Reply to comment

Are others concerned at all about the cheerleading around climate change, and the potential risks to WB reputation of wholesale acceptance of the "consensus"? Two major issues suggest some caution would be in order, rather than wholesale disappointment about Copenhagen.

First, the climate models have failed to predict the recent decade-plus of cooling. Surely they require adjustment, and conclusions based on those models require adjustment, too. Is the current science too uncertain a base on which to rework the global economy?

Second, the revelations from the CRU emails are astonishing, they highlight that some of the science we do have has been corrupted through manipulation of data, exclusion of consensus-contradicting research, and manipulation of the peer review process. Inputs to the IPCC came through CRU.

As I glance at the "Statistics" box on this page: "50% of global carbon emissions were emitted by high income countries in 2005." I wonder why we can't indicate how much of global GDP was produced by those emissions. Are we highlighting a distribution of goods problem? Do we infer that those who produce are somehow guilty? Or look at the promotion of the "100 ideas to save the planet". How about a link to a clear eyed look at nuclear power instead? I worry there may be too much groupthink and not enough encouragement of other voices. As contradictory data has entered the debate, the WB should consider a more cautious stance.