As an update, conference participants will not be receiving a copy of the fictitious disaster scenario in advance of the conference. Facts implicated by a 2–6 degree Celsius rise should be the backdrop of panelists’ individual presentations leading up to the Socratic dialogue, but the specific question of how the law/legal system should respond to a 3 degree change will not be asked directly to panelists until the Socratic Dialogue on Day 2.

In other words, the conference will still involve a hypothetical scenario, but the format we originally envisioned has changed since last summer. At the recommendation of our facilitator, Kim Taylor-Thompson, we decided not to present panelists with the hypothetical before the conference. Based on Kim’s experience that would result in scripted answers and ruins the authenticity of the experience.

The specific facts of a three degrees scenario will be shared at the beginning of the Socratic (Fred Friendly) dialogue on Day Two. All panelists will participate in this dialogue, with some participating from the audience and others featured at the front of the room. Kim will be facilitating this dialogue.

Leading up to the Socratic dialogue, we hope and intend that panelists will deliver their individual expert presentations from a mindset expecting a 2––6 degree centigrade rise in temperature over the next century (the range of what scientists are predicting). Panelists should thus feel free to explore legal/health/economic, etc. ramifications of any number of temperature scenarios in their individual talks. The Socratic dialogue on Day 2 will focus more explicitly on a three degrees scenario.

When preparing their talks, panelists should visit the Resources page on our website, where we’ve listed resources detailing the impacts expected from a 2––6 degree centigrade temperature rise. We hope panelists will creatively infuse their talks with the available data on projected impacts. Our blog should hopefully prove a useful resource as well.