Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Greta right: if you want 1.5°C, you must shut down world in 8 years But should we? That is a political question, not a science one Just like science tells us, if you want no traffic deaths, you must set speed limit at 5MPH Whether you want that world, is a political questionhttps://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1179507708493471744 …
Here is her quote from IPCC: we have about 420Gt CO₂ left for 1.5°C, used in around 2028 — then we have to cut off all fossil fuels Without 81% of the world's energy, it will be cold, dark & back-breaking (+half the world will die, bc fossil fertilizer produce 50% of food)pic.twitter.com/jHBlIB3MtN
Yes, climate science should inform our decisions But claiming science dictates our choices is scientism - equivalent to claiming science dictates a 5MPH speed limit For a fuller argument, see my replies to Greta's claims in Globe & Mailhttps://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-on-climate-change-humanity-is-not-evil/ …
And if the world is just as good as today in four years, will they change this policy?
Half of the world would die and the other half would live in stone age conditions ...
The Greens will consider that a Win-Win situation.
Or ramp up nuclear... But the Gretas of the world won't have this -- and this let's us know they are not serious about the environment or CO2 or whatever. Rather, they are serious about wanting control.
How do they calculate this? Shouldn't they have a max in budget. Otherwise it is really true that they have no idea about uncertainty O-o
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
