4 ms·

I read the post and found it to be the sort of titanic hubris many economists are known for; serious reductionism in arguments and profound ignorance for the co

I read the post and found it to be the sort of titanic hubris many economists are known for; serious reductionism in arguments and profound ignorance for the complexity and nonlinear effects that actual experts on the topic manage. No consideration for social effects, cherry-picked effects, etc. I have no idea why economists are so guilty of thinking that their layman knowledge of various topics is somehow better than real experts.

doctor_eval 2y ago
This is exactly what I took away from it. For me the key sentence is this: > This would be a serious problem if we were facing rapid change, but we are not. My understanding is that, geologically speaking, climate change is happening extremely quickly. But he goes on to say, > Other species can [adapt] by evolution or by changing their range, but that could be a problem for species such as trees that evolve slowly and shift their range slowly So he incorrectly claims that climate change is “slow” because it is happening over a period of decades or even centuries, and he does not seem to understand evolution at all, which I understand happens on a timescale several orders of magnitude longer. What a pile of easily refutable nonsense, spewed out as fact. It’s just the usual blather, someone influential who thinks they understand everything, failing to accept even the basic, provable tenets of something inconvenient for their personal world view. If that’s the quality of the “arguments” he had with his parents, little wonder we’re all fucked.
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  These are the same people who gutted antitrust law BTW. 50 years later and every industry is "five companies all trying to figure out how to buy or kill the other four".
- thyrsus 2y ago
  Evolution is slow or fast depending on the reproductive cycle of the species. Redwoods: many millenia. Viruses: measured in months - which Covid variant are we on?
  - doctor_eval 2y ago
    I'm sure you agree that this doesn't make his argument any more cogent! It's not like having viruses and bacteria evolve more quickly than food is going to be a good thing...

doctor_eval 2y ago

This is exactly what I took away from it. For me the key sentence is this: > This would be a serious problem if we were facing rapid change, but we are not. My understanding is that, geologically speaking, climate change is happening extremely quickly. But he goes on to say, > Other species can [adapt] by evolution or by changing their range, but that could be a problem for species such as trees that evolve slowly and shift their range slowly So he incorrectly claims that climate change is “slow” because it is happening over a period of decades or even centuries, and he does not seem to understand evolution at all, which I understand happens on a timescale several orders of magnitude longer. What a pile of easily refutable nonsense, spewed out as fact. It’s just the usual blather, someone influential who thinks they understand everything, failing to accept even the basic, provable tenets of something inconvenient for their personal world view. If that’s the quality of the “arguments” he had with his parents, little wonder we’re all fucked.

kmeisthax 2y ago
These are the same people who gutted antitrust law BTW. 50 years later and every industry is "five companies all trying to figure out how to buy or kill the other four".
thyrsus 2y ago
Evolution is slow or fast depending on the reproductive cycle of the species. Redwoods: many millenia. Viruses: measured in months - which Covid variant are we on?
- doctor_eval 2y ago
  I'm sure you agree that this doesn't make his argument any more cogent! It's not like having viruses and bacteria evolve more quickly than food is going to be a good thing...