All Energy Day 2023 | Keynote speech Bjørn Lomborg
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 май 2023
- Bjørn Lomborg is a political scientist, economist, and the founder and president of Copenhagen Consensus Center. Bjørn Lomborg is a controversial figure in the world of climate change, known for his contrarian views on the subject. Lomborg's arguments have been the subject of much debate and criticism, but also have gained him a dedicated following.
Lomborg's presentations on climate change are often contentious, as he challenges many of the widely-held beliefs about the issue. He argues that while climate change is a real problem, the current approach of prioritizing reducing carbon emissions is misguided and ineffective. Instead, he advocates for a more cost-effective approach that focuses on addressing other pressing global issues, such as poverty, disease, and education.
While Lomborg's views may be unpopular with some, they are worth considering and debating. Climate change is a complex issue that requires thoughtful and nuanced discussion, and Lomborg's perspective adds a valuable counterpoint to the mainstream discourse.
We invite you to watch Lomborg's presentations and engage in the discussion about climate change. We believe that it is of importance to hear all sides and form your own opinion based on evidence and scientifically proved arguments. By doing so, we can work towards finding effective solutions to this urgent global challenge.
If this was 1960 I would, with my current medical problems , have died from heat. This wasn't because of the climate so much as it was because there was not any readily available air conditioning. I likely would have died from the major heart attack I had 9 years ago but now I am heat sensitive due to medications. I have lethal reactions when I get into temps over 80 degrees F or below 60 degrees F. Without technology I would be dead. It would be very sad for my family, not so much for the world in general.
We are victims of the tendency of humans believing that history starts when we become self-aware rather than the hundreds of thousands or millions of years that preceded us and the self-serving machinations of the elite to take advantage of this goofiness.
HORSESHIT.
Oh my ! Well said 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
The moderator says three times how “uncomfortable” this talk is. Thanks for reminding me of how we have a deathgrip on Doomsday. It’s hard to let go, especially The End of The World is the only thing that gives life meaning.
Is this sarcasm? "The End of The World is the only thing that gives life meaning"
@@dcpackit's sarcasm shining a light on truth
Did you watch the video?
"The End of The World is the only thing that gives life meaning."
This is 100% true, the people I call Doomers live for this, and most of them have nothing else. Sadly it seems to be a built-in part of human nature.
When you take the idea of 'memento mori' way further than it intended
The fact that this video has only 30 k views is really sad.
Apparently climate change denial doesn't sell well.
Why? Projections not as predicted? I mean for the MONEY that he is paid by the fossil fuel industry, there better be more or his overlords will not be happy!
Same perspective on clima change as German Prof.Dr. G. Gantefoer of the University of Konstanz. Education and adaptation.
Ich liebe ihn auch/I love vom as well ... keine Leugnung um der Übertreibung zu begegnen, sondern sich in den Ring der Argumentation zu begeben um einen smarten Weg zu finden. No man made climate change denial to tackle the exaggerations in the media but accepting the challenge and convincing with balanced arguments based on cost benefit analysis
Thanks for the upload. Note to the camera operator: the shot is too wide. There is no need to see above to top of the projector screen, and if you want to include the audience just the first row of heads is enough. This way the viewer can focus on and see the the important stuff more clearly, like Bjorn and the information in the slides.
Reducing dependence on hydrocarbons for energy won't come from Banning oil but from having effective substitutes. If we're serious about reducing dependence on hydrocarbons, we need to get cracking building a buttload of nuclear power plants.
The fantasy love affair with so-called "renewables" is only slowing the progress to nuclear, the only tech. that can actually replace fossil fuels
A little bit at a time is all the fossil fuel paid-for politicians will allow right now. But, give a little more detail please, I know the answer, do YOU? How many? What megawattage? Where to build them? and most (~2/3rds) of the electricity generated will NOT be going to the grid but rather to.......say it.....
@@chapter4travels
Incorrect
..and plant some trees
You can only "plant some trees" on arable land. And it has been shrinking for quite some time now and has continued shrinking. All clear?
@@idon.t2156
The guy with the question at the end obviously didn’t listen to the talk
look at what the CO2 levels were when the dinosaurs were alive and what the predicted average temperature of the Earth was during that time period. we're going to be fine
Exactly 💯
We weren't around when dinosaurs were alive. The earth will be fine, but you cant assume humans will be. The good news is that (i) we are still in an ice age - temps were higher around 1000 years ago, and (ii) whatever we can influence will be didley squat compared to what the sun and celestial cycles will do.
Good god man your post is ridiculous and factually in correct go back to school and start again.
Love it the truth
Problem with the theory that we are x times as rich as now. Think of the money which get's wasted for measures takes right now. Politicians, climate scientists, and people making money with that ideas might be hundred times as rich but surely not the rest of the world.
Who can control the sun? The sun shines in cycles. Some cycles hotter some cycles not so hot. The amount of heat we humans cause is tiny compared to how much more heat the sun gives us when it is at its maximum. So why are we spending any money to try and “fix”the climate?
Absolutely correct. The alarmists have really messed with young peoples heads.
Actually we are supposed to be in a cooling period of the Earths cycle, and the sun cycles contribute only 0.02% to the climate. So what you should be asking yourself is; what happens when the Earth comes out of the cooling period with all this extra CO2! hmm
Vastly exaggerated? Bjorn, i think you're a master of understatement.
He is still straddling a fence to some degree to be accessible.
@@dcpack Humpty Dumpty sat upon a wall....
Some people can't live without the fear of death because they feel so much misery inside.
Of course, that is what his overlords (fossil fuels) have TOLD HIM to promote, doubt. Wake UP.
