Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
You would imagine these 11,000 scientists at least were able to put together a coherent argument for why there is "an emergency" They don't — they just ramble what seems like 1970s limits-to-growth thoughts Read the paper It is sadhttps://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50302392 …
They show some graphs and literally worry about how people are being better off The crucial graphs are just "linked at least in part to climate change" Can't make this uppic.twitter.com/gz9nb3zTML
Compare scientists' concerns with people who are actually faced with the world's big problems From the largest UN poll of global priorities: of almost 10m people, they — not surprisingly — care about education, health, jobs, no corruption and nutrition http://data.myworld2015.org/ pic.twitter.com/AjbnokNCvg
They 1) are betting most will only read the headline not the data. Alas, a good bet 2) don't want the world's poor to prosper
And "Forest lost may be for any reason AND forest gain is not included" Talk about selective data.
Noted you haven't pointed out an error in any of the graphs.
That's what happens when the discussion is dominated by climate 'scientists' instead of real scientists
Equating acceleration of use of finite non renewables with long term success is not compatible.
Yes, it IS true; people beeing better off = the increased matetial consumption the last 100 years HAS effected he climath. Whats is the problem?
No-one in their right mind listens to you anyway. Maybe find something else to do than spreading hogwash on Twitter? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just-a-scientist-with-a-different-opinion/ …
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
