Why is the World Economic Forum taking climate advice from a 16 year old climate campaigner instead of the world’s only Nobel climate economist?pic.twitter.com/44FQmDb1dd
Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
A 100 Bn fund is a farce, less than one third the cost of, for example, Hurricane Harvey in the US (a claim which if one cared to to might inspire the charge that not all those costs are attributable to climate change, to which I would respond, uh, ok).
If the globe was warming, it's not at the moment, you would get less hurricanes. CO2 Climate Change is a Fraud and you know it. What does that make you?
Here’s a good link to deal with Lomborg http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
How much effort are you putting into promoting nuclear power?
Said the climate expert with a PhD in...Renaissance literature.
The clear science is the science of the IPCC report. Which says, clearly, that a > 2C world is not a livable, governable world, and that the 3C we're headed for seriously risks crossing tipping points that would lock in much more warming than that. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
It’s one thing to get on a soap box and yell “We demand clean energy.” Its another to be a scientist who has to actually figure out how to do it. So tell me... What is your technological solution to make clean energy replace fossil fuels?pic.twitter.com/5PDvkv2QnE
First, I would argue natural gas is as clean as a hydrocarbon can get. Second, I would give nuclear 100 to 150 years to begin supplying 50% of world’s primary energy. Third, I would remove now all incentives from solar panels / wind turbines.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.