> There is a large and robust literature to assess these type of damages even granting you that we have a robust model to assess damage (which on its face seem

> There is a large and robust literature to assess these type of damages even granting you that we have a robust model to assess damage (which on its face seems to be a wildly improbably claim) we do not have an accurate model that predicts WHAT damage will be done due to humanity's impact on weather change, so the resultant-cost benefit analysis still propagates that uncertainty forward. > (search for Social Cost of Carbon) i havent read it all because i just looked it up[0], but it directly contradicts your claim of our "robust data and damage models". section 5.1 "damage functions" is about how previous damage models are all incorrect. side note: one of the paper authors is in references 30 times. idk if this is common or not, but it seems suspicious. > The methodological challenges are discussed really well in the paper actually. Much of the damages calculated here aren't even climate but direct air pollution wouldnt know, dont have access to anything but the abstract. look, im not well read into the field of future predictive damage modeling. you may be right that the field has some definition, however i stand by my smell test. even ignoring everything relevent about health, damage, and climate, the start of the sentence "$1 of BTC" is enough to give pause. BTC price is up 30% in the last month and 470% in the last year. not exactly rigorous scientific measure. [0] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28472/w28472.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28472/w284...