Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
If you assume a much lower discount rate than real-world and if you assume climate damages are more than 3x what the best estimate of the IPCC overview (6.7%GDP@3°C instead of 2.1%), then you get this result. But yes, it does deliver a politically expedient resulthttps://twitter.com/dwallacewells/status/1282850459913527296 …
FWIW, the Swedish news site (researchers from S) summarize the result as "the researchers wanted to show that economics doesn't contradict the Paris agreement" Not quite agenda-free research https://omni.se/tvagradersmalet-ar-positivt-aven-for-ekonomin/a/RRvJVa …pic.twitter.com/1ZQGepr3Mt
Here is the UN Climate Panel compilation of peer-reviewed damage estimates across temperatures (measured in percent of GDP, typically negative), https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-Chap10_FINAL.pdf …pic.twitter.com/l2sqeT1HDt
Here is Nordhaus' updated version of the UN Climate Panel estimate of damages across temperatures http://www.nber.org/papers/w23646 , here from https://www.nber.org/reporter/2017number3/nordhaus.html …pic.twitter.com/RSd5goQ5Nw
And here is the new articles damage estimate which is a bit more than 3x worse, from the reference they use, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-017-0166-z … Clearly not really representative of the peer-reviewed studiespic.twitter.com/vbML26khIv
Thanks for interest @BjornLomborg. Appreciated. On this I have found that sometimes what is reported is not accurate. This quote does not reflect the motivations of the team. The paper is clear on this. We just updated DICE using latest climate and social science. Thanks!
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
