Climate Change | Bjorn Lomborg

In this Conversation, John speaks with Dr. Bjorn Lomborg about climate change policy, the recent Australian bushfires, and other significant issues facing the world.
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School. The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think-tank that researches the smartest ways to do good. For this work, Lomborg was named one of TIME magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world.
His numerous books include The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cool It, How to Spend 75,000,000,000 to Make the World a Better Place, the Nobel Laureates’ Guide to the Smartest Targets for the World 2016-2030 and Prioritizing Development: A Cost Benefit Analysis of the UN’s SDGs.
#ClimateChange #Environment #IPCC #RenewableEnergy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
00:00 Introduction
1:15 Appreciating Human Progress
10:40 Cost-Benefit Analysis: Why it’s Important
22:14 Prioritising Issues that Matter
33:04 Politicising Climate Change
42:00 Affordable Ways to Improve the World
55:30 The Danger of Climate Tribalism
59:25 Technological Solutions to Climate Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversations feature John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, interviewing the world's foremost thought leaders about today's pressing social, cultural and political issues.
John believes proper, robust dialogue is necessary if we are to maintain our social strength and cohesion. As he puts it; "You cannot get good public policy out of a bad public debate."
If you value this discussion and want to see more like it, make sure you subscribe to the channel here: / @johnandersonmedia
And stay right up to date with all the conversations by subscribing to the newsletter here: johnanderson.n...
Follow John on Twitter: / johnandersonac
Follow John on Facebook: / johnandersonac
Follow John on LinkedIn: / john-anderson-ao
Support the channel: johnanderson.n...
Website: johnanderson.n...
Podcast: johnanderson.n...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bjorn Lomborg:
www.copenhagen...
www.lomborg.com/
/ bjornlomborg
/ bjornlomborg

[@andrewfurusawa4609]

Lomborg is one of the few intellectuals who effectively articulates an incredibly measured response to the benefit of the ultimate good. And he's been doing this for decades.

[@DanHowardMtl]

That's why leftists hate him.

[@DanHowardMtl]

@Larue77 What did that have to do my comment? Neither I nor probably Lomborg disagree with this. Why do the left attack Lomborg? Because they don't actually want to solve the problem.

[@DanHowardMtl]

@Larue77 "steers the world in the wrong direction causes needless suffering" - you mean leftists.

[@remakeit2628]

Lomborg has no credibility in climate science, so you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

[@DanHowardMtl]

@Larue77 A - You're wrong that his conclusions are that pollution mitigation will cost more than it is worth since your view seems to be that the only way to solve this is to kill all humans. So you should look in the mirror and see the human suffering Socialism has caused over the last 150 years.

[@ausforaus7617]

These 'conversations' are an intellectual feast, thank you John Anderson As I listen to Dr Lomborg talk about 'climate' change' I can't help but contrast what he is saying and the research behind it (yet the world does not seem to be listening to him), with the nonsense a damaged little girl is saying, and the research behind the damaged little girl, who does not seem to be able to string two sentences together without a script and intense drama coaching. I was glad to hear John Anderson say in another 'conversation' that he was heartened by the many young people listening to these conversations. Every generation produces leaders and people of exception ability. This young generation will be the same. Unfortunately we seem to be in the Monty Python movie, 'The Life of Brian .... "She is not the messiah, she is just a damaged little girl". I have also heard intelligent and articulate young people speak, so I am sure that over time the world will turn away from the 'shouty people' and listen to these splendid, but quiet, young people.

[@130alon]

I love to listen to really smart folks talking to each other. Sometimes I get lost but mostly I follow and learn buckets I hadn't known or hadn't heard before. Super kudos to John - even with a guest as "chatty" as this one, John is the consummate gentleman in letting the guest fully express his thoughts and ideas.

[@remakeit2628]

Inviting someone to talk about a matter he does not understand is not a good idea. That's why Lomborg only ever gets invited to speak by those who deny that climate change is a big problem.

[@simonclare100]

the world needs more of this standard of conversation

[@simonclare100]

@mcwolfus 1 you are absolutely right, it seems to be getting worse, and more common amongst the so called 'educated' amongst us

[@JohnAndersonMedia]

Much appreciated Simon! We'd be grateful if you would subscribe to our channel to follow John's other conversations and get more people seeing this content.

[@janhemmer8181]

What strikes me in this conversation is when they speak of "the world", they actually mean the people living on it.

[@dangoerke51]

OK, Jan, I'll bite. So, I guess your point is that they "ignore" the birds, insects, etc.? I guess that would be a problem if you ignore the easily demonstrable fact that "rich" societies take much better care of the environment than "poor" ones. I hope you do not mean to say that it is a bad thing if the human condition (measured by objective standards like hunger, disease, poverty, etc.) is improved around the world. Anecdotally, I can tell you that my home state of Michigan is much better off environmentally today than when I was growing up in the 1960s. At that time we had sea lamprey in the Great Lakes, trash along every road, forests that were still recovering from having been clear cut after the Civil War, etc. Today, we have Coho salmon, pheasants, turkeys, elk, etc. The rivers are much cleaner, even in the industrial areas like Detroit, etc. Even the horrible thought of invasive species like the Zebra Mussel and Asian Carp are problems that I suspect can be dealt with by the advance of science and technology. More objectively, I suppose, is that the US has largely halted the loss of endangered species, unlike poorer nations like Mexico and Brazil. Do you really want to argue that northern European nations like Germany and Norway are not better stewards of the environment than the poor nations of Africa, where poaching remains a huge problem? And the plastics of the oceans are not, by and large, caused by trash from rich nations. Rather, it is caused by poorer countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, where an environmental ethic takes a back seat to economic development. Finally, I have traveled over much of China. I find China to be much more beautiful and clean than what is portrayed in the media. I am sure that China has a long way to go and I am more of a "countryside" guy than a Beijing or Shanghai type. Those big cities probably have air pollution issues still, especially as compared to the west, but although I have spent six weeks in many Chinese cities, I have yet to feel like air pollution was a noticeable problem. (I'm sure that particulates, ozone, etc. are higher than in western nations, but I never personally felt the air quality was an issue of immediate concern.) There are lots of trees and, apparently, China is starting to reclaim parts of the Gobi with vast reforestation campaigns. The rivers don't catch on fire in China and they don't seem at all as polluted as, for example, the Ganges in India. Again, as China develops, I am quite certain a strong environmental ethic will emerge. As beautiful as the country is now (the cities are spectacularly beautiful, in general, at night), things will likely get better and better. Sorry for diarrhea of the keyboard. If you strongly disagree, please tell me WHY I am wrong. Just giving a "Thumbs Down" does not allow for conversation and learning. It seems to me to be simply the ignorant way out.

