Apparently, it had the opposite effect:
See also:
- Five Carbon Dioxide & Global Warming Questions (for beginners on the topic)
Tags: al gore, al gore fail, climate change, climate change fail, global cooling, global warming, global warming fail, global warming skeptic, Goracle
March 17, 09 at 7:23 pm
Combating climate change may not be a question of who will carry the burden but could instead be a rush for the benefits, according to new economic modeling presented at “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” hosted by the University of Copenhagen.
Contrary to current cost models for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change, a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge conclude that even very stringent reductions of can create a macroeconomic benefit, if governments go about it the right way.
“Where many current calculations get it wrong is in the assumption that more stringent measures will necessarily raise the overall cost, especially when there is substantial unemployment and underuse of capacity as there is today”, explains Terry Barker, Director of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge and a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Congress.
March 22, 09 at 1:12 pm
“..even very stringent reductions of can create a macroeconomic benefit..”
And that immediately brings to mind the chappie who intended to start a factory producing biscuits from faeces – for human consumption as a solution to food shortages etc.
Macroeconomic benefit farts.
March 28, 09 at 11:23 pm
[...] An Inconvenient Truth FAILed to Convince People About Global … [...]