Is there a Climate Crisis? | Bjorn Lomborg

In this clip from a 2020 interview, John and economist Bjorn Lomborg discuss how we can best address climate change. Should we take heed of widespread alarmism?
Lomborg argues that climate change is real and it has a cost, but policies that address climate change have a cost too. Given state resources are finite, climate policies should be optimised to make the largest difference possible to the problem.
John and Bjorn consider the vital role that technology, innovation and adaptation will have in meeting challenges in years to come.
See their full interview here: • Climate Change | Bjorn...
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 #IPCC #globalwarming
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: / @johnandersonconversat...
And stay right up to date with all the conversations by subscribing to the newsletter here: johnanderson.net.au/contact/
Follow John on Twitter: / johnandersonac
Follow John on Facebook: / johnandersonac
Follow John on Instagram: / johnandersonac
Support the channel: johnanderson.net.au/support/
Website: johnanderson.net.au/
Podcast: johnanderson.net.au/podcasts/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bjorn Lomborg:
www.copenhagenconsensus.com/
www.lomborg.com/
/ bjornlomborg
/ bjornlomborg

[@ricoman7981]

It’s the political climate around the world that is in crisis.

[@glennllewellyn7369]

You have a brilliant mind John. Keep pushing mate!

[@PMCN53]

Well spoken by both of you as great future thinkers👏🏻

[@Appleblade]

Bjorn is ... diplomatic ... it pays off though. His "Cool It" article made it into the Environmental Ethics anthology I teach from. If he was more critical of the climate science shenanigans he probably would be too hot for academia.

[@thenatureofnurture6336]

You cannot be luke warm for the truth.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Why bring ethics/religion to it? That can only possibly lead to trouble because those that follow one religion always seek to impose their religion on others and can only possibly lead to trouble

[@jamesdellaneve9005]

That’s what’s going on. He can’t completely debunk the narrative. But, it may make him ineffective too. They just look for louder voices.

[@greebo7857]

About the only thing I would take issue with is the contention that Australia is a "smart country". The "leaders" we choose, particularly in Victoria, would suggest otherwise.

[@johngeier8692]

The problem is liberal democracy. People keep voting for more government and more government handouts until the economy collapses. They are also voting for energy policy based upon ridiculous and economically destructive popular delusions.

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

​@@johngeier8692I don't think we really have any democracies. For them to function you would need an informed consent of the governed, and informed voters, as well as a fair playing field for grassroots candidates. In reality almost all media is owned and produced by a small number of companies with an even smaller number of owners who Manufacture Consent, and no grassroots candidates will be tolerated. It took an independently wealthy billionaire to get past the usual gatekeepers (Trump), and look at how they treated him. Or look at Brett Weinstein who was trying to propose an escape from the Trump/Biden dilemma by saying we could take a popular progressive and popular conservative and have them run together against Biden/Trump, but everything he did to promote this idea was censored everywhere on social media. The entire thing is rigged. We are subjected to constant information warfare and selectively edited facts and censorship, an artificially binary where nobody can vote for what they actually want because they are always forced to vote against a lesser of two evils, and normal people are prevented from really running. That's not a democracy. Similarly we don't have capitalism as long as there's constant expansion of the money supply, especially via inflationary deficit spending. It significantly robs our buying power, but perhaps just as if not importantly, it robs our investment power because it destroys interest rates (nobody will pay interest to borrow your savings/capital when there's a steady stream of new money for free), it's almost impossible to find investments whose returns actually keep up with real inflation, AND there's no risk analysis made on excessive government spending programs like there would be with individuals or institutions looking for a monetary return on their investment. Whatever it is we live in, it is NOT Liberal Democracy OR Capitalism, regardless of what it says on the tin. At best they are poor imitations of those things, wherever the real root and value of such systems aren't corrupted entirely.

[@StanEby1]

You can't have good policy if you don't know the cause. Not sure it's fossil fuels. But if it is, why not push for hybrids instead of all electric, because hybrids bring such great gains in a much more practical way. Also, where's the nuclear initiative? You can't have good policy only seeing the cons and not the pros of increased CO2 and/or warming.

