Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Good read from @AdairTurnerUK on the "dangerous delusion of optimal global warming".
Takes aim at Nobel laureate Bill Norhaus's model conclusion – much beloved of @BjornLomborg et al – that 3.5C of warming would be "optimal" from an economic perspective.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/misguided-nordhaus-model-optimal-climate-change-by-adair-turner-2019-08 …pic.twitter.com/h5EOWpmFxp
Oh, that is hilarious: "the costs cannot possibly exceed 1-2% of GDP" Eh, yes Cost of just 80% reduction in 2050 with *best* policy for EU is 5% http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S2010007813400010 … Going zero carbon for NZ is 16% of GDP https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Climate%20Change/NZIER%20report%20-%20Economic%20impact%20analysis%20of%202050%20emissions%20targets%20-%20FINAL.pdf … And much higher costs if not optimal policypic.twitter.com/yS4iEbBWCF
ah Bjorn, why *would* you cite the latest official EU modelling when you can dig out a paper from 2013 that you can present as supporting your narrative insteadhttps://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1067766426214248448 …
But the models, Simon, the economic models. They are inherently flawed. All of them... Apart from the ones I like, which regardless of how optimistic their assumptions, are gospel.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
