Talk:Stern Review

message: What an excellent name for this: one I can see producing many wonderful puns for future generations. "A Stern Review of the facts", etc. --84.64.51.100 17:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The extent to which many news sources have suggested that this makes the report more compelling is interesting, and may demonstrate something about the relative trust assigned by members of the public and the media to economists and scientists respectively. Is it appropriate to mention that in the article?
--Ilnyckyj 02:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because global warming has massive economic implications. Because he can show that the cost of prevention is much less than cost of adaptation to it. Because he can estimate the optimal level of expenditure on mitigation. Blaise 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there something new here?  The IPCC has been issuing economic studies for years, and climate studies using statistics without statisticians.  (SEWilco 05:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: funily enough there's an overlap in the mathematics of meteorology and the stockmarket--213.249.155.247 08:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The important thing when communicating with economists and politicians is to put a price on something.210.11.227.60 09:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Since the report is about the response to global warming, not global warming per se, your complaints have no merit.  If an economist can't comment on this kind of impact, then exactly who can?  mdf 13:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the media has said that it's an economist rather then a scientist which is what makes it different. We can at least report this even if we probably can't go in to details about how this demonstrates a relative leve of trust. BTW, it's not so much about an economist not being allowed to comment on the response of global warming but whether scientists who have been saying that the catostrophic effects of global warming and what we need to do about it. While they may not have been able to analyse the economic side that well, they have arguably still been providing a compelling argument of what we need to do and why we need to do it. Anyway this is all a bit too OT Nil Einne 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe it has something to do with the 20% of Global GDP/GNP price tag. SolitaryWolf 05:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It needs to be put into historical context and given significance. As it reads now it is just a report about economics and not science, which is true, but doesn't say much. The wording can be modified, but the reports historical context and its larger significance needs to framed somehow. -- Stbalbach 16:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Economist as author

message: the Stern Review is historically notable as being one of the first major government-sponsored reports on global warming conducted by an economist and not an atmospheric scientist.[1]
First off, the report is only a day old, so the use of the word "historically" seems inappropriate.  Even "notable" seems off the mark, since it may well be (given the attention span of your typical human specimen) entirely forgotten in a month.  The last clause, however, can be interpreted as a hint that the likes of Stern are not to be trusted on these matters, yada yada (see above commentary).  I'll note that just looking over the table of contents, Stern is focusing solely on the economic impact, having little to say about the physics of the situation.  mdf 13:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is sourced. Read the source on what it says specifically if you want to change the wording of it. As an encyclopedia it is important to put things in context, not just bare naked facts - context and importance and notability of a subject is what an encyclopedia is about. -- Stbalbach 14:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  However, given the report is now about 36 hours old, I suggest that it isn't possible to assess its "importance", "notability" or make remarks about "historic" stuff at this time, regardless of any amount of commentary it has received.  Basically, hours != years.  Subsequent reports or events may shrink this report to insignificance;  a previous report by Stern has suffered this fate already (through no fault of his own).  As for the "sourced" stuff, it says nothing about "historically notable" or similar.  It simply says that the idea of getting an economist to look into the economic impact of global warming was, somewhow, a unique, ground-breaking, forehead-smacking aha! innovation.  Something like having a car mechanic comment on that odd noise from your engine, as opposed to asking a hair dresser about it.  Unfortunately for this thesis, there is a decade+ of research about this.  Just google up "economic impact of global warming economist" (no quotes).  mdf 14:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree about the notability part. If it is really forgotten in a month which I highly doubt, we would have to at least comment on how noteable it was at the time of it's release so there's nothing wrong with commenting on it's level of notability at the moment. I agree we probably can't talk about historic and perhaps not even of importance at the current time Nil Einne 20:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how saying first major government-sponsored reports on global warming conducted by an economist is going to change in the future. Historic notability is about the past not the future. As for economics of global warming, it does qualify by saying  first major government-sponsored report - the wording could be changed, but obviously this is different and more significant from previous reports. I'm sure there are other opinions on the reports significance, if you want it could be possible to start a section documenting commentaries which might be interesting. -- Stbalbach 20:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Although not the first economic report on global warming, it is significant as the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind.
The claim that it is 'the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind' seems highly questionable - this may be so within the UK but that is not worth saying. The citation given for the claim is a UK web site I have never heard of (The First Post) - not really a decent source. Ben Finn 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's common knowledge this report is significant. Something needs to be said to that effect. I'm not sure attacking the source is the right approach because I can find other sources that give some mention of its importance, in different wording. It will always be subjective. But I really don't see anyone disagreeing with the core idea, in whatever way it needs to be phrased. It places the report into historical context and significance, which is what Encyclopedia's are supposed to do. -- Stbalbach 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd sentence

