Comments on: Voodoo Economists, Part 3.5: Richard Tol says wildly optimistic MIT/NBER study, beloved of deniers, is “way too pessimistic”

By: Peter Wood

Peter Wood — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:37:08 +0000

An interesting question that arises is are the expected costs of climate change obtained from integrated assessment models (IAMs) accurate? These slides from Michael Hanemann suggests that some of these models (including Nordhaus' model DICE) significantly underestimate the expected costs of climate change, and not just for reasons to do with discounting or long tails in climate sensitivity.

By: jorleh

jorleh — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:37:11 +0000

Tol: It´s clear you don´t know anything about the climate change. I know, you say it´s not necessary to know anything about anything if you use mathematical models. True, economics is only to amuse oneself, a play for children.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:27:48 +0000

Richard: You didn’t write it — but you did direct everyone who reads this blog to it.

By: Richard Pauli

Richard Pauli — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:37:06 +0000

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

By: Richard Tol

Richard Tol — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:01:41 +0000

Suffice to say that I did not write the piece in the New Scientist.

As I understand, the results of Dell and colleagues are about growth rates. A tiny change in the average growth rate is a large effect over a century.