[@janhemmer8181]

@@dangoerke51 Hi Dan, I totally agree with everything stated, but it was not my point to discus what we as humans have or have not achieved in bettering our environment. My point was more about science and the fact how often we are still today restricted by our antropocentrism. The automaticallity ( is that a word?, if not - forgive me my Dutch - English) with which we assume the world to be the world of man is one of the cases that shows it.

[@linmal2242]

@@dangoerke51 Rather than diarhea of the keyboard, more like an experential dissertation.

[@dangoerke51]

@@linmal2242 Not sure what "experiential" means. However, I was told today that in our "Twitter" world, people don't want to see or read long comments. 140 characters, here I come! LOL.

[@dangoerke51]

Are you from Australia?( Duh, this is an Australian politician), I see you subscribe to the "Jolly Swagman", whatever that is. Anyway. Waltzing Matilda and The Band Played Waltzing Matilda are two of my favorite songs. Plus, I was just thinking the other day: what is the date of Landing Day? I'm a history buff, but not sure what the exact date is in April.

[@erikkovacs3097]

The largest problems in the world have always been solved by technology and not suffering through conservation.

[@louisgiokas2206]

I generally respect Bjorn, but when he made a comment about Trump and free trade, he lost me. What we need is free and fair trade. Trade with China is neither free or fair. Capital controls, ownership restrictions, intellectual property theft on the Chinese side are not free or fair trade policies. Trump is trying to negotiate fair, as well as fair, trade with China. The other thing I wonder about is the idea of economists telling us what is going to happen with a particular policy. Look at the case of Brexit. Economists were predicting massive jobs losses and recession if the country simply voted for Brexit. The record since has been record employment and much better growth that the EU. So, these predictions are just so much guessing.

[@RSCa3218]

Free trade is a huge blind spot of the neo-libs and neo-cons. It's true that specialized countries produce more efficiently thus creating wealth quicker but it also creates the dirtiest form of capitalism where the rights of workers are a nonfactor since they'll just out source your job if you don't accept their conditions. The richest of the rich with globalized monopolies can crush any competition that dares to give their workers a decent wage at the expense of efficiency. These corporations have no loyalty to any nation or people. It's all about the bottom line. As for the predictions... a lot of the market has to do with confidence. It's not an exact science like physics so none of them truly know when the herd is going to stampede out of the markets and where they're going to go if they do! Mostly what these celebrity economists are doing is trying to play the confidence game which boosts this market or that. Few invest in risky ventures but most will throw a little bit of cash at a "sure thing" even it it'll only give them a minimum return. TL:DR it's mostly BS.

[@scarletpimpernel230]

@Louis: No, you've got this wrong. The law is never about enforcing morality (fairness), but just contracts. Everything else is left to the consumer-so if consumers don't want Chinese products, they can choose not to buy them. Now should the U.S. prosecute Chinese companies for IP violations? Absolutely, and since China engages in lots of IP theft, there will be LOTS of prosecution. But on something like steel Trump unfortunately has no clue, and that's because OUR CONSUMERS and businesses benefit from the trade that China's crony capitalists are subsidized in producing. And not only do we and our companies overall GAIN much more from this steel trade with China, but this occurs in other areas as well. So in a nutshell, if China was to steal from it population to subsidize the protection of below-market-priced steel, then LET THEM. We benefit; they lose, on this trade.

[@louisgiokas2206]

@@RSCa3218 I tend to agree with what you say. I was not talking about market predictions, but global growth predictions. To say that a particular policy now will result in a particular impact in 20 years is a nonsense.

[@linmal2242]

@@scarletpimpernel230 And we benefit too, as we sell 'em the steel and coal and gas to make it!

[@annbrown3037]

Not so much 'guessing' is my interpretation, more attempting to influence opinion by catastrophising. Much like this covid scam...millions would die, overwhelming health services etc...where are the bodies piling up in the streets ? The backlog of bodies in morgues and funeral homes, the overwhelmed health services ? Thankfully, more people as time passes are beginning to think for themselves.

[@Maelli535]

Nice to see someone who appreciates just how important science and engineering - even in the apparently simplest things - have been and are in life on the planet.

[@1605munro]

I asume that everyone is getting this KZbin quote under this video explaining what REALLY Global Warming is. Source: Wikipedia !!! Thank you KZbin for considering me an imbecil who needs your guidance and enlightenment to understand the facts of life

[@stefanmetzeler]

They don't want to lose control!

[@consciously73]

Thanks for this John. We badly need to amplify Lomberg's message in today's media climate of doom and gloom. So much catastrophism

[@remakeit2628]

We actually need to act on mitigating climate change immediately, and the Lomborg's of this world are a major part of the problem.

[@djanitatiana]

@@remakeit2628 Incorrect. The cost to humanity of climate alarmism in the West in the long term is going to be impossible to calculate. Fortunately for China they are simply ignoring it so they will be fine but the resulting dominance of the West by China is a massive unknown and a serious concern. God help the USA if Bernie is elected in 2020 and implements his Green New Deal.

[@remakeit2628]

@@djanitatiana None of that is useful information. You should stick to reading comic books.

[@djanitatiana]

@@remakeit2628 It's not useful to cultists like yourself in the same way you are useless to the progress of mankind.

[@remakeit2628]

@@djanitatiana I am a scientist, so you are confused.

[@DainBramaged00]

Good thing youtube inserted their standard Global Warming disclaimer at the top, otherwise I might have fallen into the error of WRONGTHINK lol

[@generaltech512]

Yes it would be inconvenient if you didn't think along the lines of the climate zealots dogma. Don't think, let us think for you.

[@JimJamJuicy]

Yes haha imagine a conversation from first principles where individuals were given the opportunity to make up their own minds based on the evidence presented. Instead we are treated like children by ideologues at Alphabet inc

[@ryancormack6934]

It seems the woke left and their corporate supporter like KZbin confound the "climate deniers" (those who deny global warming exists and that human have and are contributing to it) with the "climate solution skeptics" (those who believe the solutions are poorly thought out and counterproductive).

[@stefanmetzeler]

I had the pleasure of personally meeting Dr.Lomborg many years ago at an event in Brussels. I always valued his sharp mind and clear thinking. Hence I'm really disappoint to hear him using the term of "denier". This is totally unworthy of scientific debate. I understand that Dr.Lomborg wants to promote the best possible policies for government spending and he does not want to be attacked as "denier" himself, which he presumes would weaken his messaage. I get that. But that still does not justify the use of the term. He could simply say: "Yes, the climate is changing". Period. Having studiedy physics, myself, and having followed the entire debate since the 1980s, I was shocked by the level of untter nonsense and outright fraud that was used to push the alleged "climate threat". There are numerous top-notch scientists who disagree with the claims about CO2 warming, being skeptical about the warmist claims, being lukewarmists or openly dismissing CO2 warming as a complete fraud: Prof.Lindzen, Prof.Curry, Prof.Christy, Prof.Happer, Nobel Prize winner Dr.Ivar Griaever, Prof.Freeman Dyson, Prof.Nils-Axel Mörner, Dr.Murry Salby, Dr.Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Prov.Patrick Frank etc. Many of them have been IPCC experts. There's a long list of IPCC experts openly speaking out against the organization. And there's a history of outright fraud by the IPCC. A fact that is hardly known: 3 out of 4 chairs at the IPCC are held by people who are directly connected with the petrol industry. The current head of the organization is Hoesung Lee, a former Exxon economist. It is really strange that no one seems to be concerned about that. The former head, Pachauri, was an Indian railway engineer connected to the Indian petrol industry. He was kicked out after he created a fake "Himalaya glacier fund" to "save the glaciers", claiming that they were melting, when in fact there is not a single study that said anything like it. Several Himalaya glaciers are actually growing, not melting! To be found in Nature under "IPCC glacier estimate on thin ice": www.nature.com/news/2010/100119/full/463276a.html Yes, the climate is always changing - necessarily. To quote the IPCC report AR3: ""In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" Temperatures have been increasing for 300 years since we started escaping the disastrous little ice age. This warming has not been linear - there were multiple strong warming and cooling periods, e.g. there was a warming period from 1895 to 1944. In between, there was a very strong cooling period from 1945 to 1978, 1959 being the coldest point in that phase. In short, there is no correlation between CO2 and warming or cooling phases. All we can say is that in the long term, CO2 tended to follow temperature changes with a delay of about 800 years. There is no evidence tha historically, greater CO2 caused warming, let alone runaway warming. Scientifically speaking, no one even claimed that CO2 per se was causing significant warming - the presumption was that a slight CO2-induced warming would lead to positive feedback, without any prove that this was happening. Feedback in the form of greater or lesser water vapor, which may or may not condense into clouds, which in turn might be either low-altitude or high-altitude clouds - both with completely different effects on the climate - has never successfully modeled.

[@stefanmetzeler]

During the 1970s, my highschool years, the official threat was the coming ice age. The UN, NOAA, Nature, Science, Scientific America, National Geographic, the NYT, the WP, The Guardian etc. were all pushing the "catastrophic global cooling" narrative. The fact that the warmists try to deny this - in a totally orwellian attempt to alter history - is bad enough. I'll just link 2 publications from 1973 and 1974 from the UN and the NOAA which should leave no doubt about the dominant fearmongering: UN "Climate Change" publication 1973: unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000748/074891eo.pdf NOAA Volume 4 Number 4 October 1974 "Man-made climate disasters due to global cooling" web.archive.org/web/20160630234737/docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/journals/noaa/QC851U461974oct.pdf "Studies" that claim that "the majority of scientists believed in warming, during the 1970s" are the same garbage as the John Cook "study" that claims "97% support" for AGW, when the ACTUAL support for AGW - based on his own data - would be 0.3% There is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS about AGW. And this was admitted most recently in a paper by Tim Palmer & Bjorn Stevens who are pro-AGW: www.pnas.org/content/116/49/24390 The very first sentence of their study says: "The idea that the science of climate change is largely “settled,” common among policy makers and environmentalists but not among the climate science community," Palmer & Stevens go on by admitting that climate models are basically garbage: "Even after being tuned to match observed irradiance at the top of the atmosphere,† models differ among themselves in their estimates of surface temperature by an amount that is 2 to 3 times as large as the observed warming and larger yet than the estimated 0.5 °C uncertainty in the observations." Note that the margin of error is greater than the alleged warming! Here is a comment by Prof.Patrick Frank from Stanford University he posted in response to a ridiculous article on Psychology Today, which tried to pathologize opposition to AGW: No science in so-called climate change Submitted by Pat Frank on January 19, 2020 - 2:06pm Absent climate models, there is no reason to think that CO2 can affect, is affecting, or will affect the climate. I've done the work. Climate models are utterly unreliable and have no predictive value. My paper is a Frontiers in Earth Science. DOI: 10.3389/feart.2019.00223, or search on "Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections." Let's see you or anyone else refute it. I have debated climate scientists and have found that they know nothing of error analysis. They literally do not know how to evaluate the scientific validity of their own models. Those who claim the science of climate change is overwhelming are the science deniers. That's because actual science -- the real kind -- says there is no evidence whatever that CO2 has affected the climate. Further: in every single one of the seven ice ages over the past million years, CO2 has trailed the rises and falls of temperature. It never, ever, led temperature. There is zero evidence CO2 has ever driven air temperature. See the chart at Biocab_dot_org. Search on Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale. All of consensus climatology is no more than pseudo-science. See "Negligence, Non-Science and Consensus Climatology," here: DOI: 10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.391 Full paper is here: www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full The most shocking part is the data fraud committed by NASA and the NOAA, which provide the temperature data used by everyone else. They made multiple "adjustments" over the years, most recently in 2015, just in time for Obama's Paris climate conference participation. In 2013, the IPCC admitted that there had been no warming in the previous 15 years - it was the central issue in their report: www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24173504 IPCC climate modeler Dr.von Storch admitted if the lack of warming should continue for another 5 years, they would have to revise their entire assumptions about CO2-induced warming: www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html Then, magically, the NOAA "found" the missing heat ... by altering the data! Except that their "adjustments" were utterly grotesque - to the point where finally, last year, they were forced to take back many of those "adjustments", mostly under pressure from Tony Heller, who had been able to prove that there was absolutely no basis for altering the climate records. NASA implicitly admitted that their "adjustments" had been wrong by retracting them, while verbally denying any wrongdoing. One of the best examples of those grotesque "adjustments" can be found in the data for Reykjavik: Here is the v3 data with the "adjustment" over the original data, now retracted and directing the reader to v4: data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=620040300000&ds=7&dt=1 This is v4, which happens to be virtually identical to the original data, as measured, with the extreme temperature spike in 1940 intact: data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=IC000004030&ds=14&dt=1

[@stefanmetzeler]