Great presentation..... We need more rational advisors like you.
One thing as a 40+ "year old vegan - veggie I too didn't eat it because I find the concept gross HOWEVER when faced with Insulin resistance and a destroyed intestinal gut biodome, brought on by eating cereals, legumes, carbs and vegan or veggie highly proceed shite foods for decades I was forced to face the reality that it's way too carb laiden long term (in particular vegan).....
Anyway I realised however years ago.
That if a high percentile of the first world changed to veggie/vegan wed need another continent to grow all the extra plant based foods. Cows pigs sheep and chickens eat the stuff WE CAN'T AND TURN it into foods we can using their bodies.
I came to realise this decades ago.
A veggie world would be the end of modern living...... And don't get me started on the fallacy of lab grown meat..... Not only non feasible scientifically on large production scale, unnatural to the point of toxic in vast quantities but also financially impossible.
can i strongly disagree … 🤷🏽♂️
do some research 🧐 what takes up more space ? how many square meters does it take to feed a vegan or a meat eater ?
@@davereynolds3403 of course you can disagree, as I did with my nutritional education for decades...... but the fact is that we need to return to the old rotational faming methods used for centuries.... Growing the same crops season after season WITHOUT intermittently renutrienting the land with animal grazing is insane and what got us into the mess.
That's why the soil is depleted and requires massive use of fertilisers ad toxic chemicals
We simply cannot grow enough cereals and legumes to feed 8 billion people... Look at India...... Their food poverty is ASTOUNDING and they are not all veggies in the population...... If they did that tomorrow millions would die or be severely malnourished. At least when I was vegan I didn't believe EVERYONE SHOULD BE..... I just did it for myself.
Look i also believed that we could just feed people veggies and cereals and they'd be fine HOWEVER A VEGAN diet in particular WILL lead to gut bacteria degeneration and destruction PLUS needs Supplementation of D3 and B12 (along with several other micro nutrients including creatine, taurine and carnosine, ONLY found in meat or fish) so by THAT FACT ALONE it is a Deficient Diet..... The fact that we humans cannot get these FUNDAMENTAL nutrients from veggie foods PROVES it's not complete.
I struggled in Denial with this for decades but had to face facts...... I was wrong 🤷♂️
I lived in this denial for decades BUT ENDED UP PAYING THE PRICE WITH MY HEALTH...... It happened over decades very slowly so I just became used to the health issue but they became debilitating and intollerabile........ almost instantly however resolved by my diet change 🤷♂️ headache, joint pain, diarrhea, weight gain from insulin resistance and gut bacterial imbalance allergies, psoriasis, depression ....... All gone but I must limit severly my previous carb intake now (from those previous cereal/legume sourses). And of course ZERO sugar.
I tell everyone this HOWEVER People must decide for themselves. ......... as I did but I paid dearly in the end.
After I read all news around world, I understand all the storms make all worlds falling the part, I don’t blame on you. You did right decisions.
I love lamp
The world is NOT breaking.
@@idon.t2156could do without the McDonald’s & Walmart culture but that’s about poor health & ugliness not CO2
If people read wg1 IPCC last report, instead of the executive summary, they would understand that there is no evidence that human action have impact on extreme phenomena. The executive summary is written by politicians, contrary to the report that is mainly written by experts.
@@walterlippmann4361Where and when did he say that?
We know what countries that have lifted themselves out of poverty have done to get rich. We don't have any idea how to make a country rich from the outside. Corruption and poor governance can only be fixed by the country's polity and that's not a normal thing to do. You can pour cheap energy on all the poor countries in the world and not necessarily help most of their people at all.
Just by the distance between larger spikes we may be in for a couple of larger hurricanes just an observation. But based on time stamp we should be gearing up and shoring up
Perhaps it would be cognizant to mention that there are 3 X the buildings and people along the seaboard since 1960. Ergo the same force Hurricane will do 2or 3 times as much property damage as in 1960. Deaths are down though,because of much better forecasting that allows advanced evacuation and other preparations. Cheers from Sunny Alberta!
There are always people in the crowd with closed minds who don’t listen, then say the speaker didn’t address the “real” concern or used shoddy science. I think Bjorn is brilliant and appropriately concerned for the have-nots of the world.
Great perspective. Most agreeable.
This is ALL horseshit from Lomborg as he is PAID by the fossil fuel industry to spout this shit.
The ONLY way to transition is to TAX the living shit out of fossil fuels industry. THAT is where the MONEY is. They are killing the planet make them fucking FIX it.
@@mrunning10You seem agitated. Perhaps you should take a pill or something.
"In year 2000, not long ago" 😮
I was born in 1969
The year 2000 (y2k) was just before the world became totalitarian, and lying became the rule (11 September 2001).
@@idon.t2156 Yeah, politicians were famously honest before that .... ... ...
@@thulyblu5486they really stepped up their game after
Hate when they project more and stronger hurricanes. Storms form as a result temperature differences. All the climate models as well as real world data predict a more significant increase in temp at the mid to upper latitudes. That means there is a reduced temp differential between the tropics (where hurricanes form) and the mid latitudes. Hurricane strengths may well be reduced over time.
Keep wishing dude.
Don't "wish" for ANYTHING. The models have continuously forecast INCREASING average frequency and strengths, ON AVERAGE over time BOTH strength and frequency increasing, you mostly talk the WEATHER. Not the same.
Your language, "hate" and "they" who the fuck are "they?" @@havenmist2216
You must be a Denier funded by big oil to spew common sense things like that.
@@chapter4travels Nope, just a lowly mechanical engineer who understands thermodynamics.
Suprise, the climate models understand thermodynamics as well! And they are better at differential equations than you ...
