Don’t we all wish for the perfect wisdom and moral rectitude of Al Gore?
JACOB ARFWEDSON (Paris)
Well no, I don’t, because that would amount to fatal conceit, to speak with Hayek. Would anyone be able to persuade our dear leaders to forfeit their absolute belief in moral superiority in the run-up to the Copenhagen Summit? Probably not, and here are some reasons:
– fighting climate change is a noble pursuit and talk is cheap (at least we may assume that delegates will pay no extra carbon tax on their perorations)
– window-dressing: Kyoto and other international agreements will in practice be impossible to enforce, although “differentiated”. The feel-good factor trumps good science.
– industry is a sitting duck, with a bad conscience vastly superior to other concerns.
The EU upped the ante the other day, pledging to reduce emissions by 95 per cent by 2050 if a deal is reached in Copenhagen (ahem, how many of these angelic creatures will be in office by then?)
As prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT) has endeavoured to show for many years, bad science will drive out good science. In the following short presentation, he reminds us that the debate should not, however, divide researchers into “good” and “bad” scientists according to their views on climate. A clarion call for the virtue of independent judgment and for science without political bias.