I agree with others that Roger Hallam is wrong when he says that "science predicts" six billion will die this century due to climate change. But the lack of scientific basis for this claim hides a more profound fact about how we do science. Thread. 1/https://twitter.com/BBCHARDtalk/status/1162309729735127040 …
-
1:26Show this thread -
My main point is that we have "scientists" willing to put economic cost projection figures on devastating climate change: that it will "cost" x% of GDP growth going forward. These are complete and utter bollocks - no one can predict all the costs of climate disasters. 2/
3 replies 12 retweets 64 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @JKSteinberger
It sounds like we can't predict either the economic cost OR number of human deaths from climate change (not just specific climate events). At least not yet. Is that right? If that's so, why do these numbers get repeated so often?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emahlee @JKSteinberger
If economic numbers are bollocks, but treated as truth, seems odd that there's so much criticism of people who quote the number of deaths. Sounds like *no one knows* - there hasn't been enough study? Is that correct?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Would it be more accurate to say, scientists' "educated estimates" or "projections" say X number of deaths? Does such estimates even exist?
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.