john fernbach wrote:
Orator wrote:

I have made the observation that many economists have raised their

eyebrows at the conclusion by Stern - meaning they too believe Stern to
be hysterical.


Orator - two points, briefly.

1. You're not really answering my question, quite. Have YOU read the
Stern report, and can YOU tell us a little of what's in it, for good or
evil?

None of these groups are "economics" groups and economics are off topic.
Therefore the response on economics is sufficient. As for aspects on
topic for these groups, I have already dealt with specifics derived from
the Stern report in the recent past.

2. You say "many economists" have raised their eyebrows at Stern's
conclusion. Can you cite us some of these "many" economists? Can you
cite their conclusions and/or criticisms?

Hard to do with reports from the radio. Nor does it make the "many
economists" any less relevant if their names are not listed!

Not trying to be picky here, though it looks like we're on different
sides of the AGW issue.

I think your side is in total denial of reality, actually - that you're
crazier than bedbugs But who cares, because most of us knew the two
sides disagreed on the bigger AGW issue before Stern published
anything.

This is a problem with Usenet. Participants tend to label people as
"If'n yer not for me, yer agin' me". That is, everything is labelled
black or white - no shades of grey or any other colours allowed.

Science is not served well, or at all, by such labelling of people!

There ARE far more positions than the AWG religion follower or their
atheist opponents, the GW deniers, you know!

What I'm asking is if anyone knows anything in any detail about Stern's
economic conclusions. Or the report's methodology, for that matter.

That would be better directed to an economics group than here.