I yet have to see all the climate models adjusted based on the correct data, but it is obvious that without the "adjustments", there has been almost no warming since the 1940s - at most about 0.2C over 80 years and almost nothing since 1998. Hansen has been lying and cheating for decades and he - like all alarmists - has always bee motived by politics. In the 1980s, he really hated Reagan and used the allged threat of climate change to attack Reagan's economic policies. Practically all the promoters of AGW are on the far left. Greta promotes outright communism. And that has always been the goal of climate alarmists. e.g. Maurice Strong: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?" Ottmar Edenhofer, vice president of the IPCC for AR3, is a self-declared Marxist and openly admitted that climate politics were about the "redistribution of wealth": www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu-1.8373227 "Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism" news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3RRxw2zSE They have been using Post-Normal Science, aka scientific fraud used to push a political agenda, a fact that was recognized already in 2001: link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1010636822581 The ClimateGate messages exposed the worst scientific fraud in history. I have no idea how they managed to recover from this. It was so bad that even Jerome Ravetz, co-founder of the Post-Normal Science concept was revolted: quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/11/climategate-and-post-normal-science/ So we have the choice between letting fraud win and desperately attempt to fight against the worst excesses of this Marxist ideology or we can attack it head on as the fraud it really is and then get down to dealing with actual issues caused by mankind and hence repairable by mankind. I'll conclude with the statements by the former NASA administrator Michael Griffin in his testimony before the House in 2007: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499&t=1578688893054 "To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change." [...] "I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

[@janhemmer8181]

Hello Stefan, Luckily they still have left the tide gauge data intact. I can still see at the NOAA website the graphs of all the tide gauge stations around the world with their data going back to the beginning of the measurements. Look under tidesandcurrents and you will find hundreds of graphs all showing no acceleration of sea level rise.

[@ikkarus87]

Wow. Thank you.

[@stefanmetzeler]

@@janhemmer8181 Yes, fortunately, it is very hard for them to just delete data... they occasionally do. e.g. after the ClimateGate scandal, they tried tooth and nail to withhold the raw climate data from critical scientists. Which says all we need to know, right?

[@PiersLortPhillips]

Excellent interview as always, John. Perhaps I'm a moron but I'd like someone to explain just why an infinitesimal increase in carbon dioxide levels is absolutely and necessarily the evil it is so often portrayed. Cheers

[@RSCa3218]

As I understand it it's because of how long it takes for heat (energy) to escape from CO2 (and methane) once it's captured. Despite their minuscule representation in the atmosphere their ability to absorb and retain heat (energy) is very high. Once the sun goes down there will be a discharge time and the more CO2 there is the longer the discharge time just in the CO2 cycle let alone all the other cycles. An extremely crude analogy would be like turning on a stove - the stove gets hot and you do work on it (day time functions) and then turn off the stove (night time)... but the stove is still hot for a certain length of time depending on what its made out of and so isn't safe to touch. The heat from the stove dissipates into the room that it occupies and heats the room. Then if you have one stove on thats one thing but if you have 20 stoves on suddenly we're talking a whole other level of heat management being. Piss poor analogy I admit but it's more or less the basics from my understanding.

@@RSCa3218 at least you admit the analogy is poor. One stove in the middle of an industrial kitchen is how many ppm? Multiplied by 20 is a massive increase in occupied space. Also, the warming effect of CO2 in controlled laboratory experiments is logarithmic. The vast majority of the warming effect occurs by 100ppm. This concentration is of course too low to support life by about 80ppm. This reverse hockey stick (blade to the left facing down) becomes quite flat by 400ppm (where we are now) and just about completely flat by 1000ppm or where we should hope to be in 300 years or so. Interesting that the muppet Michael Mann uses the hockey stick graph given what is shown in actual controlled laboratory science. The difference between real science and whatever ridiculousness "climate science" is. Variable control. There is a reason climate models fail to predict climate. Too many variables that are also poorly measured in both quantity and effect.

[@borealphoto]

It's property of the gas. Methane is even more potent but there's a lot less of it. You need trace amount of minerals to live. A little too much and you die. What makes you think a small amount of something automatically has a small effect?

[@RSCa3218]

​ Keith Anderson yep yep and yep. One of the biggest problems with the entire conversation is people tend to frame it (my analogy did so as well) as a static system when it's in fact dynamic. For instance the more CO2 there is the more plants thrive and start sucking more CO2 out of the air and storing it. That doesn't happen in my kitchen analogy but the idea was meant more as an illustration of the general thinking about why they claim CO2 is so evil. It's essentially the old Malthusian thinking about max populations and carrying capacity of the planet. Because the technology and efficiency doesn't exist to push current limits when they do their projections things seem like they're "doomed". We'll never get past 1 billion people on the planet without mass starvation and ecological collapse they claim! Meanwhile, today, less than 10% of the world population is living in extreme poverty at 8 billion people versus 80%+ being in extreme poverty conditions pre 1 billion pop when they made those claims. They always discount human ingenuity. They always think they have all the variables. They can never account for the unknown tech and discoveries and so their static projections consistently fail to come to be over the only true measure of success... time.

[@PiersLortPhillips]

@Jack Richardson Thought so.

[@robdmorton]

I appreciate this guy's perspective. I don't completely agree with his take on climate change but I can live with it and move forward with his practical approach towards solutions.

[@BuceGar]

Excellent conversation, excellent information. Intellectual honesty is a rare thing these days, nice to see some people are still committed to facts and reason.

[@JohnAndersonMedia]

Much appreciated Phoenix! We'd be grateful if you would subscribe to our channel to follow John's other conversations and get more people seeing this content.

[@captainchokdee1039]

Tony Heller please John...

[@jesperburns]

Are you kidding? Heller is total buffoon, not a serious actor.

[@kimcarsons7036]

More buffoons please !

[@europaeuropa3673]

Tony is the only person speaking the truth. CO2 is a non issue looking for a solution. Anyone can prove this to themselves. On clear , low humidity, sunny day after sunset the temperature drops due to the overwhelming effect of radiational cooling over CO2 heat trapping. Fact is CO2 is irrelevant, extremely insignificant, and way overrated when it comes to heat trapping.

[@captainchokdee1039]

Beppe who wants “actors” I’m sick to death of them. I want real people who are prepared to justify their positions by doing something really simple: “Respectful Conversation”...

[@jesperburns]

@@captainchokdee1039 "Respectful Conversation" something Heller is incapable of.

[@aljenparker]

Thanks John for introducing us to Bjorn Lomborg. That was so reasonable and understandable. One big technological concern for the future is that we leave enough complex fossil material in the ground so that future generations have the raw materials for plastics, medicines and artistic creativity. We are extracting oil for our great fireworks show for just one century, which we are half way through.

[@JohnAndersonMedia]

Much appreciated Alan! We'd be grateful if you would subscribe to our channel to follow John's other conversations and get more people seeing this content.

[@maria.s1326]

Good to listen to the conversation. Educative, yet, left with lot of questions. For example, the green revolution in India and its impact on the people, especially the poor people and the environment is raising lot of questions!!!

[@philliphayden2727]

Very interesting. You always have excellent guests, John. Thank you.

