The elephant in the room:) If the threat of climate change is real, then all policy at this point assures the destruction of the planet. Policies in place assure increase in emissions not a decrease. Not even close. One then has to ask, what is going on? From a .....
https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/1552480835693154305
probability perspective, when you have unknowns, (Like Hold-em) you assess different probabilities of answers. And that is would we are staring at here, on the range of possible explanations what is the % likelihood each is correct. If you agree with the premise that ....
policy right now is increasing rather than decreasing global emissions, then the % applied to the reason for the policy as a decrease in global warming should be in the 10% area. Afterall, they could just be that ignorant. Unlikely but lets say 10%. So that leaves....
90% to cover a host of other reasons. That is a lot to work with. It would be interesting if someone with a better understanding of the unexplanable then me could assess the probability of the other outcomes:) #wakeup
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
