Bjorn Lomborg-- The Cost of Climate Alarmism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 май 2024
- The Cost of Climate Alarmism
Bjorn Lomborg is the President of the Copenhagen Center, Visiting Fellow of The Hoover Institution and Stanford University. Author of "False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet"
The Luncheon Address at The Steamboat Institute Energy and Climate Summit, The Nexus of U.S. Energy Policy, Climate Science, Freedom and Prosperity by Bjorn Lomborg. on March 12, 2022 at the Steamboat Grand in Steamboat Springs, Colorado.
Subscribe to the Newsletter: www.steamboatinstitute.org/up...
============================
Visit The Steamboat Institute: www.steamboatinstitute.org/
Campus Liberty Tour: www.steamboatinstitute.org/th...
Liberty Chats Podcast: www.steamboatinstitute.org/li...
============================
Follow The Steamboat Institute:
RUclips: / steamboatinstitute
Facebook: / steamboatinstitute
Twitter: / steamboat_inst
Instagram: / thesteamboatinstitute
LinkedIn: / the-steamboat-institute
============================
Our Mission:
The Steamboat Institute promotes America's first principles and inspires active involvement in the defense of liberty. We stand for the following five founding principles:
1) Limited government
2) Limited taxes and fiscal responsibility
3) Free-market capitalism
4) Strong national defense
5) Individual rights and responsibilities
The Steamboat Institute is an educational organization recognized as tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code-and we are here to educate. We are here to help provide tools, information, and inspiration to those who hold the Founding Principles of the nation dear.
Love the UN alerts...it's like having the bully in class that everyone ignores jumping up and down screaming "look at me!!!"...
Great lectures y'all... much more to learn and big fights for freedom... Happy 4th of July!!!!
I believe (aka without evidence) that RUclips's context notices actively discourage people to trust the sources they are pushing, especially since the context is generic. That eyeroll you do every time you see the context notice is you losing confidence in sources that could otherwise contain great information.
You are HORSESHIT. Thanks for your scientific insight and wisdom regarding the Earth's Climate and Man's impact.
IMBICILE.
@@6Sparx9 un are appointed representatives from their countries. What credibility do they bring to the table?
@@dreafrank They have a lot of credibility, which also varies depending on the area of special interest they cover, of which is being tarnished through misapplication by the likes of politicians, journalists and tech media.
Edit: and their own staffers pushing an agenda. Just look at how disgraceful Unesco is now compared to even 10 years ago.
Tedros of WHO covered up the Covid19 that allowed these CCP infected traveled all over the world lied & Gutierrez of UNChina too secretly established the Totalitarian Tyrannical Socialist One World Order partnered with World Economic Forum
We need to promote his videos that challenges all the current media climate polemics that dominate all discussion.
Be my guest.
You do understand the political interests in climate is purely monetary gain!
why, when he is wrong?
"Renewable" energy is not "renewable" because it relies on non-renewable resources such as iron, lithium, cobalt, carbon (coal), cadmium, and oil.
Wow, you are so smart.
@@animalutz00 You're smart, too!
But …. They are recyclable. So… sure, yeah.
@@Alrukitaf And "recycling" iron, lithium, cobalt, carbon, etc., requires what kind of energy again? Must be solar and wind, no? Of course!
@@Alrukitaf Is that why there are huge dumps full of toxic materials from disposed solar panels and wind turbines leaking into the soil and poisoning it!!!!?
If you want to see what happens when climate policies go too far, just examine what's going on in Sri Lanka today. If the climate movement gets their way, this is what we are headed toward.
..... Thats not whats happening in Sri Lanka, silly
Short and sweet briefing ruclips.net/video/Ft1N38VCWl4/видео.html
from Indian channel WION
The push to make farming organic didn't help - that was the only real "green" policy, but there were lots of other problems. Now international factors outside Sri Lanka (Ukraine) are pushing up the cost of food which the country can't afford anyway.
@@ianstobie They have also run out of fuel. The current cost of oil has a direct link to climate policies that incessantly demonize fossil fuel production. The price of energy is the fundamental cost of all goods and services. When you raise the price of energy you raise the price of everything.
@@anthonymorris5084 I agree - energy cost is fundamental. But Sri Lanka has run out of fuel not because of anything it did directly by way of "green" energy policies, but because it has run out of foreign exchange more generally for buying anything - fuel, food, pharmaceuticals, tech, weapons - anything. This was caused by general mismanagement of the economy, corruption, nepotism etc., COVID damaging the tourism sector like elsewhere, and - the only specifically Sri Lankan thing I can see, a dumb woke agricultural policy which suddenly reduced production of both domestic food and export cash crops. So a perfect storm in Sri Lanka not yet replicated elsewhere. But you are right in that this crisis will show what happens to a society when fuel runs out.
Latest reports from WION are saying that the IMF bailout is being delayed because the extent of SrI Lanka's foreign debts can't be accurately determined. Normally with an IMF bailout - for example Greece, all the foreign debts have to be identified and the major creditors brought on board and got one way or another to agree to the repayment schedule. Otherwise the government in the defaulting nation could start using IMF funds to pay off some creditor out of sequence, rather than using them for their intended purpose (presumably restarting the economy and giving some emergency help to the suffering people). At least that's my understanding of why these " secret debts" might be causing a holdup.
No it is not. There are undoubtedly many reasons why Sri Lanka is having problems. Both Denmark and Tasmania are now fully running on renewable energy. Which is the fastest growing energy industry in the US
Not only in China is authoritarianism increasing, the UK is doing pretty well - especially in some local authorities like London and the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales and also, these eminent scientists advising the WEF, they wouldn't be the same "experts" who advised about covid would they?
All govts are doing same on behalf of those who fund all all of them. World’s wizards behind the curtain.
Authoritarianism is destroying Canada. Justin Trudeau has destroyed human rights in Canada. CBC propaganda has encouraged public ignorance.
I studied the Middle Ages at Brown and people have always believed the world was coming to an end.
Jesus told them it was very very soon. Didn't happen.
@@nelson6702 My Bible has Jesus saying: “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” I have always taken that to mean it’s already here, or as Frank Zappa put it: “You’d better dig it while its happening ‘cos it might just be a one shot deal!”
@@jonathansturm4163 that's definitely a minority view. I don't necessarily disagree in a broad context of mysticism. Others have said the Judgement Day is everyday. Instant Karma, anyone?
“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world.” - _Dhammapada_
Buddhism poetically interpreted by a Hindu and likely better known than more accurate translations.
@@jonathansturm4163 you are what you eat. Remember what the dormouse said, "feed your head"
Think our best approach to climate issues is to follow Walter Jehne's approach of harvesting water, regreening especially with trees, and building soil.
Mark Shepard has a great model for farming that keeps the meat, dairy and eggs we like, adds more food variety (here the poultry eats the bugs, not humans), harvests water, creates more diverse resources, wildlife habitat, produces food with more nutrition than food conventionally grown, produces more nutrition and calories per acre than conventional methods, etc.
We add smart things like community level methane harvesting old oil wells, denser freight and passenger rail, making hydrochar from sewage, and other reasonable ventures, our resilience increases as well as wealth, health, leisure, and so on.
Taxes do zero except centralize government.
Agree there fellow human being.. no wool pulled over my eyes either..
Hope you will enjoy paying $10.00 for a dozen eggs.
@@wrongfullyaccused7139
Quite the opposite.. This isn't like Biden's fraudulent approach. Whaypt is suggested by my comment is relatively cheap overall, with benefits accumulating quickly. This includes more food security. When we have more food security, it means more abundance. Abundance means lower prices. Well managed land produces more biomass which supports more livestock.
What is foolish is to ignore the problem of lost soil tilth and natural fertility, dwindling fresh water, less available livable land etc. Harvesting methane is better than plugging it and not using it. We already treat sewage, why not make something less problematic from it. Denser, more gridded rail makes overall shipping and travel cheaper, less energy dependency, greater efficiency, and means less reliance on fossil fuels (which means more for export, and to profit from). Harvesting rainwater means less costly infrastructure in putting canals, desalination plants, fewer brownouts (pumping water and desalination pulls a lot of energy). The list goes on.
You just glanced at the article and assumed.
Logic and sanity isn't easily taught to emotionally driven beings who are compelled to respond to alarmism and fear mongering. Great talks on this channel!