[@marscruz]

Unbiased climate scientists already know that CO2 has a minimal effect compared to other forces and gases. The panic is pushed on us because the real goal is to control energy and make it more unstable and expensive and to get rid of cheap oil. You can't blame "global warming" on water vapor because that won't justify the demonization of oil, which is the MAIN goal of the alarmists. The alarmists are just trying to make our energy system fragile. That makes the economic system fragile. That makes the political system fragile. That makes the puppet masters happy. It allows them to create narratives that give them more control and power.

[@johngeier8692]

The carbon dioxide emissions have the net beneficial effects of increased agricultural yields (main effect) reduced winter heating costs and fewer deaths from hypothermia.

[@Phantom.1]

I always wonder if Siberians will cry when they have longer growing seasons.

[@aarondcmedia9585]

@@johngeier8692 for plants it also reduces water requirements.

[@evanevans1843]

Read a lot of Bjorn Lomborg's articles for over 10 years. Consistently, he speaks a lot of common sense.

[@mustang607]

I consider the woke marxism problem a much bigger and more immediate threat to humanity.

[@maxwarboy3625]

😲

[@fayfairley6339]

The world carbon levels are lower now than ever in recorded history. WE NEED CARBON TO GROW FOOD.

[@aarondcmedia9585]

Exactly. The fools call it poison ffs.

[@radiofreealbemuth]

Al gore in his Oscar winning documentary said the Arctic would be gone by 2013 and polar bears would be extinct. Polar bears are thriving right now and not even on endangered list. Media was also fearmongering about 10 years ago, citing "experts" that were predicting Florida would be underwater in 7 years. Australia even warned in 1999, that in 20 years, there would be no more snow. They just had historic record snowfall. Climate has always been changing. That's why ice age is cyclical and Sahara desert was lush 10,000 years ago.

[@robertchapman6795]

Yes Bjorn. There IS a climate crisis. It is the ANXIETY, DEPRESSION and HOPELESSNESS of believing in a catastrophe which does not exist!

[@aarondcmedia9585]

@@jonathanparle8429 exactly.

[@aarondcmedia9585]

It's literally child abuse. It's a pity that many of those children are far older than 18.

[@lesharris8522]

I'm nearly 70, and people have been saying there's a climate crisis ever since I was a kid. I've gotta say one thing for them, they are very consistent: They've got it Wrong every time 😂

[@DieFlabbergast]

There is a climate problem, but it's not a crisis. Not yet, at any rate.

[@covertcounsellor6797]

Yep. I thought we were meant to be waist deep in snow by now, if you believe the “science” in 1975.

[@johngeier8692]

The carbon dioxide emissions are actually beneficial. Benefits include increased agricultural yields (main effect) reduced winter heating costs and fewer deaths from hypothermia.

[@aarondcmedia9585]

@@DieFlabbergast there really isn't.

[@gerrycooper56]

Ok, Australia has deindustrialised faster than any other country in the OECD. Firstly we stopped giving subsidies to car companies, which effectively went to the Unions and pay rises, making the cars produced more expensive than imports. Secondly any manufacturing that we scared off overseas usually went to a less regulated country where environmental and other controls would be less stringent. That is, it was probably worse for the environment. Apparently removing industry was a bad move as the Federal Government has introduced a manufacturing fund I suppose to bring back what was lost. Successful manufacturing requires 3 things at least, cheap labour, cheap power and cheap raw materials. 1 out of 3 doesn’t cut it. To continue paying for things like defence, NDIS and free stuff we need revenue from mining, minerals and energy yet certain sections of politics are intent on shutting it down. The lucky country will end up like Detroit, Chicago and Portland.

[@alanwilson3661]

Yes, people with no real beliefs need a cause and what could be better than saving the world?

[@iangray7904]

People who no longer believe God don’t believe in nothing. They’ll believe in anything

[@juliasepulveda2248]

not anything just climate crisis, post modernism and marxism@@iangray7904

[@rogeralsop3479]

The BBC won't like this post.

[@JPS-hd8qz]

The Younger Drias episode, yes, that was a climate crisis!

[@nigelmack8238]

You an S.O.? Lol

[@terenceiutzi4003]

The last 4 minimums killed of over a 3rd of the world population each time! And the coming one will be much worse!

[@Coops777]

Great discussion. We need to recognise that drastic green measures are going to create harm far more quickly than damage from excess CO2. Let's be sensible and keep coal fired power stations, fossil fuels as they are until we have as good or better technology to replace it. Large scale human suffering from a world wide recession caused by premature fossil fuel reduction policy is not what we want.

