case. I’m going to warn you in advance, math is involved. Science is involved. Data is involved. What you won’t find here is emotion, the primary fuel the climate change warriors feed off of.
Watch the video. If you like math, work the numbers yourself. Unlike Al Gore, Field actually backs up his theory with numbers, dollar amounts and results. Visit The 50 to 1 Video Project and watch the other interviews and review the math.
Fields writes in American Thinker.
If you assume the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are right about everything and use only their numbers in the calculation, you will arrive at the conclusion that we should do nothing about climate change! Yes you read that right.
In fact, careful modelling (there’s that word again) shows that we are 50 times better off waiting and adapting to climate change as it happens (assuming it happens) than we are taking action now, using their numbers!
We know this because we can compare the cost to benefit ratio of the Australian Carbon Reduction Scheme (cost vs. carbon emissions reduced) to the cost of climate change as calculated in the Stern report, which is accepted as authoritative by the IPCC.
I shan’t bore you with the details, but the end result is that the Australian Carbon Reduction Scheme would cost 80% of GDP if it were expanded worldwide to the point that global warming were to be halted entirely, (remember we are accepting the IPCCs figures for the purposes of this calculation) but climate change itself will cost between 0 % and 3% of GDP in a ‘business as usual’ scenario leading to 3deg C of warming this century. (3deg is the IPCCs central estimate, and the Stern Report into Climate Economics which is accepted by the IPCC predicts the 0% – 3% of GDP figure, for that 3deg estimate)
It’s a ratio of approximately 50 to 1. It’s 50 times more expensive to try and stop climate change than it is to adapt to it as and if it happens.
5 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
“Climate change” is a convenient way for politicians to gain power under the cover of “saving the world”.? Politicians control the money that funds climate research, so the research is “inspired” to go their way (if you want to be funded/refunded).? You say what they want to hear (and this is not limited to climate science, btw).?? Scientists that should know better fall for this contrivance.
?
I invite you to read an analogous article in the WSJ, titled “No need to worry about global warming; there is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.”? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
?
The Watts up with that blog is especially enlightening as is Marc Morano’s “Climate Depot” (www.climatedepot.com).
?
Remember: science is based on “heresy”, or contesting the orthodoxy.
This won’t get any play of attention here as it goes counter to the Obama regime’s declared interest and “investment” in green ideologies and the environmentalists.
The 50 to 1 project points out an uncomfortable truth. All of the hysteria about climate change and global warming is really a mechanism for massive transfers of public wealth to individuals. Another way of saying cronyism.
When the US signed onto the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992, (Agenda 21) the fix was in for public monies to be routed to all forms of “climate friendly” schemes. Carbon credits and greenhouse gas emissions are only two of the scams.
Unless you want to live in a mud hut and cook over a dung fire, the greenies are going to have their hand out for you to pay for your advanced way of life. As 50 to 1 points out, little that is proposed of being done today will alter global climate change.
Here’s a question: What if the earth cools — regardless of burning fossil fuels — or the…
temperature stays the same. How will the environmentalist whackos turn that to their financial advantage?
People used to believe the earth was the center of the universe, they were wrong, but they didn’t raise money to try to change it.
As a matter of fact, it’s surprising that the elite have not brought back the rack to torture us to believe in climate change.