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:
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
But, but, we need alarmist stories to convince the suckers to part with their tax money. And every bureaucrat knows that no-one ever closely audits funding spent on a crisis. And if we don’t piss it up a wall on bogus clima-piracy they will only spend it on hospital waiting lists.
The beauty about virtual crises is that the money will be all gone by the time anyone wises up.
Hmmmm,
Half with you Ian – I am definitely cynical re the ” offering up scary scenarios ” school and according to the link , there was an element of that in it.
However , notwithstanding the annoyingly superior presumption , I think it’s well intentioned.
It’s a bit of a stretch to suggest it’s all just a conspiracy……..
Jim, Conspiracy isn’t such a stretch if you know how global financial markets work. The world is awash with capital looking for a profitable home (some of it is mine), and carbon credits are set to be the next commodity trade. If the financial markets can devise sophisticated trading systems for pork belly futures and a million other futures beyond the physical market, rest assured, a carbon trading market is being constructed with every invisible breath you exhale. The EU countries are pushing for it because they stand to gain most from such a merket. That’s why there’s so much pressure to get the US, China, India, Australia to sign up to some kind of emissions plan post-Kyoto, because without them a carbon-trading plan won’t work.
Apply the same to water-trading in Australia.
It’s about money, not the environment.
Jen, discussing the Stern report, is it a part of the polar bear discussions??
I got the impression that the US Gov’t has based its position on polar bears upon the Stern report…( I might be wrong).
The most interesting thing, thus far, about the two part tome published in the World Economics, is the section on the flawed nature of science reporting, and peer review.
It beats me why Governments put up with such a flawed system, because the cost to tax payers must be horrendous.Surely its time for a complete rethink.
You would also think that if the scientists were such good intellects, they would actually be lobbying to have something done themselves.
In most fields of endeavour there is invariably a cohort of good people who are prepared to put their heads above the parapet and fight for a better way, doing things. Why not here I wonder.
Sadly, the critique is just the same old skeptic junk and is uninteresting. Far more interesting would be a careful analysis of how Stern differs from IPCC
Good evening Jennifer,
I don’t know if you’re aware of the following article from Garth Paltridge published in the October 2004 edition of “Quadrant”.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=961
(Garth Paltridge was the Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, and CEO of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre, from 1990 until his retirement in 2002).
I just love the following quote from it…
“The IPCC, … has developed a highly successful immune system. Its climate scientists have become the equivalent of white blood cells which rush in overwhelming numbers to repel infection by ideas and results which do not support the basic thesis that global warming is perhaps the greatest of the modern threats to mankind.”
So, in one way it’s a credit to see that this blog receives attention from Real Climate / IPCC heavyweights, in another, perhaps more cynical way, it’s amusing to see another example of the anti-AGW skeptic spin control going immediately to work.
By the way, I really appreciate the (mostly) civil way that issues are addressed here. Keep up the good work all.
cheers
Arnost
Thanks Arnost,
Garth Paltridge’s article was like a breath of crisp antarctic air.
Is that Jiri Arnost? And if so where and for what does his name ring a bell?
And Jim, there is an old saying in politics that if you are presented with a choice between a conspiracy and a stuff up, back the stuff up every time. But there is also a third option that is not so much a conspiracy as a loose coalition of interests that take mutually supportive actions for their own private ends.
Frankly, I doubt that these people are actually smart enough to manage a world wide conspiracy. But they are certainly capable of jumping on a bandwagon and delivering extraordinary doses of conformity that then functions as key facts and the template for performance expectations on others.
It is like blue jeans and rebellion, it soon became nothing but cliche.
Motty can you elaborate on your paradoxical 3rd way ‘a loose coalition of interests that take mutually supportive actions for their own private ends’? Imagine the abuse anyone else would cop from you if they proposed such a flabby vague proposal. How will this mysterious self-interested 3rd way resolve the climate change issue? Hope it’s nothing like the Buddhist middle way.
The science section provides some giggles.
I guess they’re under the assumption that if you repeat something enough times, someone might actually believe it. Doesn’t matter if it’s been demonstrated to be wrong time and time again.
I’ve posted on it at my site if interested.
I’ve got to say that Ian’s observation that the controversy surrounding climate change is fueled by a “loose coalition of interests” rings true.