[@aarondcmedia9585]

It's not what human-loving, right thinking people want. Alas... there are far too few of those in the opposing camp.

[@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp]

What about large scale human suffering caused by climate change? Decimating agricultural production Global migration Infrastructural damage Heat deaths etc.

[@aarondcmedia9585]

@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp all lies and bullsht. Agriculture is helped by CO2. Global migration is not necessary, and is happening because countries are percieved as being richer and you can leach off their welfare. What infrastructure damage? It's been reducing for decades. Heat deaths? Are you for real? Cold kills people, not heat. You're either a troll bot or utterly hypnotised.

[@Coops777]

@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp This is where there are two opposing scientific views. There is one side saying its quickly heading for disaster and the other side agreeing there is a temperature rise but the data indicates it is slower than first thought and may actually be a natural cycle ( but perhaps hurried along due to mans influence). Im on the second side.

[@thevindictive6145]

It's nice to talk about absorbing co2 from the atmosphere when you are lightyears away from stopping emissions altogether. This is how I know the difference about people that know about climate change and the others.

[@youtuberrrrrrr5480]

That is interesting discussion

[@rogerdee.926]

One discussion I heard directly linked Western climate change rhetoric to the decline of the 'petro-dollar' and the rise of the 'petro-rouble,' meaning it is to some degree about economic control...

[@anthonyscully2998]

is it true that the abc banned a documentary by lomborg?

[@petermathieson5692]

Such an equivocator.

[@anthonywoodroof2800]

Corporations should be made to cover at least some of the cost for the developement of new energy production. Otherwise, what good are they ? Funny, some of the bigger ones have factories in China, a huge polluter.

[@mpgingdl]

If you want to understand anything about the current state of the planetary system, especially climate, a PhD in political science is always the best authority. Just as you would consult a dentist for a detached retina.

[@Phantom.1]

What is Al Gore’s degree in?

[@aarondcmedia9585]

and we know economists are always on the money...

[@aarondcmedia9585]

@@Phantom.1 PhD in The Grift.

[@efemie]

1000 years ago it was more warmer then today, it's totally normal weather change we human can't change. 🌦️

[@jamesmorrow1646]

That’s completely untrue. Prove your comment.

[@alman6581]

Exactly - however you can see how they state 'just because there are lots of us' that human made this change. How about this, it's not our level of waste per person, but how many of us there are. So do we remove half the people? Surely not. In the end our birth rates are fixing that! By 2100 the earths population will start plummeting.

[@raymondzehrung9274]

@@jamesmorrow1646 There's a reason the Vikings called that big ice covered island they discovered "Greenland" in the 10th century.

[@aarondcmedia9585]

@@jamesmorrow1646 spoken like professional TV watcher. Well done.

[@aarondcmedia9585]

@@raymondzehrung9274 these morons are voting the next government in and utterly clueless.

[@casey8228]

'We should have a smaller carbon tax." Ask Canada how that carbon tax is going. How about no carbon tax. How about a carbon scholarship for innovative technology. Common sense, boys.

[@j5555785]

Id sat Heat Islands are a real problem. We should aim at technologies that prevent our cities from boiling the local climates - and that actually is a scenario where carbon clouds could help. Theyd bring more local rain and they'd block more sun light

[@robertchapman6795]

The new Canadian and Alaskan forests that emerge from the end of the current glacial period, will soak up more carbon than ever! New growth trees in the forest, especially for the first 25 years of each tree, will soak up enormous amounts of carbon. When you disperse that growth across centuries, less carbon in the atmosphere and more oxygen down at ground level will make the world “cleaner”. Even if we change nothing!

[@roberttrott5259]

One thing that strikes me is that BL is a guy who sees possibilities and the potential of human imagination. Is it possible that some of the possibilities he suggests, eg "oil from sunlight and algae" are "harebrained schemes", sure but a lot of things that we now take for granted were at one time.

[@donaldduck830]

Actually "sunfuel" has been produced in laboratories. Atm it is cheaper to just pull hydrocarbons from the ground, but it might be a competitive alternative in a decade or two.

[@diannalaubenberg7532]

Climate change is natural. We will adapt. Mr. Lomborg is right about policymaking.

