Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Many chastised me for using "wrong measure" of "burned area" Yet, I use same measure as official "Australia's Environment" annual overview It also concludes "well below average" I suspect "wrong measure" means "doesn't support scary story" https://www.wenfo.org/aer/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/ausenv_2020MYU.pdf …pic.twitter.com/HCNK2h4WYt
Many said "but eucalyptus forests burned much more" Yes, I said so repeatedly But it's inconsistent with climate models: Total should be more, but was much less Forests burned way too much Grass should be larger, were way smaller Woodland way too smallhttps://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1368550021818421249 …
Climate change is real, and it will likely lead to larger burned area by 2100 This model shows 2100 will get us back to the larger fires of early 2000s We need to inform well, not scare the pants off people https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/104015 …pic.twitter.com/t6EkWOd4JE
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
