Above, Steve Keen of University College of London, makes a number of great points in the video above.
Chiefly, he points out that economists have done a very poor job of representing what economic damages will occur in the wake of currently-in-the-pipeline climate change in this century.
One example he gives is the very real and surprising (to me and a lot of people) magnitude of insolation at arctic latitude versus temperate or tropical areas.
In an ideal model, the solar radiation in the arctic summer is greater than that received by the equatorial region, in part due to the 24 hour daylight periods around the solstice.
This brought to mind the eye-popping graph below, some version of which I was shown by Geographer Jim Byrne a decade or so ago.
It underlines the experience of anyone that’s been in the arctic in summertime, that the sun is absolutely dominant and blazing, and eye and skin protection are major priorities.
Below, Andrew Dessler has been hammering the point recently on the divergence between what economic modeling is telling us, vs climate modeling.
Crap! A +3-4°C at most generating a measly 15% drop in GDP?
And this fairy tale has been in the IPCC reports all along?