The first "major outcome" of #COP26 is that the politicians made the promise "to end and reverse deforestation" by 2030 and allocate $14 billion to this: bbc.com/news/science-e…
Ich denke die Journalisten die ständig darauf abzielen vermeintliches Versagen in den Vordergrund zu stellen, sind Teil der Antwort warum sich nicht mehr Menschen in Deutschland impfen lassen.
Unverantwortlich jedenfalls vom Spiegel diese Schlagzeile abzudrucken.
1/n
Wie weiter unten im Artikel erklärt wird, ist ein Anstieg der Impfdurchbrüche logischerweise die Konsequenz wenn mehr Menschen geimpft sind.
Der Anstieg der Impfdurchbrüche ist die Folge einer positiven Entwicklung. (Wären 100% geimpft, dann wären alle Infektionen Durchbrüche!)
Die Statistik die aussagekräftig ist, ist der *Vergleich* zwischen Geimpften und Ungeimpften.
Und der macht sehr klar wie gut uns die Impfung schützt.
If you want to know several other things about our world, you can look at other measures.
[↓ a thread with some thoughts]
For some reason journalists copy this lazy 'criticism' of GDP from each other.
Yes, we want to know many things, but it's nonsense to criticize one metric for not being all the other metrics.
Child mortality also doesn't tell us about environmental degradation. That's fine too.
If you want to know about environmental degradation then look at measures of environmenal degradation.
We are trying to improve the situation of the @IEA.
The title is: ‘The IEA publishes the detailed, global energy data we all need, but its funders force it behind paywalls. Let’s ask them to change it.’ ourworldindata.org/iea-open-data
As we explained in that post, it’s the energy ministers who are responsible. They could change it and make this data and research available to the public.
If you want to help, you can write to them and tell them that the public needs this data
When I make data visualizations I use the software @Tableau.
It is great, though very expensive ($70 per month) – but amazingly, if you are a student, professor, or academic they make it available to you for free.
@JKSteinberger@musta_joutsen@_HannahRitchie Hi Julia. I’ve been thinking about this paper after I read it last weekend and I I just can’t understand how you possibly wrote this paper.
I don’t understand how you ever thought it was reasonable to think of measuring human needs with a poverty line of $3.20?
But the fact that you relied on this extreme poverty line in your research paper is not a minor thing in this paper. It is what is driving your main result.
@JKSteinberger@musta_joutsen@_HannahRitchie If you would have relied on any reasonable poverty line – $20, $30, $40 a day – you would have obviously found that *the world needs very, very large growth to end poverty*.