Daniel Thewes

To paraphrase Stefan Rahmstorf: we don’t know what’s coming but we do not want to find out.

No disagreement here. It’s absolutely clear to me that this is a crisis of inequality and redistribution of wealth is part of the solution.

There is no disagreement on that. I am saying precisely this: we haven’t reached 1.5°C yet.

That doesn’t make sense. You seem to assume I say „don’t panic! We’re not there yet!“ but that is decidedly not the case. I say, however, that those you should argue with need to be convinced and they are notoriously very nitpicky on the smallest of details. So be precise.

I don’t at all suggest we should wait! But what matters in the end is to not trigger the tipping points (well, those remaining to be triggered), not to know when we have passed 1.5°C.

Say we reach 1.5°C by 2029 (as Copernicus data currently suggests), then what? It doesn’t make a difference, as policies need to be made now and harshly, either way. So your semi-implicit approach is a good prediction tool, but the actual 20y mean will only be valid once it’s been measured.

Thanks for the link. Having read the article, I can see where you’re coming from and I‘d say it’s a valid perspective. I still disagree about whether it is or even if there can be the correct way. Nevertheless, I think it opens up another question 1/2

Yes, that seems plausible.

I would like to emphasise that I do not doubt for a second that we have the same end goal in mind. The only takeaway message I had was to be scientifically precise. No arguments made on the legalities.

No, not at all. I‘m arguing for being precisely right. If the argument is „We need to take action, because science“, we need to be correct about the science. Not that it should be necessary, but it is.

Well, then let’s just say fuck it and throw it in the wind. What even is 1.5°C? No, seriously: I have spent enough time with lawyers and lawmakers to be sick of this line of arguing. The 1.5°C threshold is clearly defined, even if it is not legally binding.

If you want to misunderstand, do. I am not stopping you.

I am not a lawyer, yet comparably well versed in international law, having to deal with it professionally. The targets are not legally binding, but the agreement is a legal document. It is entirely unhelpful to pretend the targets weren’t clearly defined.

Ok, I thought you were worth discussing with, but this is just pointless. Have a nice day.

Your position in an argument with stakeholders

But it’s not the truth. Single months and years pass the threshold, not the long-term average and that is what the 1.5° threshold is about. It is not underestimating their intelligence, but acknowledging it: they know this and will point it out if you keep repeating the mistake.

I don’t disagree that policy should not be based on 30yo data. But arguing for stronger policy on the basis of science requires precise understanding of science. It will hurt your argument to say we already passed 1.5°, when we haven’t.

It is not about whether or not we stall or efforts, nor is it about whether or not we reach 1.5 in the coming years or have already reached it, technically. But if you argue on the basis of science, be precise. The science is about a long-term average (20/30 years). Not about a single year.

It does matter when you argue with or in front of the kind of people who need to be persuaded, because - I’ll-advised as they may be - they often are well informed and do understand or at least know how to exploit the difference, argumentatively. Being imprecise weakens your position.

But they are! The Paris agreement is a legal document. That’s precisely the point. For sure, we need intervention, but we also need to make the argument correctly.

Not to downplay the seriousness of the situation, but we have yet to cross the 1.5°C boundary, as it is a 20y running mean.

Koalitionspapiere zum Klima: Viel Kritik und viele offene Fragen In den Koalitionspapieren aus den laufenden Koalitionsverhandlungen finden sich einige Ankündigungen, Klimaschutzmaßnahmen aufzuweichen.

Das passt nicht wirklich zusammen: Union und SPD bekennen sich zu den geltenden Klimazielen. Dafür müssten die Klimaschutz-Maßnahmen verschärft werden, doch in den Koalitionspapieren finden sich überwiegend Ankündigungen, die diese aufweichen würden. Meine Analyse (€): table.media/climate/anal...

Mehr als die Hälfte aller Deutschen hält Faschismus nicht für einen Dealbreaker.

Ein handfester Skandal, der in früheren Zeiten vielleicht zu Rücktritten in den zuständigen Behörden geführt hätte.

Bedrückend, dass wir vor lauter 2025 kaum an den 30. Januar 1933 gedacht haben.

Christian Lindner und die #FDP haben kein Konzept. Sie ignorieren die Realität. Meine Kinder müssen das ausbaden was er und wir alle jetzt verbocken.

Bergedorf sieht nach den Rechten 🚩

📆 Samstag, 18. Januar
⏰ 9 - 12 Uhr
📍 Fleetplatz

Samstag, 18. Januar, plant die AfD einen Infostand auf dem Fleetplatz am S-Bahnhof Allermöhe.

Aber wir werden auch da sein: Nie wieder ist jetzt!

Surreale Welt 🤯
- Heißestes Jahr seit 120.000 Jahren.
- Schlimmste Brandkatastrophe der USA.
- 🇩🇪 erreicht Klimaziel, weil die Ampel das Klimaschutzgesetz entkernt hat.
- CDU will zurück zum Verbrenner & Heizungsgesetz abschaffen.
- Klimaleugner Weidel & Musk einig: Hitler war links.

What a day 😳

Mein Handy autokorrigiert „Fegebank“ zu „Gegenangriff“

Die Kritik war ja, dass insinuiert wurde, es gäbe keine unabhängigen bzw. neutralen Medien. Ein Beispiel für ein abhängiges Medium zu geben hilft da ja nicht weiter.