Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Depressing how some climate alarmists would rather lie and complain about 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 instead of confronting facts: 2.6% cost of global GDP by 2100 means climate is a problem but not end-of-world https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 … https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-world-doomed-gdp-warming-earth-11632338084 … https://archive.md/Ot6dE https://twitter.com/DoctorVive/status/1460374057707311107 …pic.twitter.com/1HHvAmcJvT
Complaining that incorrect 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 makes it seem like "the summary finding of SR 1.5" is just laughable not the least because the graphic includes the Chapter title subsection title "3.5.2.4 RFC 4 – Global aggregate impacts" page number and linkpic.twitter.com/Mwb4THeX6K
But of course, it is easier to baselessly vilify others rather than addressing the central problem of alarmism incorrectly exaggerating and needlessly scaring people, as my original tweet pointed out https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1460342285384699905 …pic.twitter.com/kw7XDBwBvV
The average person doesn’t have time to become a climate scientist…but they can understand what’s going on if 9 of 10 climate scientists say we’re screwing future generations, while the 1 of 10 who disagree are those who receive $ from sources that expect predetermined results.
How would we solve "health", though? Immortality?
Do you genuinely not understand the criticism? It’s right there in plain daylight. It’s 2018 data…
Even 15-25% below *where it would otherwise have been* is not the end of the world either if the economy grows as might be reasonably expected. It's far from ideal, but it's a long way from armageddon. But utter disaster is what some people have been led to believe will happen.
No - the complaint was about deceptive re-formatting, combined with a bait & switch of the original data. Even this latest post of yours is an attempt at deceptive re-framing of the post you quote-tweeted These sleight-of-hand approaches to debate appear to be a pattern of yrs
Bjorn. Bjorn, Bjorn, Bjorn. I was neither lying nor complaining about formatting. I noted that you extracted a sentence from a literature review & presented it as the @IPCC_CH summary conclusion. That's called (I'll say it slowly) cherry ... picking. And it's disinformation.
This excerpt is also in the IPCC report, a few paragraphs after the sentence you took out of context.pic.twitter.com/I6QLobVY5X
The cost of climate change to global GDP in 2100 is not a "fact". It is a projection based on many assumptions, including many uncertainties. To call it a fact is dishonest.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
