10th November 2006, 04:59 PM
Can Sir Stern find enough in the Arctic 125000 years ago for a few metres(being so far outside the experience of human civilisation)?
Here's a counter intuitive affect of arctic melting
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/index.php/...ar_puzzle/
The Stern report does not seem to say what the original brief was-there does not seem to be an introduction of any use. What about the title -The Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change. Whats a Review Report? Two for the price of one economics
A conclusion is that "strong reductions in carbon emissions are required to reduce the risks of climate change. They are likely to provide benefits well in excess of the costs.
Indeed the costs of not acting strongly (actors required) are likely to be very high." -
- He takes proof that climate changes (using knowledge about the Arctic in the Ipswichian) but finds we (the strong) can stop it changing and in so doing save money (presumably for a rainy day) which is fantastic news. Where would we be if he had found by review report that it would not be cost effective to stop climate changing (frittering money away on priceless archaeological things).
So do we forget preservation in situ and get it out now using a 2% sample. Does archaeology need its own review reports on the effects of climate change on archaeology?
Here's a counter intuitive affect of arctic melting
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/index.php/...ar_puzzle/
The Stern report does not seem to say what the original brief was-there does not seem to be an introduction of any use. What about the title -The Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change. Whats a Review Report? Two for the price of one economics
A conclusion is that "strong reductions in carbon emissions are required to reduce the risks of climate change. They are likely to provide benefits well in excess of the costs.
Indeed the costs of not acting strongly (actors required) are likely to be very high." -
- He takes proof that climate changes (using knowledge about the Arctic in the Ipswichian) but finds we (the strong) can stop it changing and in so doing save money (presumably for a rainy day) which is fantastic news. Where would we be if he had found by review report that it would not be cost effective to stop climate changing (frittering money away on priceless archaeological things).
So do we forget preservation in situ and get it out now using a 2% sample. Does archaeology need its own review reports on the effects of climate change on archaeology?