Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Thanks for alerting me to the Guardian article. I know you won't respond, but I find your tweet baffling. Are you using innuendo to make a useful/specific point, or are you just attention-seeking?
You are welcome. And feel free to read the rest of the thread to understand my point. I'm pointing out global warming is not a catastrophe, and hence, to use scary language will likely lead to less good spending across the world
The notion that it needs to be made out to be a catalyst for a sudden cataclysmic event is not rooted in a desire to "wake people up", but rather the use of the threat as a quasi-religious tool, albeit one where there is no way one may be redeemed to the priestly class.
So what? If a bunch of trustworthy people say your house is on fire, a sane response is to act like it’s an emergency, not to wonder whether the fire brigade might be Mormons or Orthodox Jews 
If we are wrong and you are right, we will prepare for a catastrophe that does not come to pass. This would be (relatively) a wonderful outcome. A worse outcome is that we are right and you are wrong - in which case, you are delaying us from taking sensible precautionary actions.
Wrong. Dooming millions to #EnergyPoverty is not a "wonderful outcome" its Pol Potarian dark age cultist insanity.
I don’t think anybody is saying that global warming IS a catastrophe. We’re treating it as an emergency in case it becomes one. We (e.g. Stern, 2006) used moderate language to advise on prudent precautionary spending but this failed. Fortunately, straight talking is now working.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
