Sunday
Jan242010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Stern report doctored
Jan 24, 2010 Climate: RP Jnr Climate: WG3 Roger Pielke Jnr has the news.
As I was preparing this post, I accessed the Stern Review Report on the archive site of the UK government to capture an image of Table 5.2. Much to my surprise I learned that since the publication of my paper, Table 5.2 has mysteriously changed!
Reader Comments (13)
Sterngate?
Doubleplusungood. Winston Smith strikes again!
Wow, the floodgates are really opening. Thank goodness for an active blogosphere otherwise there would ne checks on what these guys get up to.
What gets my goat isn't that mistakes are getting made.
We're dealing in a world of uncertainty and unknowns with no way to test anything empirically so it stands to reason that the guys responsible for doing things will get some of it wrong.
What I don't understand is why they can't admit to their mistakes publicly and then recalculate their conclusions incorporating their latest data.
All that happens (and to my mind this is the real scandal behind CRUgate) is that all of the changes and revisions happen behind the scenes, original versions get lost, revision control's either non existant or falls by the wayside and soon enough nobody knows what's changed between each revision. Eventually we end up with a Jones' style "I no longer know what I don't know and don't know when it all changed but I know that I'm right so trust me anyway" position.
If this happens to Stern that will be a great tragedy.
Hopefully he'll come forward with a revised report or at least show that the differences don't matter and that we can all move on.
If he doesn't do it voluntarily hopefully our MP's will insist that he does. After all, it's a critical part of Government economic and environmental policy and there are billions of pounds riding on the conclusions so it would seem reasonable for Stern to prove that he's still right (or not materially wrong, anyway).
Keep all your records of websites, documents etc so we can prove what was being said when and by whom. You never know what may be needed when the warmists have finished fiddling the figures (again)
"What I don't understand is why they can't admit to their mistakes publicly and then recalculate their conclusions incorporating their latest data."
10's if not 100's of billions of dollars of public and private investment decisions have been made.
BrianMcL
None of this is happening accidentally, these are NOT mistakes. Just as Gores film contained 35 mistakes.
Each of these headline grabbing statements is made get printed in the MSM and blurted out on BBC but subsequent
corrections (if they get made) and errors (when they are noticed,as now) tend to get played down or ignored.
Most of the public are unaware of the corrections/errors unless they search for them, as we do.
I feel that the tide is turning now, the MSM cannot ignore the quantity of mistakes and are beginning to get the
idea that they can sell papers and get viewers if they report what is actually going on - as they should have been doing all along !
Is anybody surprised? Look to see if there are any mirror sites that might still have the files. These often persist for weeks,
In a word "STUPID" . It is like leaving your DNA, you know.
Hard to believe that there is virtually no domestic U.S. mass-media coverage of any of this escalating contretemps. But then, our degraded "journalistic" coteries mouth claptrap only in their mewling, puking romper-rooms, divorced from any real-world contacts.
"To what do you attribute the apathy and ignorance of the electorate?" "We don't know, and we don't care."
What possible interest could a $120 billion dollar investment banker have in carbon trading ?
The Grantham is chaired by Professor Lord Sir Nicholas Stern of Brentford, author of a rather influential report on the economics of climate change, and who stands to profit admirably from institutional environmentalism via his carbon credit reference agency. It is no surprise that Ward and Sir Nicholas find themselves in the same company department, given their shared interests. Stern is also Chair of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP), which is funded by the UK government’s Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and which acknowledges that ‘Generous support for the Centre’s work is also provided by Munich Re’. Munich Re is the insurance giant that claims to know what the IPCC does not when it comes to the reality of climate change in the present.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/
Jeremy Grantham
Jeremy Grantham is the Chairman of the Board of Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo, an American investor well known among institutional investors, but relatively unknown to retail investors. He is regarded as a highly knowledgeable investor in various stock bond and commodity markets. Grantham started one of the world's first index funds in the early 1970s and currently manages approximately $120 billion US.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Grantham
Brian McL
Typo publicly admitted here, - read #20. You were saying?
Wadard,
As I've said before and above, everyone makes mistakes and it's they're dealt with that's important.
Amazing really that we can have errors of an order of magnitude slip through the net but hey, for a project that will cost $1trillion a year it wouldn't do have it sense and error checked.
Also, had a quick search for the errata sheet but I guess he's been a bit busy over the last 4 years or so and hasn't got round to putting a link to it on the website yet.
What makes people suspicious is that the errors always seem to be the same way.
For example, 1.3% in the nice table. 2035 (or was it 2030?) for the glaciers.
Ice free arctic? - tell that to the hapless, albeit amusing in a scary "can someone please go and rescue them before something bad happens to them" kind of way, Caitlin expedition.
If Stern says that he used 0.13% that he used to calculate the numbers then that's fine, but why not leave the report as it was written and then link to the errata sheet? Alternatively, reprint the report and print an errata sheet with the corrections from the first print? Then no-one can point any fingers or lump him along with the CRU when it comes to data integrity.
Any chance you can point me to the errata sheet please?