Fundraiser video for "50 to 1" climate change project

From Watts Up With That Help Launch Climate Skeptic Film Project: 50 to 1
"50-to-1 has the potential to shift the climate debate for good!"

Watch the video to see how:



Contribute and read more about it at link below

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/50-to-1-project-the-true-cost-of-action-on-climate-change:

"What if we could show you that trying to 'stop' climate change is 50 times more expensive than adapting to it?

And what if we could prove it using numbers and formulas accepted by the IPCC, CRU and other 'consensus' bodies?

Well that's exactly what 50-to-1 does.

The original calculations were done by Lord Christopher Monckton who has since presented his conclusions to audiences of scientists, economists and mathematicians all over the world. You can see the calculations and a FULL LIST OF SOURCES here: 50 to 1 calculations and sources
Lord Monckton has now approached me to take the above and present it in a video and web package suitable for mass consumption on the internet. If we can successfully help the general public to understand the futility of 'stopping' climate change and the relative value of adapting, then we can stop wasting money on useless schemes and start putting our money where it will ACTUALLY make a difference.

The 50 to 1 project is designed to get this message to the general public in three different, complimentary ways."

"This project is being administrated by the Lord Monckton Foundation. www.lordmoncktonfoundation.com"

Unlikely to exercise any influence on future climate

Open letter to head of UN today in the Financial Post from group of scientists.

"Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused"

Hattip Watts Up With That :

"November 29, 2012

Mr. Secretary-General:

On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”

On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”
 
The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”

We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions. " ...

... "Based upon these considerations, we ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not. We also ask that you acknowledge that policy actions by the U.N., or by the signatory nations to the UNFCCC, that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to exercise any significant influence on future climate. Climate policies therefore need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events however caused."
===
SO WILL THE SECRETARY-GENERAL RESPOND?

I seriously doubt it - there is BIG MONEY involved with keeping people fooled about "man made" global warming - TAXES.

Gubmits TAX CITIZENS in guise of 'saving the planet' when all that does is LINE THEIR POCKETS!!

Climate alarmism: cold or hot = same solution?

Zombie at PJMedia  asks "The Coming of the New Ice Age: End of the Global Warming Era?" and has "just finished reading a terrifying new book about climate change. (Zombie) learned:

• Climate change is happening faster than we realize and it will have catastrophic consequences for mankind.
• There’s very little we can do to stop it at this late stage, but we might be able to save ourselves if we immediately take these necessary and drastic steps:

- Increase our reliance on alternative energy sources and stop using so much oil and other carbon-based fuels;
- Adopt energy-efficient practices in all aspects of our lives, however inconvenient;
- Impose punitive taxes on inefficient or polluting activities to discourage them;
- Funnel large sums of money from developed nations like the U.S. to Third World nations;
- In general embrace all environmental causes.

You of course recognize these as the solutions most often recommended to ameliorate the looming crisis of Global Warming. But there’s a little glitch in my narrative. Because although the book I read was indeed about climate change, it wasn’t about Global Warming at all; it was instead about “The Coming of the New Ice Age,” and it isn’t exactly “new” — it was published in 1977.

The Solution Remains the Same

As many other pundits and analysts have pointed out, in the mid-to-late 1970s we endured a massive “climate change scare” that was the exact opposite of the one we’re enduring now. Back then, the media and activists trumpeted the arrival of a new ice age, with the specter of ice sheets and glaciers covering half the northern hemisphere, and brutal winters in the remaining ice-free zones.

The fact that the media and popular culture and academia have veered from one panic-inducing disaster scenario to another one which completely contradicts the first one is funny enough in its own right. But reading The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age opened my eyes to an even more significant aspect of this serial crisis-mongering:

The “solutions” prescribed to solve both Global Warming and the looming Ice Age are exactly the same."

Good points Zombie... funny that...

Climategate 2.0: can another huge storm of truth be ignored by warmists?

a storm of truth in the distance?

Yep, 2 years ago there was Climategate 1.0 - now there are more emails released - with even more damning evidence of the scam (that the very tiny bit of C02 man emits has ANY effect on "global" warming of the planet). Truth seekers are calling it Climategate 2.0. 

Here are a few examples of the liar's emails - which only prove their AGW political-activism-ideology.  (< look! an "ology"!).... Hey, we are the "scientists" with grant money - you must believe us, our "science" is SETTLED - because we (the IPCC and alarmists!) want our money to continue - just so we can spew our ideology! ... Flipping amazing:

<5315> Jenkins/MetO:




would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?


<2423> Lanzante/NOAA:




While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.


<4443> Jones:


Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not got enough middle and low level clouds.

Much more here, here or here to get you started...