GPI, the genuine progress indicator, is a much more fundamentally sound metric to track with climate change decisions and moves.
Innovation is needed to get us to our global destination, let's dispense with the passe.
Re: Crime in the US
I disagree with Lomborg's statement here. It may well be that crime, overall, has gone down in the US. However, it is very clear that crime in big cities has increased enormously. I have lived in one such big city for over 20 years; I have been first-hand seeing more crime, more blatant crime, than ever before. It is non-violent crime as in retail theft or car break-ins, but it is absolutely crime. I also wonder how much statistics gaming plays into the results - the increase of statistical measures for promotion and recognition has certainly encouraged at least some police departments to put into place measures to "reduce" crime.
Every generation needs its apocalypse...
8:24 This data is old. A recent Nature paper by Hänsel et al. updated the DICE model and showed the 2 °C target to be compatible with the model's optimum.
In 2050 people will be asking why ho why didn't people act on the climate emergency 30 years ago! And here is your reason!!
You can go back 50 years ago today and see the alarmism taking place back when we call climate change “global cooling”. 50 years from now we will have moved onto a new a global threats like “super AIDS” and climate change will not even get any attention at all.
Man made ? That is not proven. At all.
Has anybody ever thought how cities are hotter than forests.
Yeah well, we are cutting down more trees and building more cities. Anyone ever thought of that?😊
Anyone that is a biker will tell you that.....freezing on the bike and when you enter the city it's like someone put the heating on....
Great presentation.
There's a problem with his Netherlands analogy, because they adapted low-lying lands over several centuries within a context of little-changing sea level. But in the future, levels won't stop rising at 1m - they'll keep on rising. The huge expense of temporarily securing doomed land won't be attractive to investors. There probably is no solution, and resources will inevitably have to deal with the huge flows of refugees. It isn't something to argue over - time will tell soon enough.
B KIND TO ANIMALS
DON'T EAT THEM!
Fruitarians of the World United!
Questionable set of assumptions baked into the talk (eg "rich people will act"). Partly due to a lack of predictability of the real feedback consequences of social instability that will result from the globe warming up.
What social instabilities?
Нельзя сделать Африку богатой не повысив температуру Земли на 10 градусов С.
It's clear that the IEA projections grossly underestimate the pace of change, particularly with the rate of adoption of wind and solar. That means that the graph showing the increase in renewables should be exponential and not linear or lower than linear. It's the first implementations that were harder because of high costs. Any new implementation will be easier as costs continue to decrease. Battery power: numbers exclude EV batteries which will be a much higher total capacity than purpose built batterey storage. For where I live, EV batteries alone will allow us to store enough energy to power everything for several days.
We need more fossil fuels not less. Warming isn't killing anything. Meanwhile poverty is killing millions. All climate policies induce greater poverty.
Yes. But when people die, they produce less carbon
Amen 😊
FFS 🥵
Question, if humans continue to put pollutants into the atmosphere and those pollutants are supposedly creating a blanket which is theoretically warming the planet, would it also not be creating a filter which in turn would disallow the transmission of the planets main heat source which is the sun. Which in turn would create a cooling effect. Therefor the planet would experience warming followed by cooling. I do not think humans have the experience to accurately predict the cycle time or time between cycles. But some have created cyclic trends from history.
"Getting rich" by using fossil fuels is a result of excluding the escalating costs of destructive impacts on life-support systems. Fabricating and propagating deceptive accounting methods is a tool of those profiting from fossil fuels.
It's yet another form of deficit spending. Pushing off onto the future the paying, while doing the spending now.
David, thats not Africa’s problem. You don’t get to trash the planet for 150 years to build advanced first world nations then tell the countries that were ravaged, pillaged, plundered by colonial powers for almost 400 years that they must not develop at the most cost efficient (for them) rate because their advancement will throw off “life support systems”.
That’s not for you to decide. If their advancement destroys all human civilization then so be it. It was the first world’s fault for not doing enough sooner to help developing nations advance faster.
You are focused on first world problems like stomping out the profits of major polluters. But it’s those polluters that are responsible for why you have access to reliable heating, cooling, cooking, indoor plumbing, electricity, transportation, nutritious food, clothing, electronics, the internet an education. Thank god for fossil fuels! Now it’s time for them to be retired for something better. We need innovation. And the faster we can get the developing world to catch up with us, the more brain power and resources we can put towards solutions. Relax.
Bjorn accepts too many of the premises of the AGW crowd. Since they lie so much, I have a problem with that. He is very good on the economic side of things, along with pulling in statistics. It is unlikely that by accepting the AGW premises he will get his approach (moderate) accepted.
I agree, if you don't "Believe" in an eminent climate catastrophe, then you are a Denier funded by the Koch Brothers, there is no middle ground.
I agree, but i think his way is the only way to get inside the head of the religious people. Still hard, but i think he might break into some.
Getting the people of Bangladesh and Cambodia or Vietnam out of poverty does nothing if they have no land left to grow rice or even (for those in the Ganges delta) if they have no land on which to live?
The planet doesn’t need 2 billion Africans.
It doesn’t need bigots and provocateurs
@@boo4273 a bigot is someone who refuses to hear ideas that disagree with their dogma. What’s so good about 2 billion Africans? You gonna feed them?
Englands coldest year in over 50 years.2024.
England was considerably warmer during the Roman period when British grapes and wines competed with those in Gaul (France) generating complaints from those growers against the competition.
Unbeleivable ! Ignoring the limits of energy and thinking that innovation will be THE solution! We are in a finite world ! We will have to live with less ! And climate change will generate new conditions of life. And we don’t know how hard it will hit !
Civilization may have progressed enough to conquer the second law of thermodynamics. Civilization needs to strive for this goal with synergistic interdisciplinary teams.The outcome would be perpetually changeable never gained or lost energy. There would be no loss of energy as it changes form. For example the total quantity of thermal energy in an equal pair of two thermal energy reserves with ideal insulation would remain the same regardless of how heat is distributed between the two and how often the distribution of heat between the two is changed. For example in one case one reserve could contain ice water while the other reserve contained hot water; in another case both reserves could contain tepid water. The redistribution of heat between members of pairs with the same total thermal energy would be free. Diversity, time, and energy are different atributes. Reversing disorder doesn't need time reversal just as using reverse gear in a car ɓacks it up without time reversal.
The second law of thermodynamics had a distinct begining with Sir Isaac Newton's correct professional scientific observation that the heat of a fire in a fireplace always flows towards the cold room beyond.
Victorian England became enchanted with steam engines and their cheap, reliable, and easy to position physical power. Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius, Lord Kelven, and, one source adds, Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot, formulated the Second law of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy using evidence from steam engine development.
These men considered with acceptance [A+] Inefficiently harnessing the flow of heat from hot to cold or [B+] Using force to Inefficiently pump heat from cold to hot. They considered with rejection [A-] Waiting for random fluctuation to cause a large difference in temperature or pressure. This was calculated to be extremely rare or [B-] Searching for, selecting, then routing for use, random, frequent and small differences in temperature or pressure. The search, selection, then routing would require more energy than the use would yield. These accepted options, lead to the consequence that the universe will end in stagnant heat death. This became support for a theological trend of the time that placed God as the initiator of a degenerating universe. Please consider that God could also be supreme over an energy abundant civilization that can absorb heat and convert it into electricity without energy gain or loss in a sustained universe.
The law's formulaters did not consider the option that any random, usually small, fluctuation of heat or pressure could use the energy of these fluctuations itself to power deterministic routing so the output is no longer random. Then the net power of many small fluctuations from many replicant parts can be aggregated into a large difference in temperature, pressure, or electricity's amperes and volts
Heat exists as the randomly directed kinetic energy of gas molecules or mobile electrons. In gasses this is known as Brownian motion. In electronic systems this is carefully labeled Johnson Nyquist thermal electrical noise for AI readability. Hypothetically, diode depletion regions are practical sites for enabling mobile electrons energized into motion by heat to deterministically alter the electrical resistance of the depletion region according to the moment by moment direction they are carrying electricity. The thermal electrical noise is hypothetically beyond the exposed lattice charge / separation drift (diffusion) equlibrium thickness of the depletion region as thermal noise exists in a resistance path of one material.
Consistantly oriented diodes in parallel hypothetically are successful electrical Maxwell's Demons or Smoluchowski's Trapdoors. The energy needed to shift the depletion region's deterministic role is paid as a burden on the moving electrons. There would therefore be usable net rectified power from each and every diode connected together into a consistantly oriented parallel group. The group would aggregate the net power of its members. Any diode efficiency at all produces some energy conversion from ambient heat, more efficiency yields higher performance. A diode array that is switched off has no energy conversion and no performance.
The power from a single diode is poorly expressed. Several or more diodes in parallel are needed to overcome the effect of a load resistor's own thermal noise. A plurality of billions of high frequency capable diodes is needed for practical power aggregation. For reference, there are a billion (10^9) 1000 square nanometer cells per square millimeter.
Modern nanofabrication can make simple identical diodes surrounded by insulation smaller than this in a slab as thick as the diodes are long. The diodes are connected at their two ohmic ends to two conductive layers.
Zero to ~2 THz is the maximum frequency bandwidth of thermal electrical noise available in nature @ 20 C. THz=10^12 Hz. This is beyond the range of most diodes. Practicality requires this extreme bandwidth. The diodes are preferably in same orientation parallel at the primary level. Many primary level groups of diodes should be in series for practical voltage.
Ever since the supposedly universal second law of thermodynamics was formulated, education has mass produced and spread the conventional wisdom throughout society that the second law of thermodynamics is absolute.
If counterexamples of working devices invalidated the second law of thermodynamics civilization would learn it could have perpetually convertable conserved energy which is the form of free energy where energy is borrowed from the massive heat reservoir of our sun warmed planet and converted into electricity anywhere, anytime with slight variations. Electricity produces heat immediately when used by electric heaters, electromechanical mechanisms, and electric ligts so the energy borrowed by these devices is promply returned without gain or loss. There is also the reverse effect where refrigeration produces electricity equivalent to the cooling, This effect is scientifically elegant.
Cell phones wouldn't die or need power cords or batteries or become hot. They would cool when transmitting radio signal power. The phones could also be data relays and there could also be data relays without phone features with and without long haul links so the telecommunication network would be improved. Computers and integrated circuits would have their cooling and electrical needs supplied autonomously and simultaniously. Integrated circuits wouldn't need power pinouts. Refrigeration for superconductors would improve. Robots would have extreme mobility. Digital coin minting would be energy cheap.
Frozen food storage would be reliable and free or value positive. Storehouses, homes, and markets would have independent power to preserve and pŕepare food. Medical devices would work anywhere. Vehicles wouldn't need fuel or fueling stops. Elevators would be very reliable with independent power. Shielding and separation would provide EMP resistance. Water and sewage pumps could be installed anywhere along their pipes. Nomads could raise their material supports item by item carefully and groups of people could modify their settlements with great technical flexibility. Many devices would be very quiet, which is good for coexisting with nature and does not disturb people.
