What do others think?
That sounds an extremely conservative figure to me, I'd have thought more like 50,000 to 1 at the very least, but I'll watch it and see what I think.
Edit yeah i thought it was low, it's based on 3 degrees of warming and realists know that human induced warming of 3 degrees is fantasy land. If temps didn't rise it would be more like infinity to one.
Edit amazing how some people can slag off the film without watching it, but then again psychic powers are an integral part of agw theory
Considering that the video's "sources and maths" is none other than 'potty peer' Christopher Monckton's fuzzy math and logic, I'd say that there is a high chance that the claims in the video are not only highly misleading but also fundamentally wrong.
In a way it is the deniers' last effort to deny the inevitable: even if AGW is real, it is simply too expensive to do anything about it.
Great question! I don't expect a #1 answer, but there is and always has been compelling evidence against the alarmist attitude on the science of "Climate Change" (Climate Change can both mean a warming of the Planet and a cooling of the Planet. It just depends on what the Planet wants to do).
I'd say it's more like between 1000 to 1 or even 1,000,000,000 to 1!
LOL pegminer! You always claim dishonesty, but words from your own computer say that AGW can cause cooling. The absolute stupidity of that scientific statement is too absurd! I hope that you grow weary of your own hypocrisy.
not likely. it's normally cheaper to prevent then deal with a problem later. It's not what I'd call an unbiased source either. Ask the insurance companies, they'd give you a different answer.
It makes sense, I have always said that cap and trade or carbon tax is a negative action. that will only result in damage to economies, prosperity and our standard of living, if we want to reduce CO2, why not make a positive action like planting a billion trees or preventing desertification.
The same Ad hominem arguments, without even watching the video, I don't think you have a right to comment if you have not watched the video, and those people you object to, played only a minor and unimportant part of the video.
It shows that Pegminer and Big Gryth are close minded zealots, and could not bear to watch anything that could possibly corrupt their religion.
Climate realist. now your talking common sense, I go for anything that reduces waste, but carbon tax is a negative, plus I would like to see more small cars powered by diesel engines rather than gasoline.
Much of what we could do to fight global warming, such as driving smaller cars and insulating our homes would have a negative cost, which would largely cancel out additional costs of using such energy sources as solar power. In addition, just as a 40 inch plasma screen cost $10,000 a few years ago and $500 today, economy of scale will also reduce the cost of solar panels and wind turbines.
That means nothing. If it was possible to accurately make such a calculation - not based on Voodoo - there would be no such thing as econometrics and no need for economists.
Without watching, simply the fact that Joanne Nova is associated with this project makes it BUNK. She is a self proclaimed climate scientist who has had no climate education. She has never even been published in her own field. She is a diehard denier.
Climate change can't be stopped but by collectively reducing our carbon footprint and switching to solar, wind and geothermal sources of energy, we can reduce future effects. We have already emitted enough extra greenhouse gases to fuel climate change beyond 2100
I don't really like watching videos, since the same data can be laid out for in a random access fashion and but videos are necessarily linear (and slow). I did consider watching it, though, until I saw the people associated with it. Joanne Nova has a history of being inaccurate (to say the least) and Fred Singer is clearly dishonest. I've had the pleasure of driving him around, having lunch with him, watching him speak, and I would not trust a word the man says. In the question and answer period following his talk, he ignored every difficult question--pretending that he couldn't hear them. He had no problem hearing questions from his buddies.
I am sure that if you watch the video they vastly underestimate the damages caused by climate change, while at the same time vastly overestimating the costs associating with mitigation. In my state alone it would cost tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to adapt to climate change.
EDIT for Kano and others: It's not close minded to ignore a propaganda film made by known liars. If you knew somebody and you found them to be an unscrupulous liar, would you look to them for a correct analysis of something? If you would, you're incredibly naive. I don't need to waste my time studying something produced by someone that is untrustworthy--maybe your time is worth wasting, but mine isn't.
I've spent several hours of my life with Fred Singer, that's enough, I don't need to waste any more.
EDIT for Zippi62: You claim "words from your own computer say that AGW can cause cooling." That's great how you say that, but don't say what those "words" are. I'm quite sure I've written enough on here that with enough patience you can rearrange my words to say whatever you want, is that what you mean?
Now let's have fun analyzing your claim that
"I'd say it's more like between 1000 to 1 or even 1,000,000,000 to 1!"
Let's take a particular example, suppose global warming causes California to be forced to change its water supply system. Current planned changes are scheduled to cost $25 billion dollars, so it would be extremely conservative to suggest that global warming might cause an additional $5 billion in costs. That might just be building a couple more large reservoirs and infrastructures to deal with rising snow levels.
A 1000 to 1 ratio would mean that it would cost at least $5 trillion dollars (presumably worldwide) to prevent climate change. That's large but not unrealistic. A 1,000,000,000 ratio would mean that the costs to preventing climate change would have to be $5,000,000,000,000,000,000. I'm wondering if you really think that could possibly be realistic? That's 5 quintillion dollars, or more than 50,000 times the global economic product. It's hard to see how preventing climate change could ever cost more than the global economic product. That's just for one very conservative adaption measure. Now multiply that by thousands or tens of thousands, since there will be many such projects. Even at a 1000 to 1, a single storm like Hurricane Katrina would put your estimate over the global economic product.
So I've shown that your statement is either a lie or else you're so poor with numbers that shouldn't be trusted with anything quantitative. And I showed that by quoting your statement from this question VERBATIM, not by making some vague claim about things you've said in the past.
I think that is too conservative, money wise. Here is a tangible example:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/clai...
Now tell my what you think. This is reality.
This recent video claims that it is 50 times more expensive to try and prevent climate change than it is to adapt. http://www.50to1.net
What do others think?
just were are you planning to live , the mouth of an active lava flow?
"Lord" Monckton? That pretty well sums it up for me.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/08/29/john...
