A Response to ‘The Stern Review: A Dual Critique’

• Author(s): Andrew Glikson • Published: March 2007
• Pages in paper: 6


Abstract

Any consideration of the potential economic consequences of climate change depends critically on the physical evidence for this process. In this response, Andrew Glikson questions the Dual Critique authors’ understanding of the science. Also, the paper’s repeated use of the term ‘alarmist’ and other derogatory language reflects adversely on the professional integrity of climate scientists, whose ethical duty it is to draw attention to observations of potential concern to society, and does nothing to advance the science or logic of the criticisms made. ‘Scepticism’ is inbuilt into the scientific method, where working hypotheses are subjected to tests based on a range of perspectives. By contrast, inherent in ‘climate change scepticism’ is a pre-conceived negation of anthropogenic climate change, followed by a search for real or imagined errors in climate science—an approach reminiscent of that used by creationists who attempt to challenge Darwinian evolution.



Register for personal access to all papers for just £47.99

To download papers you need a subscription to World Economics Journal.
Get access to the full 20 year archive of thousands of papers and abstracts.

Order online now for 1 years immediate access for 1 user via username/password.


You do not need a PayPal account to pay by card.

Institutional Subscriptions, Contact Us
Existing Subscriber Log-in