Sunday, October 31, 2010

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

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

Immerhin äusserte sich das IPCC hier explizit zuu Vorwürfen.


ghost said...

hm, hm, and what is Richard Tol saying to this: ?

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.

Werner Krauss said...

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

richardtol said...

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.

ghost said...

@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.

richardtol said...

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: