Welcome to Copenhagen Consensus 2008

Well-known climate change apologist Bjorn Lomborg is at it again.

In May 2008, the “skeptical environmentalist” will be hosting the latest Copenhagen Consensus 2008 conference in Denmark.

For the uninitiated, this event is where a group of right wing economists, hand picked by Bjorn Lomborg, paid for by the conference organized by Bjorn Lomborg, will rank a laundry list of the Earth’s ills based on an arbitrary budget and timeline.

The budget?

$50 billion dollars, or a mere 0.07% of global GDP.

The timeline?

Only five years.

Based on those arbitrary constraints, the experts selected by Lomborg at their first conference in 2004 determined that dealing with climate change was the least cost-effective way to save the world.

Given that Bjorn Lomborg has made a lucrative career of being a climate change contrarian, it is not surprising that his 2004 conference was contrived to result in climate action ranking at the bottom of the list. It also provided Bjorn Lomborg yet another media soapbox to tour around the world lobbying against urgent action on this planetary emergency.

What is new and highly offensive is that he is now using the very real issues of AIDS in Africa and malaria as talking points to tell the world that if we try and reduce carbon emissions we are essentially endangering the poorest people in the world.

Strangely, Bjorn Lomborg almost never discusses malaria or AIDS except as an opportunity to discourage action on climate change. His message also ignores the devastating and disproportionate impacts that climate change is already having on the developing world.

Bjorn Lomborg should be given a Ph.D. in chutzpah for this latest effort.

In 2004, concern over climate change largely limited to the world’s scientific community. Since then, the general public has begun to realize the stunning implications of playing with the planet’s thermostat. Contriving another conference named Copenhagen Consensus 2008 aimed at slagging efforts to deal with this global emergency is putting the “skeptical environmentalist” squarely on the wrong side of history.

Who are the participants in the Copenhagen Consensus 2008?

Who is funding this conference?

What are the limitations of this so-called economic analysis?

We are going to be digging deep on the Copenhagen Consensus 2008 and providing some balance to the media play that this conference will no doubt be seeking to generate.

Stay tuned for more postings.

SolveClimate.com has a post up today on a visit Lomborg will be making to at Manhattan Institute breakfast at the New York Yacht Club next week.

Copenhagen Consensus 2008.


Great, so the mainstream economists who publish mainstream economics papers in mainstream economic journals are now officially part of the Great Worldwide Warmist Conspiracy too!

How long more before you discover your dog’s also part of the Warmist Conspiracy?

Frank Bi, http://tinyurl.com/yrpnmd
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

This is good news.
Bjorn Lomborg is arguably the most sensible environmentalist on the planet.
He gets it.
There are real problems in the world that can be and need to be fixed, but our dumb politicians and idiot eco terrorists want to pretend we can control the climate.
If it weren’t so sad it would be really funny.

Here’s what a selection of 50 economists had to say about reducing GHG emissions (I’ve plugged this before):
It would be nice if Lomborg’s group tackled the evidence and arguments provided by other economists indicating that reducing emissions needn’t cost very much.

Lomborg’s economists include one David Henderson. He writes a bit for a libertarian website I like called antiwar.com. I’m rarely impressed with his contributions and I’m genuinely pissed off that a group including him wouldn’t list preventing war (e.g., refraining from invading Iraq) as an economical and good thing to do for the environment. There are other reasons to doubt the integrity of the Copenhagen consensus. This is another.

How exciting, Do you think footnotes and checkable references will be banned the conference? ( Just like they are in his 2 books.)

He makes dozens of sleight-of-hand claims, never backed by anything you can cross-check. Just the ticket for snoozing would-be skeptics.

Um, have you actually read any of his books?

If you had, you probably notice that half of the thickness of his books generally consist of references and footnotes. Lomborg is rather well known for being meticulous. But then, you wouldn’t know that, not having read any of his books.


Frank Bi, http://tinyurl.com/yrpnmd
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

No, you can take it as a “Lomborg prefers to refer to non science or wrong science such as newspapers” in order to bolster his case.

So, would that also include when Dr. Lomborg cites data directly from the UN, or the World Wildlife Fund?

The World Wrestling Federation? Yeah, that’s not a peer-reviewed scientific source as far as I know.

Frank Bi, http://tinyurl.com/yrpnmd
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

Lomborg’s reasoning is that of a radical cornucopia-ist. It’s like the Stern report with half the parameters missing, such as the insurance-industry predicted economic destruction brought on by climate change events. Lomborg claims that people as rich as Americans can avoid the effects of climate change by, say, driving their SUVs into the mountains. Then he claims that in a hundred years time even the children of poor Bangladeshi farmers will be as rich as Americans are today – on the basis of the god-given 3% economic growth of world economy. It doesn’t go beyond this back-of-the-envelope calculation, and ought to be really easy to take to task. This and his false dichotomy that if you do anything about climate change, you are directly taking food from the mouths of starving children whose parents have died of AIDS. Bcancer