Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Here is the peer-reviewed documentation https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17477891.2018.1540343 …pic.twitter.com/HVY09eDbm5
And here is the overwhelming documentation on fewer dead from weather-related disasters, that he simply rejected as "sorry, Lomborg has no credibility here" Because that's how a real researcher handles stubborn facts! sources: https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/photos/a.221758208967/10157523426118968/?type=3&theater …pic.twitter.com/iGO6uct632
Inconvenient acts are simply not important to people on a mission like Gleick
Doesn’t that just show that emergency and healthcare services have improved, and that less people are living in poverty worldwide?
It is certainly because of increasing resilience, partly from healthcare and emergency, partly from higher incomes But crucially, it shows that the world is not getting more vulnerable, but less
Compelling.
Ignoring gdp growth gives a truer picture of the actual situation. Weather related disaster losses have increased 74 percent since 1990.
How does ignoring GDP growth give a "truer" picture? Relative costs have declined. The fraction of income/wealth lost to damage from storms/extreme weather has declined, and will likely continue to decline in the future.
He not a “real researcher”, he’s Opinion News (editorial)
Well yes, check out his excellent scientific track record. And this: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bjorn_Lomborg …
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
