Profile picture
, 4 tweets, 3 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
“The IPCC report is a slightly dishonest take on the situation because it achieves 1.5° only with immense negative emissions, which will never happen at global scale. Not a good answer to an existential threat to civilisation.”

— Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Schellnhuber

[THREAD 1/4]
“We cannot optimise ourselves out of the #ClimateCrisis. There will be disruptive things and processes. But this will be positive disruption. If there are climate tipping points, humanity can strike back with nonlinearities as well.”
— Prof Hans Joachim Schellnhuber

[THREAD 2/4]
“We scientists publish in papers nobody can read, except some colleagues. And society gives us billions of euros so we can play with our curiosity. That’s not good enough. In times of deep crisis, scientists have to take a stance.”

— Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber

[THREAD 3/4]
This was climate scientist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber interviewed by Prof. Michael Sterner (@prof_sterner) in 2019. Full interview here:


There are more statements on the IPCC assumptions by @MichaelEMann which you can find in this interview:

[THREAD 4/4]
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Michael Flammer 🌍🌡#KlimaVor8

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Related hashtags

#ClimateCrisis

More from @Jumpsteady see all

Profile picture
Michael Flammer 💚🌍🌡
@Jumpsteady
Ein Thread zur Aufklärung über Klimawandelleugner. Ein Zusammenschnitt zum Thema aus der neuen Folge @JungNaiv. Danke an @TiloJung und @rahmstorf.

„97% Konsens ist auch schon eine ältere Zahl. Wenn man die Fachpublikationen analysiert, sind sich über 99,9% einig.“

[THREAD 1/9]
Stefan @rahmstorf beschreibt drei Typen von sogenannten „Klimaskeptikern“:

1) Trend-Skeptiker:
„Es gibt gar keine Erwärmung.“

2) Ursachen-Skeptiker:
„Der Klimawandel ist nicht menschengemacht.“

3) Folgen-Skeptiker:
„Klimawandel ja, aber alles halb so schlimm.“

[THREAD 2/9]
„Die Vorstellungen der Folgen-Skeptiker sind sehr weit verbreitet. Das ist eigentlich Mainstream in der Politik. Ich hab das Gefühl, dass die meisten Politiker nicht verstanden haben, wie gefährlich und dringend die globale Erwärmung eigentlich ist.“
— @rahmstorf

[THREAD 3/9]
Read 10 tweets
Profile picture
Michael Flammer 💚🌍🌡
@Jumpsteady
Sehen Sie Prof. Maja Göpel @beyond_ideology, Generalsekretärin des @WBGU_Council an der @TUBerlin:

„Vielleicht kann man ja mal gucken, was in der Sozialpolitik möglich ist, anstatt dass sich die Unweltpolitik ständig rechtfertigen muss, nie etwas kosten zu dürfen.“

[THREAD 1/7]
Maja Göpel beschreibt das Misstrauen der sog. Entwicklungsländer so:

„Jetzt, wo ihr reichen Länder den Planeten an die Wand fahrt, kommt ihr mit eurer grünen Ökonomie um die Ecke, um uns ärmeren Ländern zu sagen, was wir alles nicht dürfen.“

[THREAD 2/7]
Maja Göpel erklärt, weshalb es keinen kleinen Regenwald geben kann:

„Wenn die Fläche des Amazonas noch viel kleiner wird, dann stabilisiert sich die Wolkenbildung nicht mehr ausreichend, so dass es dort auch wieder abregnen kann. Darum: Lasst die Flächen stehen.“

[THREAD 3/7]
Read 8 tweets
Profile picture
Michael Flammer 💚🌍🌡
@Jumpsteady
Ein Thread über organisierte Klimalwandelleugner. Vielen Dank an @georgrestle und Monitor für diese Recherchen.

„Die Spitze der US Regierung ist Teil einer Bewegung, die seit Jahren versucht, seriöse Forscher zu diskreditieren. Finanziert u.a. von Robert Mercer.“

[THREAD 1/9]
In diesem Teil geht es um die US amerikanischen Think Tanks Heartland Institute und CFACT. Beide Organisationen spielen eine tragende Rolle bei der Beeinflussung von Politik mit Fake Science. @NaomiOreskes erklärt die Finanzierung dieser Institute z.B. durch Exxon.

[THREAD 2/9]
„Kritische Positionen zum Klimawandel können politisch reizvoll sein, gerade für Rechte: Gegen den Mainstream, gegen Medien und Eliten. 16% der Deutschen glauben einer Studie zufolge, dass es gar keinen Klimawandel gibt. Das zu bedienen, kann Wählerstimmen bringen.“

[THREAD 3/9]
Read 9 tweets

Related threads

Profile picture
Dr Jane Zelikova 👩🏻‍💻🐜🌾🌎
@j_zelikova
The #IPCC special report on the land sector is out.

It's the culmination of the hard work of 107 experts from 52 countries.

