Sunday, October 31, 2010

ARD Film 21. Mai 2007 - mit Tol, Lomborg und Calder

by Hans von Storch

 So sah eine kritische Berichterstattung zum IPCC vor mehr als 2 Jahren aus:

http://www.br-online.de/das-erste/report-muenchen/50-jahre-report-muenchen-denkverbote-fuer-klimaforscher-ID1287325454368.xml

Immerhin äusserte sich das IPCC hier explizit zuu Vorwürfen.
at 16:32 Labels: ,

5 comments:

ghost said... 1

hm, hm, and what is Richard Tol saying to this: http://blogs.ethz.ch/klimablog/2010/10/08/eine-anmassende-und-zynische-methode/ ?

I strongly believe Mr Hänggis views are a bit polemic and Richard Tols (and some of the other economists) opionion is much more complex than described by Hänggis.

However, can you say something to this? I mean, adding "Recreational benefits" to drought costs is pretty much out of any normal thinking. And assigning money values to human lifes and even thinking that a human in the industrial countries is 10 times more valuable than in a developing country are... well... I am speechless. It seems to me, the IPCC report is much better nowadays than it used to be.

November 2, 2010 at 5:59 PM
Werner Krauss said... 2

hm hm
und nun, zwei Jahre später, ist Richard Tol ja IPCC lead author. Nun wird alles gut, oder?

November 3, 2010 at 12:43 PM
richardtol said... 3

@Ghost
I did not respond to Haenggi because he goes wrong at such a fundamental level. He seems to think that there is a lexicographic preference ordering, against all empirical evidence.

November 3, 2010 at 1:41 PM
ghost said... 4

@Richard Tol
okay, thanks. I understand.

I often have the problem to understand economists, too and think "you economists" try to put everything in cost-benefit ivory tower calculations w/o considering moral problems and thereby using strange models and weird data. Therefore, I think, I tend to believe such posts.

Well, that turns me into a "skeptic" who I criticize in climate discussions so much in turn. I have to improve. Therefore, I asked.

November 3, 2010 at 5:32 PM
richardtol said... 5

@Ghost
Skepticism is good. Question everything.

Climate change is a big problem for CBA, because the uncertainties are overwhelming and because of the ethical problems with aggregating very different things.

Here's three recent attempts to move forward:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/esr/wpaper/wp348.html

http://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwedp/7539.html

http://ideas.repec.org/p/sgc/wpaper/127.html

November 4, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)