nostalgebraist

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/

was my basic line of reasoning. But your points are well-taken. Thanks for the clear thinking and feedback.

:) imo that /is/ a good springboard but you don't need stern for it

just say "maybe you think extinction is pretty unlikely, like just 0.1% per yr" and then pull back the curtain . . .

to respond with intellectual integrity. In fact, the entire exchange seemed like a paradigm of good scholarship. Maybe?

i am pleased that they replied and corrected report. not pleased that corrected version still cites stern

stern's # is hard to interpret bc it's a social compromise w researchers who want a way higher # for non-xrisk reasons