Even BBC is onto Stern

Amazingly for me even BBC is reporting what I have been saying on this forum for a while now - Stern Report is a load of crap!

Here are some of the highlights from the BBC4 Radio 4 program "The Investigation":

The report may have been loved by the politicians and headline writers but when climate scientists and environmental economists read the 670-page review, many said there were serious flaws.

"If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for diligence; but more likely I would give him an 'F' for fail. There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make."
"Stern consistently picks the most pessimistic for every choice that one can make. He overestimates through cherry-picking, he double counts particularly the risks and he underestimates what development and adaptation will do to impacts."
-Richard Tol, professor at Hamburg and Carnegie Mellon Universities, and is one of the world's leading environmental economists. The Stern Review cites Tol's work 63 times.

"The IPCC is not going to talk about tipping points; it's not going to talk about 5m rises in sea level; it's not going to talk about the next ice age because the Gulf Stream collapses; and it's going to have none of the economics of the Stern Review"
"It's almost as if a credibility gap has emerged between what the British public thinks and what the international science community think."
-Professor Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

I recommend listening to the audio of the program. It sheds light on some of the global warming lies such as how many times Themes barrier is being closed to ward off the rising seas. Surprisingly despite the crap we are fed, it happened less times in the last five years than in five years before that.

It is good to see reason prevailing over hysteria. One question still remains: if global warming is real and so obvious, why do so many of its proponents have to exaggerate and mislead so wildly?

Read or listen here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6295021.stm