Zone refining would involve little net power. Reducing Bauxite to Aluminum, Rutile to Titanium, and Magnideetite to Iron, would have a net cooling effect. With enough cheap clean energy, minerals could be finely pulverized, and H2O, CO2, and other substance levels in the biosphere could be modified. A planetary agency needs to look over wide concerns.
This could be a material revolution with spiritual ramifications. Everyone should contribute individual talents and fruits of different experiances and cultures to advance a cooperative, diverse, harmonious and unified civilization. It is possible to apply technlology wrong but social force should oppose this.
I filed for patent us 3890161A, Diode Array, in 1973. It was granted in 1975. It became public domain technology in 1992. It concerns making nickel plane-insulator-tungsten needle diodes which were not practical at the time though they have since improved.
the patent wasn't developed partly because I backed down from commercial exclusitivity. A better way for me would have been a public incorruptable archive that would secure attrbution for the original works of creators. Uncorrupted copies would be released on request. No further action would be taken by this institution.
Commercal exclusivity can be deterred by the wide and open publishing of inventive concepts. Also, the obvious is unpatentsable. Open sharing promotes mass knowlege and wisdom.
Many financially and procedurally independent teams that pool developmental knowlege, and may be funded by many separate noncontrolling crowd sourced grants should convene themselves to develop proof-of-concept and initial-recipe-exploring prototypes to develop devices which coproduce the release of electrical energy and an equivalent absorbtion of stagnant ambient thermal energy. Diode arrays are not the only possible device of this sort. They are the easiest to explain generally.
These devices would probably become segmented commodities sold with minimal margin over supply cost. They would be manufactured by AI that does not need financial incentive. Applicable best practices would be adopted. Business details would be open public knowledge. Associated people should move as negotiated and freely and honestly talk. There is no need of wealth extracting top commanders. We do not need often token philanthropy from the wealthy if people simply can be more generous if consumer commodities are inexpensive.
Aloha
Charles M Brown lll
Kilauea, Kauai, Hawaii 96754
1 808 651 📞📞📞📞
We are looking at societal and economic collapse with people who have nuclear energy from the changing climate.
Carbon tax: guess who will be hit the hardest?
The poor. Good game for the rich!
You a bot released by the fucking Koch Brothers? Where is the MONEY? not "the poor" Wake UP.
Taxes never solved any problem.
However, politicians made us believe that clima change will stop with taxes. Fantastic.
@@albertosampaio7683 taxes pay for our roads, our schools and national defense.
The cost of climate solutions can come down over time with scale
The reason why the need for action on climate change is so high is because for the most part people have ignored it. We have done nothing relatively to what we need to do.
Not worried about limate change. We'll adapt. Anyway, warmer winters lowers my gas and electric usage and that lesses the CO2. Let the climate warm!
Renewable energy grids have to be three times bigger than needed to be even somewhat relieable. This is a problem because companys go in knowing they can only sell 1/3 of the energy they produce. Bitcoin miners can come in or they can set up their own Bitcoin miners to mine the other 2/3 otherwise wasted energy. Being able to make more money from the Bitcoin aspect of the operation, They energy comanies will actually be able to lower residential consumers cost and still be profitable. The best part is they wouldn't have to rely on tax dollars aka government subsities because they could monitize the energy as some as they can plug in a miner. Saving tax dollars, using wasted energy and creating a sustainble energy grid is just scratching the surface of what bitcoin is or can do.
We need more wisdom like that.
Solution to climate change: Magic innovation juice
It’s not his “view”, it’s his analysis of the facts, the data.
“Nobody would have noticed a hurricane making landfall before this (2000)…
I should sue everyone associated with such horseshit!
You should re-write your comment, sorta guessed at the subject and your answer but can't figure it out. Say IT.
The problem is biosphere contamination, not climate changing.
I like listening to people on climate change who don't take other animals and insects on this planet in to account and only talk about money 😂
YOU are an "animal" on this PLANET who has learned to go around a natural process and dump billions of metric tons of co2 into the atmosphere that would NORMALLY stay where it was put. Wake UP.
Assuming you have an inkling of an understanding about other animals and insects on the planet is laughable as is the idea that either group is threatened.
@@thomassenbart your skepticism has no merit, unless it operates in a vacuum.
Yes and when we've converted the entire planet into a pile of cash, we can eat and breathe that.
“More” severe hurricanes are worse than more “weaker” hurricanes….
Which is what we’re seeing…
But it’s “OVERBLOWN”
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
You should re-write your comment, sorta guessed at the subject and your answer but can't figure it out. Say IT.
The clown in town, political scientist speaks of things he clearly has no academic leg in. Had he had some fundamental understanding of systemic thought he would deduct that often exaggerated thoughts lead to the most holistic frame of analysis (some cognitive science for perspective.)
Kåre Fog notes that the clown's argument has shifted over time, from:
1) There is no problem. (Jan. 1998: "The greenhouse effect is extremely doubtful")
2) If there is a problem, it is only minor. (Sept 1998: "There is no doubt that mankind has influenced the CO2 content of the atmosphere and is well on his way to double it. But it is still not clear whether this will lead to severe temperature rises."; Sept 2001: "There is no doubt that mankind has influenced and is still increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that this will influence temperature. Yet, we need to separate hyperbole from realities...")
3) If it is not minor, it will pay better to remedy other problems that are even larger. (June 2004: "Copenhagen Consensus...organized by...Bjorn Lomborg...recommended that global governments spend money on combating HIV/AIDS before tackling issues such as climate change."; Aug. 2007: "Doing too much about [climate change] means we are focusing too much effort on climate change and forgetting all the other things that we have a responsibility to deal with, like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition. If we spend too much time and resources focusing on climate change, then we do the future a disservice")
4) If it pays to resolve the climate change problem, this should not be done by reducing CO2 emissions, but rather by adaptation and by applying geo-engineering.