message: Removed the cleanup tag. Please detail what the problem is.
Removed the current events tag - article and story no longer changing rapidly, main facts are in place.
--Stbalbach 14:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and current events tag 

message: I have added a section called 'summary of the Review's main conclusions' (or something similar). I added it because the article is called 'The Stern Review' but very little of the article actually explains what the Stern Review contains. It seemed to be more of an article on 'Responses to the Stern Review'. Alanadexter (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of Review's main conclusions

message: Is their a reason why the cririsism gets about as much space as the responses? The way it stands now, it looks as if the Review is not accepted as a valid, scientificly based review, by a good portion of the scientific community. I do not believe this is true. If we're going to leave in the critisisms, can I put in page after page of responses that are positive on the review ? Well I think I'll considerably add to it anyhow, don't feel in the mood at the moment though. Regards Sean Heron 17:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Economics is considered a science (see fields of science), they approached the report in a scientific manner, according to the best practices of economic science. It may not be a natural science, but then, would you want a biologist as your banker? -- Stbalbach 04:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to suggest that this page avoids re-fighting the global warming wars. We have scientific opinion on climate change if you want to do that. However, as far as I can see the section is fairly accurate: those in favour have accepted it uncritically; those against have reverted to type and gone off on the usual anti-IPCC rant. What seems to be largely missing is the valid middle ground criticism that the review has picked high-end climate scenarios and high-end sensitivities and high-end impacts. Possibly these are too subtle for the mass media :-). But as usual there is more intelligent info on the blogs (ahem). So:  and  (those are both me).  Tim Worstall on the economics;  James Annan on the science;  Roger Pielke on the hurricane damage. Alas these are all but blogs and therefore clearly not as reliable as newspapers :-( William M. Connolley 17:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have now made true on my "promise" of adding "page upon page" of positive response. I do not think this bloated form is particularly oppertune, but I also do not agree with (presumably) about every last critic being quoted, yet only a represantativly small number of concurrent being quoted. Regards Sean Heron 17:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think it is useful information. Someone doing a report, or writing a history, would find it valuable. I wouldn't cheapen it by suggesting its only there for balance. -- Stbalbach 17:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response and critisism 

message: Don't you accept that Blair will resign soon (he has publicly announced that he will)? That reduces any comments he may have to also-ran. Presumably you want to keep your fanatical obsession with anthropogenic global warming very firmly on Wikipedia. This seems to me to be against the spirit and ethos of Wiki! Peterlewis 10:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you rephrase that politely I'd reply William M. Connolley 10:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, I'm not really sure what you're getting at but Gordon Brown hardly seems less certain about global warming then the so called also ran Tony Blair  "We now have sufficient evidence that human-made climate change is the most far-reaching and almost certainly the most threatening of all the environmental challenges facing us." (N.B. comment wasn't about the Stern report) Nil Einne 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blair 

message: Tol is a strongly anti-Stern source, and his writing on the topic is highly polemical. I don't think the figure should be presented in a way that suggests endorsement. Unless anyone has a counter-argument, I'd propose to move it to the criticism section JQ 03:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure 

