Mark Lubell
@envpolicycenter.bsky.social
Professor Mark Lubell co-directs the UC Davis Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior. Water, agriculture, climate, conservation, social science. Thinkology. Advocate for truth and evidence. https://environmentalpolicy.ucdavis.edu/
Reposted by Mark Lubell
But this article from last August strongly suggests that great caution should be exercised with regard to all of them.
The Risky Business of Predicting Where Climate Disaster Will Hit
Climate tech companies can calculate the chances that a flood or wildfire will ravage your home. But what if their odds are all different?
www.bloomberg.com
December 1, 2025 at 2:08 AM
But this article from last August strongly suggests that great caution should be exercised with regard to all of them.
Developing better models is a worthy endeavor. But if you don’t like their approach it is better to throw solutions than grenades. Who is doing better?
December 1, 2025 at 1:01 AM
Developing better models is a worthy endeavor. But if you don’t like their approach it is better to throw solutions than grenades. Who is doing better?
Measuring and modeling climate risk accurately is important…and difficult. But erroneous models do not change the principle that climate risk should be integrated into economic decisions.
November 30, 2025 at 9:40 PM
Measuring and modeling climate risk accurately is important…and difficult. But erroneous models do not change the principle that climate risk should be integrated into economic decisions.
Reposted by Mark Lubell
The First Street climate risk "scores" are bogus. Their company exists to market fears generated by their bogus "scores". Indeed the crude bathtub flood model they use was exposed last year as worse than useless by Sanders, Wing & Bates in an article entitled "Flooding is Not Like Filling a Bath".
November 30, 2025 at 8:58 PM
The First Street climate risk "scores" are bogus. Their company exists to market fears generated by their bogus "scores". Indeed the crude bathtub flood model they use was exposed last year as worse than useless by Sanders, Wing & Bates in an article entitled "Flooding is Not Like Filling a Bath".
Very cool to see them using quantitative data journalism to conduct this type of analysis and support their advocacy. While inattention to agriculture is indeed troubling, I find this graphic even more troubling:
November 25, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Very cool to see them using quantitative data journalism to conduct this type of analysis and support their advocacy. While inattention to agriculture is indeed troubling, I find this graphic even more troubling: