Getting It Wrong...

[Zam-Zam]

...Not unusual in the field of "climate economics":


The scientific journal Nature in December retracted one of the most influential climate economics papers of the past decade. The paper, by Maximilian Kotz, Anders Levermann and Leonie Wenz, claimed that unmitigated climate change would cost the global economy $38 trillion a year (in 2005 international dollars) by midcentury. It was the second-most-mentioned climate paper by the media in 2024, according to Carbon Brief. The paper was cited by central banks and governments to justify aggressive climate policies.

Then it collapsed. The authors acknowledged that its errors were “too substantial” for a correction. Nature retracted the paper more than 18 months after first learning of its problems.

Most media coverage treated this as an unfortunate aberration in what is otherwise settled science. The retraction, however, isn’t a one-off. It revealed a crack that runs much deeper into the foundation of climate research.

Economists Finbar Curtin and Matthew Burgess at the University of Wyoming released a preprint on April 20 that points out the broader flaws with current climate change research, making the Kotz et al. retraction look like small potatoes. Their paper, “The Empirically Inscrutable Climate-Economy Relationship,” starts from the most basic question in climate economics: Can researchers actually measure how climate affects the economy from the historical record?

Their answer is no.




Complete text: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/you-cant-trust-climate-economics-86436c3e?st=zpU7gG

 

[RickWA]

...Not unusual in the field of "climate economics":


The scientific journal Nature in December retracted one of the most influential climate economics papers of the past decade. The paper, by Maximilian Kotz, Anders Levermann and Leonie Wenz, claimed that unmitigated climate change would cost the global economy $38 trillion a year (in 2005 international dollars) by midcentury. It was the second-most-mentioned climate paper by the media in 2024, according to Carbon Brief. The paper was cited by central banks and governments to justify aggressive climate policies.

Then it collapsed. The authors acknowledged that its errors were “too substantial” for a correction. Nature retracted the paper more than 18 months after first learning of its problems.

Most media coverage treated this as an unfortunate aberration in what is otherwise settled science. The retraction, however, isn’t a one-off. It revealed a crack that runs much deeper into the foundation of climate research.

Economists Finbar Curtin and Matthew Burgess at the University of Wyoming released a preprint on April 20 that points out the broader flaws with current climate change research, making the Kotz et al. retraction look like small potatoes. Their paper, “The Empirically Inscrutable Climate-Economy Relationship,” starts from the most basic question in climate economics: Can researchers actually measure how climate affects the economy from the historical record?

Their answer is no.




Complete text: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/you-cant-trust-climate-economics-86436c3e?st=zpU7gG

As always…at issue here is:

“I follow [perversion of] the science [that advances the cause of marxism].”

 

[as seen on tv]

glaciers and polar ice caps have been melting since 20,000 years ago, when the ice age reached its peak.

we are still in the waning years of that ice age, and it's not completely gone yet. when it does end, there will be no more polar ice caps - as was the case for hundreds of millions of years when dinosaurs ruled the earth.

the sea levels will continue to rise.

florida and many islands will be submerged.

the kind of car you drive won't stop this.

 

[Alinvegas]

...Not unusual in the field of "climate economics":


The scientific journal Nature in December retracted one of the most influential climate economics papers of the past decade. The paper, by Maximilian Kotz, Anders Levermann and Leonie Wenz, claimed that unmitigated climate change would cost the global economy $38 trillion a year (in 2005 international dollars) by midcentury. It was the second-most-mentioned climate paper by the media in 2024, according to Carbon Brief. The paper was cited by central banks and governments to justify aggressive climate policies.

Then it collapsed. The authors acknowledged that its errors were “too substantial” for a correction. Nature retracted the paper more than 18 months after first learning of its problems.

Most media coverage treated this as an unfortunate aberration in what is otherwise settled science. The retraction, however, isn’t a one-off. It revealed a crack that runs much deeper into the foundation of climate research.

Economists Finbar Curtin and Matthew Burgess at the University of Wyoming released a preprint on April 20 that points out the broader flaws with current climate change research, making the Kotz et al. retraction look like small potatoes. Their paper, “The Empirically Inscrutable Climate-Economy Relationship,” starts from the most basic question in climate economics: Can researchers actually measure how climate affects the economy from the historical record?

Their answer is no.




Complete text: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/you-cant-trust-climate-economics-86436c3e?st=zpU7gG

Yes. And now Algore is predicting a new ice age. LOL...