Is it mere coincidence that the UN Conference on Climate Change, the bigger and better Kyoto confab, will be held in Copenhagen, home of Bjorn Lomborg, who founded the Copenhagen Consensus, is the author of the “Skeptical Environmentalist,” and is probably the most well known opponent of the Kyoto Convention? Who would have thought that this city of “Fun Loving Danes” would become the epicenter of the global warming debate?

For those who do not know him, or who do not read my blogs, Lomborg is famous for essentially saying, “Yes, the globe is getting warmer, but no, we should not waste billions, if not trillions, in stopping global warming.” Instead, Lomborg argues that we should spend the money on a whole host of other, more pressing problems. The Consensus seeks to establish these other priorities.

I can see some fireworks in Copenhagen heating up the globe even more.

Leaving Lomborg and Al Gore aside, there is a development that should be fully aired at the Conference. I hear alot of voices now saying that, “rather than try to stop global warming by eliminating greenhouse emmissions, we should adapt to climate change coming from this, and other causes.” In essence these voices are stating we should continue to do what we have been doing for the last 10,000 years, adapt to the changes in climate, rather than try to prevent the changes.

I for one am totally on board this new train. For starters, I am happy that the earth is getting warmer. It is a cold place with an average temperature of 60 degrees F or 20 degress C, which is well below the temperature required for the human body to survive. Indeed, Lomborg points out that, while a higher average temperature may cause more deaths from heat stroke, it will prevent many more deaths from hypothermia. A higher average temperature also means that we will have more, not less, rainfall around the world and anyone familiar with the state of the earth’s basic resources knows that our major problem here is a shortage of fresh water.

No matter how forceful the arguments for and against global warming, the matter will be settled by practical considerations. And here is where the “adapt, not stop” argument gains considerable weight. Those arguing for the “adapt” response state that, no matter what we may do to stop global warming by eliminating greenhouse emmissions, eliminating the internal combustion engine, killing all the cows, and so on, the earth will continue to get warmer. It is an inextricable problem and we had best learn to live with it. The practical becomes the doable and the doable becomes the policy.

So what will come out of the Conference? Well I expect a response more in line with Lomborg’s presciptions than Al Gore’s desires. We will see a change in the debate from, “how to stop global warming” to “how to best adapt to a warmer planet.”

When all is said and done you can’t beat Darwin who stated catagorically that all living creatues adapt to their environment.