Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sdgla who wrote (827441)	1/4/2015 10:11:50 AM
From: FJB	3 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 D.Austin locogringo Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575931

This is the guy you go to if you want to know where to get weed or ecstasy in the area, not for economic or environmental opinion...

To: Sdgla who wrote (827441)	1/4/2015 11:31:08 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575931

Tol belled again IPCC corrects claim suggesting climate change would be good for the economy Controversial statement, that was based on faulty data taken from a report by economist Richard Tol, has been removed from the final version of the report Message 29762639

To: Sdgla who wrote (827441)	1/4/2015 11:59:16 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575931

Correction and Update: The Economic Effects of Climate Change† Richard S. J. Tol Gremlins intervened in the preparation of my paper “The Economic Effects of Climate Change” published in the Spring 2009 issue of this journal. In Table 1 of that paper, titled “Estimates of the Welfare Impact of Climate Change,” minus signs were dropped from the two impact estimates, one by Plambeck and Hope (1996) and one by Hope (2006). In Figure 1 of that paper, titled “Fourteen Estimates of the Global Economic Impact of Climate Change,” and in the various analyses that support that figure, , the minus sign was droppedfrom only one of the two estimates. An early study by Bill Nordhaus was misread. A coding error affected the upper bound of one of confidence intervals (the wider one) shown in the original Figure 1. pubs.aeaweb.org