Interesting about Stern and hurricane damage

This is making waves.

However, according to my man who knows (Hi Professor!) it really was just a typo. And a typo that once corrected does not change the calculations whatever the other problems with the Stern Review.

The correct number was used in the sums n\’ stuff while the incorrect one was printed in the tables.

5 comments on “Interesting about Stern and hurricane damage

  1. I think I’d want to see the good Prof’s detailed answer before I would accept his assurance.

    After all, we’ve been asked to take a whole mountain of alarmist info, data, reports, studies, theories, models etc on faith which have now proved to be very far from the truth. Why would the Stern Report be any different?

    Pielke on the other hand seems to have a pretty good track record, publishes full info/background etc.

  2. “The correct number was used in the sums n’ stuff”

    The correctness, relevance, desirability and everything else about both the numbers and the entire exercise is deeply disputed.

    I think you mean the “desired” numbers, “specified” numbers or similar?

  3. If we could see the sums n’ stuff and the assumptions behind them, we could check them and assess their worth. I’m always deeply suspicious of reports that present information without indicating from whence it came, leaving one to suspect an overactive thumb was involved.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

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