Share this page!

Dave Levitan Profile picture
Twitter logo
30 Dec 20, 4 tweets, 2 min read
The big New Yorker thing on covid is very impressive for sure but come on how is table 1 of an academic paper "buried"
lol did none of them read/see The Big Short
Look it's an enormous piece and full of great reporting and I know I'm being Salty Science Writer here but it does have a collection of minor misstatements/mis-characterizations of the science that you aren't likely to find in, say, @edyong209's stories.

newyorker.com/magazine/2021/…
It's amazing how absolutely no one is going to go to jail over any of this.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Dave Levitan

Dave Levitan 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!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @davelevitan

Dave Levitan Profile picture
18 Jul 20
Shoutout to all the politicians rapturously memorializing John Lewis today while simultaneously working as hard as they possibly can to restrict voting rights.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk
Rep. Glenn Thompson
Read 20 tweets
Dave Levitan Profile picture
3 Dec 19
I decided to do a bit of a close read of one particular part of a 1965 report sent to Lyndon Johnson, on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Because I hate myself, you see.

climatefiles.com/climate-change…
They acknowledge that at that point, firm predictions were hard. Okay. But also, this ⬇️.

[mashes calculator furiously]
[checks current CO2 concentration]

Ah, well, shit.
They knew, in 1965, that the 1885-1940 increase in CO2 likely led to half a degree C of warming. Which uh, maybe should have raised a few more alarm bells?
Read 15 tweets
Dave Levitan Profile picture
9 Nov 19
Yes, it was the scientists who were wrong. They have doomed us all.
Woof. Okay, I have some thoughts.

nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opi…
The basic premise of this lengthy piece is that the rapidity of many climate change processes and impacts has shocked -- shocked! -- many scientists, and that their failure to predict well has helped lead us to our current predicament of fucked-ness. But. BUT.
Read 24 tweets
Dave Levitan Profile picture
23 Jul 19
This study out yesterday that found no evidence for racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings is… interesting.

I have a feeling it’s gonna be used as a cudgel when the next shooting happens. But it might not say what some want it to say.

pnas.org/content/early/…
The researchers used characteristics of the officer involved, the county it took place in, and other factors to PREDICT the race of the person who was shot. This is different than “benchmarking” studies that ask if the number of people shot is more or less than we would expect.
Their predictions revealed essentially no racial disparities. The biggest predictor of race of the victim was “race-specific county level violent crime.”
Read 9 tweets
Dave Levitan Profile picture
22 Jul 19
This new study found that direct air carbon capture and storage—basically, machines that pull CO2 out of the air—deployed at a scale capable of helping us reach 1.5 or 2 degree targets would use MORE THAN HALF of today’s total electricity production.

nature.com/articles/s4146…
It also warns that if we plan for DACCS as part of our general climate change mitigation strategy, but FAIL to deploy it at scale, it could result in a dramatic overshoot of global temperatures by almost a full degree. Which doesn’t seem great.
Still, the study did find that DACCS could actually help substantially if we really did scale it up. I’m uh, not holding my breath.
Read 4 tweets
Dave Levitan Profile picture
25 Feb 19
For… reasons… I am reading a 1983 EPA report titled “Can We Delay a Greenhouse Warming?” and it is inCREDible.

Stunning consistency since then: “Current estimates suggest that a 2 degrees C increase could occur by the middle of the next century… 5 degrees C increase by 2100”
“political institutions stressed"
WHERE HAVE I HEARD ALL THIS BEFORE

“Many have dismissed it as too speculative or too distant to be of concern. Some assume that technological options will emerge to prevent a warming or, at worst, to ameliorate harmful consequences."
Read 23 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

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

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/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!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @davelevitan has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @davelevitan!

Read all threads by @davelevitan