Re: [asa] New Solutions to Global Warming article from Esquire Mag

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <>
Date: Fri Oct 30 2009 - 14:16:49 EDT

Yes -- it really comes down to future costs. If some AGW predictions
are correct, and I have no reason to think, if actions are not taken
NOW that they are at least possible, civilization as we know it will
come to an end, with billions of humans dying miserably and only a few
people left desparately clinging to a life they will balme on us, who
could have done something about it.

First things first. Solve the AGW problem and then address the others.
Because if the AGW problem is not solved, the others just don't really

I am skeptical of the unnamed people on the Copenhagen Consensus
Center as well as the credentials of the writer of the article.The
venue of Esquire magazine is also one of suspicion. Now if this
article appeared in NATURE, or NEW SCIENTIST, or SCIENCE, or some
other reputable scientific journal, along with a bibliography, a list
of references and the names of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, I'd be
inclined to give it a lot of credence. As it is, it is junk

On 10/29/09, Don Nield <> wrote:
> I am not an AGW proponent , but I do believe that the AGW proponents
> have a strong case which is not weakened by this article, which to me
> reads as a smokescreen, something that is meant to distract attention
> from the important thing. The author argues that the present carbon
> footprint has benefits that justify its present cost, but he ignores the
> future costs.Sure, if one has spare money to spend then there are a
> number of good ways to spend it. But when future costs are taken into
> account, has one really got any spare money?
> Don
> John Walley wrote:
>> I am curious what the AGW proponents on the list think about this article.
>> I find it to be very reasonable and practical.
>> Here is an excerpt below.
>> John
>> The Copenhagen Consensus Center, which we started in 2004, put my
>> conclusion about the Gore solution to the severest test. First, we
>> commissioned independent research on solutions to ten of the planet's
>> biggest challenges: problems like hunger, conflict, global warming, and
>> barriers to education. World experts were asked to identify the best ways
>> to spend $50 billion in their field. The findings, published in academic
>> papers, were reviewed by a second team of specialists.
>> The point of the project wasn't simply to identify good ways to spend
>> money it was to promote prioritization between competing options. We
>> gathered a team of the best economists in the world, including several
>> Nobel laureates. We asked this group to consider, test, and debate all the
>> research and identify the best and worst ways that a limited pool of money
>> could be spent.
>> Economists are experts in prioritization. The massive media hype about
>> certain problems is irrelevant to them; they focus simply on where limited
>> funds could achieve the most good.
>> In 2004 and again last year, when we repeated the global project the
>> world's top minds did not select CO2 emission cuts as the best use of
>> money. In fact, both times, CO2 emission reductions came out at the bottom
>> of their lists. In 2008, the top priority the Nobel-laureate economists
>> identified was providing micronutrients to developing countries.
>> Three billion people about half the world's population lack one or
>> more micronutrients, such as vitamin A, iron, iodine, or zinc. About two
>> billion or almost one third of the world's population lack iron, a
>> deficiency that causes physical and mental impairment. On average, a
>> person with iron deficiency is 17 percent weaker and loses 8 IQ points.
>> We could so easily right this wrong. At a cost of less than $400 million a
>> year, we could permanently help almost half the world get stronger and
>> smarter. In monetary terms, for every dollar we spend, we could do more
>> than twenty dollars' worth of good in the world.
>> Read more:
>> T
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 30 14:17:43 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 30 2009 - 14:17:43 EDT