And now, a separate thread (I think technically my second ever). 1/x
-
This was a very complex, fact-dense, and complicated story, and I would not be surprised if a few errors made it in, despite best efforts.
(One that we know about did, actually, about the eocene-oligocene extinction, but we caught it quickly and fixed online.)
-
-
But especially on the big-picture science...
-
Not only do I stand behind the piece, I think its presentation of that science is more or less incontrovertible.
-
The IPCC’s median projection is for four degrees celsius of warming by 2100; the high-end of their probability curve is eight degrees.
-
My reporting brought me to a variety of scientists to ask what that scale of warming would mean for their field: four degrees, six, eight…
-
My story relayed their answers, and the answers I found in research papers of scientists I did not interview.
-
In many cases, I sent the exact wording of my text to relevant scholars for review.
-
A few had quibbles with word choice here or there, but none made substantive objections.
-
As I said, it is possible that some more issues will emerge—it is almost inevitable, given how many pieces of data are presented.
-
And I welcome objections, if readers have them; I’d like to fix any issues there are!
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.