[@6663000]

great conversation

[@AutoEngineerVideos]

I really enjoy the videos. Thanks for making them. A quick request of a technical nature... the music at the beginning and end is significantly louder than the dialogue. For those of us who listen using earbuds (for reasons of privacy and not disturbing others), it blasts our ears at the end, after we've had the volume turned up for the dialogue. Could you please mix the sound in a way that equalises the sound level to make a more comfortable experience that won't be detrimental to our hearing? Thanks in advance for your consideration.

[@elizabethkajet5501]

Danny Barrett it's beautiful music though. It's the volume of the ads that blows my eardrums

[@JohnAndersonMedia]

Thanks for letting us know, Danny - we'll take this into account in future. Cheers, Admin

Watch Tony Heller to see how ridiculously manipulated the raw data is.

[@vaultsjan]

Watch potholer to debunking this type of peoples "arguments".

@@vaultsjan potholer is a muppet who hasn't debunked anything. Tony shows the raw data and the source of the data. Just putting "debunked" in the title doesn't make it true. You'll note that potty boy never goes after anything Tony puts out showing raw, unmanipulated data. The reason is he can't simply strawman it away. Pull your head out and wipe your eyes.

[@vaultsjan]

@ Agree on title vs content. On why the raw data is to cleaned up im sure you'd get it if you would ever worked with circuits. Blind will lead the blind and there is no point of us talking i guess.

@@vaultsjan so you're trying to equivocate the degradation of an electrical signal to manipulation of data? Or are you talking about a feedback loop? Either way, not relevant. This is my exact problem with Potholer. He engages in fallacious arguments. When they start satellite data measuring ice at 1975 instead of 1972 because of the ice was at its thickest in 75, that isn't signal degradation. The data comes from the same satellite. When they talk about forest fires but ignore data from the forest service about the rate of burn being far greater in the late twenties through the thirties because it doesn't fit the narrative, that is not signal degradation that needs adjusted. Even if they were "cleaning up" the data than there would be a bar around the mean of the graph both lower and higher to indicate margin of error. All the adjustments serve a narrative and only adjust one way. It is manipulation when hurricane strength and landfall frequency doesn't get worse so instead you measure all hurricanes (as opposed to only those that made landfall as measured in the past) or they measure by dollars of damage instead of intensity. Don't piss down my back and tell me it is raining. The only blind person being led around here is you by your mate potholer54. Like I said, there is a reason that muppet avoids all of Tony's videos with raw, clearly sourced data and instead argues fringe points. The same reason you gave me some BS about a circuit instead of talking specifically about the data. Move along. You're I'll equipped.

[@vaultsjan]

@ I assumed you are talking about sun output and different strategies how to measure it correctly. Ill look more into what Heller is saying this time, so far iv just seen shit.

[@tsme7733]

Lomborg's use of the word 'Deniers' to label those that consider catastrophic AGW to be BS is an insight to his politics. As too is his fool hardy reliance on the propaganda from the UN's IPCC.

[@Nigelcaygill]

I would love an interviewer to challenge the “ indisputable “ notions that “all scientists agree” that man made CO 2 is responsible for climate change even though Bjorn wants still to put this into a cost benefit analysis. John is polite, informed, courteous in allowing full expression of guests....but questions at the start for Bjorn. 1) how much more has the atmosphere heated up since the industrial revolution due to man made CO2? 2) what has been the earth’s increase in temp over the last 100 yrs ?3) what % of increase in CO 2 is man made ?4) name the main reason CO2 does increase that is not man made, is there anything we could do to slow non man made CO2?...or simply play a 10 minute KZbin talk by Dr William Happer and ask for Bjorn’s critique.

[@Gorbyrev]

Brilliant. The proper application of intellect and research to the possibilities open to those who set public policy.

[@JohnAndersonMedia]

Much appreciated Mark! We'd be grateful if you would subscribe to our channel to follow John's other conversations and get more people seeing this content.

[@andersemanuel]

Hans Rosling's FACTFULLNESS is a fantastic book, that basically support and prove this way of thinking. -We are much better of than we think! Lomborg is my favorite thinker although he treads carefully in the climate minefield..

[@tsme7733]

Has the world actually warmed at all as a result of anthropogenic CO2? Check out Tony Heller on KZbin if you think so.

[@HO-jp1by]

I can't ever remember any science published on the topic by Tony Heller. Meanwhile: www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ www.scientificamerican.com/article/converted-contrarian-argues-humans-to-blame-for-climate-change/ www.thegwpf.com/climate-models-vs-observations-2019-update/

[@carlospereira5954]

Greetings from Portugal. Huge fan, John. Keep up the good work!

[@amarcy5369]

Sorry had a power cut I was just trying to say we are not the controller of the planet the earth is an on going changing environment is now and will always be Man must learn to adapt regards mike from the U.K.

[@michaelxx7022]

I second Tony Heller.

[@sergioesamayoa]

The response to poverty in free / caoitalist society is CHARITY.

[@theomiller1417]

Interesting conversation. I like that you make the interviewee comfortable and give them plenty of time to elaborate on their points. I would like it to be made clear that Bjorn is a political scientist and not an environmental scientist.

[@Uriel-Septim.]

Dr. Bjørn Lomborg = synthesis

[@robertbeckler5058]

This guy is bringing up stuff that I was reading about and punching up numbers that my buds and I were seeing decades ago. I came to a conclusion that being independent and capable and not looking to government Becouse government is incapable. Cool cat you have on

[@scannorse]

You forget government....is you...in any democracy

[@wanderingsoul1308]

This was a fantastic watch and kinda uplifting for the possibilities of the future =)

[@petermerchant]

This is a great summary of the ideas he espouses in his book Cool It and a great way to look at the whole climate change issue and how it is essentially immoral to be focusing ALL our financial resources on trying to fix that to the exclusion of all else. Especially when you have to make choices - because we simply can't do it all. Well worth the watch.

[@JohnAndersonMedia]

Thanks Peter, really appreciate your support. If you enjoyed this discussion you'll appreciate John's other Conversations. We'd be grateful if you would subscribe to the channel and support us how you can. Many thanks!

So Bush fires are trending downwards in acreage but Bjorn insists global warming is not debatable. That doesn't mean with the model saying that increases in modeling predict an increase in fires. Someone needs to make that equation balance out. This is all within the confines of the first half of the video.

[@Caldermologist]

The amount of ignorance in the first ten minutes is monumental. But if you rely on mainstream media nothing else could be expected.

