Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Imagine study of property damage from rainstorms —
assuming no one has a roof (ht @Klynchit)
-> alarmist headlines
This study finds sea level rise affects millions, risk $trillions —
assuming we rip out all coastal defenses
-> alarmist headlineshttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/31/extra-23-million-people-could-face-coastal-flooding-within-30-years-even-with-emission-cuts-study-says …
Central quote Only true if "no dykes or sea walls in place" Great for scary stories, bad for informing policy How is it relevant for mayor of New York or Jakarta to know what happens if humanity rips out all dikes and sea walls? https://nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67736-6 … (p8, supplement)pic.twitter.com/s9CnRIs2DF
Many of the same researchers have already found that just the difference between *existing* and *increasing* protection as we get richer and as sea levels rise impacts will be reduced 100-1000 times https://pnas.org/content/111/9/3292 …pic.twitter.com/nIIu5rjhBP
It ought to be a scandal that alarmist media and journals get away with misinforming us like this on sea-level rise and climate change Instead of scaring us witless, they should give us the correct picture https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 …pic.twitter.com/6SvggXLtqe
To its credit, Guardian briefly remarks on no protection, but spins it into illustrating benefits of 'early action' (is that CO₂ cuts?) No, shows the benefit of *keeping* our protection and upgrading itpic.twitter.com/AYDi5iJfpw
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