You can only call it "alarmism" or "fear-mongering" if there is no reason for fear or alarm. People who incorrectly deny there is any danger are also motivated by emotion.
@@PeterOzanne NO reason to feel alarm, based on facts that is. But for me I can only say there is zero emotion. The facts have none. I just look at all the facts and decide then calmly move forward with certainty. If this isn't possible why bother with facts in the first place. One fo the reasons most people don't like facts, they're cold and hard and emotionless. Likely why they fail to move most people to act, unlike deep emotions can. Even when they're inaccurate.
A presentation of this quality and importance deserves less than 500 views, while hundreds of minute long releases of one actor slapping a host on stage are all the rage with millions of views! Just sad.
.
ALEX EPSTEIN 's "Fossil Future" on sale now June,2022. HUMAN flourishing. Energy POWERS every other industry.
What do YOU believe you can do about the natural process of the Earths somewhat oblong orbit causing the climate to change somewhat?
@@tomkunich9401 You have been misled. The eccentricity of Earth's orbit has nothing to do with climate change.
Well, I guess it means that the average person is not as alarmed as the alarmists are.
@@SloopyJohnG that is totally incorrect the earth's orbital motions and its interaction with the sun, moon and other planets is the main driver for climate change
An excellent presentation that removes the emotion in favour of practical solutions and outcome. I firstly want to say this approach is important because it actions the infrastructure we can control around making any climate change less of an impact on our daily lives. The major reductions in global fires and cost of flood and wind damage, not really mentioned here, is due to huge urbanisation, also a negative against the cost of flooding, burning off the undergrowth unhindered up to the later twentieth century, but above all the great increase in technological advancements in building codes and urban planning.
Minor temperature related to global climate change will continue to occur because of the persistent change in the sun's energy and electromagnetic cycles over the next century or so. While the sun's magnetic field rotation towards the solar elliptic is well known, measured in sunspot counts, cycling between wet periods and dry periods of 5.5 years over the 11 year cycle, a sub basic of the full 22 year cycle and its repetitive 44, 88 ,176 and 1408 year cycles are not well known but show an increasing of intensity and change up to the mid 24th century where it will peak. Historically, these events can be traced back to ancients times, from the minimum in the mid 16th century, peak in the mid 10th century and minimum in the 2nd century and all the way back into recorded history that show the sun's effect on varying cold and hot periods in 1408 year cycles.
The whole global alarmist approach in not only inaccurate but far more damaging in psychological as well as financial costs to everyone. As represented in this presentation is far more effective approach to climate change and its supposed effects is all about adaption and prevention to mitigating fire outbreaks by burning undergrowth, dams, pumping stations and levies for flood mitigation but maybe more than all of these, a better engineering approach to build more resilient residential and commercial structures, with better infrastructure and better fire and flood mitigation programs.
Renewables will not change the sun cycles and its catastrophic effects but it is better to power our energy requirements in the long term with renewables than with coal and gas. To avoid the biggest issue with running renewables is base power and the biggest energy density, safest, cost effective provider of base power is nuclear power, with Thorium molten salt reactors being the most bullet proof of all the designs.
Consider the issues properly, plan in a practical and project driven manner towards a cost effective and safe future for humans and the planet.
Q😅hr549
Dr Patrick Moore would agree, as I do. Common sense must prevail!
My thought is, quit buying into the climate crisis lies. Stop freaking out about the fairytale.
Ditto. Critically observe and recognize the power plays being implemented by the continual guilt and fear narratives. Simple. The DEEP STATE wants to control and run the world. Period. This environmental calamity fairy tale nightmare is how they are selling that idea.
Unless the law, and attitude toward nuclear power change drastically it will not be used.
One month after publication, this video has 1057 views and 45 upvotes. I’d say this is a problem.
Why would that be a problem? Everyone knows that climate change is BS and no one cares and no one is going to pay one red cent to fix something that doesn't need fixing. There certainly is climate change but man has no control over it and he can only adapt.
Don't forget, RUclips are now part of the machine promoting climate alarmism, so it will not come up in people's feeds, plus who knows what they might do to manipulate the "Views" figures
I agree whole heartedly...though it seems pretty understandable considering this whole talk seemed pretty well grounded and not all doomsday gloom and doom...so it must be wrong considering everyone else is shouting, "the sky is falling!!" The preceeding portion of my comment may be slightly hyperbolic and sarcastic but nonetheless completely truthful. In todays sociopolitical climate it is the battle of the extremes...so a middle of the road conclusion of yes it's a problem but when compared with the real possibilities of global war, global hunger, and global economic failure...the war on Climate change isn't at the top of the global to do lists priorities...it comes in at about 5th or sixth...and rightfully at about 4th...but instead of focusing on those top 4-5 things most of the "1st world nations" seem to be more focused on cancelling people for not accepting and using pronouns as individuals whould like them to be used...because that is a no brainer more important than preventing the next world war...
You Tube probably suppressing wide dissemination. another possibility is he’s given this talk dozens of times over the last few
years. i, for example, have heard all of this several times on other pod casts and talks he’s given.
1057 fools is a perfectly acceptable number, considering that this a mix of everything with everything and then drawing conclusions that satisfy everybody. What I didn’t quite understand was his correlation between climate change (or not) and abortion…
the climate system is very complex - we cannot even conclude that humans are having even a minimal impact on climate. It's in a constant state of flux (overwhelmingly from natural fluctuations). John Christy, Richard Linzden and Koonin allude to this
To understand the climate "crisis", you can ignore costs and concentrate on on the incredible profits being made.
Agreed. 'climate compenssition' is the most unproved benefit of spending money EVER.
The likeness to giving money to the church to guarantee a place in heaven after having raped, murdered, lied... isn't small enough to be ignored.
Cui bono?
@@cisium1184 A variety of big money interests.
Profits are being shifted, yes.!.!.!... WE simply are NOT WILLING.!.!.!. Batteries have just started in energy storage development.!.!..
@@philmanke7642 Batteries have always been about energy storage by definition.
Bjorn’s first mistake is capitulating on the man-made BS. Otherwise, he is spot on. As with everything else in life, climate alarmism can be understood if you “follow the money!”
go to 43 min in the Q&A, Bjorn explains why he starts on that point!
That's not a good enough reason. There are plenty of ways to make money, lots of money, that doesn't involve peddling fake doomsday propaganda that is going to destroy the economy. I believe the purpose of climate change is fundamentally for the sociopath globalists, who already have all the money they could ever want, to assert their agenda philosophically. They are drunk with power due to smart phones/social media. It has made these international corporations and the NGOs that their executives belong to into the most powerful people in the history of the world. Just like other messianic psychopaths throughout history, they feel entitled to re-arrange the world in their philosophical image. They have pure disdain for the average working westerner. They despise you. They want to replace you with people from India, Asia, Mexico, Sudan, etc... because these people are NOT westerners and will NOT resist the globalist agenda. When you replace the demographic with one from a foreign civilization, you can then re-calibrate the society to whatever you wish it to be. Climate change is an excuse to utilize tools to replace you, destroy your country and heritage, and take your shit. They already have trillions of dollars. Its not about money. Its psychology.
The whole fear mongering is the biggest heist. Really abusing people. Not that I like pollution or plastic. We need to demand DATA for everything. Including what they are doing with taxpayers money. Total transparency NOW and jail for the thieves and traitors of the people.
It is man made, the world would be cooling if it weren’t for the greenhouse gasses we’re emitting.
The problem with giving in on AGW is that it distorts the calculations. E.g. mitigating 6°F is the best cost outcome, but *only if AGW is real* ! If it isn't then the only course of action that makes sense is do nothing.
Further, if more CO2 is beneficial then taking any action to reduce it is doubling down on the cost - the money spent, and the benefit lost because of that spend.
The scale of climate changes or fluctuation on the Earth is not scale of human life or recent human history. In processing data the observer must be disengaged, neutral, what is not the case in current debates on climate. The climate changes is mainly political issue not scientific or economic. Thus the outcome of any discussion is political not scientific. The Lomborg's presentation is showing it to us clearly.
This lecture was an hour long, but much shorter if you play at 1.5 speed. It is time well spent, and you have to wonder why Lomborg's views do not have a larger more audience.
because he lies, mis represents research, and makes things up. He is funded by the FF industry.
@@denisdaly1708 being funded by the FF industry, even if that were true, does not invalidate his views, in case that's not obvious - and making that accusation is silly given the billions that you can make in the renewables industry these days
it's only 30 seconds if you speed up more...
@@djpentz True. But calling it "renewable" energy is flat out wrong. The First Law of Thermodynamics aside, what is known as "renewable" energy is a Product which is made with enormous amounts of coal and diesel for mining, refining and manufacturing. It is extremely damaging to the Natural Environment in the form of extremely toxic metallo-organic compounds. In addition to the extremely negative environmental impacts in production and end-of-life processing, "renewable" Products are the Number 1 cause of Child Exploitation, Slave Labor and Realizing The Axis of Ultimate Evil - Russia-China's Final Goal: Total World Control. In case any of your readers should fail to grasp the consequence of this, the latter simply means the end of FREEDOM.
If this vast majority of Marxist Bureaucratic Tyrants in the regressive "Progressive" Bureaucratic Administrative State, the Marxists and Marxists By Proxy, the Crony Capitalists and RINOs are allowed to continue, and the American People, God forbid, has been dumbed down to the extent that they no longer know the Fundamental Law of the Land nor can unite to Extreme Vet out the aforementioned Politically Correct Greedy Marxist Shock Troops in the Conservative Ranks and reverse the Illegal, Illegitimate regressive "Progressive" Bureaucratic Administrative State…
…what used to be the FREE WORLD is facing 'A Thousand Years Of Darkness'…!!!
You are absolutely 100% correct. Marxism is the Mafia of Politics. A Quarter Billion Dead People could attest to how Absolutely Lethal this Mafia is, if they hadn't already been killed by the Mass Murdering Marxists. Nearly 100% of Greenhouse Effect is down to Water Vapor. But it is much harder to link Oceans, Lakes, Rivers, Forests and Grassland evaporating water to Human Activity. Lying about THE GAS OG LIFE, CO₂, and in the best Lysenkoist Pseudo-Scientific Fashion scare people into believing that CO₂, of which has been at levels 1,000%+ earlier in Earth's History when Life literally EXPLODED is actually "the gas of death" is a brilliant SCAM.
Follow the Money. AOC and Comrades, people that suffer from severe Intelligence Deficiency Syndromes know one thing though: -Scare People, Lie to them about THE GAS OF LIFE being dangerous, and the Millions and Trillions of Dollars start streaming into the bank account. That is down to their Comrades in the regressive "Progressive" Bureaucratic Administrative State and "Green" Boardrooms. Never mind that the Human Component of Atmospheric CO₂ is about 5% and the 95% of Natural CO₂, which is controlled by temperature, which in turn is mainly controlled by the Sun's cycles. If CO₂ really had been a problem, we could "fix" 5% of Atmospheric CO₂ by all collectively committing suicide. The remaining 95% is what makes Life thrive on Earth.
That's a fact that Mass Murdering Marxist Master Monsters like the Emperor of the World, "Elect", Xi Jinping is more than happy to hide, while building two new Coal Fired Power Plants EVERY WEEK -"UNFILTERED" and expanding the number of CANCER CITIES in Communist China from 600+. CANCER CITIES where people suffer and die after having been spent like another resource in producing "renewable" Energy Products for idiots in the West. Sales that in a Mercantilistic fashion are used to fund the biggest, most modern and soon completely unbeatable Army in the world, the PLA, "Peoples Liberation Army".
Unless we want o be "liberated" of all our FREEDOMS PDQ, it is time we all got rid of th Marxists running the show. Starting with the Conservative ranks. It is time for some Hands-On EXTREME VETTING!
ALEX EPSTEIN 's "Fossil Future" on sale now June,2022
Archeologists threw out the theory of catastrophism in the early 20th century. Yet we still use it for future predictions.
what a stupid comment. What entitled these archeologists to throw out anything, especially back in the early 20th century. Did you stop to think for even 1 second?
Temps were significantly higher 150 years ago. It’s an inconvenient truth for climate alarmists.
Fake
That why their “records” start conveniently after that time
Excellent presentation.
Excellent
My problem is (without pointing out on intentional or unintentional reasons) the assumption of anthropogenic “damage” to the planet’s ecosystem which supposedly impacts the ability of energy radiation.
1. It requires interdisciplinary research and approach to establish major contributing factors. Using very power hungry, huge processing powers alongside big data managed with basic statistical principles reflected in little upscaled computer codes (Climate computer modeling, AI, deep learning ect.) can have analogical value but should never be taken seriously as a lens through which we claim to acknowledge reaity and the future possible outcomes.
Thank you. So refreshing to have clarity of thought, careful analysis and logical conclusion. And the real highlight is actual solutions. Please allow scientists and real analysis to be the lead story instead of sensationalism of the sky is falling.....
Lomborg does not have any background at all in climate science, has no qualifiations in statistics, and has published *precisely zero* articles peer-reviewed articles in journals devoted to climate change research.
His books are notoriously so error-ridden that entire books and websites have been devoted merely to listing the errors.
He's not a scientist, and grossly misrepresents the science he fails to understand.
Ozone layer depletion.
No one will mention it. They say it's healed. It hasn't.
Felt the strength of the sun on your skin?
That's excess UVB light. Responsible for
all the devastating forest fires.
WOW amazing. Please keep lecturing
What people need to understand if you want to reduce man-made CO2, you have to be affluent. The current energy policies are raising energy prices and impoverishing people and when a certain level of impoverishment occurs, they are going to say take your green policies and stuff it. We can't maintain our current level of affluence when energy prices spike and energy at the wall is no longer reliable. Consider what this means for underdeveloped countries if energy prices spike. They will not be able to shift to modern fuels but instead will be chopping down forests for crops and heating and cooking fuel not to mention burning untold tons of animal dung. Is this what we want? Is destroying forests better than burning natural gas at least until something better comes along?
Once the greens figure out that China is the primary supplier of the materials needed for a green transformation we can only hope they understand the security hole this will create. It's not likely that the massive amount of mining for rare earth materials is going to occur in the U.S. because, guess who, the greens will stop it.
Being green in the way that is currently happening makes no sense at all, and it's destructive to the cause, it is destructive to national security, and it will impoverish the masses.
It is the affluent who are causing it! The US has 5$ of the world's population and creates 40% of the pollution. People are regularly dying of heat events in India at unprecdented levels and the monsoons have been delayed and are too vigoous when they show up late. In India. Which produces a fraction of CO2. MAn, you dont even care and tens of millions are suffering and dying when renewables are techniclaly feasible. Look at the boom in electric cars.
Renewals are far from technically feasible. That is why Germany, Spain and other are giving up on them, at least for the present. Other Euro countries have signed onto nuclear which is absolutely feasible because it produces large amounts of electricity and does so reliably with a small footprint. Finland is one of these countries and I believe that Belgium is considering nuclear generation.
California had to back off closing down the Diablo nuclear facility or suffer serious energy shortages.
I would care if millions are dying from extreme weather, but there is no data to support this. Millions are being affected by poor green policies and that is what happened in France, Sri Lanka and in the Netherlands. Forced green policies are driving people into poverty and back to my earlier point: people impoverished aren't concerned about the environment. There are no sensible transition plans that consider the environment and prosperity that move us to new energy sources. The greens today are shooting themselves in their collective feet as they demand unsupported "do it now" fixes. People are rebelling against technocratic policies that have no bearing in fact.
Furthermore, today more people are dying from cold, not heat. There are no unprecedented deaths due to climate change. If you disagree, please post appropriate URLs. Electric cars are a drop in the bucket compared to internal combustion cars. This is because of several reasons including lack of charging infrastructure and lack of raw materials (rare earths) needed to construct the auto batteries. It will be many decades before electric cars become common. The average Joe cannot afford a $50+ auto so prices will have to drop considerably which is unlikely to happen until the U.S. allows extensive strip mining. Buy rare earth materials from China for millions of EVs is a non-starter.
CO2 is not the control knob for global temperature. It is however, essential for life here as we know it. We need to double or triple the amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere, not reduce it.
@@jayrobertson232 nonsemse. Polar ice and glaciers are melting becaise of co2 emisdions and lack of woods and jungles.
@@AnavonRebeurnot saying you are wrong, but do you have any proof co2 is causing polar ice and glaciers to melt, or is this just your opinion?
Love this chap, wish I could make all my climate change obsessive friends listen to him!!
Understand that both Biden and Trump increased fossil fuel production and use, and the oceans are dying (not just because of Gl. Wa.). I don't know what Lomborg would say.but everything is not as rosy as he predicts.
But if they carried any education, they'd just laugh at you for recommending him.
I love Bjorn's compassion for human desire, and understanding of it. It seems lost on most people on both sides of the aisle these days. Not that I want to endorse some of these human desires, but understanding them was a big key for our founding fathers to desire checks, balances, and to state God as the source of our rights, rather than gov't.
what the fuck you talking about? divert away from the fucking CARBON that's for sure.
It's funny how there was no media coverage of this year's low hurricane activity....... good news isn't news eh?
The huge flaw baked into every climate hysteria model is that the “addition” of a 33K level of radiative forcing “adds” 33K to overall heat energy.
This is a heat energy level BELOW liquid nitrogen. You can NOT “add” that to the top of the equation and get a correct thermodynamic answer.
Period.
*_He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form._*
~ John Stuart Mill
Climate Alarmists,.. please hear this,.. if you want to convince the Skeptics you are going to have to debate us; not threaten, harass, belittle, mock, ridicule,.. but actually debate us. Given that the Skeptics are always up for any opportunity to debate and the Alarmists keep ducking,.. the Alarmists have lost all credibility with me,... and many, many others. I don't believe anymore that you believe you would win such a debate and that tells me you don't believe in your own cause. Prove me wrong! Besides,.. I truly believe that the example of such a debate would be very constructive for the world at large, just to show we could do it.
Oh,.. and here's one more thought. If the present amount of 415 CO2ppm is too high,.. and 150 CO2ppm is too low (all land plants die; not good; as recently as 23,000 years ago CO2ppm got as low as 180ppm,.. too close to oblivion for my taste),.. then just what is the _magic_ number the world is striving for? I could just as well ask the same question about sea levels, glaciation, ocean acidity,.. and innumerable other attributes of Global Climate that have been changing continuously through out geological time,.. but no more,.. because Humanity says so!! Who is being hubristic here? Are you really so sure the world doesn't have something it urgently needs to discuss here? I am open to being convince,.. but you've got to make the effort.
tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/patrick-moore-we-need-more-carbon-dioxide-not-less
Please join my call for a world wide debate upon the subject of CO2 and it's net effect upon Global Climate Change utilizing Wikia technology so that such a debate can be as open, inclusive, and exhaustive as will be necessary to convince the weaker argument to make concessions.
*_I am certain there is too much certainty in the world._*
~ Michael Crichton, MD.
*_There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period._*
~ Michael Crichton, MD.
*_Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts._*
~ Richard Feynman
*_The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool._*
~ Richard Feynman
*_I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned._*
~ Richard Feynman
*_An extremely healthy dose of skepticism about the reliability of science is an absolutely inevitable consequence of any scientific study of its track record._*
~ Michael Scriven
*_It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled._*
~ Mark Twain
*_The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves._*
~ Thomas Sowell
*_The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best._*
~ Thomas Sowell
*_There is nothing so bad that politics cannot make it worse._*
~ Thomas Sowell
The reason that Trump was so heartily hated was because he was closing useless departments of the government that employed people at inflated wages to do things that accomplished nothing. Since 1 in 6 jobs are now government related that is a lot of fear of losing your job when you don't have any real skills.
This is a wonderful comment and useful compendium of wise quotations. Thanks
@@tomkunich9401 That’s one reason. The other is he was The Monkey Wrench in their plans… Their plans are the ones being talked about in this video… Americans pay $1.5 Trillion for the next 29 years… for nothing but another Scam.
Thank you for taking the time to
Share your thoughts.
As soon as I see someone worth debating, I will.
I have to agree with Bjorn Lomborg on one major thing: My crops are dying now. that needs attention. 100 years from now there might be a problem that we might have instruments delicate enough to detect... Can we please focus on 'now'?
The catastrophe is coming in much less than 100 years. Sorry to say. Wishing you best of luck with your crops in the next 10 years.
Thanks. Looks like this should be a record year. Been doing this too long to look at a minor downturn and project it out to doom and gloom. It's been 'the end is nigh' for some silly reason that the forecasters always conveniently get rich off of for the last 60+ years. Find one prediction
that came true and I might start listening; otherwise, they cried wolf way, WAY too many times.@@russmarkham2197
Many of the commenters here suspect that climate change policy is just a front for the aspirations of a new set of industries. One of the very few accurate pieces of Bjorn's presentation was that it's true, renewables cannot replace the amount of energy provided by fossil fuel sources. So what's the real takeaway? Industrial society is simply not sustainable.
Scientific climate models are all crap? He's a sociologist who briefly says he doesn't know shit about climate, scientifically. But he can say things about 80 years from now? Tea leaves then? Where do his numbers come from? Speculation. Nobody wants to participate in any mitigation now, but they will all suddenly flatten the curve? X X X X and suddenly Y? How does he know this? I return to the assertion that all the climate models are bogus. But aren't we talking about climate here? So he is asserting that he alone knows the right models. Amazing.
The Cost? What is my ROI? What is in it for the SDG #17 Partnerships on Public-Private Blending Investments?
The global thermodynamic system, EXTREMELY complex. Attempts to nudge this system in some desired direction most likely will fail or lead to unexpected outcomes.
Yet one thing is abudantly clea,r there is no man made climate change
man made climate change does not exist
How is this man not getting more traction? Perhaps it's just some mysterious algorithm that suppresses?
are you implying TY to smothering vids like these??? no way!! but really, it's all of our collective fault. we've let climate extremists gain control of the narrative and all of the info sources. we need to get this message out.
Welcome to the 2nd class citizen part of the internet wherein your ideas get suppressed by anonymous oligarchs who find your thoughts distasteful to their dogmas.
No, he is just one of the climate alarmism promoters and that is all junk science, that's why nobody wants to listen to this nonsense
Maybe he is full of shit i dont know but just because he wrote a book some one wrote a bible and it is full of BS too
well hes a snake oil salesman. Look up where the steamboat institute gets its funding. Hes not actually a climate scientist or an economist. We might as well be listening to the incoherent ramblings of some guy on the street. Dont let him fool you because he knows some big words
Excellent what I really needed to hear and perhaps it will be upcoming is that we’ve always had cooling and warming and our planet and that part is not man-made. How do you differentiate the two? I agree with the statement above outside of the man made stuff he’s spot on. Thank you!
99% is not caused by human activity...
Do you always believe only "just what you want to hear"? I tihnk so.
Which of the hurricanes are caused by climate change? Can identify which ones we would not have had pre 1900?
why is the "tipping point" always just a few years into the future after alleged global warming has come into light? why isn't it 100 yrs from now? or why didn't tipping point happen soon after industrial revolution started? conveniently having the tipping point just a few years away gives proponents of global warming the power they crave....which means money in a lot of people's pockets.
ALEX EPSTEIN 's "Fossil Future" on sale now June,2022. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.
Because most American's don't plan for more then a couple of years in the future and won't be frightened by, "the world will end in 100 years".
@@joshrandal7920 you're right about this american. i couldn't care less about the world ending in 100 years just bc some chicken little alarmists are sold on this bs. in mid 2000's the tipping point was supposed to be in 2013 IF drastic action didn't occur. it's 2022 now so it's too late. i've given up. in the 1970's it was global cooling per paul ehrlich. now mr. ehrlich has flipped his opinion. a lot of companies are getting rich off this and a lot of professor tenures depend on having certain professional opinions.
When you are threatening children you have to use time periods that they can understand. At 22, a long time is 5 years. So that is what you use.
@@tomkunich9401 what if the audience has people well into adulthood? what do you tell them? the same thing?
Buckminster Fuller called this process Ephemeralization ~ he coined the term. Ephemeralization is precisely doing much more with much less and the process of inventing our way out of crisis instead of war and panic. But you have to have courage to gain insight on these topics and you need freedom because free people invent and apply and repurpose much more efficiently and all of this counters the cowardly principle of Malthusianism which is to declare that there's just not enough to go around. The crisis is just a challenge. To run around panicking is futile. Which is what the News people do to us by overdramatizing these issues. It's all a stupidity test. We are on the brink of so many real breakthroughs that power brokers are worried that their institutions are becoming obsolete. It's so much hype that has been woven into the indoctrination of vulnerable children that it's more like predatory sexual grooming than toughening up or bracing for a surge. I saw all of this escalate in the 70's and I over reacted and I sure wish I hadn't. I want my money back !
The Population Bomb written by Paul and Anne Ehrlich had an effect. It wasn't pleasant, but the Chinese instituted a one child policy within a decade of the publishing of that book. Now those policies are gone and we're back on the track that he predicted. India may overtake China in population. So the global population was delayed a generation or so, by policies enforced by China between 1980 and 2015. And we won't have to worry about putting on the brakes. The planet will do it for us.
Prof. Lomborg first says spending money on climate mitigation won't work, then says every dollar spent with give 11 back. Can't have it both ways Prof.
Never let a catastrophe go to waste. Make it appear worse than what it is.
or downplay it like the fossil fuel industry does all the time, with a lot of lobbying money
Why care? won't effect your kids your grandkids. (you bred yet?) So why care? Party On Dude!
It would be better in future, I think, to allow us to see the speaker. There are other ways to add captions and slides without covering the speaker for extended periods of their talk. I watch youtube to see people and demonstrations not text. It helps me to concentrate on what the person is saying. Otherwise I'd just read a book or listen to a podcast. thanks
I miss the 70s when the headlines were of Global Cooling. Observation; The Florida Keys and Maldives are mostly coral (formed underwater). When I see people fleeing these areas I will become more concerned. Note I live only minutes from the Gulf Coast in Florida and a visit to one of our many science centers will show nearly all of the state was submerged several times in the past.
When it was submerged, was that in pre-human times? Our existence as a species was dependent on fortunate conditions arising 10's of millions of years ago, and continuing. Now our own activity is putting our survival in danger, making it certain that, without action Florida and all coastal cities will become uninhabitable in 100 years or so, quite apart from the climate change, which is now accelerating.
@@PeterOzanne but it's not.
@@racetime1960 I'm not sure what evidence you are using for that assertion - but even if it were not accelerating at present, that does not say that it isn't happening faster than in previous decades or centuries. For example, if a car is being driven in excess of the speed limit - but NOT accelerating further - it is going faster than previously, and at a dangerous speed, even if it's not accelerating further NOW. Logically.
@@PeterOzanne well, if you put down the Kool-aid for a minute and look to sources outside your usual fear mongering channels. There is plenty of information from knowledgeable, intelligent, honest people that refutes the whole climate crisis fairytale.
You'll have to do a little work and learn to think for yourself however.
@@racetime1960 I've read plenty of those thanks. Maybe they are the ones who do YOUR thinking for you ☺️. And the ones I read are the very opposite of fear mongers: most of them say that we CAN avert the worst effects of warming if we take the blinkers off, acknowledge the dangers, and take steps, using our science and technology, to reduce the damage. It's very hard for our human brains to accept that there is serious danger - no-one really prefers to live with that awareness
Speaking as a pretty environmentally oriented democrat, I appreciate the focus on funding green energy research. I also agree with the point that the news media likes to sensationalize just about everything, making it difficult to get accurate information. If there was one point that seemed to be overlooked in this talk, it is that there is significant uncertainty about what the consequences of climate change actually will be. This uncertainty, in my mind, is the most compelling reason for effective climate policy. This is the only Earth we have. To what extent do we want to gamble with it?
The problem is that some "facts" is sensationalized while others is ignored. Almost like media follow an agenda 🙄
There is many examples but "the rising sea levels" is almost as good as the dying coral reefs.
The Earth is reasonably round ('oblate spheroid' is the actual shape/term). Long ago there was a more than two miles thick layer of ice here in southernmost Sweden.
The ice was extremely heavy so it compacted the ground under approximately 105 000 years. Further north (Stockholm) they had more ice so it compacted the ground more/faster and under a longer time.
In Stockholm, the ground rise 4 mm each year and in the northern parts of Sweden, it's about 1 cm.
One cm a year is the same as 3,28 feet in 100 years.
When the ground rises, it displace water that ends up where the ground doesn't rise (mainly around the equator). The local sea level might change but the rise in most places is mainly because water moves from the areas that see a lower sea level.
The "dying corral reefs" is slightly comical. Media say that (i don't remember the actual numbers so I'll simplify almost as much as media does) the corrals die because of human influence.
When the corrals shrink with 10%, it's the end of the corrals but when it grows with 50%, media/politicians doesn't care.
If the corrals started at 100% and 10% died, it becomes THE news of the day. When the remaining 90% grows with 50% it isn't news (alarmism create support).
The corrals actually spread like a wildfire but media only care about the stuff that makes people give money to ideologies following their ideology.
There is no such thing as green energy. Wind turbines and solar are not green. One of the major reasons Germany is now using coal as its major power source is because they invested heavily in wind and last summer, well before Russia invaded Ukraine, Germany was forced to use coal because there was less wind than normal. Look this up yourself on Deutsche Welle (DW) tv. Germany's version of the BBC.
Nuclear energy is the only source currently available that can meet the energy needs of the West.
so you have proof CO2 is the control knob? The "science" of climate also brought us Covid theater and fake medicine, be more skeptical.
Since science tells us that the earth has heated up and cooled down several times pretty much from the formation of the earth. Even though human involvement from the moment fire was discovered and utilized for their benefit, all the way till our current era. The earth has overcome our contribution to the environment. I remember it was said that when Mt. Pinetubo in the Philippines erupted a few decades ago, it equaled the output of all human endeavors from the beginning. The chemicals and heavy pollution heaved into environment has been completely absorbed into the ecosystem. E-cars use many times the power systems over producing gas using vehicles. And they also need to replace the battery at around 18000 miles. Producing batteries is creating environmental disasters where lithium is mined. Child slave labor is involved. So as a replacement for what’s been accused as the reason for the global warming fiasco.
Well...speaking as an environmentally oriented former Democrat, Russia and China probably stand to gain from a warmer world with less sea ice and a denser layer of CO2 to stimulate food production. The Paris Agreement does not obligate them to do anything substantive for decades. I would be surprised if they do anything at all when the time comes. The US is not going to unilaterally save the planet by killing its fossil fuel industry, especially the natural gas sector. The US has cut its CO2 emissions more than any other country in the past 2 decades due to a market-driven switch from coal to natural gas as the primary energy source for our electric system. We could do even more if there were incentives to encourage the transportation sector to switch from diesel to liquified natural gas. This would be relatively cheap to do and it would clean up the air in US cities in many other ways as well. But current US policy is deterring US natural gas and crippling US industry with high energy prices. If this continues, we will just continue to buy everything including our solar panels from coal-burning China instead of natural-gas-burning US, for a net gain of CO2 emissions. The US ought to continue to let the market drive more use of natural gas while we focus tax dollars on research into materials like plastics that are made from atmospheric CO2, and clean and safe nuclear power, in addition to conventional renewables. We are not going to starve ourselves out of this, we are going to innovate ourselves out of it. A strong US economy can afford to do a lot more R&D than a weak one dependent on China. As usual, the Democrats' heart is in the right place, but their head isn't. Time to quit the silly symbolic self-flagellation and put our brains to work for a while.
A lot more people live along coastlines today than in 1900. Does anyone consider this? It makes a massive difference when understanding the rising insurance cost of major hurricanes. Hurricane frequency and magnitude aren't increasing (nor are droughts, floods, etc). We are just putting ourselves in harms way when we live along the seashore. Our ancestors knew this. That's why they lived in hills far enough from the coast.
The fact that you are a social scientist explains a lot.
I did not finish the PhD in public health and fell 3.5 units short of the masters degree.
BS biology BA chemistry MA toxicology environmental industrial toxicology and environmental restoration certified radiation safety State of California biotechnology major equivalent and biochemistry major equivalent
The focus of my education is environmental industrial pollution. The situation is dire but carbon emissions are trivial..
Interesting take.
I quite agree CO2 emissions are trivial. A PhD in the physics of light could point out why.
If I understand correctly, there are two reasons that CO2 isn't the 'control knob' for the climate.
First seems to be that the amount of phase shift in light that CO2 causes is also the spectrum where water vapor shifts light.
The other reason seems to be if there's warming at all it's happening where, and when it's coldest.
He is sooooo good ... and now more and more with entertainment qualities ...
The one problem is that he has bought into the Michael Mann theory that climate change occurs from CO2 when that has nothing to do with it. The climate of the Earth is cyclic and caused by the not quite round orbit of the Earth around the Sun. All the rest of what he says is pretty much true -- as the climate changes (NATURALLY) we will simply adapt.
@@tomkunich9401 he has been down that road, being a climate septic -almost ruined his career, he is not not a climate expert himself, now he is using to most respected statistics, papers ect, from climate experts and panels , they may not be right but it is those politicians and powerful people around the world are using -and it's the only way to get through -using their own numbers
@@tomkunich9401 Dude thats wild! I had no idea that co2 has nothing to do with climate change until i read your youtube comment. The most insane part to me is that if you are right about this, every single respected scientific institution from every country on the planet has it all wrong. Nearly 100% of people who went to school for climate, all the scientists who do field research and lab work, every expert in this field all have it wrong while you, Tom, have figured out the truth. So what I am curious about, is this. How did you learn this truth? and what about all the scientists? Are they all wrong or lying? and why?
@@tomkunich9401The variability of that great ball of fire couldn't have anything to do with climate change? Could it?
The cost of climate alarmism is about $5 a gallon where I am.
Then you need to not vote for democrat candidates this fall! Send AOC back to tending the bar patrons!!
And that cost is going to get a lot higher
No it is not. It is embargos on Russian oil. Causing inlfation. High gas prices are WORLD WIDE, as is inflation. The US pop. is only 5% of the world's population. And gas prices are higher in most developed countries.
Lucky you. Where I am it's 2 euros a liter...
Talking about "climate-related disasters" is a red herring. He might as well say that oceans absorb CO2 while ignoring that they've reached their limit and are not being acidified. Or that the fact that 199 of the 200 major world glaciers are melting, they havent disappeared yet. These are water sources for much of India, Pakistan, Burma, and SE Asia and China.
Interesting Talk, I do agree with the general idea that the climate campaign as entirely the wrong focus, there are some fundamental omissions and oversights in this presentation:
1. The biggest concern when it comes to climate & environment is not heat or flooding it is loss of micro fauna and fresh water.
2. Most countries have monitory sovereign, countries could pay for climate solution particularly renewable energies, it does not need to come form taxing the citizens.
3. Constant mention of solar and wind but no mention of geothermal or hydro. Today hydro accounts for the largest source of global renewable energy. Both capable of producing energy at t fraction of the cost or space required for fossil fuels. The efficiency of renewable energy technology is now leaving nuclear power behind and victual every county is stopped developing nuclear power.
4. Bjorn is right about innovation but a lot of viable solution have been innovated, organic solar panels using algae for example, China is leading the way in reducing its dependency on fossil fuels. But the biggest road block is the by the energy companies. 86% of all global energy is now control by 6 companies. Our global energy systems are so outdated and inefficient 60% of energy from fossil fuels is waster, 40% of it at source.
Man's replenishment of depleted CO2 is a boon to the earth. It should be 1,000ppm (0.1%), at least.
Hmmm you mean for the plants we’ve chopped down and dried out
Few realise how perilously close to plant extinction the 180 ppm reached during the Late Glacial Maximum was! There’s evidence from the La Brea tarpits of plants that had become unable to generate sufficient energy to reproduce successfully.
The whole carbon pollution thing is a lie.We need more people to wake up fast.
Maybe so for the plants. You understand the climate harm Bjorn agrees is inevitable will hurt a lot of people without serious mitigation? Heat waves, for instance, are high confidence, unlike some of other areas like cyclones. There going to happen. Are. Cooling systems are a mitigation, but not for everyone.
Thomas R. Malthus, the patron saint of the environmental movement, never considered that humans can adapt AND INNOVATE. Plus, as an Anglican theologian, he failed to read his own Scriptures - the Bible - in which God is described as "God provides". He also failed to read the events in which Jesus feeds thousands of people from a few fish and some bread. He failed to read how God provides for the people of Israel for 40 years in a wilderness, both food and water.
Ultimately, Malthus panicked.
To what would he attribute the current Canadian fires, the US heat wave, and the fires in California in recent years? And how would he suggest we adapt to or prevent them?
Drought comes in cycles and has always been a fact of life on planet earth....and always will be a part of life on earth. California has recaptured so much moisture over the last year that it is in very good shape right now. Most of the fires in Canada have been started by humans, not climate change.
So what is the loss in food production?
@20:30 The claim was made of two new nuclear plants every three days, as implausible.
Note that in the 80s, a new nuclear plant came online every two weeks globally, with no particular urgency, and with most energy production coming online in other forms, ie coal gas oil.
While it would take few years to get going, a couple plants per day globally is really a simple matter with respect to materials and construction. Fixing the Politics, proper regulation, much better than existing, would be the real problem, all while the giant existing fossil and RE industries did everything possible to stop it via FUD.
You know if there is a "low confidence" ie: no idea, as well as a "challenge" identifying past trends which is to say our models get it wrong every time that they have no predictive value then everything said after that point has is "low confidence" to "no confidence".
So there is a low/no confidence that tropical cyclones "will increase" and our models can't predict if they will.
Everything said by the UN is of "low confidence" so a random guess by people who can't even predict past events with all the existing data leading up to those events.
Did people somehow unlearn how to read??
Yes lots of low confidence. If you look, UN has some high confidence areas. Number one is heat waves. That’s going to happen. Is. Developed world can adapt. Move. Run cooling systems. Developing world is going to have more trouble.
@@Nill757 the heat waves "is" are based on the non predictive models so have no confidence as well, just because someone says "is" doesn't mean it's real because the only way to see into the future is with a predictive model which they don't have
@@TheShorterboy Not all models are trash, and everybody accepts pretty much some that have a good record, like the 5 day weather forecast, the seasonal hurricane forecast and so on.
@@Nill757 these people told you their models were trash so nothing after that point when they talk about long term predictions is real, it's propaganda. If they said their models had long term predictive value then you have a point but again they said they didn't
@@TheShorterboy “these people told …trash”
What? What people said that and when?
Hearing a scientist claiming to predict cost in dollars of 'X' in 500 years produces both: discredit and nausea.
What can we do to solve the climate crisis?
Allen Savory says that by allowing livestock to graze grass in a controlled manner (planned grazing) CO2 from the air through photosynthesis of the plants will be stored in the soil.
A microbiologist Walter Jehne who says that by always having the soil covered with green growth, the evaporation of water will lower the temperature considerably. He claims that about 95% of the temperature is controlled by water evaporation and about 4% is controlled by CO2. So it becomes very important to keep the soil covered with green growths all the time.
What we also need to be aware of is the large temperature difference between uncovered bare soil, which receives a strong heating and heat radiation, and soil that is covered with green growth. What we should do is always have the earth covered with green plants and trees so that we can capture the maximum amount of CO2 and at the same time facilitate water evaporation from the plants so that the temperature is lowered.
Allan Savory - How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change
ruclips.net/video/vpTHi7O66pI/видео.html
Walter Jehne - Climate Solutions for a Blue Planet
ruclips.net/video/DQN9t-g2J-0/видео.html
The Magic of Soil
ruclips.net/video/AWILIYSf5ts/видео.html
25:04 Batteries.
25:30 Currently, we have 1m15s of global battery storage.
Not True because the Existing Hydroelectric Systems are Huge Batteries.
Hence Many Countries have 24, 48, 96 Hours of Energy Storage.
Gosh. No way to deal with this. Can't possibly build more batteries. Can't possibly do more research into battery technology. Nope. Totally insoluble.
@@granthurlburt4062 Start a battery company.
Think about this.
Back when we thought that wolves and other predators were a problem, state and local government paid bounties on hides. Almost no more wolves.
The cheapest, easiest and fastest way to capture carbon is to plant trees. Why has no state, county, or national government offered a bounty on planting trees on public land?
Good question and the answer is....there’s no money in it and, doing so, would require Big Oil, Big Coal, and their political lackeys (AKA Republicans and other venal sorts like Lomborg) to admit we have a problem.
Trees have a life span, maybe 80 years at most. Then the tree dies and the carbon trapped in the tree is released to the atmosphere. This is just part of a cycle. Even fossil fuels are part of a cycle. At one time all this carbon from fossil fuels was part of our environment. Release it into the atmosphere and it will become part of the biosphere. Carbon dioxide is plant food.
@@duanelinstrom4292 So in 70 years we harvest the trees, make and build stuff, and plant new trees. I think they call that sustainability.
Paul McClung, the entire system is sustainable. Matter is neither created nor destroyed (by non-nuclear means.) It is recycled. The CO2 in fossil fuels are the product of the sun’s energy arranged in an energized bond by living organisms sometime in the past. For most of the earth’s history it has been warmer and CO2 levels have been much higher than now. (But of course you know this. 😎)
@@duanelinstrom4292 I do, actually. My point was trees are something we can do now and not likely to have any downside.
Where has this research been published and how often has it been cited by reputable climate scientists?
Wtf do you mean or allude to. "Reputable" that referance gives the game away,you dont do science you do politics...
That means you are not searching, you can find out all that information online.
Dr. Koonin, Dr. William Happer, Patrick Moore, Judy Curry and many others have lectures on this subject and as you listen to them, you will find out more.
I recommand to chek jean-marc jancovici. (he speak french but you can probably translate) he is a specialist in energy. and Jason hickle, for a coherent understanding of economics and antropology. this situation is to important to let the media be our source of information, we got to so our homework. allways be aware that informations that goes along with your point of view is easier to take, and vice versa.
What surprises me more is why in hell are amurican homes still from wood and not hurricane proof?
We no longer living in the 1900s, we can build hurricane proof homes
Hurricanes do more damage than just hurting homes...
@@Proemed44G That is no answer.
@@Desperado070 Did you not listen to the video and how we optimize cost?
@@Noah55555 Optimize by getting you house destroyed every year... Cost by destroying huge forests like entire south amurica. 😂
@@Desperado070 Yet, the houses don't get destroyed each year. It's much cheaper to re-build a certain amount of houses then rebuild a larger amount of houses with stronger materials. Wood is extraordinarily cheap compared to stronger materials.
He still thinks there is a problem while showing there is none 🤯
It seemed to me he was saying there is a problem, but not an imminent catastrophe and that we can fix it.
His whole point is, if Climate Change will cause $10 billion worth of damage over next few decades, we should not spend $100 billion trying to fix it.
As much as tech is part of the overall effort, root causes remain unaddressed, as fundamental system changes should be at the very center of the efforts.
He should come to the Netherlands where our government is paralized in this Co2 climate change allarmism mode. Our government has prioritized this problem, and no other problem gets the same attention. I am sick and tired of these green policies that has made our country fixated on climate change and billions of euros are being spend on windmills,solarpannels etc. the government has been sentenced by a judge, to comply to rules that reduces Co2 by 2030 based on "the worst scenario".
It is madness, this climate allarmism is breaking and deviding our society, bringing people to poverty and is preventing to find solutions , based on actual numbers that has come from measurements made in the past 100 and 120 years. These numbers don't lie. I hope mr. Lomborg will be invited to the Netherlands and present this. But even our own Dutch scientists, who say the same, based on measurements, are not welcome in our main-stream media.
Only, we the people have to rise and make our voices heard, vote and spread the truth and the good and strict science not politics.
2:23 Starts.
Some governments rule by a sense of fear about what might happen if we don't do this or that depending on what they see as anything that may happen not will happen. They then ramp up the supposed problem to justify any policy decisions they make.
These extreme weather events are something to notice about thin atmosphere and hot oceans caused by atmosphere ionization from halogenated vinyl halogenated carbon and nuclear technology. Could we enforce our Treaties instituted by scientists and agencies regulations to eliminate the causes of global warming and atmosphere ionization??
The Cost is we Have to think about it not just follow
When will Mr. Lomborg give Mr. Biden this lecture? Ooh, that's right, he couldn't stay awake for an hour during such a lecture.
It's better if you just agree with people suffering dementia.
Finally, Common Sense and Critical Thinking at the same time, sounds like we are being sold down a path we shouldn't be running head first down. It would be reasonable to make changes over the next 100 years, rather than move back into the Stone Age in order to meet unrealistic 2030 Net Zero Goals. Share this Video, Spread this far and wide, share the talking points, we don't have to eat the Shit Sandwich.
Did you know this guy has done no actual research in economics, environment, or climate policy? He has no education in it at actually. And this whole steamboat institute is paid for by the koch brothers. So like, the richest people on earth are paying a guy who is barely a scientist to say this stuff? I dont know. I prefer my info to come from people who aren't chin deep in oil money
Buying an EV for commuting or solar panels to power your home is "going back to the stone age"? Help me understand this.
@@thomosburn8740 you can't teach pigs to fly. it only bothers the pig
@@thomosburn8740, we are currently facing blackouts and brownouts because of the abundance of generation available, the existing infrastructure is not able to support the existing demand without adding in all the EVs, how do propose we support that demand? And just so you know, I worked in the utility industry for forty years, I have a firm grasp on the existing system and peak loads and the reserves you need in order to meet that demand when the sun isn’t shining and the winds are calm. To initiate a crash plan is just that, a plan that will crash the world as we know it. Also I am installing sufficient solar capacity to meet my needs, which does not and will not include an EV, why in the world would you discard your main energy sources for less reliable sources that may not be the answer, for a problem that is vastly overstated.
@@chetlockwood1491 Chet, where are you located that you are having these problems? I'm in Georgia, and Georgia Power is working with EV buyers to get MORE to switch. They offer adjusted rates for off-peak and super off peak that allow me to drive 4-5 miles on a penny of electricity (plus taxes and delivery fees).
There is a difference between the causes of climate change and the effects of climate change. Politicians like to blame the causes on humans for taxation purposes.
You should all look up Steven Koonin if you haven't. He sheds a lot more light on the bad modelling, and irresponsible media coverage of climate alarmism... He is a well published NYU physicist prof
did Bjorn compare climate change to a dog show?
Bjorn cherry-picks the scientific evidence to provide only the examples that support his pre-determined conclusions.
@@eveihlone2192 …🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣… you mean he has data that counters climate alarmism?…😂😂
@@antiprogpragmatist2301 yes. he has data that he has cherry-picked to stall dealing with the climate crisis.
and, he seems to not be aware that there are other species sharing this planet with us.
@@eveihlone2192 … ok..give me the data that refutes his…or gives more context….the full picture
I’m guessing you just use your go to “cherry picked data” canned response without actually giving it any thought. You probably didn’t even use any critical thinking when watching this video…that is if you even watched it.
In any case…I’ll patiently wait for your (un)cherry-picked data…🙂
@@antiprogpragmatist2301 there are youtube videos that debunk bjorn check that out
I would like to know, how much of CO2 is man made? As for warming, I can't see a problem. We have more rain, a longer growing season, less extremes in temperature and weather variations. Why not stop freaking people out and enjoy the weather?
Best estimates right now are that human emissions are around 4% of annual total emissions. This is radically different to what was originally thought forty years ago. It basically cancels the whole discussion.
@@evanpnz I am in no way a numbers guy but couldn't 4% be seen as a rounding error? It might be prudent to just get use to the warming that has been on going sense the melting of the last great ice age. Let's take the trillions we are wasting on alarmist hypeherbally and give a portion of that to developing nations, before China puts them all under their deadly control.
‘Best estimates are 4% of annual emissions’ Source for this? And what exactly causes the other 94%?
97% of climate scientists say 100% is caused by humans; even the right wing think tank funded 3% of dissenters say that 50% is caused by humans.
‘Less extremes in temperature’?? Lol what world are you living in. Maybe in the tiny corner where you live this is the case but globally heat waves, droughts, and flooding are increasing. Last summer in Canada record high temperatures occurred across the nation. California and Australia have had record fires. Get your head out of your area.
Should we include in that total the trillions of tons of limestone, marble, coal oil and gas that have taken Co2 out of the atmosphere to form various chemical compounds we use today? It boggles the mind to imagine how much Co2 has been taken OUT of the atmosphere over hundreds of millions of years by nature.
The cost of climate negligence because of climate deniers is immeasurable.
Immeasurable because there is nothing to measure. Its fake
We can build on keel sailboat design to sail faster and safer than we have sailed in 200 years..
I'm going to repeat some of what I wrote on Facebook about this link:
I enjoyed listening to his argument. Just a bit of critical thinking: So, I buy that there was a lot more forest fire in 1900 than there is now. But the reduction in fires didn't happen by accident, and it didn't happen by ignoring the problem, as he seems to be suggesting. It happened because of a concerted effort to manage forests by environmentalists (or use whatever word to describe them if you have contempt for environmentalists).
Secondly, he is saying that fossil fuel is the only choice of back-up energy for the foreseeable future. What does that mean? 10 years, 30 years, 100 years, 1000 years? He doesn't say. I would think that precision would be a key factor. Yet... no definition from him. And does anyone really know how much fossil fuel there is left to harvest anyway? In other words, how do we know that we don't need a "back-up" for his back-up?
I was surprised to see that this guy is 57. I would have thought that he was a lot younger. But he only about 10 years younger than me. He ought to know better. I keep posting about my experience when I was a little kid, and my family came to the United States. We lived on Broadway and 103rd Street in Manhattan, and you could not see farther than a couple of blocks down Broadway -- literally. Coming from the Caribbean, this was a shock to me. The younger generations don't believe me when I tell them this. How did we clean the air? It happened with the creation of the EPA (by Richard Nixon, no less), and the Clean Air Act. If they had adopted the "Don't worry be happy" approach that this guy is advocating, we'd still be looking down Broadway mired in pollution.
Finally, there are several things missing from his lecture. For one, no analysis of environmental activism is complete without mentioning the Great Dustbowl of the 1920s and 30s. It is the great lesson we learned about being conscious about how human activity can affect climate, and the consequences of ignoring the warnings of the experts. Consequences which can occur much faster than we can control, and that can be about as awful for humans as anything.
I love the fact that he sites that there were improvements in the environment in 2020 and 2021. But he doesn't mention that those improvements are a result of decades of environmental activism, and, more importantly, a dramatic slowdown in human activity due to a pandemic.
Nonsense.
You cannot define "Green" energy. Fossil fuels are benefitting the growth of vegetation worldwide. Why would you oppose this?
ALEX EPSTEIN 's "Fossil Future" on sale now June,2022
Fossil Fuels has prolonged the life of every person in the world.
Fossil fuels are literally green energy. Plants took photons from the sun to grow and when they died, they held onto the CO2 they extracted from the environment. We are releasing that back into the air. We are still in a cold spell/ice age and CO2 levels are historically (earth time), extremely low. The earth is greening back up again! There is no crisis.
@@tomkunich9401
And allowed billions more to be born and live their lives in a world of radically increasing wealth.
Lol nice try.
Robert Zeihan should sit down with Lomborg and Schellenberger and hash out climate alarmism. I imagine Zeihan would have something to say about Lomborg's projections for wealth increase over the next 80 years.
Peter Zeihan?
@@cvr527
>
That's my guess. How many Zeihans could there be?
Did you know that oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens was the original developer of Oklahoma and Texas panhandle wind power towers.
Yes we need to change the way we use our resources on Earth. Yes we need to do it in a clean and efficient way that does not deplete said resources. But to blame man for the NATURAL warming cycle of our earth is asinine at best. Create a panic and reap the rewards....sounds just like the military industrial complex. Even you are making money off of it Mr Bomborg. I used to be concerned about the dumbing down of American citizens.....now I am panicked about the dumbing down of the world.
Believe it or not, climate scientists have studied the natural changes on climate and its causes. The present warming cannot be explained by natural processes and is entirely consistnet with increased CO2 and methane. And if you really think scientists are in it for the money, you don't know what life is like for scientists. Anyone smart enough to be a scientist would not go into it for the money.
This is a good presentation addressing the actions being taken but is flawed in its assumption that there is a climate crisis at all. On the one hand it shows the economic or catastrophic event projects that are flawed.... but the temperature projections are also flawed.
There is no such thing as a Nobel Price in economics.
There’s no such thing as a “Nobel Price” either. Funny that...
@@jonathansturm4163 - Oh, my bad. And as you point out: I'm stupid AF. My bad, too.
Blöd nur, dass Englisch halt nicht meine Muttersprache ist. Da mogeln sich dann schin mal falsche Freunde drunter, wenn es im alltäglichen Leben so gar keinen Unterschied zwischen Nobelpreis und Nobelpreis gibt. Sie sind der Größte!
Haben Sie noch einen guten Tag.
The big problem with everything he said is that Patrick Moore already proved that temperature has zero to do with CO2. So nothing we do (about CO2) will have any effect whatsoever. Ergo the optimal solution is for everyone to go home and carry on with their lives. Nothing will change, and no disaster will happen.
We don't need batteries at all and if we did copper sulphuric acid or leaf acid batteries are better than lithium or cobalt batteries. The less toxic choice should be the choice. Cobalt will become a gamma emitter in the modern radioactive environment and should be strictly controlled.
hang on - can someone please explain to me, why the amount of fires was so high around 1900 in the first place ? Deliberate fires to create more farming areas ? Or are we talking about unwanted wildfires ?
In 1900:
- We had more forested areas which could catch fire.
- We did more deliberate burning for farming areas.
- We didn't have anything like the same level of fire prevention awareness.
The increase is mostly still caused by humans. Cigarettes, broken glass, arson etc. I can't work out why global average temperatures would make enough of a difference.
Bjorn is completely right about this. Humans can make a massive difference if we put our efforts in the right place.
In the 1950's, 1960's the Smokey Bear campaign was absolutely massive. Every schoolchild had it drummed into them - both how to make a safe fire, and how to put them out.
In California, they've made huge efforts toward CO2 reduction, but piss-poor forest management has led to more wildfires.
The fires are preventing the released VX nerve agent Lontrel herbicide releases across the world twice and the trainwreck in Ohio from completely ionizing the atmosphere to water and nitrate salts. We have luckily had s lot of fires and outer space temperatures have been limited to Mongolian plateau but miniu one hundred degrees Fahrenheit did reach New York City in 2011 and 2012 winter.
Now lets do a talk on the cost of doing nothing.
Nobody is saying the world is going to end in 12 years. What is said is in 12 years if we have not made serious efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gasses it will be to late because of the catastrophic consequences of melting glaciers, methane release, desertification and rising oceans.
They said we had 10 years to fix the problem 30 years ago. It’s far to late to save ourselves now. Blue ocean event is right around the corner. I’d be surprised if civilization last another 5 years
Follow the money.
The oil companies have made record profits selling much much less.
When is the atmosphere thin enough?? When are the oceans sterile enough to shutdown the csuses and clean up the environment ?
Are they including the flooding from the monsoon rains in Asia. It happens every year. It’s annoying for sure but life goes on.
Because it’s supposed to happen, that is our earth in progress and our life span is nothing compared to the millions of year our planet has existed and evolved.
Hypothetical promise
By
Prime minister of India
He is not
Environment
Specialist
Nor
He doesn't
Know
How
Net Zero Carbon
Of
Atomospher
Can
Be
Control
The declared most alarming "cost" is calculated as slower growth compared to speculated optimal growth. Since the climate crusaders are primarily advocating lowering growth and suppressing industry, well..... actually they should be happy with it.
Fact remains, the effects of climate will impact poorer people first and hardest.!.!.!.,
STOP THE WEF!
Floating algae beds will stop sunlight at the surface, killing all the plants and wildlife below the surface.
What is the optimum CO2 level? What drives the optimum?
80% of the world's plants would be happier with three or even four times as much CO2 in the atmosphere.
climate policy will wipe out economic growth and result in increased vulnerability. a few will be rich the middle class will be gone and energy and food will be where all the money people have goes.
Just the opposite. Biden has supercharged the American transition to clean energy with government funding and as a result we're in the middle of a manufacturing and jobs boom. Our GDP growth currently leads the world, and our inflation rate is LESS than other leading modernized nations. Solar and wind are the cheapest forms of energy on earth. How would they impoverish us?
Reminds me of dark matter and dark energy. I think they forgot to include velocity in their estimates of gravity. Gravity is not solely a product of mass but a profuct of mass and velocity. This gravity will slso alter the time interval and space in the vicinity. Those stars are moving in a different time intervals ..
At 19;30 he shows a graph of use of Renewable Energy from 1800 to 2050. That graph inverts when you add in the number of people using energy and the amount of energy per capita.
With real world corrections for pop. and increased personal energy use, would show that not only are we only using 12% renewables but world energy use is vastly greater than 1800.
The irony that Bjorn paints a picture that things are going swimmingly when the trend might just prove the swimmingly not in the way he states.😢😂
Good one. ;)