What's so pernicious about @BjornLomborg's approach, is that any criticism against crude cost-benefit analysis is waived away as indiferrence to poor people. He calls @past_is_future just "an activist". It stamps out any opportunity to ask why they are poor in the first place,https://twitter.com/past_is_future/status/1263514329430798337 …
-
-
Hey Bjorn, you remember this? Good times, mate. Good times.pic.twitter.com/MyUlfLQRyE
-
Dishonest Taken out of context (which is why there is no link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/14/climatechange-scienceofclimatechange …) Argues we should check our models against data and experience Entirely ignores that I *right before* confirm sea level rise And here from my earlier Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/climatechange …pic.twitter.com/1So9P8XiFj
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
"a moderate lockdown (social restrictions) will likely reduce the death toll by 16,350". You go on to find economic & social impacts over 5 years would lead to an even greater loss of life. Do you then conclude that these need to be urgently mitigated?
-
right. the shtick is to estimate benefits from only intermediate or partial measures and contrast them with hugely inflated costs. same thing he does for climate, e.g. 'this intermediate step would cost a kajillion dollars but only reduce temperature by a millionth of a kelvin'
- 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.