Talk:Stern: greatly underestimated costs in climate change report?

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

If correct, the revised costs suggest that in the best case scenario there is nothing to coose between taking action and not doing so.

There is another aspect that is disturbing

Prof Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur, Paris wrties to the Telegraph -

…. a glance at the professional literature on glaciers, hurricanes etc. confirms that this consensus is a myth. Besides, consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. ... I am reminded of Trofim Lysenko ... A genuine concern for mankind demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse. [1]

An example of how scientists who dissent from the ‘official’ global warming account is to be found at [2] Fentonrobb 22:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the ref to the Al Gore film and a commentary on it. The fim is showing in London concurrently with the launch of the Stern Review and both are closely related. Note that Al Gore was appointed special advisor on climate change to Gordon Brown October 29, 2006. [3] and that his web page reefers spdecifically to the Stern Review.

Its difficult to keep this page NPOV. Fentonrobb 01:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]