[@paulwilson7622]

The trouble is, virtually everyone under 40 do not know or remember just how dangerous the world was (pre 1989) because of the Soviet Union & their communist government. As a consequence of the Soviet collapse, younger people have had nothing to worry about until recently. That recency is the overpopulation if the 3rd world, and the mass movement of people into the West where due to technology & corporatisation of things like farms, factories, reducing the need for workers so, we have an increasing population with reducing numbers of jobs when compared to 30 years ago, for example, so, there are far, far more unemployed people. Now we have had an increase in social education, most of these people who have what are basically useless degrees, have not & will not get jobs, have created a huge debt for the country, but will become their debt once they start working.

[@kb8729]

Has anyone looked at books? The climate changes all the time. Its just political

[@remakeit2628]

Yes, but you seem not to have read about climate science.

[@kb8729]

@@remakeit2628 the actual science ? or the scientists that are part of non profit orgs backed by governments ? The world has been alot warmer, alot higher Co2, alot less ice. The political bollox now is for votes in the future generations to swing power got the globalist goverments. ocean warming. Look at the weather in the uk 200 years back, tornados.. tsunamis.

[@remakeit2628]

@@kb8729 My replies to you get deleted. If it's political, why is the topic based on measuring global temperatures? Moron!

[@kb8729]

@@remakeit2628 its called deception. Green deal backed by coca cola, dow chemical world bank conglomerate. Financialisation of the eco system to gain future power. Wake up you fucking billie goat. The climate the global temps is not the worry, future proofing capital and power is.

[@kb8729]

@@remakeit2628 your quoting ippc to other ppl. They are known for doctoring global trends on old websites. Wake up. This is all a money game.

[@warty3620]

Dr Lomborg nevertheless still talks about green energy as a solution, when we are still causing desertification at an unsustainable rate. Regenerative agricultural would in itself deal with 'global warming'.

[@KingComputerSydney]

Warty You seem to have it backwards, we are not desertifying, we a greening with an area the size of the US greening in the last 40 years. A moderate percentage of which is attributed to mankind freeing sequestered co2 back to the atmosphere where it came from when it was over ten times the low 400ppm we have now. Unfortunately you seem to have swallowed the mass media fear mongering devoid of facts www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth. We are now going into solar minimum 24 which means new record low temperature and snowfalls are being reached across the planet electroverse.net/. Warming is the least thing we need to worry or do anything about.

[@warty3620]

@@KingComputerSydney I wouldn't even begin to engage in the debate whether the planet is warming or cooling, as there are just too many conflicting (and suspect stats) on all this. What I am saying is forget the solar panels (from China) and the wind turbines (largely from China too) and engage in carbon sequestration, which is technology free. increasing grass lands is every bit as beneficial as planting trees as it puts carbon into the ground. A giant eucalyptus tree is a minimum of 60% carbon, as is its extensive root system below the ground. Cattle manure increases the biomass below the surface, helps soil to retain moisture and drives vegans totally mad, because they would have us all eating rabbit food.

[@KingComputerSydney]

Warty I’ve certainly got nothing against growing more trees and plants. However eucalyptus trees are certainly the wrong ones to grow. They are effectively an invasive pest which wiped out or other forms of trees through provision of high fuel (dropping leaves, branches and shedding loose bark) and hot burning eucalyptus oil that causes vicious hot wildfires. Eg Australia and California where they have proliferated and wiped out the other tree species through the evolutionary tactic. Dr Patrick Moore says we should be growing and using wood as a renewable resource Which both sequesters carbon and provides a building material. The problem is the greenies try to stop this.

[@thegeneralist7527]

@@KingComputerSydney Good point. For Warty: CO2 is plant food and is the most important limiting factor in plant growth, all things considered. The carbon is the building block of all organic molecules. Low carbon levels results in poor plant growth and inefficient water utilization, resulting in desertification.

[@dangoerke51]

I recently added "RA" to my list of three sensible and technically-available policies (more nuclear energy, reforestation, and carbon tax and rebate) we could implement NOW, while we continue to study the whole climate change issue. I don't believe the RA alone can solve the problem, although IT MIGHT. Like so much about climate change, we just don't KNOW at this point. As for Lomborg, I suspect that, if presented with real information, he would be very interested in this topic. Clearly, wind and solar offer little hope of meeting energy demands, unless we revert to a 19th-century economy, with its attendant disease, hunger, limited travel, and meager diet. There are just too many problems (have to convert half of Great Britain to wind farms to generate enough energy for that nation, huge bird kills of highly desirable species, limitations imposed by physics, etc.) to think that wind and solar are anything but partial solutions.

[@Mark_Dyer1]

Would Dr Lomborg accept such a philosophical phenomenon as 'Human Nature'? There is something far too overly-optimistic in his analysis of what is going on. Certainly his ideas on real poverty are questionable. And the gap between 'wealth' and 'poverty' - and even more, between 'power' and 'powerlessness' - is growing at an alarming rate; including within the West. Dr Lomborg also revealed a part of his own prejudice when he spoke of 'religion'; as though this is entirely representable by the Inquisition. That would be like seeing Science as entirely representable by what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki! What does 'science' do to inform us whether or not it is right to abort babies? Often, the answer to that hot conundrum has more to do with 'human nature', than anything else!

[@reasonablespeculation3893]

Give me the opportunity to work in a free market economy,, give me the protection of the USA Bill of Rights, and keep the power of Governmental intrusion limited to only what is necessary (I realize this is a gray area); and I'm pleased to see the next man accumulate as much wealth as he pleases, within his capability.

[@yianni8436]

Yes, I agree human nature (egoism) is the problem. Now, what would you prescribe?

[@Mark_Dyer1]

@@yianni8436 'The Way' of the Lord Jesus of Nazareth!

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

It's annoying me on both levels - if he had some better history knowledge, he would at least point out something really bloody like 30 years war. ;)

[@chadjcrase]

Well said Mark - I'm sure he doesn't ever brings up eugenics or phrenology when talking about science either.

[@DanielSMatthews]

Climate change is not real in the sense that it is truly just an abstraction with an arbitrary definition and its importance is completely overblown as the threat is nowhere as great as suggested, in fact we can basically ignore it as far as trying to arrogantly influence it one way or the other, all we need to do is continue with the quality improvement program our civilisation has been running for the last 3,000 years. Keep getting better at adapting and being resilient, just don't kid yourself that you can predict the future let alone control it, the laws of physics and the nature of our mathematical systems put impassable barriers in front of us ever being able to have such powers. As for the future of energy, it isn't going to be green, rather it will be the purple-magenta of a fusion plasma. So we need to start talking about magenta energy to make that point clear. In the very near future our capacity to generate and wield energy will be orders of magnitude higher than what it is today. The real risk is not seeing this coming and not positioning ourselves to own a share in that technology, but rather have to pay others to licence the technology they develop. Once you are paying rent on energy production you can never outperform those nations that are both materially productive and entirely energy self sufficient.

