3 ms·
Economists have fit ludicrously inadequate functions to model the effects of temperature increase on GDP. They disregarded rainfall and physics in general. I f
by danuker 4y ago
Economists have fit ludicrously inadequate functions to model the effects of temperature increase on GDP. They disregarded rainfall and physics in general.
I feel betrayed by the IPCC for treating these studies seriously. This is particularly of concern, since the IPCC was created specifically as a non-industry scientific body to help policymakers.
I apologize for further propagating the false sense of security in a previous Ask HN[1]. But I thank elviejo[2] for linking me to this video. I published it again, because I think it is the most important discussion of the century.
1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33999229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33999229
2 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33999547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33999547
- anigbrowl 4y agoFor those who prefer text, the paper is here: https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The_appallingly_bad_neoclassical_economics_of_clim-1.pdf https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The_app... danukar, you deserve respect for so publicly questioning and then changing direction on your prior assumptions.
- danuker 4y agoI also thank the HN community (and dang) for enabling such discussion. I tried to voice my concerns in /r/AskScience, but my post was not phrased in a sufficiently scientific manner. I asked why we ought to combat climate change, rather than scientifically answerable issues about the damage models.