Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Take this new alarmist paper, which made the rounds in the last weeks. It talks about 187 million people displaced — not flooded, not killed. Obviously, people will not stay and drown. https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1817205116 …, I wrote about how badly wrong this is here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/examining-the-latest-false-alarm-on-climate-11559256615 …pic.twitter.com/2XDWa5fYRk
But notice their reference for the 187 million (#38) Here is the paper. It says the following in the abstract: 187 million, but can be avoided by paying 0.02% of GDP Should reporters not be responsible for pointing this out, so people don't get so scared? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2010.0291 …pic.twitter.com/DD4VGKONSx
Will adaptation happen — absolutely: Everyone will accept paying <0.02% to avoid >5% of GDP costs And then, instead of 187,000,000 displaced, you have less than 305,000 (at least 600x less) Shouldn't reporters be obliged to tell people that? Or okay to just scare them silly?pic.twitter.com/bFGqRBHRvN
Claim: Millions will die from rising seas Fact: They won't die, and almost none have to move The outcome of this climate alarmism porn is to frighten children and many adults needlessly How is such outrageous scare campaigning okay?
PS. I only analyzed first part of scare: 'many millions directly threatened: low-lying nations farmers affected by abrupt changes in weather, kids exposed to new diseases?” Others similar: 5.4 million kids die from entirely well-known, easily curable diseases, not new ones
It could be not a tax, money has to come from somewhere. Arguably more humane to spread burden across all (tax) rather than the rich alone.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
