Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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
Can we gain some deeper insight into the reasons behind such pessimism?
It's like they want to keep the problems abstract enough to not require solutions (except curbing growth)
There is no "they". That's group think and group-ism.
They want that 0.02 GDP strategy or similar to happen. That's why they're writing the reports and sounding the alarm. it's not happening in Bangladesh rn. That stuff needs to prepared response, not reactive post disaster like how our govts deal with things right now.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
