@xriskology thank you for linking to my article in your @motherboard piece. but imo the stern number doesn't work here even w the caveat
-
re 2, i meant the number "sounded low" relative to other discount rates which were based on things other than xrisk prob
if it was intended as a serious estimate of xrisk prob, it's remarkable that the review has no text justifying it as such
-
-
and afaik stern hasn't written about xrisk at all, so if he made an estimate, would it be really an "expert estimate"?
-
i don't think this damages your case; other nums were higher and from more relevant sources. just, why include stern?
-
another pt here is that stern implicitly assumes that /severity of climate change has no impact on prob of extinction by 2200/
-
bc he uses the same 0.1 # across all compared scenarios. he also doesn't discuss human extinction even in most extreme scenarios
-
so by construction the # has nothing to do w/ climate change. hard to compare to # s that eg treat it as "threat multiplier"?
End of conversation
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.