Fire Earth

Earth is fighting to stay alive. Mass dieoffs, triggered by anthropogenic assault and fallout of planetary defense systems offsetting the impact, could begin anytime!

Stern Report: “a great toxic dump of doublespeak in truly Orwellian fashion”

Posted by feww on April 19, 2008

Government “expert” says he underestimated threat

LONDON (Reuters) – Climate change expert Nicholas Stern says he under-estimated the threat from global warming in a major report 18 months ago when he compared the economic risk to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Full Report

Oh, really?


Northern Spotted Owl. Credit SPUI

What’s the connection between climate change spinners, the government “experts”, Nicholas Stern, Chomskette and costly “mistakes?” Asked the Northern Spotted Owl.

The brief discussion that follows may shed some light on the answer. It started when  Founder of The Management School of Restorative Business [HS] made the following comment posted at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naspir/message/2379 [Caution: NASPIR could be an element in the UK Government’s covert operations.]

[Mon Dec 4, 2006 1:56 am] –

[HS] The Stern Report: Playing Politics with Ecology – Spin the Tailspin

The Stern report, Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, asserts:

“The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised between 450 and 550ppm CO2.”

The opening salvo of environmental calamities, sparked about 30 years ago at levels of 330ppm CO2, has now begun to engulf humanity. Just how the report authors can presume an additional 28 percent increase in the CO2 pollution in the atmosphere [up on the current levels of 430ppm CO2] would create any semblance of stability is a great toxic dump of doublespeak in truly Orwellian fashion. [Emphasis added.]

[Mon Dec 4, 2006 7:36 am] –
A reply by Mr Milan Rai, biographer of Noam Chomsky and co-founder of Voices in the Wilderness UK:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naspir/message/2380

Hi folks

It seems to me that we should distinguish between

1) whether this is a reasonable statement, on the facts
and
2) whether this is a reasonable goal.

> The Stern report, Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change,
> asserts:
>
> “The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially
> reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised
> between 450 and 550ppm CO2.”

1) This talks about the ‘worst impacts’ being less likely if greenhouse
gas levels can be stabilised at a level somewhat higher than we have now.
I can’t see how this is an unreasonable statement, given that the ‘worst
impacts’ would clearly be the result of unstabilised greenhouse gas levels
increasing to even higher levels.

2) Is it a reasonable goal to set this greenhouse gas level as the target?
That’s the real debate.

Best wishes

Mil

[Tue Dec 5, 2006 8:15 am]
[HS] Replied
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naspir/message/2381

Hello Milan

Syntax or semantics?

Tried the statement with 600ppm (instead of 550ppm), it read like Curry’s paradox (e.g., the statement must be true, since Santa exists.)

Then tried 650ppm, it turned into the liar’s paradox (e.g., the unstoppable positive feedback was triggered at much lower pollution levels. The unstoppable positive feedback can be stabilized [sic] at much higher pollution levels).

[REM: Average knowledge of ecology and feedback systems would be required—and the authors bank on the lack thereof—to realize the ramification of what happens to the system itself.]

Now let us try 700ppm. It turns to the fallacy of the beard (paradox of the heap or continuum fallacy) – if 300ppm is a safe level, then 400ppm is just 33percent higher, and 500ppm is a natural extension to 400ppm ad infinitum.

Take another shot at it, this time as dark humor. Does it not look like Bobby Henderson’s Flying Spaghetti Monster reasoning (reductio ad absurdum) vying for scientific legitimacy?

Interestingly, the syntax remains [deceptively] reasonable throughout!

Imagine being told about the advantages of drowning in shallower waters, while your benefactors [sic] are recommending measures to control drowning in deeper waters, [and shining a green light at the oil industry to keep on pumping out, and the airline and automobile industry to keep on clocking up those uncovered miles…]

Best wishes

~~~

Related Links:

One Response to “Stern Report: “a great toxic dump of doublespeak in truly Orwellian fashion””

  1. […] https://feww.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/stern-report-a-great-toxic-dump/ […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.