> Martin Weitzman, one of the few economists who warned that these risks were being ignored, was snubbed for the Nobel Prize.
Is failing to win a Nobel Prize now a snub? That seems ridiculous on its face.
Is failing to win a Nobel Prize now a snub? That seems ridiculous on its face.
From this cycle : https://www.oecd.org/naec/averting-systemic-collapse/
Calling the research "stupid" isn't an argument. I also don't really think quoting Twitter threads qualifies as evidence either - this sort of policy deserves a bit more than 140 characters per thought bubble. If he isn't serious about making an attempt to debunk this stuff, then he probably doesn't have a slam dunk case.
No argument that economics prizes are highly political, though.
What do you mean "if?" Thanks to my affluence, I sat out the heat wave in the comfort of central AC. It was a little warm upstairs; my principal discomfort was that the kitchen was so cold that I needed to wear a sweater. I went outside to take the trash out at the peak temperature just because I wanted to feel it. I drove my air conditioned car, already cool from the garage, to the air conditioned grocery store, and had to walk about 30m in the heat. I could have had those groceries delivered, but again, I preferred the "adventure." Only... we couldn't get food delivered because, I presume, not enough delivery drivers have AC. They're not as affluent as myself.
Wealth, comfort, and temperature are strongly linked. You know Bezos wouldn't need to go for takeout like me. Worst case, he'd call a dealership to deliver a car to a driver to do his errands.
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.
Errata: 4°. I musta fat fingered my edit.
Soft denial is saying "climate change does exist, but its impact on the population will be lower than mesures destined to curb it". I hope his grandchildren and great-grandchildren will hear this speculation.
It's political not merit based.
Either don't bring it up, or only mention the fails.