message: The background section reads like the Stern Report is a political response, a reaction, undermining its objective credibility. Can this be worded in a more neutral manner and bring in additional information about what led up to the writing of the report? -- Stbalbach 15:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is? Everyone knows scaremongering nets more grant money than everything being peachy. Comradeash 15:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: As far as I can see all the endorsements from prominent economists etc.. are blurbs from the UK Treasury that published the report.  Strictly speaking I suspect we should delete them according to policy, but this may be a little harsh.  However we should at least make this clear. NBeale 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Glad you said that. I certainly think we are quoting too many of them. Also the link itself, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9F3/38/20061028_Quotes-7.pdf, is broken. 
The +ve crit resp section starts "The Stern Review attracted a great deal of positive attention, but little of Stern's fellow economists." Both halves of that are arguably true, but OR. I'd let them live (with of -> from). Unless you believe the treasury spin, in which case there *is* lots of +ve from econ. On yet another hand, many of the treasury quotes don't seem to be from econ anyway.
Some of these comments appeared at the same time as the Stern Review itself, even though the Stern Review was not reviewed by outsiders before publication. may need some justifiaction, too William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blurbs from the UK Treasury 

message: The intro to this section needs rewriting, mainly because it (a) mixes anti- with pro-Stern views which belong elsewhere in the article, and (b) says the same stuff twice. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfavorable critical response

message: I've deleted a lot of the info contained in the Previous debate in the UK section and moved it to the article on Nigel Lawson. In my view, not all of the background info was relevant to the article. I've moved the Byatt et al. reference to the section on criticism of the Stern Review. I've deleted external links that are citied in the article. Enescot (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted section "Previous debate in the UK" 

message: I've revised the article to remove repetition of topics. I could see no other way of doing this other than a major restructuring. In particular, a number of arguments presented in the "discounting" section had previously been repeated in the "criticism" section.
I decided on putting mostly "non-academic" criticisms in one section and comments by economists in another. I think this allows a better structure for criticisms of the Review and the responses of Stern.
I've put the "discounting" section inside the new "economics" section. The "discounting" section actually explains some of the technical language used in other sections but had previously been put at the bottom of the article.
Other changes I've made are some expansions to some sections. These include a number of additional comments on the Review, mostly by academics.
I've deleted what I view as an unnecessarily long quote from the HM Treasury document on the Stern Review. In my opinion, the positive comments were not particularly informative. Instead, I've changed this to two lists: the first list is in the "favourable responses" section, while the list of academic economists is in the "economists response" section.
 
My other changes are relatively minor. To improve clarity, I've rewritten several sections. I've also rewritten several references so that they use the standard template. I deleted a few comments on sources, e.g., "the climate sceptic organization" etc. In my view, this sort of tag isn't necessary. Enescot (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring and expansion 

message: I've deleted reference to Richard Tol being an IPCC author. It's not consistent to mention that he's an IPCC author but not say the same of several other commenters - Stiglitz, Cline, Arrow and Barker. Enescot (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPCC authors 

message: Absolutely inappropriate unless you wish to claim that this report is/was engaging in it.  If so, that would require a reference, as it appears to be more extreme than the then-current theories.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Climate change denial]] 

message: I've done a fairly extensive revision of this article. My main changes have been to expand the section on the Yale Symposium and to cut down the quote from the Stern Review team's paper in World Economics.
I've changed this bit of the intro:
The report attracted both praise and criticism; the most consequential criticisms are related to the low discount rate used to tackle this very long-term issue and the treatment of adaptation of future generations to a new global climate.
This is a POV statement. What you view to be the "most substantive criticisms" is a subjective matter. I also do not agree that the adaptation criticism is particularly substantive given Stern's modeling of adaptation. My revision is:
There has been a mixed reaction to the Stern Review from economists. Several economists have been critical of the Review, for example, a paper by Byatt et al. (2006) describes the Review as "deeply flawed". Some have supported the Review, while others have argued that Stern's conclusions are reasonable, even if the method by which he reached them is incorrect.
This summary was previously part of the "response of economists" section. I think academic economic comments should be viewed as being the most important. The Review is an economic review, and other criticisms, like those of the science of the Review, are minority viewpoints.
My other revisions have been to better outline Stern's counter-arguments to criticisms of the Review. I've also changed bits of the article that incorrectly described the Review as a cost-benefit analysis. Enescot (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote Yale Symposium and other changes 

