On every second or third page, @BjornLomborg writes that climate change is real and that it's a net harm for the world. To @ret_ward (@guardian) @JosephEStiglitz (@nytimes), that means he's a climate denier. Wth??
-
I rarely agree with you, but on this one I actually do.
@BjornLomborg relies way too much on what Nordhaus' models spit out -- the carbon tax chapter (#11) is absolutely appalling in this sense. (see my upcoming review)
Dear Joakim — looking forward to seeing the review You might find it interesting that the three main damage models (DICE, PAGE+FUND), powering Obama's SCC show very similar costs, so my analysis (in that respect) not just based on Nordhaus https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340900993_Welfare_in_the_21st_century_Increasing_development_reducing_inequality_the_impact_of_climate_change_and_the_cost_of_climate_policies …pic.twitter.com/T09t3lHlgr
-
-
Great, I'll have a look! Lest I be misunderstood: Unlike
@ProfSteveKeen, I don't have a problem with those models in principle. Rather, the hubris of making 500-year projections in chapter 11. Those, believe, relied almost entirely on Nordhaus 2018:https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20170046 … -
How about simply assuming that ~90% of GDP won't be affected, because it happens indoors? Read it and weep.
- 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.