Golly, managing this blog is almost getting as tricky as the site!
A few days ago I cited a report of a report, namely by a paper, about the Stern report.
And I was tweaked by a reader who mildly hinted that I hadn't read the thing myself. At 600 pages I doubt I ever will in its entirety, because a) no one could pay me enough and b) no one is paying me. But he did point at a few key areas worth a scope, which I hope to get around to.
Of course I may be falling into another trap of going where I am led, and away from where I could be, to try and steer my views, and hence what I in turn pass on.
Anyway, along the way I was also made aware of a Radio 4 show called the Investigation, and have just listened to it.
It seems pretty clear that a lot of what was in the paper was based on this. Again, editing and agendas can always come into play, but one thing I immediately noted was that the Stern Report based some of its hairier assumptions on, in turn, others people's work. And these guys are about as good as we're going to get for objective analysis for now. And they did not seem happy bunnies. In short, a couple, quoted by Stern, felt their work had been mis-represented. And that, I'm afraid, sets up all sorts of red flags for me, and establishes a basis for the kind of tainted view I referred to in my original opinion piece.
There was also a lot of economics theory in there that was way over my head, but I did pick up on a few points to pull things back the other way a tad. Mainly this was in the realms of 'worst case scenarios' being painted, and 'it not be as bad, as quickly.'
Well, I subscribe to the ad man's view that you promise low and deliver high, and that it seems better to start early to avoid a last minute panic.
Hence I will be interested to hear the ICC's report referred to. I just hope it is digestible!
FT - UK climate change costings 'too high'
2 comments:
I didn't read the thing myself, and I wouldn't expect you to read the whole thing either! What I got, I got by googling "stern report" and then looking at the chapter headings and one of the executive summaries.
As far as 'worst case scenarios', goes, that's why you pay for insurance, even though your house might never burn down or be flooded. What the Stern Report asks for is common sense: "A stitch in time, saves nine", and there's a lot of heavyweights on his side, including the Director of the CBI and the President of the World Bank. As far as informed discussion of the issues raised in the BBC programme goes, you could do worse than http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/01/stern-science/.
Phew! And I thought I had some major reading ahead to maintain my cred.
I think we're singing from the same basic hymn sheet. I fully agree with you, and I think stated that I am not so worried about worst case scenarios being taken, so long as so is the context in which they are shared. I got the impression from the BBC show that there were some not so happy to have been quoted or had their work quoted out of such context to push an argument. I don't know what the opposite of 'rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic' is, but maybe they are guilty of scientific purism at the expense of practical, realtime common sense, but it is their work being used and it seems odd they were not consulted.I guess we're all guity of dipping in at points and taking out what sticks.
It still kind of makes my point, in that the overall concern is being hijacked by those defending corners leaving themselves and their arguments open to 'Achilles Heel' comebacks. I'd also have to say the BBC is not one I'd have pegged as a 'denier'and hence gave more credence to.
Junkk.com is about trying to help steer those without the time, but with the desire, in directions of worthwhile, ROI-confirmed actions.
So now you have added yet more to my reading list in trying to do this!
Thank you.... I think.
If you go back far enough (I will re-index when I have time), I have posted a long time ago a neat comment from a US site quoting an analogy of a flight filled with journalists, businessmen and, I think, aero engineers.
Basically if a lot of the latter in cattle class are 'saying turn back, there may be a problem', you don't listen to the journalist sitting with the guys in Club who says 'they think it best that we keep on heading out to sea a while longer just to make sure'.
Post a Comment