Bjorn Lomborg Says Politicians “Need To Stop Virtue Signalling” On Climate Change
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 май 2023
- Danish author Bjorn Lomborg says politicians “need to stop virtue signalling” on climate change and focus on solving problems like diseases and poverty.
The academic and environmentalist is known for his views on global issues and his work on prioritizing and analyzing the costs and benefits of various social and environmental policies.
Bjorn Lomborg says “We shouldn’t let climate change overtake our entire conversation and say this is the only thing that matters.”
Click here for more from TalkTV talk.tv
RMP
Thank you for allowing this wise man to speak. Unfortunately most of the mainstream media are as bad as our politicians with their virtue signalling
He's funded by oil companies. That's who you are listening to. He often cherrypicks data and misrepresents research to spin his narrative. Stop being a pawn. He's taking you for a joke. Instead of listening to world wide science whose predictions have been solid so far, you would rather listen to this oil funded pawn.
Let's see what keeps happening to average global temperatures over the next 50 years. You guys seem to think it's going to reverse itself on its own?
So good to hear the common sense side for once. Bjorn Lomborg is superb.
common sense is insulating your homes to A++ standard to save yourself money instead over the next 2 years the energy companies will make 170 billion in EXCESS profits that's not NORMAL profits its NORMAL + 170 Billion
You do know that Lomberg has been widely discredited don’t you? Why do you think that Talk TV invites him on? Why do you think they would never show a conversation between him and other climate scientists who can unpick his exaggerated claims?
Agree
@@terryo5672disagree
Man made climate change is complete nonsense
You are talking complete nonsense. Even Lomborg does not agree with you.
@@Drmerlin604 care to expand on the latest pirani gauge findings?
@@andrewcheadle948 Direct me to them.
Fab guest- I wish you would put him up against some of your just stop oil or net zero politicians- he would shine some true light on their delusion
He has been internationally discredited. Go and do some research.
@@Drmerlin604 by who- you’ve clearly done some research yourself- so maybe you can share your findings
@@stuartwood5448 left wing nutters who Brian supports, I'd say.
@@stuartwood5448 Go and read the debate in Lomborg’s books in Scientific American.
@@Drmerlin604 so what is the disagreement, because pretty much all is work is backed up by what’s actually in the IPpC reports and by none prize winning climate economists
No To United Nations No To Globalists!!!!!!!;
No to intelligent discussion and empirical evidence!!!!
@@Drmerlin604 what imperial evidence is that then?
@@andrewcheadle948 Do you mean “empirical” evidence?
When the right-wing, propaganda station, Talk TV (which employs utter more rons like Mike Graham) invites an expert on to discuss a topic but fails to invite anyone else who is suitably qualified to challenge the views expressed, I am deeply sceptical. I immediately look into the credentials of that person.
Bjorn Lomberg is highly controversial and has been discredited by a wide variety of sources. Go and do the work yourself if you are interested.
Ban all Private Jet's First, then I'll start taking all this Climate cobblers seriously.
Thank you, Bjørn Lomborg, for speaking sense.
Love this guy, he personifies the dictum - the thing with common sense is it’s so uncommon.
He has been widely discredited.
By who? The watermelons?
@@Whiskey0880 Go and do your own research rather than resorting to abject stupidity. I will, however, give you a start. This character started a couple of institutions that were enthusiastically funded first in Denmark and then in Australia by the governments of those countries who were keen to establish a coherent and rational analysis of the data. Both governments withdrew the funding because of the methodologically questionable conclusions that Lomberg was arriving at.
@@Drmerlin604 I'm pretty sure that by now if his numbers were that out of whack, then his views would have been discredited across the board.
What we do know fir certain, is that there's no climate crisis, by any stretch of the imagination (unless you're Al Gore), and the trillions spent on reducing co2 haven't reduced co2 by one iota.
So what's Australia's solution and Denmark'..... To persue the same deranged solution....
@@andrewcheadle948 ok. First of all, Lomberg has no qualifications in any natural science. He is a statistician. His books have been criticised for cherry picking the data that supports his views and completely ignoring data refutes his views.
It is interesting that you reject the basic thesis of climate change. Conveniently, you ignore the fact that Lomberg actually acknowledges global warming. His argument is that it is too expensive to deal with, and he does not believe that anything can be done about it. Thus, your faith in him, if somewhat misplaced.
I appreciate Mr Lumborg's message. I wish the interviewer would stop interrupting, talking-over, and over-paraphrasing him. She's really annoying in this interview.
They can't even stop a rubber dinghy. Don't trust any of these politicians to do anything more complicated than that. That is their benchmark.
The kind of politicians who use propaganda machines like Talk TV are the cause of rubber dinghies!!!!
It's great to hear someone well informed talk about Earth's weather. It's also shocking how easily lead the majority of people are by MSM untruths. There is no crisis. We have change, yes, but it's not a crisis, and won't become one.
Except that his views and the organisations he has set up
In Denmark and Australia have been discredited and their funding withdrawn.
@ Brian Levy, Not surprising, they can't abide people that tell the truth
@@melb5996 That’s your best response. Try harder.
Perhaps you might benefit from reading John Rennie’s response to Lomborg’s rebuttal of criticism of “The Skeptical Environment” in Scientific American.
You also fail to understand that, unlike you, Lomborg does not deny climate change or the fact that it is heavily influenced by human activity.
It amuses me that all of those who praise and support Lomborg to the hilt do not actually understand his arguments at all!
@@melb5996 The simple fact of the matter is that Lomborg does not deal in the whole truth. He cherry picks the data and conveniently ignores data that does not support his thesis. Read the discussion in Scientific American if you are actually interested in understanding Lomborg’s position rather than simply being wowed by his undoubtedly impressive communication skills.
Brilliant guy and the program for solving the most pressing world problems he has conceived of is the best sum of best ways forward. imo. The UK should adopt his program wholesale and show some leadership. Its the opportunity cost of making climate change the focus that is very concerning if you want the future asap. An example is the SLS and the James Web telescope. Both took many times longer then they should to complete and at many times the budget. The effect of this was dozens of valuable projects that could have been developed were delayed by decades or scrapped. Thats called opportunity cost.
Except that this thesis has been discredited.
@@Drmerlin604 by who, left wing nutters?
@@andrewcheadle948 I wasn’t aware that Scientific American, the Australian Government, the Danish Government and a host of scientists who have challenged Lomborg on his cherry picking data analysis which ignores data that refutes his thesis were “left-wing” nutters.
But you, like Lomborg, have absolutely no qualifications in climate or any other natural science. You do, however, watch propaganda TV channels so you must be right.
Great work Bjorn. What is the matter with these climate zealots. There Is No ‘Climate. Emergency’ - other than in the minds of some people.
Future generations will likely look back in amazement at how the people of the early 21st Century threw the world towards bankruptcy and poverty on the basis of some highly questionable extrapolations of some carefully chosen datasets.
The climate has been happily changing for 4.6 billion years, without our interventions. Indeed, we've only been here for 2.7 billion years. We will need to adapt to a changing climate - as indeed we have over the years. We are still emerging from the Little Ice Age (1400 to 1850) and temperatures if they continue on their current trajectory will still in a hundred years time be slightly cooler than the Medieval Period, the Roman Period and the Minoan Period. The role of man-made carbon dioxide in climate change is questionable. Indeed, there is a lot of valid research showing that CO2 increases FOLLOW increases in temperature. That is logical as warmer temperatures encourage fauna and flora to flourish. The amount of green plant life on the planet has actually increased these past hundred years. Food production is up. Life expectancy is up. Reality, facts, reason and informed debate seem to have no part to play in this obsession with driving Britain towards Year Zero.
CO2 is plant food - and therefore food for humanity and all animals. C02 is basis of all life on Earth. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
You do know that Lomborg agrees that the climate is changing don’t you? Of course you don’t.
Lomborg, a statistician and not a climate scientist, has been discredited.
Oh dear…. The “more CO2” is a good thing fallacy! It is like saying that if you smother your garden in manure and do nothing else then your plants will grow better.
The research demonstrates that CO2 does, indeed, improve plant growth and yield…. If all other prerequisites are in place. The point not is that global warming changes those prerequisites resulting in failed growth and poorer yields. For example, it does not matter how much CO2 is available if global warming has resulted in a drought.
While we are in the subject, let’s deal with your nonsense statement that CO2 is not a pollutant. ANY element is a pollutant in excessive quantities including Nitrogen and Oxygen which are also reasonably important for life.
Homeostatic balance is the key.
@@Drmerlin604 it's not a pollutant, you're showing your complete ignorance there aren't you.
Show me any hard evidence that it's a pollutant!
You can't can you.
Brilliant guest
If only he hadn’t been widely discredited eh?
the climate as been changing from day one and will do to the end of time no matter what you do
Love this man’s books.
Good for lighting fires?
That's about it. Kindling for the MAGA Morons out there.
@@Drmerlin604
On principle, if it’s good to spend a bit of public money, it’s better to spend a lot. If it’s wrong to spend a lot, the; we shouldn’t spend anything.
'Climate change' is being used as a form of population control - in actual fact - carbon is absolutely essential to plant life - the more the better. Canada is being carbon taxed to death - a ruse to rake in tax dollars to cover the Trudeau governments reckless spending. Yes, there has been some wild weather throughout the world - always has been - always will be - not a result from human activity!
Oh dear! Get an education.
That is the problem too many humans on the planet. the planet cannot sustain the level it has at present. Why do you you think the planet finds ways to reduce the population. to save itself from us. Do the maths
The current world population of 7.6 billion is expected to reach 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, according to a new United Nations report being launched today. It's only a matter of 2 to 3 hundred years before its unstainable, All those people putting carbon into the atmosphere. If you want to stop climate change, half the population. Problem solved. What we are doing now will make not one pick of difference in 300 years time when double the people are on the planet all using up its resources.
Sounds a sensible person .(at last)
So denial is sensible? More like you dislike the implications and thus denial makes "sense".
@@astronautical1082 what denial is that then?
His books have been discredited because he cherry picks the data that supports his thesis and ignores the data that does not. His credibility has been ranked as “low” by the scientific community. He has no qualifications in the field of natural science. He is a statistician who has arrived at highly refutable conclusions.
@@Drmerlin604 cherry picks what data?
His credibility is low according to which scientists?
A gentleman by the name of Mr Ben Bacon who is a furniture restorer, recently cracked the code as to what the dots, dashes and symbols are in cave paintings, that academics had agonised over for many decades.
You'll probably not understand why I mention this tho, will you!
It's cute that there are people out there who think that this can be reversed. Politicians have already given the people the finger on this and no one with two brain cells to rub together would think that they will choose responsible actions over vast corporate payoffs.
So on one hand you believe in manmade climate change and on the other you believe there is nothing that can be done about it? HORSESHIT, can you even think a rational thought?
Up the meds or try that lobotomy again, the first shock didn't work.
Why has he suddenly developed an American accent?
The main stream still tend to ignore Bjorn as he talks far too much sense. The IPCC should be acting on his top ten Best Options, but they wont as they are locked into their own narrative of doom and disaster!
The IPCC isn't the world authority on climatology. That mantle belongs to the World Meteorological Organization. The IPCC is an illegitimate front organization used to peddle lies and propaganda.
Read Hans Rosling's book. Factfullness
What a great session. It’s the go st time I have felt in excited about the world and what can be done to help our environment and to keep people in their countries instead of the mass immigration. Let’s go and do it!
Can someone, for once, please just print the actual facts. I'm so tired of the BS. Nitrogen, CO2, blah blah blah. Scandal after scandal, grifter after grifter. It's embarassing.
Your narrative does not, and never did, occur. You simply dislike the obligation to relieve your ignorance and alter behaviors because the results of that work measure genuine achievement, and its infinitely harder than greed or mere selfish interest.
@@astronautical1082 Can you tell me what my "narrative" is, please? You seem to know a lot about me. Could you do it in a tone that is more indicative of the virtue I feel you are bestowing upon me? Please forgive me for sounding fed up but I'm tired of hearing from the often belligerant (and consistently empty-handed) "asking for coherent and comprehensive facts is wrong" people. Just send me a link instead of your attitude, please. If you're not just a bot, in which case I apologise.
@@losttapes1705 Tell the reader why denial of disruptive climate change exists, and why, to answer your own question. You'll have to forgive my cynicism, but denial is an extension of conservative ideology and its insistence that the whole of nature is no more than fodder for selfish interest among under-developed people. The "coherent and comprehensive fact" is that there are innumerable ecological indicators which all say there is a serious problem.
@@astronautical1082give yourself a shake you're typing nonsense.
@@astronautical1082 I completely understand your frustration. However, we seem to be derailing into the undergrowth and bushes of feelings and assumptions rather than solid research. As far as I understand it there are a lot of highly qualified people (and not just scientists) with questions that never get answered by the multi-trillion-dollar climate-change/warming industry. I wish you the best on your search for answers and hope someone can provide me with mine. Just a solid discussion of all the facts, as I originally asked for, would do. Preferably without getting ambushed into a tiresome and one-dimensional left/right argument. Good luck fellow planet dweller.
Julia let this man speak!
Certainly makes a lot of sense to me, every country has their strengths and should work to that rather than simply blindly following the so called "climate emergency"
Lomborg is part of the scam for pretending in the first place that carbon is a problem of our environment. He’s the Good Cop in an evil agenda.
Julia is great but sometimes she is like a runaway train. Take a breath
Please stop TALKING OVER your guest. I'm sure that he can finish his own sentences.
More money to green research is the way, but Bjørn don't tell
where the money should come from, and how we can be sure that states delivers as promised.
You don’t get it do you🤪
@@puffingtonsmythe8690 Maybe.....
tell me
@@puffingtonsmythe8690 Denial is a compensating mechanism for fear of the obligation to become better minded.
@@puffingtonsmythe8690 You evidently don’t if you are taken in my Lomberg and, worse still, the intellectually vacant JHB.
And you have an account about a year old...not suspicious at all.
2023 Nobel Peace Price goes to Bjorn Lomborg
Since when does the Noble Prize committee consider PAID MOUTHPIECES of the Oil Lobby?