[@terrymiller4308]

Serious research on breeder reactors would be a step in the right direction.

[@thomassenbart]

Bjorn is the man

[@JohnAndersonMedia]

Thanks, really appreciate your support. If you enjoyed this discussion you'll appreciate John's other Conversations. We'd be grateful if you would subscribe to the channel and support us how you can. Many thanks!

[@anthonysimon4991]

I don't understand why Bjorn can't see Scale in the CO2 fallacy, adding 1/62,500 to the atmosphere can't possibly be measured or matter, it's Physics not Organic Chemistry.

[@Lamarth1]

Density of air is 1.2kg/m^3. At 20mg/m^3 (1 part in 60,000), soot is 85% opaque at 10m - see dieselnet.com/calculator/smoke1.html. That's 99.9999% opaque at 100m. How thick is the atmosphere again? Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the Global Warming narrative either, but that argument is readily disproven. If the AGW believers are willing to talk careful science and rationality then we'd best do the same.

[@anthonysimon4991]

@@Lamarth1 Carbon comes in many forms, from Graphite to Diamonds and CO2 is 0.0004 of the Atmosphere (1/2,500th), the human contribution is 4%, 0.000016 (1/62,500th) of a clear, colorless, non-toxic lineal molecule, no chemical reaction, no combustion, no means of amplification and absolutely essential to Life as the base of the Food Chain, and if it drops to 150 PPM all complex life will go extinct. CO2 has been 17 times higher in the past and we have had many Ice Ages since, it is irrelevant to Climate. The Atmosphere weighs 5.5 Quadrillion Tons and we add 1 Billion Tons of CO2 annually.

[@anthonysimon4991]

@@Lamarth1 principia-scientific.org/joe-postma-email-thread-with-colleagues/

[@Lamarth1]

@@anthonysimon4991 Most of what you said in that comment is true, with one possible exception of the human contribution of CO2 being only 4% of atmospheric CO2. Where do you get that? My base expectation would be 20% unless an argument is presented - the net change in the last 100 years. Also Google tells me that we're adding 26 Billion Tons of CO2 annually - is this also exaggerated? My primary issue is with your original statement about 1 part in 62500 being too small to measure or matter. CO2 is transparent to visible light, but opaque to part of the infrared spectrum. It simply is a greenhouse gas. It's also something we're starting to try to measure on exoplanets - and can plausible succeed in measuring.

[@anthonysimon4991]

@@Lamarth1 needtoknow.news/2017/06/carbon-dioxide-co2-accounts-4-greenhouse-gases/

[@nathanaelstunt7317]

Excellent.

[@JohnAndersonMedia]

Thank you for your support Nathanael, much appreciated. If you have not already done so, we'd be grateful if you would support the channel by subscribing and clicking the reminder bell to stay up to date with new Conversations as they are broadcast. Many thanks!

[@paulwilson7622]

So a reduction of fires by about 10% over last 150 years but the reality is that an excessively burgeoning population, 95% of who live along the coastline in the fire risk areas, are going to squeal. Since end the cold war, those under the age of 40 have really had nothing to worry about except jobs and that is a result of increasing population fuelled by technology which have reduced substantially the number of employees needed. These people therefore study unproductive social type degree courses which do not add wealth to themselves or advance the country. The financial stagnation of all western countries is as a result of technology which has reduced the need for employees while the population increases naturally while immigration has made the problem worse. Immigration, by the way, is a lazy economic policy by governments devoid of any ideas

[@petermerchant]

"Human beings love to gorge on the apocalypse."

[@captainchokdee1039]

Thanks to additional CO2 & fantastic rains India is just having a record crop harvest. Watch how much good that does for the villagers...

[@HO-jp1by]

Are you sure? www.fortuneindia.com/opinion/a-year-of-hits-and-misses-indian-agriculture-in-2019/103934

[@brobsonmontey]

We've already had the hitherto discussed "technological breakthrough" We had it back in the mid 20th century and it has been getting refined and improved ever since. If the West got over the false narratives around nuclear energy we could have zero emission, and inexpensive energy in abundance. The simple reality is that the environmental movement has -caused- global warming by stopping the adoption of nuclear energy from the 1990's; if the West had spent the 1990's and 2000's doing large scale adoption of nuclear energy the world would be well on track to net-zero emissions already.

[@dangoerke51]

I guess much of what you write is true. Of course, the real problem with nucs is that the energy is still rather expensive in nations that succumb to hysteria, like in the US. You simply cannot afford to build new nuc plants if you have to fight in court for two decades before you can turn on the switch for the first time. The older ones had similar problems. It is revealing to me that the "corporate" Dems (Gosh, I'm starting to sound like a Bernie supporter! LOL.) and their enviro supporters will not help enact sensible legislation to allow for large conversion from fossil fuel plants to nucs. That might tackle most of the US emission problem, just as you noted. If that technological-powerhouse FRANCE can do it, the US can certainly do it, too! (Which would you rather drive, a modern Ford or a Citroen? LOL.)

[@BigJL5288]

Really enjoyed this. Unarguably sensible discussion; great change of pace on KZbin :P

[@JohnAndersonMedia]

Much appreciated! We'd be grateful if you would subscribe to our channel to follow John's other conversations and get more people seeing this content.

[@davidhogg1216]

A very balanced individual. He is careful to dodge Anderson’s furtive idea that the world owes all to the West. Yes it is Science. And it is cross cultural.

[@listsforthecurious]

A more interesting work of Smith's is a set of lecture notes recorded by some of his students, on Jurisprudence. That ties together his thought on general moral philosophy and economics under the general theme of good governance.

[@nicglau8803]

Does anybody have a link to that 1 page pdf summary?

[@danphung7657]

Highly respect Lomborg’s intellect and concur with his arguments but am wary of tyranny of experts. William Easterly described many failed World Bank projects conceived from the top down. Agree with John’s call for more open debates - not the types we see on ABC QANDA. Without open debates, average blokes (like me) can’t make informed decisions though deep down we can intuitively tell some intellects/commentators are dishonest.

[@traditionalfood367]

Must've been very young when first visiting the USA every summer during childhood ?

[@maria.s1326]

Poverty is still continuing or being Perpetuated in those developing countries which practice a capitalist economy!!!! Sir, would you please give an explanation for this phenomenon?

Keep trying to wipe the scuff on the wall behind Bjorn off my phone.

[@anthonycosta39]

We didn't fix things with technology we fixed things with capitoilsm.

[@ebikestouring]

Lomborg’s skepticism about Capitalism not being able to solve ALL the problems he studies is disturbing and erroneous. His moral foundation is based on Utilitarianism and Altruism versus Individualism and Capitalism.

