Talk:Copenhagen Consensus

message: Re climate change measures being rated 'poor', I've deleted the words 'however this is only a relative measure; it still had a net positive benefit over costs' - if I recall rightly from reading the conference papers I don't think this is correct - at most discount rates there was no net benefit. Ben Finn 16:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Clime paper gets a B/C ratio of 2:1 for optimal carbon; 1.7:1 for Kyoto & 3+:1 for value-at-risk.: see http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=165, first link William M. Connolley 17:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: POV Statements like "This is seen by the green that, they are anti environment, though the economics as a dicipline, never take such stance" belong, if anywhere, in a criticisms section for an article such as Green Economics. It's not appropriate to include your own arguments as a response to criticisms reported in the article. If you can find published responses, by all means include them.JQ 06:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism on climate change

message: I've deleted a criticism on discount rates, moved from the Lomborg article because it's invalid (the discount rate is not equal to the rate of growth of income) and also appears to be Original Research. There is probably room, though, for more discussion of the dispute between Cline (propponent for the GW measures) and the  panel members over discount rates, which was a major factor in the negative evaluation of GW measures and contributed to suspicions of a setup by Lomborg. JQ 22:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read in Lomborg's book Global Crises, Global Solutions about the conference, that the students were (deliberately) drawn from many countries, particularly developing countries. I don't recall if they were economics students or from multiple disciplines. Ben Finn 17:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism on discount rates

message: "The Copenhagen Consensus did not consider some issues, such as a cost-benefit analysis of the War on Terrorism. The direct financial spending on this issue dwarfs the money that the panels were allocated." - It seems to me that this is sort of a useless anti-war plug. Why not use examples from other issues not considered?
: What other issues would you like? TWOT is the most obvious really expensive and really useless thing going on right now. Why do you think Lomborg omitted it? William M. Connolley 19:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues Not Considered 

message: The idea of having economists directing disposal of other people's wealth sounds very much like technocracy to me. - MSTCrow 03:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technocracy? 

message: I just added this tag, and here's why:  In the 4th and 5th paragraphs (beginning with "One should not overestimate...", there is a sudden shift in tone where the article is no longer presenting the alleged biases as if coming from other sources, but instead the article now seems to be alleging the biases itself.  There is even a sentence in the 5th paragraph in which the reader ("you") is addressed directly, a big Wikipedia no-no.
I don't want to delete these paragraphs, though, because I think it contains some good info about the perils of discounting analysis.  It just needs a re-write.  And I'm not particularly well-informed enough to do it myself... 
I know it was a little presumptuous to add the pov tag without any consensus first, but I think the shift in tone will be very clear to most editors. --Jaysweet 20:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This text seems to be gone now, so I removed the tag.JQ (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag on "Approach and Alleged Bias" section 

message: The Criticism section seems out of date as it seems to relate to the 2004 conference, rather than the 2008 one (which drew somewhat different conclusions). I've made this slightly clearer.
I have also begun a section on the Copenhagen Consensus's recent work specifically on global warming. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and 2008 Consensus

message: I've updated the intro, as part of which I've cut the following chunk which is somewhat misleading:
:The project is based on the contention that, in spite of the billions of dollars spent on global challenges by the United Nations, the governments of wealthy nations, foundations, charities, and non-governmental organizations, the money spent on problems such as malnutrition and climate change is not sufficient to meet many internationally-agreed targets. This argument is supported by evidence from the World Bank, which estimates that the UN's Millennium Development Goals would cost an additional annual $40–$70 billion on top of the $57 billion already spent  http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,632592-1,00.html; this increased expenditure would have to continue each year until 2015 in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
It's misleading because the central claim of the Copenhagen Consensus is not that not enough money is spent, it's that it's not spent in the right ways. The project is all about prioritized spending, not increased (but unprioritized) spending. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Hello, new Wikipedia editor here. Moved a large chunk of the top section into a "history" bullet. I find this article very strange--44% of its citations are too itself, essentially.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edjamesking (talk • contribs) 16:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added history section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Copenhagen Consensus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081117201736/http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sitefiles/File/about/director/documents/nature081204.pdf to http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sitefiles/File/about/director/documents/nature081204.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927143829/http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5090.html to http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5090.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some people may confuse this with Copenhagen Accord or Scientific consensus on climate change, since all three are about climate change but this one is less legitimate, coming from non-scientists and climate change deniers like Lomborg. Is there a template we could add to the top to link to those two? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copenhagen Accord and Scientific consensus on climate change