Contrasting two conferences on global warming

A revealing review of two recent conferences on global warming.

The first in Copenhagen, billed as "an emergency summit on climate change" and attracting acres of worldwide media coverage, was explicitly designed to stoke up the fear of global warming to an unprecedented pitch. As one of the organisers put it, "this is not a regular scientific conference: this is a deliberate attempt to influence policy". . . . .

What a striking contrast this was to the second conference, which I attended with 700 others in New York, organised by the Heartland Institute under the title Global Warming: Was It Ever Really A Crisis?. In Britain this received no coverage at all, apart from a sneering mention by The Guardian, although it was addressed by dozens of expert scientists, not a few of world rank, who for professional standing put those in Copenhagen in the shade. . . . . .

Labels: ,


Blogger Tarun Kumar said...

Combating climate change may not be a question of who will carry the burden but could instead be a rush for the benefits, according to new economic modeling presented at “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” hosted by the University of Copenhagen.

Contrary to current cost models for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change, a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge conclude that even very stringent reductions of can create a macroeconomic benefit, if governments go about it the right way.

“Where many current calculations get it wrong is in the assumption that more stringent measures will necessarily raise the overall cost, especially when there is substantial unemployment and underuse of capacity as there is today”, explains Terry Barker, Director of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge and a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Congress.

3/17/2009 7:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a new study out from UW Milwaukee that argues that the changes in climate are cyclical.


Also, the statement of scientific dissent from AGW is now up to 700 scientists.


Andrew Chamberlain of the Tax Foundation calculates that the cost of Obama's cap-and-trade legislation, would be 144.8 Billion dollars.


I blogged about this and other related stories on politicized science on my blog, but the post is coming out on 3/19 @ 12 PM, so I can't link it.

3/18/2009 10:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Slides and videos of keynotes are online here:

3/22/2009 1:59 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home