Thread by @BjornLomborg

Imagine study of property damage from rainstorms —

assuming no one has a roof (ht @Klynchit)

-> alarmist headlines

This study finds sea level rise affects millions, risk $trillions —

assuming we rip out all coastal defenses

-> alarmist headlines

theguardian.com/environment/20…

Central quote

Only true if "no dykes or sea walls in place"

Great for scary stories, bad for informing policy

How is it relevant for mayor of New York or Jakarta to know what happens if humanity rips out all dikes and sea walls?

nature.com/articles/s4159… (p8, supplement)

Many of the same researchers have already found that just the difference between *existing* and *increasing* protection as we get richer and as sea levels rise

impacts will be reduced 100-1000 times

pnas.org/content/111/9/…

It ought to be a scandal that alarmist media and journals get away with misinforming us like this on sea-level rise and climate change

Instead of scaring us witless, they should give us the correct picture
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

To its credit, Guardian briefly remarks on no protection, but spins it into illustrating benefits of 'early action' (is that CO₂ cuts?)

No, shows the benefit of *keeping* our protection and upgrading it