I've got some big takeaways. Buckle in – it's going to be a long thread.

Some quick background:

Land and ocean warm at different rates (thank you @RARohde) for the great figure.
Land is both a carbon source and sink. The balance between the strength of sources and sinks determines overall impact of land on GHG emissions. Humans already use a LOT of land (almost ¾ of all ice-free terrestrial surface, according to the IPCC graphic below).
Read 24 tweets
Profile picture
Stephen Cornelius
@SteveJCornelius
Takeaways from the #IPCC Special Report on #ClimateChange & Land (#SRCCL). A thread.

1) We use a lot of land (much unsustainably)

Humans directly affect ~72% of "global ice-free land surface" & all is impacted by climate change (e.g. through warming & more intense extremes

1/9
2) A two-way interaction

Our use of land drives #ClimateChange ("agriculture, forestry and other land use" are ~23% of global man-made GHG emissions) & climate change adds stresses so worsens existing risks (e.g. biodiversity & degradation from extremes events)

2/9 #IPCC #SRCCL
3) As well as being an emission source, land is a sink

Photosynthesis draws down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and fixes it in plants (and soils). Overall the land is a net sink of ~29% of total human-induced CO2 emissions.

3/9 #IPCC #SRCCL
Read 9 tweets
Profile picture
Glen Peters
@Peters_Glen
THREAD on IEA, IPCC, & 1.5°C scenarios

The @IEA is getting pressure to do a 1.5°C scenario. We have an #IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C #SR15, so why not do a comparison...

As it happens, some IEA scenarios fall in the envelope of 1.5°C scenarios...

1/ ipcc.ch/sr15/
What are the IEA scenarios?
* Energy Technology Perspectives 2°C scenario (2DS, not in #SR15 database)
* ETP Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS, in database)
* IEA Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS, not in database)
* IEA Faster Transition Scenarios (SDS to net-zero, in database)
2/
The CO₂ emissions from energy & industry (not LUC) for the two IEA scenarios are rather similar to the 1.5°C with no or low overshoot
* IEA B2DS is roughly consistent with 1.75°C warming in 2100 (though, #SR15 does not assess this)
* IEA Faster Transition is assessed as 2°C
3/
Read 15 tweets
Profile picture
Glen Peters
@Peters_Glen
THREAD (illustrative scenarios):

The #IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C #SR15 highlighted 4 illustrative scenarios. They vary widely in
* Socioeconomic assumptions (SSP1, SSP2, SSP5)
* Total (primary) energy use
* Biomass
* Solar
* Nuclear
* Oil
1/
This is how the illustrative scenarios are presented in the #SR15 SPM. The energy system is shown by the table, the figures seem to give the key characteristics. It seems the selection was based on the use of biomass. 2/
P1 (LED) & P2 (S1) have the lowest use of biomass across scenarios, P4 (S5) has the highest use of biomass. They are outliers, which was perhaps the point of the selection? Because they are outliers, they potentially give a skewed perception of how most models get to 1.5°C! 3/
Read 10 tweets
Profile picture
Jonathan Gaventa
@jonathangaventa
1/ What role for natural gas in a 1.5⁰C world?

Some reflections from the new #IPCC #SR15 report:

(thread)
2/ A reminder: natural gas currently accounts for 20% of global energy emissions and is the world’s fastest growing fossil fuel. In the IEA’s current policies scenario, gas demand could increase by ~50% by 2040.

How far is this from a 1.5⁰C pathway?
3/ With coal, the IPCC message is simple: stop burning it. The IPCC pathways show a reduction in coal in primary energy use of 59-78% by 2030, compared to 2010. By 2050 it falls 73-97%.
Read 11 tweets
Profile picture
Caroline Lucas
@CarolineLucas
#IPCC report says limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will require an industrial transition unprecedented in scale - but that it’s possible, if the political will is there - and that the wider opportunities and benefits are huge

So here are a few ideas for our own Government ... 1/6
Advice to Government:

Save money and carbon by stopping actively damaging projects like fracking, airport expansion, HS2, new nuclear, road expansion - and spend it on creating hundreds of thousands of jobs through a rapid expansion of renewables #IPCC 2/6
More advice to Government:

Save even more money and carbon, and create even more jobs by ending subsidies for fossil fuels and taxing them for the damage they cause. Spend that on reducing energy bills through huge nationwide insulation programme.

#IPCC 3/6
Read 6 tweets

Trending hashtags

#UpriseOfHumanityForSanity #fitness #condemnation #MilitaryIndustrialComplex #effort #good #Haiti #ClimateCatastrophe #PMBmeansBusiness #ElizabethWarren #opposites #NoDealBrexit #IPCC #SanJuan #NewDealForNature #Empathy #Ecuador #NYTFakeNews #Indigenous #GeneralKhalifaHaftar #Labour #AU #Pavlichenko #climatechange #Tehran

Embed code for your website

×
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!