Your hot take is ungenerous, inaccurate. Considering the stakes, it's also highly irresponsible. Noob layperson's TLDR for the viewing audience: Using his dam

Your hot take is ungenerous, inaccurate. Considering the stakes, it's also highly irresponsible. Noob layperson's TLDR for the viewing audience: Using his damage function, Nordhaus concludes 4° warming is "optimal" economically, balancing costs of action and inaction. Keen's first point is that 2° is game over, ending civilization as we know it, rendering equatorial regions uninhabitable, the death of many many people. Then Keen systematically, surgically dissects Nordhaus' assumptions, analysis, and conclusions. Lies by omission, misuse of data, inappropriate contexts (eg assuming continuous functions, ignoring tipping points). More egregiously, Nordhaus completely ignores the physical world. Keen finishes by recommending: including energy and climate feedback into econometric models; reforms to IPCC, including replacing old school economists with climate scientists and climate savvy economists.