ეკონომიკური მოდელები კლიმატის ცვლილებას არასაკმარისად აფასებენ – ანგარიში. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting mainly one side of a debate or critique without giving space to responses, context, or alternative expert views.

„მთავრობების, ცენტრალური ბანკებისა და ინვესტორების მიერ გამოყენებული ეკონომიკური მოდელები სულ უფრო მეტად არასაკმარისად აფასებენ კლიმატის ცვლილებასთან დაკავშირებულ რისკებს… დღეს გამოყენებული ზიანის შეფასების მოდელები შორს არის სრულყოფილებისგან და გლობალური ეკონომიკისთვის „უსაფრთხოების ცრუ განცდას“ ქმნის.“ The article relays the report’s criticism of existing economic models and their users (governments, central banks, investors) but does not include any response or perspective from economists who develop or use these models, nor any mention of ongoing improvements or debates within the field.

3 suggestions

Add comments or responses from economists or institutions that develop or use the criticized models (e.g. central banks, international organizations) to explain how they see the limitations and what improvements are underway.

Mention that there is an active scientific and policy debate about how best to model climate risks, and briefly summarize key differing viewpoints.

Clarify that the article is reporting on one specific new report and that its conclusions may not represent a consensus among all economists or climate scientists.

Appeal to authority

Relying on the prestige of institutions or experts as primary support, without presenting underlying evidence or reasoning.

„ექსეტერის უნივერსიტეტის ჯგუფის Green Futures Solutions–ის და ფინანსური ანალიტიკური ცენტრის, „Carbon Tracker“-ის ახალ ანგარიშში ნათქვამია, რომ დღეს გამოყენებული ზიანის შეფასების მოდელები შორს არის სრულყოფილებისგან…“ The article cites well-known institutions and a new report as the basis for strong claims about global economic models but does not summarize the evidence, methodology, or key quantitative findings that support those claims.

3 suggestions

Briefly describe what kind of analysis the report conducted (e.g. model comparisons, scenario analysis, empirical data) rather than only naming the institutions.

Include at least one concrete example or data point from the report (e.g. estimated underestimation of damages under certain warming scenarios).

Clarify that the conclusions are those of the report’s authors and indicate whether they align with or differ from other major assessments (e.g. IPCC, central bank network reports).

Appeal to emotion / Sensationalism (mild)

Using emotionally charged or dramatic language to provoke concern or fear, rather than neutrally describing risks.

„…გლობალური ეკონომიკისთვის „უსაფრთხოების ცრუ განცდას“ ქმნის.“ „მეცნიერების შეფასებით, ამ ზღვრის გადალახვამ შეიძლება გამოიწვიოს რამდენიმე კატასტროფული არ დაბრუნების წერტილი, ბიომრავალფეროვნების მასიური დანაკარგის და ოკეანის მჟავიანობის ჩათვლით.“ Phrases like “უსაფრთხოების ცრუ განცდა” and “კატასტროფული არ დაბრუნების წერტილი” and “ბიომრავალფეროვნების მასიური დანაკარგი” are emotionally strong and alarming. While such outcomes are discussed in the scientific literature, the article does not provide context about probabilities, uncertainty ranges, or specific mechanisms, which can amplify fear without informing.

3 suggestions

Qualify the language with probabilities or uncertainty where available (e.g. “მეცნიერების ნაწილი აფასებს, რომ არსებობს რისკი, რომ…” instead of categorical catastrophic framing).

Explain briefly what is meant by “არ დაბრუნების წერტილი” in scientific terms (e.g. tipping points in specific systems like ice sheets or rainforests) to ground the term in evidence rather than emotion.

Replace or balance emotionally charged adjectives like “კატასტროფული” and “მასიური” with more precise, quantified descriptions where possible (e.g. estimated percentage loss of species or economic output).

Omission of key information

Leaving out important contextual details that would help readers fully understand the claims.

The article states that models are “არასაკმარისად” assessing climate risks and creating a “უსაფრთხოების ცრუ განცდა”, but it does not specify: - By how much damages may be underestimated. - Which types of models (e.g. IAMs, macroeconomic stress tests) are being criticized. - What specific limitations are identified (e.g. treatment of tipping points, non-linear impacts, regional distribution of damages). - Whether there are models that already attempt to address these issues. It also mentions the 2°C threshold and “კატასტროფული არ დაბრუნების წერტილი” without explaining which tipping points or systems are meant, or how widely accepted these thresholds are.

4 suggestions

Add a short explanation of what kinds of economic models are under discussion and what their main limitations are according to the report (e.g. linear damage functions, limited treatment of extreme events).

Include at least approximate figures or ranges for the potential underestimation of damages, if the report provides them.

Specify which tipping points scientists are concerned about (e.g. Greenland ice sheet, Amazon rainforest, coral reefs) and whether the 2°C threshold is a central estimate or part of a range.

Clarify that scientific assessments include uncertainty and that not all models or experts agree on exact thresholds or damage estimates.

Framing effect

Presenting information in a way that emphasizes one interpretation, potentially biasing readers’ perception.

The framing centers on the idea that current models are giving a “უსაფრთხოების ცრუ განცდა” to “გლობალური ეკონომიკა”, which suggests that existing policy and investment decisions are dangerously complacent. There is no mention of any benefits of current models (e.g. transparency, comparability) or of incremental improvements already being made, which frames the situation as one of near-total inadequacy rather than partial but evolving tools.

3 suggestions

Acknowledge that while current models have limitations, they are also widely used tools that are being updated, and summarize both strengths and weaknesses.

Rephrase to indicate degree rather than absolutes, e.g. “შეიძლება ვერ ასახავდეს სრულად ყველა რისკს” instead of implying they simply create a false sense of safety.

Include context about how policymakers and investors are already trying to incorporate climate risk (e.g. stress tests, scenario analysis) to balance the framing.