Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
I do appreciate your response, and now I understand. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that have suggested such things. "Alarmist papers must be quite rare. Or are you saying that only some public press are alarmist?
E.g. the paper I quoted in the second para: https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1817205116 …, says 187 million will be displaced, and got quoted everywhere to say swamp nearly 200,000,000 — when the right number was 41,000-305,000 https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/rising-sea-levels-could-swamp-major-cities-displace-almost-200-ncna1008846 …pic.twitter.com/4YDTmyOGYR
So I got it right then, there is only a very few peer-reviewed studies that you would call "alarmist." Thank you for that. Not sure how, considering the SR15 for example, you could conclude that death toll from AGW would be zero by 2100 (the year used in the paper).
I'm not sure you're actually trying to have a sincere conversation. You really expect me to cite you all the alarmist papers on twitter — and if I don't you conclude that almost none are alarmist?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
