Internationally renowned climate scientist, Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the man who broke the ‘Glaciergate’ story run by the London Times newspaper, has issued another startling revelation. Pielke claims that the famous Stern Review, a British government report of the economics of climate change, which discusses the effect of global warming on the world economy, exaggerates its climate calculations by up to a factor of ten and may be 40% fraudulent.
Pielke Jr. accuses the “Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change” a 700-page report released on October 30, 2006 by economist Nicholas Stern for the British government of being a gross misrepresentation of a climate study by Muir-Wood et al (2006).. The Muir-Wood paper was a study of increasing temperatures and rising damages from extreme weather events. The University of Colorado climatologist, on his website blog explains”
“The Stern Review Report of the UK government also relied on that paper as the sole basis for its projections of increasing damage from extreme events. In fact as much as 40% of the Stern Review projections for the global costs of unmitigated climate change derive from its misuse of the Muir-Wood et al. paper.”
Although not the first economic report on climate change, the Stern Review is significant as the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind.
Pielke goes on to say, “They quietly went and changed a figure by an order of 10 downward with no notice of the change made.”
Professor Pielke noticed the fraud when he had the original papers archived for a study he was doing. The lead author of the paper, Muir-Wood made the following response to the misleading use of his research, “The idea that catastrophes are rising in cost partly because of climate change is completely misleading.“
Although widely accepted as a reliable policy-guiding document by world governments, the Stern Report has received various critical responses. Skeptic commentators and some economists have argued that the Review overestimates the present value of the costs of climate change, and underestimates the costs of emission reduction.
Muir-Wood goes on to explain, “We could not tell if it was just an association or cause and effect. Also, our study included 2004 and 2005 which was when there were some major hurricanes. If you took those years away then the significance of climate change vanished.”
Pielke’s part in unravelling what may be the greatest fraud in the history of science may not end there. He is working with other esteemed scientists to dig deeper into the morass that is the Great Lie of anthropogenic global warming. We at Climategate.com strongly urge that the UK Parliament, in its upcoming inquiry into the Climategate scandal, commits itself to taking testimony from expert climate witnesses such as Pielke and Muir-Wood.
More details: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Possibly related posts:
- There is “no real evidence” Global Warming causes natural disasters
- British government suffers biggest setback since Climategate: Chief Scientist speaks out
- Inquirygate: Official British Climategate e-mail review falling apart
- Is H.G. Wells still alive and writing?
- Raingate splashes across the London Times