I wonder what would not happen if a @UN #science panel would not predict crisis or catastrophe? It would not be news anyway. @IPBES theguardian.com/environment/…
1
1
(A) IPBES is an independent intergovernmental platform - not part of the U.N. (B) if you read the reports instead of just the media you’d see there are no predictions of catastrophe - but options offered to avoid them (C) but why let facts get in the way of a good rant right?
2
1
Still waiting for access to your documentation. But you seem to want media releases done first. Esp interested in assumptions & models behind “Land degradation and climate change are likely to force 50 to 700 million people to migrate by 2050” Not prediction of crisis you say?
2
1
Not sure how much easier we can make this - it's the first item on our feature marquee on the website: ipbes.net/outcomes and yes - no prediction of catastrophe - scientfic scenario modelling complete with policy options to mitigate.
1
You refer to “unedited advance summaries” which do not contain any advanced information on how results were obtained. Uneasy. Your media release 1st para states ”undermining the well-being of 40% of humanity” & “mass human migration and increased conflict” Crisis message, no?
5
Replying to @pholmgren @UN
(4) The possibility of crisis - even one that seems increasingly likely on the basis of scenarios planning - is a far cry from "predictions of catastrophe". The same headlines you quote also make it very clear - humanity still has options

Apr 4, 2018 · 7:03 PM UTC

1
Replying to @IPBES @UN
Please note that you misquote my original tweet in this thread. Note your own headlines: “Worsening Worldwide Land Degradation Now ‘Critical’, Undermining Well-Being of 3.2 Billion People” “Biodiversity and Nature’s Contributions Continue  Dangerous Decline, Scientists Warn”