Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Most people don't understand how the costs of climate can be so small But that is because media overplays most costs E.g. cost of extreme weather makes up an ever *smaller* part of global GDP https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17477891.2018.1540343 …pic.twitter.com/JpBIzsh2k4
And perhaps surprisingly, ever fewer people die from climate-related disasters In 1920s, half a million people died each year, this decade about 20,000 Global population has increased four-fold, meaning individual climate risk declined almost 99% https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/photos/a.221758208967.168468.146605843967/10156615395793968/?type=3&theater …pic.twitter.com/sB5UWgcU0f
This does not mean we should ignore climate It *is* a problem, and we *can* fix part of it. We should just do so smartly (though green R&D), and carefully, so we don't end up spending more resources to fix climate badly, than the benefits we'll reap https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-change-self-defeating-alarmism-by-bjorn-lomborg-2018-12 …
Ok enough with the intelligent logic!! It’s aggravating!! 
Ka er greia dokkers eigentleg? Epler og pærer til dei grader her. Og trudde du Snoen var oppteken av fakta.
That’s a stunning drop in climate related deaths. What are the top reasons for the reduction?
that we're much richer and hence much more resilient, better able to deal with remaining problems and have much better knowledge (warning systems etc)
Shouldn't you mean "from weather related disasters"?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