[@dragonflydroneservices1021]

Practical analysis

[@metgirl5429]

Are we awake yet🕊

[@davefield8100]

I like that Bjorn thinks we should take a more reasonable path, but I think he needs to be more open to the science that shows that CO2 emissions are basically benign. I recently attended the International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) conference, and the scientists that presented there are doing excellent research with results that show CO2 is nothing to worry about. He seems to be familiar with the scientists that believe CO2 is a problem. I wish he would become familiar with with the science of those that say it is not, instead of continuing speak out on the issue while remaining willfully ignorant of a good piece of the science.

[@johngeier8692]

The carbon dioxide emissions have the net beneficial effects of increased agricultural yields (main effect) reduced winter heating costs and fewer deaths from hypothermia.

[@jaykanta4326]

The committee sums up the complaints: "Lomborg is accused of fabricating data, selectively and surreptitiously discarding unwanted results, of the deliberately misleading use of statistical methods, consciously distorted interpretation of the conclusions, plagiarisation of others' results or publications, and deliberate misrepresentation of others' results." It is not quite so harsh in its own conclusions, accusing Prof Lomborg of not comprehending the science rather than intending to mislead or being grossly negligent. Jeff Harvey, former editor of the scientific journal Nature, was among those who took the case to the committee. He said: "Lomborg has veered well across the line that divides controversial - if competent - science from unrepentant incompetence."

[@paulus1011]

If plant life could speak, they would say, " thank you mankind for the extra co2, we feel stronger and healthier to produce the oxygen you need'

[@sentientflower7891]

Plants love human corpses, too!

[@robinhochstedler3740]

Well fortunately extra co2 wont produce extra human corpses.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@robinhochstedler3740 cancer is good for the economy so please do get cancer. Doctors need patients and hospitals must have revenues.

[@jamesbuijs6742]

Points are fair, worlds not going to end but cant deny something is happening and we need to weigh the costs on increase frequency and severity or natural disasters to the cost of fixing climate change. one difference is this is a policy that cant be undone, unlike a lot of policy where if its really bad you just repeal it if we don't tackle climate change and it turns out to be more costly then we expected we cant just repeal the policy and fix it. and what I find funny is being alarmist in the military that spends billions of dollars isn't seen a reckless because there's no going back if we aren't prepared but that mindset doesn't cross over to climate change. lots of these inconsistencies exist and its really hard to make everything internally constant and so politicians just go from extreme to extreme and don't frame them as similar in nature because that would make everyone seem inconsitent. the liberals that want less military spending are downplaying and then alarmist in climate change and the total opposite way around for conservatives.

[@aarondcmedia9585]

Costs have been going down on all natural disasters for the past 2-4 decades. The biggest difference with climate change is it's all modeled. There's no scientific "method" to any of it. All models are wrong. Some models are useful.

[@thume5976]

We will be talking about climate change the rest of our long lives.

[@smartiepancake]

I can't take Lomborg seriously since Potholer54 got to him

[@bobslater4126]

You Can't ignore reality when it comes to cost and how much consumers will need to pay or be taxed for goods and services that will supposedly reduce carbon! What happens when all these CO2 storage 'container's become full or become compromised and are released back into the air via a disaster a terrorist attack etc etc? Will CO2 capture and storage not be same issues and problems that all nuclear plants have with their waste?

[@johngeier8692]

Since the current mean surface temperature of Earth and the current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are both suboptimal the carbon dioxide emissions are actually beneficial. Benefits include increased agricultural yields (main effect) reduced winter heating costs and fewer deaths from hypothermia. We should simply use the most economical energy resources available.

[@TheWhitehiker]

Aristotle's golden rule.

[@alman6581]

Exactly - but even the mean is not likely the right position.

[@michaelscanlon6279]

Don't break wind in the classroom.....

[@TheWhitehiker]

@@michaelscanlon6279 clever.

[@marscruz]

He who has the GOLD makes the RULES.

[@alman6581]

@marscruz Moral behaviour is the mean between two extremes- at one end is excess, at the other deficiency. Find a moderate position between those two extremes, and you will be acting morally. The issue here is that the two extremes are both extremes. Frankly this is about doing a radical action or nothing. The mean including a zero can be a zero!

[@roberttrott5259]

A penny a KW electricity with 4th gen nukes would be wonderful but it would still take three or four generations to phase out fossil fuel use.

