Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Only 2.6% GDP @ 3.66°? This is a laughable figure. I guess this is a reasonable figure if you can consume plastic.
Just labeling something "laughable" is not actually an argument — it just means you don't accept what the science/UN Climate Panel sayspic.twitter.com/J3kVe9lfMr
What is laughable is that you equated a small reduction in temperature to little economic benefit. That was the central message of your opinion piece. That is clearly wrong yet you are happy to deceive anyone who thinks your PhD is a guarantee against fallacious thinking.
That's exactly what is laughable. People always relating climate to money. For them to say the impact would only be 2% is downright ignorant. Just the pests becoming a (bigger) factor would increase the economic cost 20%.
What's laughable is not only a ludicrous result (it doesn't pass the sniff test), but that you equate things with money. So do this: estimate what worldwide GDP will amount to from the year 2050 to 2100. Add them up and take a measly 1% (not the 2.6% "estimate"). A big figure.
Not only that, but the fact you are referring to GDP alone. Nobody does that anymore. There are other and better indexes to use. Many countries will have their existence threatened. Some won't exist by 2100. How does that figure into those calculations?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
