In message , Orator
writes
Roger Coppock wrote:
HM Treasury's page where the entire 700+ pages may be downloaded:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Indepe...eview_economic
s_climate_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!

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

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.

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!

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"

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.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/servic...hsci/green.htm
"[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.

Yes, though the figure I've used from academic sources suggests about
280ppm in 1750, 310ppm in 1950, and 380 by around 2000.

So that's a

30ppm rise in 200 years

followed by a

70ppm rise in 50 years.


The pattern of changing global temperatures suggests that there may be
other factors influencing climate.

Only if you accept that "There has been little increase [in CO2] in the
last 50 years".

It seems that most people don't.


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."

Which ones ?


More importantly we know that climate has been changing since time
immemorial and is not something "man made"!
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/04_1.shtml

Yes climate changes on its own. That doesn't mean we can't screw it
up !


But that isn't the only bit of bull**** they resort to.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/...1__Science.pdf
In the actual report itself the show a graph in "Figure 1.3" where they
claim: "The Earth has warmed 0.7°C since around 1900.". So how the hell
did they manage that? It was very simple, note the zero point on the
graph. Then note the zero point on the graph in the following URL:

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...M_Fig8_0_1.jpg

Note the reference point differs, and starts from a different point!
This only shows a rise in temperature of 0.29 degrees C! An amount NASA
states is "not necessarily outside the range of natural climate
variability"!

Of course, when you put 10 "economists" in a room and tell them to
predict an outcome for a given scenario you invariably get 12 answers.

Hysteria, nothing but rampant hysteria in the Stern report!

Yes, though please tell us why NASA put the zero level where they did,
because they haven't put it where many academics do !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore