Our sacrifice now, as outlined by the speakers, when a rational analysis of the actual policies is conducted, is that we will bankrupt ourselves, and those in the future, for no discernable change in the environment. All cost, no benefit. No, we should not blindly follow the policies of the irrational and delusional.
@@theodorearaujo971 hey thanks for that. OK so I do get that, but I still feel it’s really shortsighted and here’s why number one we don’t need to “bankrupt ourselves” in order to take assertive steps towards temperature reduction. I don’t know why this kind of language is being used. No one is suggesting bankruptcy of the West or whatever to pay for this damage and number two is actually your you’re wrong about that and I’m pretty sure that if we do make investments now that the payoff is real and significant but it’s after we’re dead. And that’s the problem. We all want to see results while we are still here and that’s why I’m gonna call this short sighted.
I like hearing from Lomborg again HOEVER he doesn't talk about the fact that if we don't at least START focusing resources and $ on this problem, the change to the climate is essentially permanent. We will never even get to fixing other worldly problems once the havoc from the climate changes ramps up.
I am not at all convinced that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a bad thing. It promotes plant life and it's making the planet greener. In terms of global history, the current atmospheric CO2 level is still quite low. I am also not convinced that a couple of degrees of warming by the end of the century is a bad thing. We will need to adapt to the changes in various ways, some farmers will likely need to start growing different crops, but it does not look like a catastrophe to me. Warmer temperatures will likely cause the sea levels to rise, but it's a slow process and we can certainly adapt. While it seems to be the case that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of the burning of fossil fuels, it is not clear that CO2 is a significant contributor to global warming. If you look at a graph (pertaining to a reasonable time frame), there is no clear relationship between the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the global temperature. We should be aware of climate change, we should pay attention to it, we should endeavour to reduce water pollution and air pollution (I am not convinced that CO2 is a pollutant)... but it should not be our primary focus. We must not turn the global economy upside down, further impoverishing (and therefore causing the deaths of) hundreds of millions of the poorest people on the planet through increased energy costs, in order to signal our virtue and in order to pretend to combat a non-existent future catastrophe.
Thank you for standing up for academic freedom, free speech, reason, evidence, free association and the truth.
Thank you thank you brave people of integrity
This is an Enlightment in our dark age!
Very enlightening discussion!
Oh My God.... gantengs pinter SEMUA nya. Go...go...go....yes...yes...yes... With LOVE from INDONESIA 🌹
Man, these questioners really like to hear themselves talk.
Who decided a somewhat warmer planet is detrimental? Maybe it is beneficial since it will support more life.
And yes, we should be making a sacrifice NOW as opposed to kicking it down the line yet again to the next generation.
Our sacrifice now, as outlined by the speakers, when a rational analysis of the actual policies is conducted, is that we will bankrupt ourselves, and those in the future, for no discernable change in the environment. All cost, no benefit. No, we should not blindly follow the policies of the irrational and delusional.
@@theodorearaujo971 hey thanks for that. OK so I do get that, but I still feel it’s really shortsighted and here’s why number one we don’t need to “bankrupt ourselves” in order to take assertive steps towards temperature reduction. I don’t know why this kind of language is being used. No one is suggesting bankruptcy of the West or whatever to pay for this damage and number two is actually your you’re wrong about that and I’m pretty sure that if we do make investments now that the payoff is real and significant but it’s after we’re dead. And that’s the problem. We all want to see results while we are still here and that’s why I’m gonna call this short sighted.
I like hearing from Lomborg again HOEVER he doesn't talk about the fact that if we don't at least START focusing resources and $ on this problem, the change to the climate is essentially permanent. We will never even get to fixing other worldly problems once the havoc from the climate changes ramps up.
But hey, I’m listening to people like you, so if you have more to say on this, please do
I am not at all convinced that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a bad thing. It promotes plant life and it's making the planet greener. In terms of global history, the current atmospheric CO2 level is still quite low.
I am also not convinced that a couple of degrees of warming by the end of the century is a bad thing. We will need to adapt to the changes in various ways, some farmers will likely need to start growing different crops, but it does not look like a catastrophe to me.
Warmer temperatures will likely cause the sea levels to rise, but it's a slow process and we can certainly adapt.
While it seems to be the case that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of the burning of fossil fuels, it is not clear that CO2 is a significant contributor to global warming. If you look at a graph (pertaining to a reasonable time frame), there is no clear relationship between the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the global temperature.
We should be aware of climate change, we should pay attention to it, we should endeavour to reduce water pollution and air pollution (I am not convinced that CO2 is a pollutant)... but it should not be our primary focus. We must not turn the global economy upside down, further impoverishing (and therefore causing the deaths of) hundreds of millions of the poorest people on the planet through increased energy costs, in order to signal our virtue and in order to pretend to combat a non-existent future catastrophe.
One criticism, Dr. Ioannidis has far too many notes on screen.
LMAO. These people were the loudest. Ioannidis in particular got decimated by Nassim Taleb who is no liberal. LMAO
Unbelievably downrated video. YT shadowbanning at its best? 😢