Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
What a terribly poor report Argues everything is worse than what climate economic models show Take just one example: it looks at sea level rise but decides to ignore adaptation So, it absurdly suggests people over the next 80 years get more and more flooded but do nothinghttps://twitter.com/lordstern1/status/1174983819297845250 …
Here they use the argument that between 35-125 million people will get flooded each year, even at 2°C (but they conveniently forget to say, this is without adaptation)pic.twitter.com/x9ApgYpcBt
Here is the actual paper, they reference. Clearly, it states that this is without adaptation https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2016.0448 …pic.twitter.com/kFJSeQRR7c
And the very same lead author (Nicholls) has already long ago pointed out that if you include realistic adaptation, the scary numbers will collapse with adaptation "the problem of environmental refugees almost disappears." https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2010.0291 …pic.twitter.com/HGJMQgfZBR
Sure, if your goal is to scare people silly on climate, silly assumptions like no adaptation give you big, scary numbers But you also relinquish the right to be taken seriously This simply doesn't help inform the political discussion on smart climate policy
World leaders aren't misled but actually informed by sensible economic modeling (that includes realistic adaptation) But with arguments like this report, using absurd and unrealistic flood numbers, they are being misled by Nick Sternhttps://twitter.com/lordstern1/status/1174983819297845250 …
Trying to give them a little benefit of the doubt, could they say that these scare tactics are meant to get more funding for those adaptation & mitigation efforts?
I'd agree that the context makes the sentence somewhat misleading, but it does literally say "could need protection from coastal flooding" and not "could get flooded". Does "protection" refer to different things than "adaptation"?
No, protection = adaptation. And we shouldn’t ignore there are limits to adaptation and no or too limited action commits us to rising sea levels for hundreds of years. Sounds long? St. Marks Basilica in Venice is ~1000 years old, might not be feasible anymore in <300.
No. What it says right there is that those people will need adaptation policies. You've just relinquished your right to be taken seriously.
If you have the need to cite text, just use Ctrl C and Ctrl V. That's to protect you from interpretation mistakes.
Your highlighted text *literalle says* „need protection“. That IS adaptation. 
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
