Our host: Dr. David Kreutzer. The guest for today's event was Dr. Indur Goklany - a well-respected doctor whose background lies in climate change and international climate change policy.

Interesting takeaways:

• Goklany says we're told that the future is undeniably bad for humans if the planet gets warm, and that if we care about humanity we must recognize global warming is "the defining challenge of our age"
  Goklany uses for all of his calculations figures from the IPCC so that the politicization of this issue does not afford critics the ability to attack his calculations
• Goklany's calculations show that even under the worst-case scenarios from the IPCC's calculations, developing nations will be far better off in the future than they were in the past. for industrialized nations, good news: they will be better off, too. "we cannot say that our descendants will not be better off than we are." Second, "all but the poorest scenario developing countries will be better off" in 2100 than industrialized countries were in 1990.
• To maximize human welfare, governments should push us "towards the richest scenario" rather than to the lowest-CO2 scenario.
• Goklany's figures show that developing countries are going to be much wealthier in the future, despite some assumptions that they will not be able to adapt to a changing climate.
• By contrast, climate change poses little threat when set next to major health concerns for the global population. Goklany points to blood pressure, cholesterol, hunger, low fruit and vegetables, overweight, unsafe water, and tobacco smoke - all of which will kill more people than the alarmists' assumption of climate change. (Note: you can forget about playing the "callous" card - he noted the tragedy but also pointed to the tragedy of deaths related to those other causes)
• Goklany notes that under many alarmist studies, climate change reduces the population at risk of water stress. The oddity: reducing the risk of climate change will increase the population at risk of water stress. (weird - ed)
  The single biggest threat to species: conversion of habitat into cropland (so, you know, it'd probably be a good idea to return to low-efficiency organic farming, right?)
• Goklany says if you focus on the entire population, fighting less-expensive and more pressing problems will help more people. Our analysis: Focusing on climate change at the expense of bigger problems will cost too much money, which will cost lives.

Basically, the news is good. Will eco-zealots accept it? Nah. They'll call this guy a shill even as he uses the alarmists' own numbers

Be sure to check out Heritage's video of the conversation for more details.

A Question For Alarmists
Posted: 26 Feb 2009 07:03 AM PST
The Heritage Foundation's Dr. David Kreutzer asks:

If species have survived repeated changes in global temperature on the order of 10 degrees; and changes in habitat brought on by sea-level ups and downs of 300 to 400 feet, why will a two-degree change global temperature or a two-foot change in sea level be their undoing?

Good Neighbor Committee
P.O. Box 155 - La Salle, CO  80645
info@goodneighborlaw.com

| Good Neighbor Law© 2006 |