In a way that will qualitatively change the well-being of everyone on this planet and noone anywhere will be better off in the end. You can not capture that with traditional and very narrow economic models. So I would be very careful when putting trust in their results.

So that capital will just move to Canada because of milder temperatures and therefore there will be gains. Even if we would address these shortcomings we would still miss the bigger picture that climate change will have devastating and unforesee ale effects on all parts of the economy and society..

Again; all of the results from the study are drive by very unrealistic assumptions for example that masses of billions of people can just move whenever they want without any big cost. Or for economic "gains" for Canada that substitutability between different forms of capital is high and flexible.

This one here: doi.org/10.1093/rest...

desciption. Ususally I would say that their outcomes can not be assumed to be "facts" even about main economic variables like GDP.

I think @jksteinberger.bsky.social point of her post still applies here. Governments usually use Integrated Assessment models, like in the paper mentioned here, to calculate welfare losses/gains. These models exhibit highly unrealistic assumptions and are only possibly to give a very stylised

3d link has limited access.
Here full access:
pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/17...