Is anybody going to say anyting about the Stern Report's ECONOMIC
conclusions -- good, bad or indifferent?

Since Stern is the former chief economist at the World Bank?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retief wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 06 11:13:12 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.

"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the
sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with
radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the
1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."

Then clearly, by this same argument, CO2 is not the cause of warming,
as: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/db1009/inputs/co2-sens.dat, shows that
the CO2 concentration increased from 278 ppm (~1770), to 298 ppm by
1910, however the temperature did NOTHING during this period...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png

If CO2 was the cause of the warming, it clearly would have warmed by
this time...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...n-hit-record-h
ighs-over-the-last-few-decades/

Realclimate.org is not a refereed scientific journal, Lloyd... Didn't
you recently demand that people cite scientific journals?

Retief