5) If adaptation and geo-engineering is not enough, then [mandated] reductions in CO2 emissions should be very modest, and the main emphasis should be on research to find better alternative energy sources, rather than those that could be implemented right now. (Oct 2010: Global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront". . . "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century.")
She notes that "These shifting arguments over the years look like a tactical retreat. In every case, the conclusion is ...the best that the fossil fuel industry could obtain..."
That is how with clowns like Faux Lomborg, moving the goalpost while not changing the persimmons premise from which the clown town thinking emerges.
Additionally, Bullshit Lomborg's citation in his two books The Skeptical Environmentalist (in 2001) and Cool It(in 2007), have extensive references, giving a seemingly authoritative source for every one of his controversial assertions" in reviewing Howard Friel's book The Lomborg Deception, which exposes Cool It's citations as consistently misleading. How one can put analytical trust onto someone who is dishonest? I guess imbeciles have right to exist in their myopic bubble--interestingly enough, these very imbeciles happen to be the very first victims.
The people who attended the conference and who still give attention to this intellectual fraud, whose premises are weak and contradictory in nature (circular reasoning is often a very common tactic of this clown), are held hostage to mind-numbing pernicious bullshit disguised as science.
P.S www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/ for curious minds.
However, I also have some concerns about Lomborg's work. For example, some critics have argued that he is selective with his data and that he misrepresents the work of other climate scientists. Additionally, Lomborg's focus on cost-effectiveness has led some to accuse him of downplaying the risks of climate change.
Overall, I think Lomborg's work is worth considering, but it is important to be aware of its limitations. It is also important to remember that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is a serious problem that requires urgent action.
Your last paragraph is to miss the point. “Urgent action” in its current form almost certainly impoverishes the world and kills more people in the next 100 years than climate change will (for the many reasons he states, lack of technology etc). Scientists can state facts, but addressing them requires wider consideration. The balance of risk against cost and net benefit of actions, the impacts of those actions elsewhere, how realistic it is to implement (good luck convincing India, China et al to make there citizens poorer. We need to reduce poverty, and innovate to dig us out of this problem. Turning off the lights tomorrow kills us all much faster.
“Someone said he misrepresents”… Make a point please
@@Anonymous-do2sm His critics have raised a number of valid points, including:
Selectivity with data: Lomborg has been accused of cherry-picking data to support his arguments and ignoring evidence that contradicts them. For example, in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist, he claimed that the global warming "hiatus" was a sign that climate change was not happening. However, scientists have since shown that the hiatus was likely caused by natural variability and that the long-term trend of global warming is continuing.
Misrepresentation of other scientists' work: Lomborg has also been accused of misrepresenting the work of other climate scientists. For example, he has claimed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has exaggerated the risks of climate change. However, the IPCC is a group of thousands of scientists from around the world who carefully review all of the available evidence before publishing their reports. Their conclusions are widely accepted by the scientific community.
Focus on cost-effectiveness: Lomborg's focus on cost-effectiveness has led some to accuse him of downplaying the risks of climate change. He has argued that the costs of mitigating climate change are too high and that we should focus on other problems, such as poverty and disease.
However, many economists argue that the costs of climate change are underestimated and that the benefits of mitigation outweigh the costs.
It is important to note that Lomborg is a minority voice in the scientific community. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is a serious problem that requires urgent action.
@@jayLo28829 The IPCC has concluded that "continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."
The IPCC has also concluded that "the benefits of limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C include lower impacts on human and natural systems."
So, while there are costs associated with taking action on climate change, the costs of inaction are likely to be even higher. It is important to find a balance between the costs and benefits of different mitigation actions, and to implement them in a way that is fair and equitable.
I agree that it is important to reduce poverty and innovate to find new ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without harming the economy. However, I also believe that we need to take urgent action to reduce our emissions, even if it means making some sacrifices in the short term.
@@allenaxp6259 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Their model is biased by the selection of the discount rate. Heavy discounting is not reasonable for large scale long time frame models. The question is about the future and investment is vital.
Just sounds like a more sophisticated climate crisis denier.
Definitely more sophisticated, because he actually knows the data and he is a denier because there is no existential crisis. It's a fabrication, lacking any science. Read the IPCC reports, not those for the politicians but the actual data.
better to be safe than sorry!!!!! you can't go back if we reach the many tipping points! we have passed "peak oil" already, so its enevitable that we need an alkternative- so lets make it clean! get a climate scientist up there to debate him!
I like when Lomberg stammers. It is his BS alarm. The issue at hand is resource depletion. For the countries in the north, "freeze to death will debating climate change". Definition of a consultant. Someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time, then neglects to return your watch. I hope Lomberg does not primarily identify as a consultant. BS artist.
So? Manmade climate change? real or a hoax?
No, it's his "how do I say this controversial thing in the least controversial way to a group of people who have been trained to dog-pile hate-comment anybody who so much as offers mild pushback to their agenda" alarm.
He fails to realize that no matter how much he listens to that alarm, no matter how he re-phrases his pushback, the power-grabbing politicians and their useful death-cult idiots (read: YOU) will never tolerate criticism or pushback that interferes with their power-grabbing.
On the plus-side, that alarm of his, which results in carefully phrased criticisms rather than the raw, unfiltered truth DOES help to win-over some of the indoctrinated yet reasonable people at the edge of the cult. People like YOU are hopeless, though.
