Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Everyone ran this story, but badly reported 253 million people will *not* be at risk in 2100 Study assumes we rip out all coastal defenses — absurdly unrealistic With realistic assumptions, numbers at least 100-1000 lowerhttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/climate/sea-level-inland-floods.html …
As usual, they never tell when the water level will increase, just how many will be affected. Not direct science as usual, just propaganda as usual.
Given the apparent inability to process basic cause/effect relationships? A bunch may actually sit there and drown.
Was going to ask haha. So 2.53 million, or 250,000, that range? Also, is it not true that this happens rather gradually, so there is no sudden displacement as in a hurricane, but rather a general growing sense of discomfort incentivizing relocation?
What does it mean? Is it certain to be at least 100 times lower, but not certain to be 1000 times lower? Then what does the 1000 mean? Is it certain to be 1000 times lower? Then what function does the 100 fill?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
![🌞G2Vstargrazzer❄️[CO2appreciating🌳Enviro'list]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1475575612626644998/P_dVaAFu_normal.jpg)
