The first article names a span of
Quote:
...at least 5% of GDP each year ... to 20% of GDP or more
|
Also at the beginning they point out that:
Quote:
...A sound understanding of the economics of risk is critical here. The Review emphasises that economic models over timescales of centuries do not offer precise forecasts – but they are an important way to illustrate the scale of effects we might see.
|
Stats and forecasting always base on estimations and statistical projections so you will never get an accurate prediction!
The rate of the first site is a typing error, as this site refers to the data of the UN!
Quote:
They are going to have to show more solid data for this guy to support it as they've been crying wolf and (THE SKY IS FALLING) for decades now.
|
Which solid data do the experts, with the opinion of doing something against global warming has a bad impact for the economy, have?
Where is the difference to the opposing articles? The treatises I listed in my post are neither less knowledgeable nor more scaremongering than all the opposing ones.
So I will not continue to comment on economic coherences, as this subject is very complex and I´m not an economist.