Lord Stern admits to underestimating Global Warming

Posted: February 9, 2013 by tchannon in alarmism, government, Politics, propaganda
Image

Swiss beauty at Davos or is this Orwellian?
Image credit Adrian Michael, click for detail

Tony Newbery[*] reports on Davos where dependent on your view of people, either <self snip>. Me? A cynic, rarely disappointed.

“His Lordship was in confessional mood, owning up to underestimating the likely extent of global warming in his report. He now sees this as being ‘on track for something like 4oC’ by the end of the century, rather than the paltry 2oC – 3oC that he forecast in his report seven years ago.”

Harmless Sky blog: Lord Stern lends a hand at Davos

* The pensioner known for chasing FOI,  in court if necessary, most infamously the BBC trying to keep awkward facts secret.

I think http://www.weforum.org/ is the site for World Economic Forum.

Perhaps a Lord of that kind needs reminding the stern can’t see where the ship is going.

 

Post by Tim Channon

Comments
  1. holbrook says:

    The only thing Stern underestimated was his lack of knowledge of the subject……has anyone told him that Co2’s ability to create heat is logarithmic?…and that his IPCC mates have issues with putting negative feedback int climate models…thus they are wrong.

  2. His Lordship is an upper class nincompoop. When it comes to “Climate Science” he and Prince Charles make a nice pair of book ends or sock puppets.

  3. J Martin says:

    To be 4 degrees by the year 2100 would require a near impossible rate of change, particularly since we are likely to see cooling to at least 2030 and perhaps even to 2100.

    Stern is placing his faith in models and some of the more extreme models at that. Yet even Phil Jones and others now admits there has been no warming, and the IPCC now publish graphs which show that their own models are badly wrong, with temperatures running below the error bars of those models.

    With ENSO in a perpetual state of La Nina / Nada, the PDO negative, the AMO on it’s way to negative, the solar high only getting to half normal, the solar cycle about to enter a decline, and the sun’s magnetic field suggesting that sunspots may go more or less missing for one or more solar cycles then the chances of being lucky enough to see a 4 degree rise in temperatures by 2100 are remote indeed. Most likely outcome in my view is that temperatures in 2100 will be lower than today’s.

    Stern has being taken in hook, line and sinker by the co2 religious doolally fools.

    Once cooling sets in Stern and many others will go to their retirement in ignominious irrelevance.

  4. michael hart says:

    Perhaps he meant to say he underestimated how long we would have to wait to see evidence of it.

  5. Brian H says:

    If Dr. Jinan Cao is right, and GHGs accelerate loss of energy from the atmosphere, sensitivity is negative, and CO2 is bringing the next wave of ice sheets closer. We need to increase annual food growth and production to bring down CO2‼

  6. oldbrew says:

    He seems to be talking from his Stern, getting further away from climate reality all the time. Of course ‘economic forums’ are about smelling financial opportunities wherever they can find them, hence the spin.