Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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 …
“Realistic adaptation” means global wars
Similar to the ag studies assuming no water usage or planting changes (or extended growing seasons, or CO2 fertilization). Big "we're all gonna starve!" headlines but ultimately discredits legitimate climate issues by association. Very little self-policing.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
