Some months ago I suggested that media coverage of The Stern Report -- an assessment of the economics of climate change by a British economist for the British government -- was completely over the top. I also commented that from a quick scan there were some obvious errors of fact.
Now the journal World Economic has published a lengthy critique of The Stern Report. Part 1 of the critique deals with 'The Science'. Written by Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland and Richard S. Lindzen it concludes:
"The Stern Review is biased and alarmist in its reading of the science. In particular, it displays:
• a failure to acknowledge the scope and scale of the knowledge gaps and uncertainties in climate science
• credulous acceptance of hypothetical, model-based explanations of the causality of climate phenomena
• massive overestimation of climate impacts through an implausible population scenario and one-sided treatment of the impacts literature, including reliance on agenda-driven advocacy documents
• lack of due diligence in evaluating many pivotal research studies despite the scandalous lack of disclosure of data and methods in these studies
• lack of concern for the defects and inadequacies of the peer review process as a guarantor of quality or truth.
These and other related problems arise because the Review has relied for advice almost exclusively on a small number of people and organizations that have a long history of unbalanced alarmism on the global warming
issue. Most of the research cited by the Review does not, on inspection, make a convincing case that greenhouse warming constitutes a major threat that justifies an immediate and radical policy response. Contrary research is consistently ignored, as are basic observational facts showing that alarm is unwarranted. The Review fails to present an accurate picture of scientific understanding of climate change issues, and will reinforce ill-informed alarm about climate change among the general public, the bureaucracy and the body politic. HM Government will need to look elsewhere for a balanced, impartial and authoritative review of the current climate change debate. "
The complete document from World Economics, Volume 7, Number 4, October-December 2006, can be downloaded here:
Just filing this here:
Running the rule over Stern's numbers
By Simon Cox and Richard Vadon
BBC Radio 4, The Investigation
When the Stern Review into the Economics of Climate Change came out last year, it was showered with praise.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair called it, "the most important report on the future ever published by this government".
But expert critics of the review now claim that it overestimates the risk of severe global warming, and underestimates the cost of acting to stop it.
The message from the report's chief author, the economist Sir Nicholas Stern, was simple: if we did nothing about climate change, it would cost us the equivalent of at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever.
But if we acted today, we could prevent a catastrophe.
This point was emphasised at the report's launch by Mr Blair who warned we would see the disastrous consequences of climate change - not in some science fiction future, but in our lifetimes.
... full article includes comment from Richard Tol
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6295021.stm
Phil sends hugs Rog.
But it's a waste of time isn't it guys. You haven't been convinced of anything. Have you learned anything? We all still call each other idiots. Lots of discussion - nothing changes.
Whatever was said someone will drag up some hack that will say black is white. And the AGW side will argue back and say they're gimps because .. .. ..
So it's a total waste of time talking about it really isn't it.
What do you think will happen in the tennis?
I would suggest a good bowel movement, Luke.
Well actually Luke, when it comes to *rant and rave all you like, make political quips, indulge conspiracy theories* you are the boss, along with alterego Phil Done.
t's really a waste of time discussing Stern here. Or AGW for that matter.
Most commentators come here with fixed opinions usually stemming from ideological background, world view or experience. Maybe some have even done some reading.
How many people here have read Stern. How many understood it. How many understood the second part of the World Economics article rebuttal.
Certainly after all that's been written already nobody on the pro-AGW side is going to give any credibility to anything written by Bob Carter and a few of the other authors too for that matter..
Are we any better informed after all this - not really - why don't our contrarians friends get organised and give us a whole "other" assessment instead of just ragging.
But why bother.- we already know what the answer to that is don't we - "do nothing". Conclusion forgone.
As for "It is this “loose coalition of interests” that is obfuscating real science." - what tripe. The bilge and swamp water that dominates most contrarian sites isn't even worth discussing.
And can anyone state how much is spent globally on climate change research. Or how much in Australia.
Whether that's appropriate vis a vis other research portfolio interests by society. Any economic analysis? A SWOT perhaps?
Oh that's right our friends don't like the current economic and IPCC analyses - well surely Exxon can fund them to do an IPCC & Stern alternative?
And it's not like phew - I don't have to worry about climate if AGW is all bolsh - we have plenty of droughts, floods, heatwaves, cold snaps, storms and hurricanes to cope with.
Climate already wreaks havoc with human society, agricultural and natural systems. Californian orange and vegetable crop decimated in a recent cold snap for example. Or money spent on propping up Aussie farmers in this lingering drought.
But a series on Stern is all in good time given the proximity of the 4th Assessment Report.
Time to crank up the perceived uncertainty.
So you can rant and rave all you like, make political quips, indulge conspiracy theories - nobody is going to seriously debate this issue here - let alone change sides. Or be convinced of anything new.
So we have 3 classes of reader of the World Economics rebuttal (i) “exactly – spot-on” (ii) “what drivel – la la lah” and (iii) huh? Wot’s a discount rate mate?
Believe what you like.