Monday, October 30, 2006

The Stern Report

This is a novelty: Timmy is live-blogging the latest load of tendentious bollocks relating to some very far from proven scientific theories Stern Report on Climate Change.
  1. Chapter 1

  2. Chapter 2

  3. Chapter 3

  4. Chapter 4

  5. Chapters 5 & 6

I will add to the list as Tim adds to his review: I'm live-blogging the live-blogging, as it were.

His review is worth reading as he has already identified a number of flaws in the methodology and the data sources (not least that the report draws on Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 2001: we are now on the Fourth Assessment Report from this year (although that report is, actually, flawed in its projections, but less so than the Third revision)).

And remember, it is important that this is correct: this is going to cost us a lot. And already it is inadequate (being generous) or wrong (being less generous).

UPDATE: Tim has found a serious flaw in the modelling.
Way to go guys, how to skew your results. Only run your model on a medium high and high emissions scenario! A2 assumes National Enterprise (ie, not much more globalization), high population (15 billion), a low degree of convergence....and the only other model you run is an even higher emissions scenario?

How do things change when you run it on B1? Or A1 F1? Now, in that latter, emissions are higher (it's a high emissions scenario, not a medium high one) but global income is twice in that scenario what it is in A2.

This problem is so appalling that Tim has broken off his review.
Sorry folks, I was going to go through this thing all the way to the end but I'm not going to bother now.
...

OK, I was certainly willing to believe them, willing to give it a try. But, that appalling failure in their own modelling: only taking a medium high emissions scenario and then one with further feedback mechanisms to do your sums on.

In other words, the entire report is skewed towards justifying large tax hikes: woo! well there's a massive fucking surprise, eh?
It's almost as if that model were deliberately chosen isn't it? The one that shows the lowest future wealth and thus makes the discounting make current expenditure look good?

Yup, it appears that Tim agrees with me; how convenient that this should dovetail in so well with Batshit Mad Miliband's proposal of exorbitant tax hikes. It seems as though this report is simply another justification for the government to squeeze more money from us.

One can imagine The Gobblin' King shaking his head sadly as he announces that he must raise taxes for the sake of the whole world's future. He doesn't want to, he'll say; he's always favoured "economic stability" over tax rises but now he's left with no choice. He must raise them for the sake of the generations to come.

Expect, at the very least, further taxe rises on oil company profits at the next Budget announcement, with the Stern Report used as the justification. Mark my words, life is about to become even more expensive...

UPDATE 2: Timmy considers the implications. Oh and lays into our favourite bat-fancier too.
Just remember children, if anyone tries to use this report to tell you that it proves that petrol taxes have to rise you can rest assured that they are either uninformed, lying or David Miliband.

Dear oh dear, the Miliblogger is not a popular man, eh?

4 comments:

Umbongo said...

Since I think we can assume that the BBC was given a copy of the Review prior to its official release, isn't it extraordinary that the BBC cannot (or will not) mount a similar in-depth analysis to Tim's: it's had the time. We have got a lot of very deferential and uncritical comment from the BBC (eg from its business editor [1]) but no critical analysis. It's always possible that a critical analysis might even favour the Review. Obviously the BBC (and the government) didn't want to take the risk. Or maybe they're waiting for Al Gore's opinion before they comment more fully.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm

CityUnslicker said...

very importnant we tax oil and take as much money as we can from it before independence.

When that happens Gordo will be using this as his excuse to stay down here ruining our lives.

james higham said...

It's already generally taken as flawed and Tim Worstall's nalysis can only exacerbate that.

view from the solent said...

I have a cunning plan.
Since CO2 is emitted by burning organic matter, and flags are made from organic materials, - tax flag burning. Two birds with one stone!