Why do the worlds leading experts say solving Global Warming is such a low priority?

Question

Why did the Copenhagen Consensus, a group of 36 world-leading experts and scientists including four Nobel Prize winners, conclude that, among 17 challenges facing the world, efforts to stop global warming should receive the lowest priority?

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=788

Answer 1

They don't.  Only a few "skeptics" do.  A much larger group of experts think this should be THE major International priority.

Note that none of the world's leaders (including Denmark) find the "Copenhagen Consensus" persuasive.  The Danish Prime Minister:

"Energy consumption impacts on the environment and climate. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has established that increasing CO2 emissions have negative consequences for the environment and climate throughout the world. And that a considerable portion of global warming is man-made.

Science has spoken. It is up to politicians now to take action.

As a first step, the Government has presented an ambitious energy proposal.

We want Denmark, in the long term, to be 100 per cent independent of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal. It is a very ambitious goal. And it will take many years to reach that point. But it is important to make the first decisions already now.

We want to double the share of renewable energy in order to reach a minimum of 30 per cent by 2025."

Answer 2

They say global warming is a low priority because they realize the truth that global warming is hardly a reality. Just yesterday I walked outside and had to rush back into the house to put on a jacket. If global warming were real, I would have had to rush back inside to get sunglasses and a bottle of SPF 40.

Tonight I was forced to turn up my thermostat because my house was too cold. If global warming were real I would be turning on my air conditioner this time of year, and sitting on my couch in shorts with an ice cold lemonade to watch Saved By The Bell reruns. I'm not doing any of those things, however, which is a pretty clear indication that global warming is a farce.

Two weeks ago it snowed here. There was snow all over my car, and I had to brush the snow off with my hand, and my hand got very cold because of the snow, and that felt uncomfortable. If global warming was a reality this would not have happened. If that doesn't prove to you that global warming doesn't exist, then you're living in denial.

Answer 3

Maybe its because it is an

ECONOMIC consensus,

and it's participants are all

ECONOMISTS

Answer 4

Because anything that would have any significant effect on global warming would be hugely expensive and the money would be much better spent on less glamorous problems (clean water, descent housing, infrastructure, etc).

Answer 5

Your link answers your question.  They are economists first of all.  And they ranked the problems in order of efficiency, not any sort of ethical priority.

"With the process of prioritization, the center aims to establish a framework in which solutions to problems are prioritized according to efficiency based upon economic and scientific analysis of distinct subjects. "

And Chat Noir, your 'real' science is only political propaganda.  The peer reviewed science, not coming from political think tanks, is in consensus that Global Warming is largely our fault, not that the planet doesn't help, and it is most certainly a problem we need to face.  Besides, let's say you're right and it's simply a pattern the earth is currently in, we still need to fix it or face widespread famine and death.

Answer 6

i think global warming is a big issue to be dealt with nowadays. the world leaders are in a constructive prog. to minimize the  emission of the green house gases as per the Kyoto protocol. and later the earth summit . now u say that the world is not considering the problem big is wrong or so to say u are not updated with the information. The environmentalist will never leave such an issue very simply.

Answer 7

I hear big Arnie is concerned about global warming also, but he doesn't think it's worth giving up his fleet of hummers over.

Answer 8

because they dont care what effects later generations they are living for now. and so should everyone else. let the later generations deal with it. not because were lazy people but because they will have better technology in 100 yrs.

Answer 9

I did not find it in the smallest of challenges.  I saw them as one of the top challenges and air pollution was one also.

Answer 10

Where on the website is the ranking by the group of 55?  All I could find was the public (global) ranking, which could be highly skewed since I would expect a website run by Lomberg would attract a lot of skeptics.  The CC08 group put global warming in their top ten challenges, which also include such broad topics as "Conflicts" and "Disease."  So it clearly is pretty high on their list.  

To me, it sounds like a poorly posed study, too broad to be of much use, and misses a huge issue (topsoil depletion) and instead lists Subsidies and Trade Barriers" that you will hear more about over the next 15 years.  Not to be snarky, but it sounds just about right as something done by economists with no training in physical science.  

So, to answer you, I don't think the economists are giving it a low priority, but wingnuts answering their survey are.  Non-random web polls are about as useful as chrome-plated running boards on a Prius.

Answer 11

Every challenge has to be evaluated economically. "Curing" global warming would mean devaluing our living standards to where they were in the 1950s. And we'd still have AIDS, cancer, and a thousand other things that our much lower standard of living could not deal with.

Answer 12

as far as I was aware this was a meeting of 55 economists. I think that answeres your question

Answer 13

I could only see rankings from the public. From what I read on that page "the result will be ready in May 2008".

Also, the no of challenges they are to prioritize is 10, not 17. Global warming is one of them.

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Defau...

Answer 14

whenever there is a lot of money involved, there will be people who'll put forward statements that are intended to stall actions, that might damage the future income of the rich. We still remember the "scientific" claims that smoking is not a health risk.

so whenever we discuss global warming, we are also discussing the potential loss of income of the oil and coal industries and the business that are selling products and services that use oil or coal.

since these industries are also global political powers, with vast financial resources, they can buy enough voices, even those of renounced scientists, especially since the claims of environmentalists about global warming are well founded about the fact that there is a process of global warming but are still vague about how much warming we are going to face

Answer 15

The prioritization process starts by asking is there a cost effective solution, on two criteria, first do we know that we could solve it, secondly at what cost.

Now Global warming is a serious problem, but we do not know whether we can stop it, so even a cost effective partial solution may not bring it to a high priority.

Next, these people are looking primarily for economic solutions to economic problems, because mainly they are economists, Do they really have the expertise to deliver to the project? It is like a cabinet meeting, having turned over a problem to a committee of experts moves it off their own agenda priority list because they as politicians have nothing much to add.

Answer 16

because its nothing more then a scam to dupe brain dead environmental hippies out of their money

mother earth does more damage to herself then mankind could ever accomplish if we tried

mt saint Helen release more cfc's into the atmosphere then all the freon from man in its history of air conditioners

the gulf of mexico burps out more oil in a day then the the average oil tanker

mother earth has been warming and cooling all by herself long before man learned how to cook meat and drink beer

so if you want to run around scream doom and gloom.. fine by me..

its good for laugh..

Answer 17

Sorry, that's a fake site.  And you bit.  But here's a hint to avoid making a  fool of yourself again: legitimate science sites are NEVER ".com" sites.  Some very good public information (popular science) sites are (e.g. space.com)--but not those dealing with professional science activities.

Answer 18

I believe it is because we are not causing Global Warming, it is a natural cycle of the Earth and Sun to cool and heat at certain intervals.. remember, there was an Ice Age? what about when the world thought we were plunging into another ice Age not too long ago, then the "experts" opinions changed as soon as the weather did without hesitation.

There isn't much we can do about it by throwing money at it.. We are at the mercy of nature, nature is not at the mercy of us.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is great not to pollute, but saying that it causes Global Warming is a bit of a stretch. Look at the real science instead of the political propaganda.

Answer 19

Since when have economists been "experts" on atmospheric science? Do they have an opinion on the threat of ebola virus too?

The second part of my answer is also a question, in two parts:

1.  Why do global warming sceptics only ever consult websites run by people who aren't experts in atmospheric science and climatology?

2.  On the rare occasion that they actually do consult experts in the direct field of climatology, why do they so often misrepresent the studies, research, and data?