The Stern Review: A Dual Critique was published in an economics journal and critiques climate science. Not surprisingly, as Nexus 6 reports, peer review was grossly inadequate. The critique slams Stern for, get this, ignoring Khilyuk and Chilingar. That’s the paper that compared human CO2 emissions with natural C02 emissions over the entire history of the planet and concluded that human emissions didn’t matter.
Here’s why Khilyuk and Chilingar is the gift that that keeps giving: their mistake is so large and so obvious that anyone who cites them either has no clue about climate science or doesn’t care whether what they write is true or not. But because there are so few peer-reviewed papers that support the global warming skeptic’s position, it is almost irresistible for them to cite them.
Discrediting themselves in this way we have: Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland and (someone who should know better), Richard S. Lindzen.
I should really stop here, but I can’t resist pointing out they claim that the NRC review invalidated the hockey stick when that wasn’t their conclusion at all.