message: I've deleted this:
Felix Ekardt  criticizes climate economics in general, referring to the following points: out of date climate data; problematic handling of prognostic uncertainty; missing but important consequences of climate change, e. g. war for resources; inadmissible metrication of interests that do not allow for their being metricated; erroneous discounting; ethical and democratic deficits of the economic choice approach/ efficiency theory.[63]
This is not directly relevant to the article. I'm also doubtful that Ekardt's viewpoint is notable. Most of the other experts cited in the section "response of economists" are either IPCC authors or otherwise well-known and distinguished economists. Enescot (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Felix Ekardt removed 

message: I've removed extensive references to what appears to be a PhD dissertation written by Nihar Shah of Berkeley. This probably isn't the kind of source we should be discussing in an encyclopedia article about the economics of climate change. --TS 02:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: PhD dissertation

message: I've removed this stuff from the "General criticisms" section:
Criticism of the review comes form various sides.
Probably, the main disagreement between the Stern Review’s critics has been because the Reviews selection of parameters does not reflect real market returns to capital. Nordaus has been very critical of the Ramsey zero pure time preference on the basis of utilitarian ethical stance. He takes a strictly market based view of intergenerational projects arguing that the social rate of time preference reflects the rate of return observed in the marketplace. Nordhaus also raised his view that the present generation will have to for go a large amount of consumption now for the benefit of future generations who will be much richer than the present generation.
Dasqupta argues that there is some confusion in the Stern review about the underlying rationale for the selection of the Ramsey parameters. He states that the review mixes both market returns on investment with parameters selected on ethical grounds. The mixing of a descriptive approach with a prescriptive approach is not good economics.
Neumayer argues that the real issue is the non substitutable loss of natural capital that is to what extent climate change inflicts irreversible and non substitutable damage to and loss of natural capital. Economist defines natural capital as the multiple and various services of nature from which human’s benefit- from natural resources to pollution absorption and environmental amenities. That climate change then leads to many irreversible negative effects on natural capital, this point is not disputed. None of Stern’s critics are advocating doing nothing about climate change. What they disagree about is how much is it worth sacrificing now to prevent a worst case scenario in a hundred years time. The review suggests that it will cost 1% of global GDP but according to Mendelsohn, this is far too optimistic and that the figure could be easily much higher “One of the depressing things about the greenhouse gas problem is that the cost of eliminating it is quite high. We will actually have to sacrifice a great deal to cut emissions dramatically”, he said. (Mendelsohn, 2007)
This is largely covered in the later "Response of economists" section. I've retained most of the above content but integrated it into the "Response of economists" section. No precise citations are given for the above, so I've added citation needed tags where appropriate. The bits I've deleted are as follows:
Criticism of the review comes form various sides.
In my opinion, this is not an especially useful sentence. The introduction to the article and sub-section, at least in my view, provide better summaries of opinions about the Stern Review.
Probably, the main disagreement between the Stern Review’s critics has been because the Reviews selection of parameters does not reflect real market returns to capital.
Unsourced. Such a statement would require reference to a source that has reviewed of all the comments made about the Stern Review.
Dasqupta argues that there is some confusion in the Stern review about the underlying rationale for the selection of the Ramsey parameters. He states that the review mixes both market returns on investment with parameters selected on ethical grounds. The mixing of a descriptive approach with a prescriptive approach is not good economics.
The last sentence is not attributed to Dasgupta and appears to be an editorial comment. I've therefore deleted it.
None of Stern’s critics are advocating doing nothing about climate change. What they disagree about is how much is it worth sacrificing now to prevent a worst case scenario in a hundred years time.
Unsourced and unattributed. Enescot (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring of economic analysis 

