This piece is every bit as dense as you’d expect of a London Review of Books article on the work of a Nobel-winning economist, but it’s also absolute 🔥🔥🔥☄️. 
I particularly like this bit. The problem is not economic modelling, it’s the certainty with which it is deployed.
And yes, you could say the same of climate models, but modelling based on physical laws is gonna be more confident than economic modelling, plus it tends to be better about talking about ranges and scenarios.
In contrast, we’re being asked to bet the civilisational farm on the assumption growth continues even as temperatures spiral past 2C. At the very least there should be an acknowledgment this is a very sizeable gamble beset by massive uncertainties.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
