This morning I watched on Sky News an interview by Chief Political Reporter Kieran Gilbert, with Bjorn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and former Director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Denmark.
They were talking about the agreement in Beijing and whether China was "serious about tackling climate change" given that they had agreed to do essentially nothing for the next 16 years.
Gilbert ventured that China must be serious because they'd be keen to clean up their dirty cities which are being consumed by smog and pollution.
Lomborg patiently pointed out that smog isn't CO2, that CO2 is a colourless odourless gas and that it is in everyone's interests to clean up smog and pollution but that that is entirely different from reducing CO2 emissions.
Gilbert looked bemused. If even senior journalists don't understand the difference between CO2 and this, little wonder the message being put out is alarmist and little wonder there is so much ignorance of the facts:
POLLUTION:
CO2:
What chance of a sensible discussion on climate?
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 33 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)