In article ,
Orator wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Orator wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:

HM Treasury's page where the entire 700+ pages may be downloaded:



http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Indepe...conomics_clima
te_change/sternreview_index.cfm


A 27-page executive summary is found he
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...6_exec_sum.pdf


Just a couple of comments on this latest bit of hysteria.

The very first words in the "executive summary" are not factual:

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents
very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response."

1 - There is no "scientific evidence" there are theories only, however
"soundly" based they may be, but "evidence" it is not!



You are mistaken. The data shows there is warming.


2 - The claim that it "is now overwhelming", is bogus.


Lie.


There is a lot of
repetition of the same data/assumptions/theories. The repetition of the
same theory. doesn't make anything other than the noise level
"overwhelming".


I'll take the science -- IPCC, NAS, etc. -- over an industry shill.


3 - The: "climate change presents very serious global risks" is utter
nonsense and raw hysteria. We have had this same situation occur in the
relatively recent past and the world didn't end then either.



Total lie. 3 for 3.


4 - "it demands an urgent global response" is more hyperbole and
scene-setting for even worse exaggerations to come!

All that in the opening lines alone!

Then we go to p3 where they claim "430" ppm of "greenhouse gases", which
they limit to only be "CO2". Then they use the 'conventional' figure of
"280ppm before the Industrial Revolution", for CO2! So now we know they
have padded the figure by some 70 - 80 ppm from the more accepted figure
of 350 - 360 ppm for CO2!


That's a lie. It's 360 now, man!


The pre-industrial values vary depending on who is reporting:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/07_1.shtml
"a pre-industrial value of 300 parts per million"


280-300 is the accepted preindustrial. It never went to 360 in human
history.


NASA claims an increase of 25% on the pre-industrial values and make the
present CO2 at 350 ppm, using the commonly accepted figure of 280 ppm as
a base. That is another exaggeration in the summary to generate hysteria.



I'll take NASA over a lying little SOB, thank you.


http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/servic...thsci/green.ht
m


Dated 1993.




"[T]here has been little increase [in CO2] in the last 50 years, which

Text restored below:
"[T]here has been little increase [in CO2] in the last 50 years, which
raises questions about whether we really have experienced the effect of
increasing CO2. The pattern of changing global temperatures suggests
that there may be other factors influencing climate. There is also the
possibility that the sensitivity to greenhouse gases is less than what
most climate models indicate. Scientists feel an increase of 1degree F (
0.5 degrees C) in 140 years is not necessarily outside the range of
natural climate variability."


"Currently, the level of atmospheric C 2 is increasing at a rate of about
0.4
percent a year."

That is text was not posted by me as the quotes imply! My quoted text
was been dishonestly edited out!

The marks at the left tell you who posted what. It's in quotes because it's a
quote from the same source you quoted. Funny that you didn't post it.

So has all references that should have
been here! What are you afraid of Lloyd? The truth and that is why you
resort to so many lies and false accusation, isn't it?


For the full article see he
http://groups.google.com.au/group/al...1183e42ec5002a