No point saying anything new on an election day.https://www.econlib.org/election-boilerplate/ …
-
-
Replying to @bryan_caplan
Bryan, do you disagree with the mainstream scientific consensus (loaded term I realize) about global warming? If not, do you not believe that it is the kind of issue that requires strong collective intervention (I know you have a '5-1' heuristic, curious how it applies here)
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @F_Vaggi
On the physical science, I defer to scientific consensus. On policy, I defer to the economic consensus. People like Nordhaus say moderate measures would be an improvement, but radical measures worse than nothing. Given political dysfunctions, I say wait and see.
4 replies 3 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @bryan_caplan @F_Vaggi
David Manheim Retweeted Bryan Caplan
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/carbon-taxes-ii … It's a half decade later, the impacts are clearer, and the suggested carbon tax is higher, but economists were very solidly behind a marginal shift towards taxing carbon instead of income. Do you not agree that we should do this ASAP?https://twitter.com/bryan_caplan/status/1059814141374939136 …
David Manheim added,
Bryan Caplan @bryan_caplanReplying to @F_VaggiOn the physical science, I defer to scientific consensus. On policy, I defer to the economic consensus. People like Nordhaus say moderate measures would be an improvement, but radical measures worse than nothing. Given political dysfunctions, I say wait and see.2 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @davidmanheim @F_Vaggi
Given political dysfunction, I still say wait-and-see>ASAP.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bryan_caplan @davidmanheim
The latest ICC publication did not meaningfully alter your calculus on this point? I think global warming is potentially the biggest challenge to our political system in general, but, to libertarian thought specifically.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's almost as if a malevolent entity perfectly designed a trolley problem that attacks the weaknesses of our political system. It's an existential threat, that will dis proportionally impact poorer people in the third world, that requires collective action, etc...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @F_Vaggi @bryan_caplan
No, it's just that the more easily solvable challenges are less cognitively available, because they get solved quickly. But yes, it's a big deal, and millions will die, and then we'll fix it - and need to explain to our kids why we didn't act faster. So, "political dysfunction"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
At Effective Altruism Global, Oxford researcher John Halstead quantified the risks of global warming. He aligns with the IPCC on basically everything. Says it would be bad but very unlikely *existential* risk. He addresses the "millions will die" claim: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qmHh-cshTCMT8LX0Y5wSQm8FMBhaxhQ8OlOeRLkXIF0/mobilebasic# …
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
this seems good, but i'm confused why the author first agrees with annan & hargreaves about fat tails being caused by bad priors, but then uses wagner & weitzman's fat tailed probabilities
-
-
based on this http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.370.6347&rep=rep1&type=pdf … it seems like it would be really hard to justify the 3% chance of >6 deg sensitivity that wagner & weitzman assume
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
the different lines of evidence may not be as independent as A&H say, but i'd guess even so conditioning on recent temperature record + paleoclimate + volcano data + models / feedback analysis constrains the pdf much more strongly
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.