Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Richard Reiss's avatar

Even a one rifleman firing squad is pretty bad when you think about it.

And thinking about it that way would have been a good idea back in the 1990s. Sigh.

Expand full comment
Anton Alferness's avatar

Economists are rarely humorous but a dead clock is right twice a day, that is if you're old enough to know what an analog clock is. Economists say predictions are difficult, especially about the future. There is an overabundance of evidence that we have had a considerable over-reliance on modeling. And when combined with the maximal conservatism of scientific paper publishing language, vs using actuarial principles to convey risk analysis to the public and policy makers, the result is we are heading into rougher waters faster than we are prepared for. While I appreciate the complicated nature of this topic (modeling) I must admit that I find any discussion of whatever the F the IPCC does, says, averages, models or fingers to be a complete violation of rational analysis, given that the IPCC is a politically driven vehicle, not a science based arbiter of truth. And my sincere apologies for using the word truth in this (or any) context but I didn't want to spend too much time overthinking this absolutely inconsequential and utterly irrelevant reply. I used to think that our societies will collapse, if by climate change, due to solving it was not economically profitable enough. Then I started thinking that we will more likely succumb to the inevitable regulatory blockades without enough time to unravel the contradictions in our man made paradigm. Lately I've been thinking that it may be we've spent too much time averaging the model results in an effort to comfort ourselves. I'm voting for Massive Asteroid 2024 for President, campaign slogan: Not Soon Enough. Sorry. Sh*t got dark all a sudden. :/

Expand full comment
32 more comments...

No posts