[@andrewcopple7075]

Even then, you still wouldn't necessarily have the on-demand power to handle fluctuations in the grid. I don't think you can just arbitrarily overcharge it with massive baseline nuclear technology.

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

Sorry, Bjorn, but you've missed a lot of relevant material. For instance, how much of our world economy depends upon shipping (I mean shipping on ships, from port to port). I would suggest a very large part of it depends upon those ports. What happens if the ocean rises enough to make the existing infrastructure unusable? Bearing in mind that those ports are right at sea level and it wouldn't take much to make the ports unusable. Then what? How does world trade carry on when international shipping collapses? Do you think it's possible to move that infrastructure to higher ground? You see, it's not just a temperature issue. In fact all of the world's infrastructure was built over the last two or three hundred years, and the large majority of that since WW2. Start adding up what it would cost to replace that infrastructure, then come and tell me it's not that big of a deal. I won't believe you.

[@8477alan]

Even if this ridiculous suggestion was to happen (very unlike in the next 1000 years according to data), ports would simply increase the height of sea walls and defences. Much more likely is that with the increasing cost of carbon taxes, and restrictions on extraction, shipping companies would find things unprofitable, or the price of goods would sky rocket. This, as always, would impact the poor disproportionately, while the wealthy would continue to enjoy their lifestyle.

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

@@8477alan I'm relieved that you're interested in the lot of the poor. What are you doing right now to improve their condition? In any case, "simply increasing the height of sea walls and defences" cost money too, and in most cases would be ineffective.

[@8477alan]

@@throckmortensnivel2850 Tell that to the Dutch!

[@tucoramirez6058]

An economist, again, telling us it's all right. I should take an 'economist' with me to the race track and tell me which horse to bet on. If these so called experts knew anything, we would not constantly be having economic problems. Now he is telling us about the environment. Sorry, I am very sceptical.

[@marscruz]

Apparently your brain works better than most. Nice to see not everyone is brainwashed by the telly.

[@aarondcmedia9585]

Exactly. What did an economist ever predict correctly?

[@gadget348]

Trillions of dollars of our money being spent worldwide without our consent to stop temperature change on a planet that has historically had huge temperature swings.

[@nerdyali4154]

Go back a couple of decades and loom at what Lomborg was saying. He was denying the validity of the science. His position has changed with funding sources and opportunities to stay relevant. He is trying to play Mr Reasonable, but I still wouldn't believe anything he says without a lot of verification.

[@marscruz]

Think Tanks get their money from the elites or government grants. That tells you what they are going to say and do. Whatever the big boys want...

[@johngeier8692]

What science?? Computer models of complex phenomena such as the Earth’s climate reflect the biases and knowledge gaps of the programmers and amplify errors over time. The most radical outlying predictions received undue media attention. This generated the widespread false and delusional belief that mans effects on the earth’s climate are significant and dangerous (Climate Delusion).

[@billirons6277]

I respectfully disagree. You don’t know either. Let’s just have a real debate. Hello. Never would see it publicly done.

[@jonathandewberry289]

I still haven't seen any reasons to believe Global Warming is bad now? Usually, warmth is good. Why do we get told 'it IS getting warmer' as if we are hearing a bad thing overall? It would be, presumably, a good thing. more food, more water, more crops, less death by freezing.

[@nerdyali4154]

Why don't you go and ask someone in a position to explain it to you, and I don't mean Sky News Australia.

[@jonathandewberry289]

@@nerdyali4154 You can't explain it either. It never even occurred to you that global warming could be a good thing. Indeed, it has consistently been good, it's less death, more green, more biodiversity. Now what, Dumbhamed Ali?

[@marscruz]

@@nerdyali4154 More CO2 means more greening of the Earth. That means more plants to eat the CO2. Besides, CO2 is a very minor part of warming that occurs by greenhouse gases. It's nothing compared to water vapor. Why don't we demonize water vapor? Oh, because it doesn't control economic activity. Ding, ding, ding. They really want to snub economic activity and this is their justification. Wake up sleepyhead.

[@johngeier8692]

The carbon dioxide emissions have the net beneficial effects of increased agricultural yields (main effect) reduced winter heating costs and fewer deaths from hypothermia. We are actually dealing with mass psychoses and an associated massive fraud.

