As far as I can see, the far right data point (5% damage for a temperature increase of 10C) is a good illustration of why the claim below is almost certainly wrong.https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1102985181026238465 …
It is an interesting argument: your prior suggests that the damage should be much higher than *all peer-reviewed published estimates* (it is clear the 6%@10°C is somewhat of an outlier) So, you reject the estimates rather than your prior?
-
-
My prior is essentially that a 10C rise in global surface temperatures would be utterly catastrophic. I would certainly be interested in an informed argument as to why this is unlikely to be the case.
-
Strongest arg it isn’t inherently catastrophic is geologic history. See here for good history: https://palladiummag.com/2019/01/28/ancient-upheavals-show-how-to-geoengineer-a-stable-climate/ … However it is worth noting there are things that make it different this time (Eg speed) and in those areas lie potential tail risks (inherently not modelable)
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Not *all the peer reviewed published estimates* Actually none of them if they or you are honest bcs you are extrapolating into areas where the physical science is uncertain, the downside risks are enormous & the upside nonexistent. http://triplecrisis.com/on-buying-insurance-and-ignoring-cost-benefit-analysis/ …
-
This is an illustration how poorly economic theory is able to estimate the economic damage.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.