Last year the British government published a report by former government economist Sir Nicholas Stern on the economics of future global warming and the costs of mitigation. While the report was not peer reviewed and was roundly criticized by economists like Yale’s Richard Nordhaus, who have been studying these same questions for years, the GW alarmists in the press and in the British Government (especially the alarmist-in-chief Tony Blair) have been singing its praises. Also, alarmist scientists who know nothing about economics have also been citing the study.

Well, finally the British press seems to be catching on that
Stern’s report is nothing but advocacy economics, bought and paid for by a government with an alarmist agenda. (As an aside, I find it strange that when a company like Exxon supports research into climate change the research is immediately tainted but when a government bureaucracy, like the EPA, the DOE or NCDENR, supports studies or research it is somehow beyond reproach. The fact is that these agencies and the people in them will benefit in terms of their budget, power and probably salaries from the government adopting new CO2 regulations.)

This report from the BBC exposes the Stern report for the junk science it is. This quote sums the general view among economists of the Stern Report quite nicely:


Richard Tol is a professor at both Hamburg and Carnegie Mellon Universities, and is one of the world’s leading environmental economists.

The Stern Review cites his work 63 times; but that does not mean he agrees with it.

“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,” he told The Investigation on BBC Radio 4.