[@aarondcmedia9585]

@@nerdyali4154 why can't you explain it to him? Why do you need an expert to explain why .8 degrees warming is so incredibly bad? why are you so utterly ignorant?

[@jasonmcintosh2632]

"We absolutely need technology breakthroughs." This is what people who view "Science" as a religion says. You can't schedule a breakthrough, but you can believe in them.

[@andrewcopple7075]

I mean, even for those of us who don't view science as a religion, they are important. They're a huge factor that alarmists always forget. We've been told of the end of the Earth probably for as long as humanity has existed.

[@Questioner365]

don't mention water vapor vs CO2

[@sentientflower7891]

Bjorn Lomborg said numerous times that in 2100 people (very ambiguous term admittedly) will be 450% wealthier and that climate change will only reduce that to 434% wealthier. Can anyone ask Bjorn how he knows anything at all economically regarding 2100?

[@johngeier8692]

Economic forecasts become less and less reliable the further you extrapolate into the future. The data you cited is so unreliable as to be useless. What might happen in 77 years time is also of no practical significance to anyone alive today.

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

My guess is extrapolation.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@TheJeremyKentBGross no, he is just a liar.

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

@@sentientflower7891 I mean, these days all the "experts" seem to be.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@TheJeremyKentBGross Bjorn Lomborg is paid to lie to you.

[@claudiobighinzoli]

Sugar cane, corn, absorves more co2 them forest and also feeds

[@cavendish009]

Don't make me LAUGH !!! OF COURSE THERE ISN'T - it is only to scare the MASSES !!!!!

[@johnscarlett3486]

I see a lot of intelligent people who's heart is in the right place failing to diagnoses our predicament correctly. Climate change is a symptom of ecological overshoot. Trying to capture carbon through the use of tech will worsen ecological overshoot due to laws of thermodynamics... hypothetically if it were possible (which it's not without our civilisations fossil hydrocarbon platform and the fact it will require more energy to pull it out of the atmosphere than what we burnt putting it there) it would do nothing to solve the myriad of other "problems" that are eroding rapidly the ecological foundations upon which we (community of life) depend.

[@markmeridian3360]

Too bad John Anderson barely let BL talk.

[@petergardner760]

It's simple. It's the old general purpose Pareto rule.

[@vhawk1951kl]

7Is there a climate(first define climate) " crisis for whom? Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? What sized region is it defined for? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. The models themselves have to make many assumptions, and sometimes lead to solutions that are unstable (small changes in the input data lead to large changes in the predictions).

[@ELI-73]

The IPCC report this year is the tip of the iceberg of decades of average to very smart people studying exactly the intricacies and complications of what "the climate" is. You are falling for a decades old trap of muddying the waters in light of said complexities. I recommend you to watch this to understand how so many people are mislead about the subject: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nqeqgoCQe7Vsf6M

[@nerdyali4154]

Lots of words to obfuscate the reality. The temperature of the earth, as represented by average change in temperature over the earth is rising. We know this, we know it is mostly caused by CO2 and the research right now is in determining the sensitivity to CO2 concentration and will in the future be into understanding more localised effects.

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@nerdyali4154 Whose reality?-you have no idea what you mean by "reality" as you are about to illustrate. There are some words that those without wits learning and breeding are best advised to avoid and amongst them is what you cal(but have no idea what you mean by) " reality. There is no such thing as " the temperature of *the earth* A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind. Planet Earth doesn’t have* ‘a temperature’*, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth *never gets to equilibrium*: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? What sized region is it defined for? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. The models themselves have to make many assumptions, and sometimes lead to solutions that are unstable (small changes in the input data lead to large changes in the predictions).

[@ELI-73]

​@@vhawk1951kl Dear Peter, what you are saying is not wrong, and is all part of what constitutes the (very complex but objectively measurable) study of Earth's climate. I suggest you to take a look or even read the IPCC review and you will see that your points are not only addressed, but constitute the very basis for many of the concerns expressed by the scientists working on the matter. In some places, the "statistically locally" changes in temperature are less significant than in other parts of the world. Still there are undeniable trends and correlations which lead to the inevitable and well-understood conclusions and consequences that we now have to face. While the models are not perfect and have a significant error bar, they are still correct within that error, which happens because the small (or larger) changes in input data and parameters are accounted for and considered before publishing studies that use statistical methods. I hope I could help to clarify this points, as you seem on the right track on understanding how the studies are carried out but come to conclusions that are in contradiction with your assumptions. Feel free to ask/rectify anything if there's something I understood wrong or is unclear to you about my answer.