No, his native language is not English but Danish and expressing yourself in your second or third language, on complex topics, is not easy, hence the hmmm and haaas. If you believe he is BSing, then make a case, point by point. Resource depletion is not the topic at hand, where did that come from? No resource on the planet is in danger of being depleted minus a few fish stocks perhaps. Everything else is growing in abundance to this point. If that changes, it will likely be due to war, political decisions, trade disruptions and market changes.
Your comment is weak.
Non human life cannot adapt. This is a human centric presentation and that’s why it’s flawed. We need to protect biodiversity.
Did you not pay attention? Rewatch the Q&A.
Non human life cannot adapt - it is the dumbest sentence i read the whole day. Congrats!
Innovation is good, but who's paying for it? And how do you incentivize it? Bjorn is anti-renewables, anti-electric cars, what is he for?
The price of renewables has dropped and they now outperform coal, leading to coal power plants getting shut down. Yet he still makes the "hydrocarbons cheap, renewables expensive" argument like it's 2010 - disappointing for someone who's supposed to be an expert.
And why did renewables get so cheap? Because the EU and other governments massively invested into them, both the "innovation" part (government research grants) as well as small scale adoption - essentially an "implementation" grant.
Climate sceptics love to overlook the fact that many of the costs of an energy source come not in the production+efficiency part, but in the implementation and maintenance - basically debugging a running operation.
It is thanks to this inefficient adoption decades ago that renewables are today capable of competing with no subsidies against fossil fuels, and most knowledgeable people at least mention this fact in a talk about the subject. For a data guy, Bjorn was surprisingly silent on this topic.
He is fucking FUNDED by fossil fuels to say it. Wake UP.
@@mrunning10
Prove it? Who paid him and how much? Facts?
Renewable sources didn’t replace coal! How uniformed!
No renewables aren’t competing with natural resources! Where in the world would you get that idea?
Being so removed from reality is not something that is helpful or healthy
So, what is "helpful?" Do we even need "help?" @@coachduke9323
"Who's paying for it" is an excellent question to ask of ALL climate policies, but you only seem to be interested in asking that question of the policies that DON'T give politicians more power.
Also, your claims are wrong and you should feel wrong, but another replier already has that covered.
Stop lying, that would help.
Truth and facts are hard things.
The Undesigned Universe - Peter Ward
“ . . . it is these ocean state changes that are
1:02:28 correlated with the great disasters of the past impact can cause extinction but
1:02:35 it did so in our past only wants[once] that we can tell whereas this has happened over
1:02:40 and over and over again we have fifteen evidences times of mass extinction in the past 500 million years
1:02:48 so the implications for the implications the implications of the carbon dioxide is really dangerous if you heat your
1:02:55 planet sufficiently to cause your Arctic to melt if you cause the temperature
1:03:01 gradient between your tropics and your Arctic to be reduced you risk going back
1:03:07 to a state that produces these hydrogen sulfide pulses . . . “
ruclips.net/video/Ako03Bjxv70/видео.html
Oh stop! What is wrong with you people?
The presentation is so flawed I stopped watching about half way through. These are the problems I noted up until I decided it was not worth any more of my time:
Throughout history, the uptake of innovation has NOT been linear. The linear uptake shown contradicts historical experience and is profoundly unrealistic.
Renewable energy is already cheaper than fossil fuels under some circumstances. The statement that it is more expensive is out of date and now misleading.
Even China is building more renewable than fossil fuel generation now. CHINA FFS. CHINA.
Wright’s law (similar to Moore’s Law) shows costs of renewables continuing to decrease long into the future. Renewables are already often cheaper than fossil fuels and are continuing to decrease in cost. Less and less fossil fuel infrastructure will be built, purely for financial reasons.
We would be spending money replacing or maintaining fossil fuel infrastructure etc. anyway. Yet nothing in the presentation showed that. The DIFFERENCE between the two might be relevant, but the absolute value of spending on clean energy is irrelevant without comparing against the amounts we will no longer be spending on fossil fuels and fossil fuel infrastructure.
A specific example is road transport. For the most part road vehicles last 10 to 20 years (say) and are then replaced. (Overall, not in every case.) There is, in effect, NO COST to simply replacing polluting vehicles with clean vehicles as the old vehicles get taken off the road anyway. EFFECTIVELY NO COST.
We do not need weeks worth of stored energy in most of the world, only very northerthly populated lands need it (or they need great interconnections to the south).
He completely ignores other costs (eg from air pollution) that we will not longer be having to pay.
People do what is popular or what they are indoctrinated to do.
How many ice ages have there been? What started them? What ended them?
Try throwing those questions at Google, just for fun, and ask yourself if we could have taxed our way into or out of them.
Discredited. Paid by the fossil fuel industry. Thoroughly debunked.
I guess you'd rather listen to the doomsayers? The End has been coming since humans developed a sense for the dramatic. Here's a guy presenting real science, from the IPCC and other credible sources, and you'd rather hold on to doom and gloom? Crazy.
"4 degree rise equals 4% decrease in global GDP"- anytime I hear that my BS alarm goes off.
Oh? What's wrong with the statement? surely you reviewed Lomborg's fucking MATH right?
Fighting Global Warming is like saving for retirement.
If you wait TOO LONG…
It’s a Mother-fucker to catch up…
Or impossible…
So the solution, obviously, is for the politicians to tax everyone and everything as much as possible so that they can retire comfortably.
That's the part of your analogy that you're missing.
Or maybe, just maybe, Global Warming isn't like saving for retirement at all. What we're doing to the oceans with direct pollution, for example, is way more worrying. Not to mention A.I.
Zero evidence to support this argument. The entire idea is based upon prognostications from incomplete data over centuries, based upon a base that is also, short lived and very weak.