message: I've removed this sentence:
Australian economists Paul Jensen and Elizabeth Webster summarise the various arguments for and against Stern's choice of discount rate.[61]
and added the cited paper to the further reading section. Mentioning the paper in the main article doesn't serve any purpose unless its content is actually discussed.
I've trimmed down and restructured the introduction. I thought that it was a bit too long in places. I've also changed the description of business-as-usual damages to make it clear that these damages are equivalent to GDP losses, rather than actual GDP losses. Enescot (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised intro 

message: I've changed this sentence:
Discounting is used in Stern's calculation of the costs of mitigation, as well as the costs of "business-as-usual" climate change.
I wrote this previously because I assumed that Stern's mitigation cost estimate used discounting. According to Dietz et al p.166 (PDF), however:
Our central estimate of an annual mitigation cost of 1% of GDP to follow a 550 ppm CO2e stabilisation pathway is taken to be constant through time. It is not a present value [emphasis added] and we do not calibrate impact costs in terms of present value. Indeed we have argued that we have to work in terms of the expected welfare integral, not marginal changes of the present-value kind. We compare a flow of mitigation costs (1% of GDP) with a percentage flow of climate-change impacts, calibrated via the balanced growth equivalent (BGE).
I take "[it] is not a present value" to mean that the estimate was not discounted. Enescot (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discounting of mitigation costs 

message: I've rewritten the part of the article that outlines Weitzman's general comments on the Review. The previous revision was:
Harvard economist Martin Weitzman has written that "the Stern Review consistently leans towards [...] assumptions and formulations that emphasize optimistically-low expected costs of mitigation and pessimistically-high expected damages from greenhouse warming", that the documentation in the report is "elusive, frustrating, and ultimately unsatisfactory" and that "the key assumption that drives its strong conclusions is the mundane fact that a very low interest rate is postulated".[48]"[...] concerning the rate of pure time preference, Stern follows a decidedly-minority paternalistic view", and "[in] a similar spirit of choosing extreme taste parameters, Stern selects as its base-case coefficient of relative risk aversion [...] that is the lowest lower bound of just about any economist's best-guess range." Weitzman continues to argue that the Stern Review underestimated the risk of climate change and that, therefore, the Stern Review is "right for the wrong reasons", a conclusion shared by Yohe and Tol.[57]
Having read some of the paper that Weitzman's comments are taken from, I do not believe that the above is an adequate summary. Weitzman does not accept all of the Review's analysis, but is not entirely critical of the Review either, as the revision above suggests. My new revision is based principally on the conclusions section of Weitzman's paper. I believe that this section of the paper best summarizes Weitzman's views on the Stern Review. My new revision:
Harvard economist Martin Weitzman has written a paper on the Stern Review (Weitzman, 2007). This paper is also available (PDF) from Weitzman's website, with the alternative title, "The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change" In this paper, Weitzman described himself as "skeptical" in regards to the discount rate used by Stern in the Review's formal (aggregated) assessment of climate change.Weitzman, 2007, p. 703 One of Weitzman's conclusions was that Stern deserved credit for increasing public awareness on the dangers of climate change.Weitzman, 2007, p. 724 However, Weitzman also commented that:
[...] in my opinion, Stern deserves a measure of discredit for giving readers an authoritative-looking impression that seemingly objective best-available-practice professional economic analysis robustly supports its conclusions, instead of more openly disclosing the full extent to which the Review’s radical policy recommendations depend upon controversial extreme assumptions and unconventional discount rates that most mainstream economists would consider much too low
The point that Weitzman raises in his paper concerning discounting being inadequate due to climate risks is already mentioned in another section of the article:
Whilst critical of Stern's discounting, Martin Weitzman has argued that standard discounting procedures are inherently incapable of dealing with extreme, low-probability events, such as the risk of catastrophic climate change
which I have left unchanged. The matter of the Review being "right for the wrong reasons" does not appear in Weitzman's paper. Rather, he poses the statement as an open question:
History will judge whether the economic analysis of the Stern Review ended up being more wrong or more right and, if it was more right, whether as pure economic reasoning it was right for the right reasons or it was right for the wrong reasons.
I was also unhappy with the way Weitzman's viewpoint was used in the article's introduction, which summarizes the views of various economists:
There has been a mixed reaction to the Stern Review from economists. Several economists have been critical of the Review,[5][6] for example, a paper by Byatt et al. (2006) describes the Review as "deeply flawed".[7] Some economists (such as Brad DeLong[8] and John Quiggin[9]) have supported the Review, while others have argued that Stern's conclusions are reasonable, even if the method by which he reached them is incorrect (e.g. Weitzman).[10]
Weitzman disagreed with aspects of the Review's analysis, but I do not believe he described Stern's methodology as "incorrect." My new revision:
There has been a mixed reaction to the Stern Review from economists. Several economists have been critical of the Review,[5][6] for example, a paper by Byatt et al. (2006) describes the Review as "deeply flawed".[7] Some economists (such as Brad DeLong[8] and John Quiggin[9]) have supported the Review. Others have criticized aspects of Review's analysis, but argued that some of its conclusions might still be justified based on other grounds, e.g., see papers by Weitzman (2007) and Helm (2008).
Weitzman's viewpoint actually appears to support the Nordhaus "gradual emissions ramp" view, but emphasizes the need to better understand climate risk (PDF, pp.722-724). From the abstract:
The Review’s second basic strand is a more intuitive argument that it might be very important to avoid possibly large uncertainties that are difficult to quantify. Concerning this uncertainty aspect, I argue that it might be recast into sound analytical reasoning that might justify some of the Review’s conclusions.
I think this supports the use of the word "justified" in my new revision. Enescot (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weitzman's views on the Stern Review 