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@ELI-73 huge grin, what you are actually saying is that what I say is exactly right you don't like the inferences that flow from it, or rather you would like to have your cake and eat it. Self-evidently the idea of a global temperature and obvious nonsense possibility only the very teeth of that there are those that form reasons of their own need to establish what is an impossibility any possibility and a complete nonsense. Thus do men make fools of themselves

[@MPTX-be8qq]

So he says CO2 is causing the problem around the 6:36 mark. He says to filtrate the air of CO2 but that's what plants do and you can't plant trees all over as you need the land for agriculture. Well I guess the agriculture doesn't do anything for the CO2. It's only trees I guess.

[@oleonard7319]

Planting trees isnt enough. It would take millions of years. To naturally extract what we have pumped into the air

[@KenDavis761]

We could be a smart country. But...

[@johnDukemaster]

A wise man, mr Lomborg...but it surprieses me he agrees to that CO2 is the bad guy in this drama. But at least he points out there's no crisis! Millenial k has a brilliant comment on this film. Thank you!

[@alanharrison573]

Carbon is fundamental to all life on this planet. It is NOT evil!

[@hosnimubarak8869]

@@alanharrison573 But you don't deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right?

[@douglasjacobs882]

​@@hosnimubarak8869 co2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is not the 96% that comes from nature that is causing global warming, it is the

[@hosnimubarak8869]

@@douglasjacobs882 "If we had never put any co2 into the atmosphere, we would still be above 400 ppm [citation needed].

[@douglasjacobs882]

@@hosnimubarak8869 The percentage of man-made CO2 is around 3.2%. Multiply 417 ppm times 0.968 = 403.66. That number is greater than 400. Have someone nearby peer review your answer. By the way, water vapor is a much more potent GHG and accounts for 0.25% of our atmosphere, whereas CO2 is 0.04% and 3.2% of that is 0.0013% of our atmosphere.

[@oilhammer04]

"While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease.” (Genesis 8:22) NIV The moral condition is the big problem for mankind rather that use of fossil fuels. Christ is the only solution to man's sinful condition.

[@JoshuaShepherd]

This is some exquisite snake oil.

[@hello15848]

It's the sun. No one can control the sun.

[@nigelmack8238]

Eyes open no fear. Lol

[@edwardsaucedo9223]

Quick answer, no.

[@paulwilson7622]

In the last 120 years, fossil fuels have brought first the West out of peasant societies. It has been making that improvement to non western countries over the last 70 years even as their populations have increased 3 fold, both India & Africa from about 380 million in 1950 each to about 1.3 billion each today. All other developing countries have increased their populations massively in the last 70 years. It is fossil fuels that have fed them. It is fossil fuel that dragged them out of poverty. The West's population has decreased over the last 70 years. You could easily argue that it is 3rd world, developing countries population growth that is the reason for global warming. THE TRUTH IS HURTING

[@ELI-73]

source?

[@aarondcmedia9585]

@@ELI-73 not being brain dead.

[@bjung8858]

California has record snow levels. It's drought is over. I wonder what the Liberals will say about climate change in California now?

[@marscruz]

They will say the flooding is caused by Climate Change and that something must be done about it! The "Calidiots" will totally buy into the idiocy.

[@albertogonzalez1746]

No

[@helenaschoeman552]

Sweeti THINK AGAIN.......READ THE BYBEL.... PLEASE...!!!!!!

[@deanpd3402]

Firstly, the planet is not warming and so what if it is. One look at the Maldives and the penny drops, the oceans are not rising. We go through climate cycles but nevertheless, there is a problem and it is not in the atmosphere it is on the ground. Our waterways and landscape management are atrocious but the problem can easily be fixed. I never hear the corporates, the governments, or the greens ever talk about where the real problem is, let alone the solutions.

[@Mike80528]

I had no clue people without brains could use language. Fascinating.

[@Orlando-Braga]

BS.

[@geraldseivewright711]

I LOVE FOOD I LOVE CO2

[@AM501]

no

[@glenh1369]

I find it strange that we dont use nature as an example to reduce carbon. Plant a tree. Cheap and effective.