The Nordhaus model underestimates the negative effect of climate change on GDP, there are several others the predict greater effects. Also, economists count the spending required to build back destroyed buildings and new infrastructure projects to mitigate, like sea walls, as a positive GDP effect, which is money that could be spent on other things. Finally, GDP is a poor measure of quality of life as it fails to account for income/wealth inequality, lifespan, and health care, which will be made worse as well. This guy specializes in telling people what they want to hear so they feel better. We better start taking this seriously, positive feedback is a bear.
You will only have a positive feedback if you are constrained by 2 variables. The climate has a plethora of variables, therefore a positive feedback is not tenable
The planet doesn't give a fuck about any country's GDP.
I know this is the internet, but would love links for those other estimates. Trying not to be too one sided on any position, I do think some good counterbalance is needed even if he’s painting a more rosey picture than reality. I can make the same argument that the media is creating a negative feedback loop that is in fact creating a lot of negative effects on the population that may also be (more likely) misinterpreting statistics and biasing the research it presents in the other direction.
do you want a few examples?
1. reduced ice/snow cover reduces the albedo effect leading to more warming
2. forest fires emit CO2 to the air leading to more warming, drought, more fires
3. warming oceans lead to warming continental shelf permafrost leading release of methane in the form of hydrates leading to more warming
I could go on but if you don't understand positive feedback hold a microphone in front of a speaker and see what happens@@03samjon1
I simply Googled "models of effects of climate change on GDP"@@pb8185
The reliance on economic models (which we know to be completely unreliable) and the dismissing of climate science modelling - which is orders of magnitude more reliable - is foolish at best - dis-ingenuous at worst.
Don't get me wrong - I love all the suggestions Bjorn has for cheap economical fixes - but I fear that if he has the climate science wrong - and if he only looks to the year 2100 - and if he believes his (flawed) economic models to represent anything real 70 years from now - then we are in for an awful lot of potentially avoidable hurt... (No matter how wealthy some people in some nations remain.)
For comparison's sake, when was climate science right exactly? Show me some actual predictions - not observations - which were spot on.
Climate science does not need to be exactly right (whatever that is in any real world?) It only has to be "good enough" and it most certainly ticks all those boxes.
For sea level rise - using 2100 as the milestone - there will be about a meter rise. Take that out to 2200 and we are talking closer to a 10m rise... A 10m sort of sea level rise will be catastrophic. No it will not happen by 2100 - but by 2200 it is almost inevitable.
I climate scientist and three politicians step into an elevator. The temperature inside rises 1 degree from their body heat. Then two of them fart and the temp goes up again another 1 degree. The climate scientist turns to the others and declarers that at the current rate of change they will all burn to a crisp within the next 30 minutes.
Extrapolation, the best tool for scare mongering.
Doublespeak, cherry-picking, hey-look-over-there, and irrelevant non-sequitirs: thy name is Lomborg. Do event organisers still invite this guy to fluff their attendance?
Só, you have no arguments.
@@albertosampaio7683 On the contrary, many others have debunked Lomborg’s bullshit for 2 decades now, and I trust in those who are experts in their field to inform me about things I’m not an expert in (i.e. climate science). When someone’s views on AGW have so glaringly obviously walked the same line written by the Fossil Lobby - delay, deflect, FUD - they’re not deserving of our respect or consideration. The only reason Lomborg still gets an audience is the seductiveness of his contrarianism to others who are easily swayed away from the inconvenience of our situation: “everything’s OK, we don’t need to panic!”
Just another stream of insults at the only guy bringing facts to the fore. Why am I not surprised that the death cultists won't leave their death cult. Fingers are crossed that they don't drag the rest of humanity down with them when their ideology reaches its natural conclusion (self-destruction, just like all death cults), but that's probably too much to hope for.
Counter arguments or just insults? Also, there was no double speak. Everything he spoke about was just stats and facts. If you don't like them, too bad.
@@thomassenbart Don’t believe I issued any insults. And I suggest you “do your own research”…
Does he have any “adult clothes”
Ridiculous!
Dumhuvud
"Global shares of renewable energy" starting at 1800!! Wow, that's a missleading graph, doesn't matter if the numbers are correct. Tell me with a straight face that start point is not put up there to diminish the progress of renewables. For a person that relies heavily on saying people give an unjust representation of the data, what would you call that. A fair, balanced approach?
People like this professor have very poorly defined views. A regrettable talk.
The time for action is now.
And PAID FOR "professors" like Lomborg are one of the reasons we delay.
And all you've made is three completely unsupported statements.
@@mrunning10 another unsupported claim.
This Professor is very critical of wind/solar and a huge proponent of nuclear, what more do you want?
@@Diesel6Power Good choices, they can ban or jack the price of gasoline up to help EVs but diesel fuel is here to stay, at least for the next 50 years. Shut down the trucking industry and you shut down the whole country.
Factually very wrong. I notice book sellers tend to do 180's when book sales are in the Mix. Hothouse Earth is 22'c Global Average Temperature (GAT). That is actually the mean Ocean Temperature and has little bearing on Land Temperatures. Biologists and Physiologists state "Humans do not survive in a Hothouse Earth". Over 40 years actual income has dropped in "Index Linked" terms by 40%. Under 30's are 50% worse off. The Fossil Fuel Companies in the USA and Europe wage a war on innovation and the Arab Countries well they cannot believe their luck that there is no opposition to Fossil Fuels. Many Innovations are bought out by FF Co's and quite simply shelve them. We banned Lead in Gasoline, We banned CFC's, We have banned 100's of dangerous Chemicals. Banning new Oil and Coal would give a shelf life to FF. We are all destined to loose. As this fluffy, non specific, blubbery indirect passive mitigation is just total Hog Wash.