Blogger Tim Worstall is working his way through the Stern Report. Here's what he's posted so far:
He's not impressed. From his
analysis of Chapter 5 he declares himself distinctly unimpressed by the "appalling failure in [Stern's] own modelling: only taking a medium high emissions scenario and then one with further feedback mechanisms to do your sums on. Here: Page 61 in
chapter 3... It's almost as if that model were deliberately chosen isn't it? The one that shows the lowest future wealth and thus makes the discounting make current expenditure look good? Surely not?"
UPDATE: Tim has given a more concise summary of his trawl through the report
over at the Adam Smith Institute blog.
RELATED: Politics-UK, Environment, Global Warming
3 comments:
Global warming is a fictitious and dangerous weapon of "mass deception"
The socialists tax the capitalists to
sustain the poorest.
The socialists tax the capitalists to sustain the poorest.
Partly, yes. The majority of people don't have a problem with that.
W/regards the Stern Report - the point was to calculate the maximum potential effect of global warming. Selecting the medium high scenario is a valid methodology.
That you, the media, and politicians choose to misinterpret the findings isn't the fault of the scientists.
Polemic, you said: "W/regards the Stern Report - the point was to calculate the maximum potential effect of global warming...."
Well, no it wasn't. From the Terms of Reference for the report:
"Examine the evidence on... 2.)The economic, social and environmental consequences of climate change in both developed and developing countries, taking into account the risks of increased climate volatility and major irreversible impacts, and the climatic interaction with other air pollutants, as well as possible actions to adapt to the changing climate and the costs associated with them;"
That's not quite the same thing as looking only at the most extreme scenario at the most horrendous discount rate, and only calculating that.
"That you, the media, and politicians choose to misinterpret the findings isn't the fault of the scientists."
No, it's not. But they still do, don't they. And Stern is an economist, by the way, not a scientist (and I, of course, are neither).
" "The socialists tax the capitalists to sustain the poorest."
Partly, yes. The majority of people don't have a problem with that."
May I remind you of George Bernard Shaw's observation: "Anyone who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always expect to get the support of Paul."
And PJ O'Rourke: "Democracy will fail when people begin to think they can vote themselves rich."
And Bill Weddell: "Democracy is the counting of heads regardless of content."
Post a Comment