[@andrewcopple7075]

Because slow answers are not ones that get people elected. Drama, extremism, and alarmism get votes and $$$, not effective purposeful means, sadly.

[@sentientflower7891]

See the Amazon rain forest you dunce.

[@arthurrafferty4102]

Look there's no alternative to fossil fuels, renewables are inefficient, not carbon neutral, far too costly and comes with environmental and decommissioning costs.

[@TheMizra2]

If carbon increase is causing climate change, why not tell people to plant more trees to absorb the increased carbon production, this is elementary science.

[@Mike80528]

Do the math... By the way, they are doing just that. It makes an insignificant difference. Math can be hard...

[@glennllewellyn7369]

No.

[@gilian2587]

"... one side claims it's a communist conspiracy, the other claims it's the end of the world and they're both wrong!" -- Bjorn Lomborg He sounds like a moderate. I can get behind that.

[@robertchapman6795]

It IS COMMUNISM! Being delivered in a Trojan Horse named Anthropogenic Climate Change. Haven’t you noticed the GOVERNMENT PAYING YOU MONEY to stay home from work from 2020 to 2022. The rise in Australia of UNION “owned business, union run credit unions, (as opposed to the people with their single share, as they have been overrun in the last decade) union run superannuation providers, union run fire services!” Massive government projects costing hundreds of billions in Victoria, headed by CHINESE companies! And where does the money come from? They talk about Darwin Port being Chinese owned. But have they mentioned, Newcastle and Melbourne? Communism is charging forward at the moment. The city of Melbourne and the rest of Greater Melbourne are currently performing MARXIST CREEP. That is, narrowing roads further and further over time to make the bicycle lanes wider and wider! Constantly lowering speed limits to annoy motorists. Building a massive spy camera network masquerading as 15/20 minute city monitors, speed cameras, pay per mile/kilometre cameras, point to point truck monitoring cameras. ALL with complete recognition spyware built in. Wokeness and weirdness, leftiness being indoctrinated into our children from 3yr kinder through to university! Company ESG laws. Communism is real and it’s well and truly embedded in Australia.

[@snappingclam8801]

Lomborg is a fence sitter, wanting to cater to both sides. Best ignore.

[@tubbytoast2]

Unfortunately lomborg just makes to much sense , so in the current drama politics no one will listen 💥😞

[@annettemack4825]

The Arctic melting isn't a major problem. Feedback loops won't happen. Global dimming won't be a problem.

[@Mike80528]

Love the sarcasm. Too bad the morons won't get it.

[@jamesmorrow1646]

Lomborg is not a Climatologist. There is absolutely no reason to give his opinions on this subject any credibility.

[@VincitOmniaVeritas7]

Degrees aside, where is his data wrong?

[@jesperburns]

No climatologist is also an economist so there's no reason to give their opinions on this subject any credibility.

[@simbi8797]

Ah! So he is not dependent on climate hysteria to get his annual grants? Perhaps he might have a bit more balance than the average "climatologist"? Oh, and by the bye, what "climatology" qualifications do Al Gore and Greta Thunberg have? Or the head of the UN, or Gates, or Adam Bandt? Why should we heed them??

[@jellymulder]

Greta claimed the 'experts' said the world should already be over by now, sounds like they aren't the one's worth listening to.

[@nuclearfishin1185]

@@simbi8797 Exactly.....Al Gore and all the rest are great at selling fear and panic.......and filling their pockets!

[@sentientflower7891]

Bjorn Lomborg is an unfortunate liar and propagandist. Unfortunate in that he will live long enough to suffer the consequences of his lies. May he have a long life indeed!

[@antoineroccamora]

This comment section is sponsored by Cherry Picking for Dummies🪤

[@williambaikie5739]

I ❤ CO₂ and you should too Compromise with sane lukewarmers like Bjorn, Let's take the money wasted on wind and solar and build Zero carbon nuclear power.

[@jimp5133]

Just bury the waste? Not a good idea in Australia

[@jimp5133]

Trees absorb c02

[@williambaikie5739]

@@jimp5133 Bjorn is right often, but he is dumb on carbon capture. Want more CC? encourage more photosynthesis everywhere, including in our oceans, where the carbon falls to the ocean floor.