UPDATE (8:00 pm 3 Sept 13) I've written another piece, which is more than the silly cartoon deserves. You can read it here.
UPDATE (4:00pm 2 Sept 13) Anthony has an article up now. Archived here.
I'll do a detailed take down later. In the meantime it seems like the thousands of scientists doing difficult and rigorous research over the past several decades haven't much to show for it - according to science-denying Anthony Watts. Anthony sez:
There’s also the main video which sums up the state of climate science and politics in just under 10 minutes.
Wow - science and politics combined in just 10 minutes. Maybe Anthony will shut up shop now that Topher has solved all the world's problems!
A lot of the people who feature on HotWhopper can be described as nutty as a fruitcake. Or behave that way. Some are worse. I call them scumbags.
I've just come across another person who fits the bill. He goes by the name of Topher Field. He makes videos aiming to stop the world becoming a better place.
His latest attempt is to stop any action to reduce carbon emissions. He doesn't do this out of the badness of his heart totally. He does it for money. He got a whole bunch of people to pay him to do this, including some easy marks at Anthony Watts' anti-science blog, wattsupwiththat (WUWT). Then he went around and got a bunch of talking heads, put it together with some cartoons, some magical mathturbations, which AFAIK came from the potty peer Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, and tweeted the result.
This is what he tweeted:
This is what happened to anyone who clicked the link:
That pretty much sums it up.
I did eventually locate his video. I haven't watched it all the way through yet but I've seen enough to know how dumb it is. He does an Alan Jones (Australian readers will know what I mean).
For example Topher makes wild claims and exaggerations about Australia's carbon tax, but doesn't mention the fact that it costs most Australians nothing at all. They get it back in reduced taxation and supplements to pensions. Some are even ahead of the game because of the revenue neutral system and the returns to Australians.
For this and the fact that the video contains humungous lies, I doubt it will get much airplay here despite this being election week. Neither the Australian Electoral Commission nor ACMA look kindly upon deceptive advertising and gross misrepresentations like is in this video.
I wonder how all the people who don't live in Australia feel about their donations going to support an Australian election campaign? Because that's what the video is mostly aimed at.
In one part, he makes this idiotic claim:
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 of zero to to 3% of GDP. So climate change will cost us roughly 1.5% of global GDP if we simply adapt to it as required or 80% of GDP if we try and stop it.80% of GDP is rubbish. The numbers make more sense if they are reversed. Contrast the above with this extract from the Stern Review report: (my bold italics) - if we don't take action and continue on with Business as Usual, it will reduce welfare by 20%. Topher told a big fat lie:
In summary, analyses that take into account the full ranges of both impacts and possible outcomes - that is, that employ the basic economics of risk - suggest that BAU climate change will reduce welfare by an amount equivalent to a reduction in consumption per head of between 5 and 20%. Taking account of the increasing scientific evidence of greater risks, of aversion to the possibilities of catastrophe, and of a broader approach to the consequences than implied by narrow output measures, the appropriate estimate is likely to be in the upper part of this range.And this estimate of costs - around 1% of annual global GDP according to Stern. Topher is telling a humungous lie:
On the basis of these two methods, central estimate is that stabilisation of greenhouse gases at levels of 500-550ppm CO2e will cost, on average, around 1% of annual global GDP by 2050. This is significant, but is fully consistent with continued growth and development, in contrast with unabated climate change, which will eventually pose significant threats to growth.
And more here:
From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs.
The evidence shows that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth. Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes. Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term, and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries. The earlier effective action is taken, the less costly it will be.
At the same time, given that climate change is happening, measures to help people adapt to it are essential. And the less mitigation we do now, the greater the difficulty of continuing to adapt in future.
So how did Topher do his sums? Why does he misrepresent the Stern Review? Why does he make up numbers and falsely attribute them to the Stern Review?
His target audience is the uneducated and illiterate. I don't know if they will be taken in by him, but best take no chances. He is lying and trying to con people by making these false claims. He has a lot of other people on his show who are equally disreputable. They include the conspiracy theorising gold bug "Jo Nova", Anthony Watts who is as silly as they come and doesn't want to pay tax and other dubious characters.
If I get the time in the next day or so I'll go through his nonsense and maybe even rebut it item by item. I'm away at the moment and don't have time right now.
Suffice to say, Topher whatshisname joins the ranks of those who are "nutty as a fruitcake" as well as the ranks of those dishonourable people who will tell lies for cash.
Watch out for the scumbags of the world. They will do anything for money or warped, selfish ideology, including telling lies so silly you'd wonder who but the 8% dismissives would believe them.
PS Anthony Watts hasn't put up an article about this one yet. When he does, I'll let you know how he presents it and the reaction from the comments. Will they fall for this crap hook, line and sinker? Will Anthony say he agrees with the lies? He's featured on it but I haven't watched that segment so I don't know what he says. I doubt it will be pretty.
PPS (Update) I skipped to Anthony Watts' few seconds. Here is what he had to say (yes, you guessed right - anything but taxation!):
I just think we should stop being so worried and just take a pragmatic approach to increasing efficiency to improving our energy production and going down different pathways to 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 in a negative way.
Trust Tony to be more concerned about his tax and lifestyle than about the future of the world as we know it.
Donna Laframboise is of similar mind. She reckons to pass the problems onto our children and grandchildren and presumable every generation to come for the next few centuries. They'd have less capacity to adapt, of course, because of global warming. But Donna and Anthony don't care. All they are concerned about is the here and now.
The one thing they are all correct about is that global warming is happening, it's real. What they won't tell you is how much worse it will get if we don't act now.
Going by this video, the age of complete denial has ended. Welcome to the age of immediate gratification and contempt for future generations.
Click here to go to a more detailed article.