message: from http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,4 by Naomi Klein.  
This article appeared in the November 28, 2011 print edition of The Nation. 
97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation resource 

message: 99.109.127.141 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to [[Nicholas Stern, Baron Stern of Brentford]] since not '''Review''' directly? 

message: There's another image here, one that I just made. I want to make it more clear as to the differences between the review and the current literature. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image 

message: Amongst all the sections of criticism in this entry there is no mention of the literature from outside the mainstream of economics and more specifically from ecological economics.  Three paragraphs in a new section including several references have been added. Hopefully others can also add to the references here as there are far more from environmental ethics than I have been able to include e.g. Bryan Norton.  There are also probably other critical perspectives within the ecological economics literature which might be added e.g. Dick Norgaard, Rich Howarth. As the Stern report claimed to be addressing ethics the absence of references to work (such as that of Spash) explicitly on economics, ethics and climate change is a poor reflection on the scholarship of the 'review' work.  At least in Wikipedia the same mistake should not be allowed to persist. Thinksome (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecological economic critique Major addition 

message: I added this link in the see also section:
*Gail Whiteman's findings of economic costs of arctic methane release added to the Stern review
Perhaps it's useful to write a small text about it in the article too, and use the link as a reference instead.
KVDP (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Methane bubble costs added to Stern review

message: The criticism of the "The Business" is based on a "leaked" IPCC AR4 Deaft. It claims mitigation costs would, according to the Draft, amount to up to 5 % GDP (to stay under 550ppm CO2e until 2050, see 1), much more than what Stern found. However, if I understand http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-6.html correctly, the numbers in the final report are very different from those that have supposedly been in the draft, and are in good agreement with Stern. I think, this criticism has no foundation any more and should be removed. --DeWikiMan (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: removed --DeWikiMan (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Criticism - Leaked UN Report