Look at it as insurance protection against the inevitable
fat tail events (1987, 2000, 2008, etc) that lurk in the future.
Not exact matches
But, historically, such busts have been «
fat tail»
events that rarely occur.
But if you impose a forcing (AGW) which changes the degree of independence, making the
tails fatter / less Gaussian, doesn't that mean the forcing ACTUALLY makes the probability of what were once 3,4,5 sigma
events MUCH higher than indicated by tamino's method of analysis, which removes these effects?
Climate change's
fat tail makes the likelihood of rare
events more so.
On a tangent, but still within the issues raised in the original post, this kind of thinking is useful for analyzing extreme
events (the ones in the
fat tails).
With the
fat tail, that's admitting significant possibility of a P - Tr extinction
event.
Sure, there is more evidence favoring 4C or under than there is favoring the
fatter tail, but the
tail has a nonzero (and unquantified) probability and that's what low - probability catastrophic
events are all about.
This is similar to the argument Benoit Mandelbrot and Nassim Taleb made about Mandelbrot's observation that fluctuations in markets for shares, futures, and commodities are not normally distributed but have
fat tails: this means that standard risk - management practices (e.g., stress - testing portfolios) will fail to account properly for extremely unlikely
events.