The Case Against Copenhagen

Peter MUNK's (he is the founder of mining giant Barrick Gold Corp) think tank is sponsoring a debate on Climate Change in Toronto on Dec 1, 2009 with invited speakers Elizabeth MAY, Green Party leader and George MONBIOT, columnist in UK for The Guardian speaking to the Pro side.  Lord Nigel LAWSON, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer in Margaret THATCHER's Conservative government from 1983-89 and Bjorn LOMBERG, Professor of Business Studies at Copenhagen University and author of  The Skeptical Environmentalist will represent to Con side.  It promises to be an interesting event and will be streamed online.

Among some of the titillating points mentioned in the advance PR by Rudyard GRIFFITHS in the National Post today were the following factoids from LOMBERG's book (itself subject to an intense intellectual attack reminiscent of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Galileo vs. the Catholic Church) :

• Rising Global temperatures will reduce the number of deaths from "cold spells" that far outweigh the number of deaths from heat-related causes.  LOMBERG recites the offset of 1.8 million lives saved per year with  warmer climates, likely to continue for 200 years.

• The direct costs of Kyoto have been estimated at $150 billion per year, yet LOMBERG questions if this is the best use of such resources given other pressing humanitarian problems in the world.

• $27bn could prevent 28 million from getting HIV; 
• $12bn would reduce malaria infections for 1bn people per year; and 
• $10bn on food aid and development of agricultural production could feed 229 million people around the world who now live with constant hunger.

Climate skeptics think saving lives should take precedence over Climate Change treaties that only serve to enrich bureaucrats for a perceived problem that may not be real.

[Also see this FP editorial that points out it depends who's counting when you claim "4,000 Scientists support Global Warming"]