A Place to Stand

Sir Nicholas Sterns UK government global warming "expert"

Sir Nicholas Stern made a revealing comment in his OXONIA lecture of
January 2006: "in August or July of last year, [he] had an idea what the
greenhouse effect was but wasn't really sure". It seems that, starting
from a position of little knowledge of the issues, he has swiftly
espoused the official view of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction
and Research, on whose advice the Review relies heavily. But this Hadley
Centre picture of reality, though broadly in line with that of the IPCC,
is by no means universally held. Many of the specific claims that are
endorsed in the Review have been seriously challenged in the scientific
literature, while the text plays down the great uncertainties that
remain.

Which rather suggests his area of expertise is in saying what governments want to hear. Regrettably I suspect the majority of "experts" in politics have similar talents.

More from the same magazine & PDF

We conclude that the Stern Review is biased and alarmist in its reading
of the science. These and other related problems arise because the
Review has relied for advice almost exclusively on a small number of
people and organizations that have a long history of unbalanced alarmism
on the global warming issue. Most of the research cited by the Review
does not, on inspection, make a convincing case that greenhouse warming
constitutes a major threat that justifies an immediate and radical
policy response. Contrary research is consistently ignored, as are basic
observational facts showing that alarm is unwarranted. The Review fails
to present an accurate picture of scientific understanding of climate
change issues, and will reinforce ill-informed alarm about climate
change among the general public, the bureaucracy and the body politic.
HM Government will need to look elsewhere for a balanced, impartial and
authoritative review of the current climate change debate.
-- Robert M. Carter et al., World Economics, October-December 2006

Obviously only those parts of the MSM who are in some way honest will be giving 1% as much time to this & other disproofs of Stern as they did to the original release. I predict that John Snow on C4 news who, on the day the report was released, said they were going to give full coverage to all sides & then introduced 3 people from various wings of catastrophe enthusiasm & zero sceptics will not be reporting it.