not gonna lie, a scenario where a big nasty effect of climate change pastes Europe first might make the powers that be wake up to the impending disaster faster. For the folks with the big money one death in Europe might be more shocking than 100 deaths in India.
The trouble with climate change has always been that by the time you notice the "big nasty effect" it's already too late to prevent catastrophe.
To be clear, it's never too late to improve our fate, but by the time something like the AMOC shutting down destroys Europes climate, you've already signed up for an incredible amount of climate pain. Maybe such an event will wake us up enough to prevent out right extinction, but if this happened the collapse of industrial civilization would be virtually guaranteed.
Isn't that what this and other papers say - that AMOC is doomed to collapse, it's just a matter of time? I'm not sure I'd equate AMOC collapse to industrial civilization collapsing.
My understanding with climate change is that we have signed up for a lot already, but much more is on the way if we don't make big changes faster. Humanity is a crisis-motivated species. The trouble with climate change is the effects so far have nearly no impact on power. If AMOC were to shut down in 2030 devastating Europe's economy, that could be the wake-up call to everyone to actually stop fossil-burning ourselves to doom for short-term conveniences.
hold up hold up. there's a key distinction between the two categories of things you list in your examples. The first three are items that are consumed to meet Alice's specific desires, with features that match these desires-- a specific car, a specific house, a specific vacation. Alice buys them because she wants to use them.
In a sense Alice also buys physical capital to use them, but she's not using physical capital because of its specific qualities but instead because of the money the products it produces will fetch when sold on the market. Alice wants a vacation because she wants to go to Paris or New Zealand or whatever. Alice wants a machine part because she wants the money it will make her. Two very different categories of thing!
I bring this up not exactly as a critique of your analysis, but instead because none of the discussion in this thread is particularly tethered to the process of production, and it's specifically the disruption to production that makes the SVB collapse troubling.
I absolutely 100% registered for an account here just so I could respond to this random comment.
Friend. “Peer reviewed” doesn’t mean what you think it does. Peer review isn’t something that indicates that a given claim is verified. Instead, it’s something that indicates that a given paper has reached the bare minimum for consideration. It’s generally a red flag when people use “peer reviewed” as a synonym for “true,” particularly when the paper is published in a relatively unknown journal, and an entire parade of red flags when people treat “not peer reviewed” as “almost as good as true.”
Regardless of your opinions on the use of various treatments for COVID-19, I strongly recommend that you read this article and take their methodology to heart. “Doing research” doesn’t mean poking around on scholar.google.com and reading extant studies. Sometimes “doing research” means actually running an experiment to verify that the effects claimed in a published paper are replicable. Sometimes “doing research”, as in this case, entails doing statistical analyses of publications looking for tells of shoddy methodology or even straightforward misrepresentation. Note: There’s some really fun tricks that people can use to detect bogus data — for example, when humans attempt to fabricate “random” data, typically the numbers they come up with don’t match an actual random distribution.
Interesting how this peer review argument comes out selectively and not when something like Surgisphere happens and their bogus findings are immediately passed off as the ultimate truth.
I see that towards the end of your comment that you're inferring the page has issues with the statistical calculations. Here's the easy solution to get past that and get us talking about what matters: disregard whatever problems you have with the page and look at the actual studies. I think it's absolutely preposterous that people are disregarding life saving research based on which web site serves as a vehicle to get them to it. Read through a few of the studies as I have, and let's have a conversation around the most promising.