[@pjamabinsmarter6347]

In my personal opinion it's not lack of technology that is holding us back it's our attitude towards work ethics and just being plain lazy. The climate change groups focus on solar and wind too much. In northern Alberta the main expense for a green house is heating during cold months. A human body emits 100 watts of heat energy just relaxing. A chicken produces about 10 watts the same way. 1000 chickens in an insulated barn produce 10 kilowatts per hour in heat energy 24 hours a day seven days a week. The Canadian government allows 2.7 birds per square foot. So in less than 400 square feet of floor space those birds are producing 240 kilowatts per day. A square foot of solar panel provides 15 watts during peak hours during full sunshine. When a green person talks solar they give their numbers in square meter per year to make it sound better. The heat energy could be filtered and vented into a green house completing the circle of life. The c02 produced by the birds doesn't hurt the vegetables either. Compost from the litter and manure àlso produces heat energy and methane that is easily captured

[@chadjcrase]

I've always liked Bjorn and it's great that he advocates free trade - albeit with some naive assumptions - but he's a globalist at heart.

[@johngeorge2176]

Dear David, I'm reminded of a quote by Churchill. "If you're not a liberal when you're 20 you have not heart, if your not a conservative by the time you're 40 then you have no brain." I hope your 40th birthday comes soon.

[@mikekowalyk7939]

I wish there was a few ads to break up his thoughs.... Perfect thx

[@markmywords8013]

Innovation and science Not from the west? Ok name some!

[@io6273]

This coversation illustrates exactly why humanity is in trouble. It’s all about money. And more is always better. But just sit back and relax people. They are gonna prioritize for us simple people. Solve every problem. And make us happy..

[@linmal2242]

Technological breakthroughs. We have the tech now and it will get better. And just look at the Tennant Creek solar farm proposed to power Singapore with a very big 'extension lead' running from the north of Australia.

[@tomwessling7065]

Bjorn - Trump said (I paraphrase) China has been eating our lunch, I'd like to get to free trade but first we must strike a balance with China, hence tariffs on China.

[@thomasbgage]

dude I love spinach.

[@pablorages1241]

Lomborg trying hard not to say the truth ... CAPITALISM is what drives wealth, science, peace, health and human rights

[@gallution]

Actual free trade would be good for the world's poorest, but it would he devastating for workers in developed countries

[@i.novitsky9291]

#CreativeSociety #GlobalCrisis🌏📣🌍📢🌎🕊🔝

[@dennisbauer3315]

Oh thank the good lord and thank Christ, there is no Climate change, God has saved us God and the Dollar what a team, praise be to the Lord. I love the American dollar so much, I would give my body to God and the dollar as a slave. I hope the new Ice age wakes ever body up.

[@phwbooth]

Average life expectancy at birth...it's important to be accurate,

[@droverholt]

Molten Salt Thorium nulcear power is the answer and India and Chain are gogion hog wild on it. Clean, cheap safe and scalable. Lets electirify all of Africa! We can do it if we all help.

[@Bebopin-69]

Co2 a pollutant??????? No it is a GHG, like water vapor. It feeds plants like water.

[@falainothiras6252]

What's the intro music?

[@vaultsjan]

Interesting, I wonder if Potholer is ever invited here. Probably not.

[@burgesspark685]

🤣😂🤣😂

[@chapter4travels]

Of course not, he's a climate crisis cult member. Tony Heller kicks his ass on a weekly basis,

[@remakeit2628]

Why would he? Lomborg has no climate science credentials!

[@vaultsjan]

@@chapter4travels ITs rather vise versa on kicking ass. TH is full of shit for all that i have seen. Ljomborg seeking for solutions should have have at least be considered to be invited to the table (probably much more than Thundberg)

[@MagruderSpoots]

@@vaultsjan When you say that Heller is full of shit you are saying that all the newspaper articles of past weather events and graphs are false. Prove it.

[@Shoutinthewind]

What is the song that plays at the beginning I this show?

[@JohnAndersonMedia]

The track is called Mind Field, by Remember the Future.

[@RogerWilco66]

If you listen to all that it becomes obvious that there is more to the climate agenda than just the climate issue. I think it is about implementing a new model of running a state, a tool for governing. To implement that enormous effort just to lower the global temperature a fracture of a degree in a computer simulated model is unbelievably hare brained. There must be more stake holders in that game, and the stakes must be worth trillions of money and maybe even the calculated risk of social unrest.

[@remakeit2628]

Oh yes. What about the little green men. I mean, they have to be in on it up to their elbows. Fruitcake!

[@richardcarter5373]

Thanks Bjorn. A carm voice in the wilderness. Get Bjorn on the Marxist meander and carm everyone

[@AddyAshton]

I wonder what your views are today John on Bill Gates.

[@hariseldon3786]

It is not divisive to say it is "Western" because it is --- let others interpret that as they will... and we are fighting this war on the battlefield set by the Progressive Critics who are attacking the West with this argument.

[@binarymalehim]

Switched off at lobster caviar and champagne hot hungry

[@davidhogg1216]

Anderson and Bill Gates and agriculture. Jeez John

[@HRPFayetteville]

Except none of us should be eating wheat our industries are so far gone with junk science

[@timingswrong]

Just plant trillions of trees..

[@linmal2242]

Where can we do the most good? (c.26.00) Educating the girls/women of the world. That's it. The simplest, most cost-effective answer. Empower the third world's women by educating them, which will make them more prosperous.

[@linmal2242]

How Self Driving Electric Vehicles are About to Change Everything | Tony Seba on Net Positive - kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3y7ZHaIjpWpg8U

[@BlackBeltMonkeySong]

Pity Lomborg is a crank.

[@Nill757]

Says BlackBeltMonkeySong

[@petermerchant]

The "rational, pragmatic, middle"

[@chadjcrase]

Oy...

[@SuperExponential]

doing great...everything's fine.......all the slop you shove down your holes rests on a base of grains grown at scale..

[@Homunculas]

Increased life expectancy is overwhelmingly due to reduced infant mortality rate, and that's a good thing, but to summarize that as adding two lifetimes to the average human is intellectually dishonest.

[@lizzyjane778]

I thought the UN proclaimed that the world is going to burn up in 12 years (?)

[@DavidKirwanirl]

Who dat cutie at the end :p

[@darrenoetinger7876]

This guy's ideas would lead to the extinction of northern Europeans as civilization. Has he never heard of R and K life strategies? A prime example of something that looks good on paper but has as many negative effects as positive in practice.

[@ArielBerdugo]

Not sure it divides it's inertia sway it.

[@tommy-jy5ig]

Many of the fossilized climate 'experts' appear to offer a credible argument; as long as their audience is uninformed and selfish.

[@riverloddon]

And remember children, this is what happens when you smell you're own farts