I echo marreS’s comments above. Even some of the most exotic derivatives are becoming commoditised and the margins are shrinking. If there was a world wide carbon trading scheme – the financial institutions would slaver over the prospects.
You then have a coterie of climate scientists that have effectively staked their reputations and tenure on a “predicted” change to the world’s climate – anything to the contrary will undermine their stature.
You have major “science” journals being selective in what they publish – the decision driven not by content but by conforming to a “herd” mentality. See link below for a lovely discussion on this…
http://amasci.com/freenrg/newidea1.html
You have politicians such as Al, (and now the Australian State and Federal Govt’s) jumping on to the Climate Change bandwagon hoping to use it to gain a couple of extra votes in order to win the next election(s).
You have the modern media – whose core business is no longer news but advertising revenue – that are pushing anything sensationalist in order to increase circulation.
And finally you have the left leaning inteligencia and post-modernist academia who have for most of the last century striven to force the western “free market” economies into a more centralised, state controlled model.
It is this “loose coalition of interests” that is obfuscating real science.
I’m no climate expert – but I have followed the debate reasonably closely over the last two years or so. In my opinion, the billions of $ spent in order to “prove” in some way the “reality” of AGW would have been far better spent in addressing real issues.
It is not climate change that will decrease the world’s standard of living. It will be current and known problems such as the wanton destruction of sea floors by bottom trawling that will do this.
Cheers
Arnost
“Far more interesting would be a careful analysis of how Stern differs from IPCC”
– like how Goofy differs from Mickey Mouse!
Ian,
I’m nothing to do with Jiři Arnošt.
Arnošt is my given name (a solid Czech name FYI) – and I doubt if our paths have crossed before.
If you were in any way involved with the water / waste-water industry here in Australia, you may have came across my dad (with whom I share the name) – he designed a swag of water treatment plants in Aust / NSW and was involved in assorted civ. eng. water infrastructure projects.
cheers
Arnost
It seems you have been eating your shorts again, pink pants. My reference to a third way was not as some sort of political way out of the greenhouse wilderness. These people have dug their own hole and they can lump it.
And I think Arnost has expanded on my point very well.
Did Stern factor in the cost of shifting the Australian Open tennis from January in Melbourne to avoid extreme heat and power failures brought on by extreme bush fires and extreme load from all the aircons now deemed essential. But not to worry – authorities called it a one-off and the politicians deemed it an Act of God. What if one-off was not alone?. Would that be a conspiracy? How many one-offs do you need to turn a light bulb on or off. Does this make one-off and God sceptics.? What if it simply gets attributed to El Nino. Does that put us between the devil and the deep blue sea.? More questions than answers. But I guess Stern would say better to be a bookie than a punter, and more so if you want to bet it was a one-off.
Correct Motty, I ate my strawberry shorts. I’d still like to hear though what you think the (legal – no bombing or shooting) way out this ‘mess’ is. It’s not resolving itself.
Pantsy, you may wish to help a corrupt regime get out of it’s own holes but from my perspective, any assistance would only prolong the suffering of it’s victims by maintaining the oppressors in power for longer than they deserve.
It is a real shame for the environment but, once the rights and property of landowners are fully restored, we will have the knowledge and goodwill to restore the damage quickly. But only on our own terms.
You may like to think you are part of the solution but that is not the case. No disrespect, but you are part of the problem.
You mean restoring the rights of the indigenous landowners? Oh ha ha, ignore that one.
Do you think individual property rights & individual action would identify and then figure out how to address the problems of climate change? (see my questions in later thread) How? What problems do property rights cause for our staple food crops under climate change pressures?
If you were given carte blanche to fix the problem as you see it (including addressing or dismissing and ignoring climate change) what would your 1,2,3,4 steps be?
Without defined property rights you will always be stuck in the mud, the lever might say “D” but the wheels keep spinning without making traction.
Yeah sure pinkypants, if indigenous are to be given property rights who will be the owner of the property? The prob to date is that no individual has a right, only a loosely defined collective. Its a specific indigineous issue that they will have to resolve, one that has only recently been given some air. But it can be resolved, most tribal communiities in Europe adjusted (look at the history of the clearances in Scotland and how it influenced the new countries of Canada, USA, Australia and NZ)
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.
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.
I would suggest a good bowel movement, Luke.
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?
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