Here are the timestamps. Please check out our sponsors to support this podcast. 0:00 - Introduction & sponsor mentions: - Eight Sleep: www.eightsleep.com/lex to get special savings - Linode: linode.com/lex to get $100 free credit - InsideTracker: insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off - Onnit: lexfridman.com/onnit to get up to 10% off 1:51 - Politics of climate change 18:53 - Greta Thunberg 25:23 - Electric cars 32:45 - Economy 40:22 - Journalism 54:23 - Human emissions 1:12:11 - Worst-case climate change scenario 1:32:32 - Hurricanes 1:51:20 - Climate change vs Global warming 1:55:27 - Climate alarmism 2:10:17 - Economic models 2:41:44 - Climate change policies 2:57:46 - Nuclear energy 3:04:22 - Alex Epstein 3:14:52 - Public opinion on climate change 3:36:49 - US presidents 3:47:27 - Advice for young people 4:01:02 - Meaning of life
If one zooms out the horizon, climate change debate is meanlingless... Fossile fuel will run out whether climate change has any effect on human or not. Renwable, such as, Wind, Tidal, Geo, Solar, Nuclear, even Fusuion are not only cheaper than fossile in the long run but more important a combination of them it can be easily transferrable to other planets other than just Earth....
Lomborg is a known liar for attention. Big mistake to have him on. He's a sickly drama queen, shifting stance to whatever he thinks will get him attention.
nothing says "short attention span" like the rise of the long form podcast??? kids used to watch MTV and play Video Games that lasted a couple hours (today's games can go 100+ hours)... in public the youth used to do nothing when they hung out with their parents just waisting their time, now they have access to the internet... what are you talking about???
Playing mind numbing video games or watching dopey music videos is not the same as 4 hrs of nuanced discussion on climate science. Let alone the dopomine tik tokers. Stupid comment.
This is not a debate. There is not a single contradiction happening between these guys. Revkin seems kind of unable to argue. They are just talking to Lex but not to each other.
@@MichaelStanwyck So much of what they said is hugely up for debate, obviously. Arrogant centrists have a logical fallacy ingrained in them that assumes because they're in the centre they must be the "responsible, clear headed adults in the room". As the centre of politics collapses around us, this gets clearer by the day.
Lex has expanded my horizons more in the last 6 months that the previous 20 years, I’ve rediscovered critical thinking, challenged my assumptions and perceptions of the world around me and definitely triggered my personal Unherding. Thank you for the enlightenment
Hmm I recommend watching some talks of Michael Parenti , it will open a different dimensions in your thinking and you will thank me later . ✌️ He covers capitalism , climate,politics , IR , military , media , culture , systems etc …. Lex is definitely great much better than Rogan who went down the right wing rabbit hole z
What I love about this channel is that people interviewed, get to talk to the point that they hear themselves, and almost question what they are saying because we are actually hearing them out.
Legit. I have turned a few people on to lex and there abillity to hear an aposing perspective as there own without starting a war has improved. I have thouht about walking in his shoes and making my own chanelle like this. You know its obvious lex was well ruted in retention of knowlage before he started this. Id love to have been a fly on the wall to see how much his guests have expanded his mind and understanding
Neither of these guys describe the real problem we are facing. They are journalists and not scientists. The left and the scientific institutions have turned science into pay for play advocacy. They started with climate change and copied that approach with Covid. So they destroyed earth science and medicine in a decade. I am a scientist. The saturation phenomena of co2 has been known since 1901. The effects of co2 can’t increase much more than is currently being observed. This has been shown and repeated in laboratory tests for a century. There is so much money and power to be gained by this issue. Thus censorship and “fact-checks”. Science has changed from data and skepticism to modeling and advocacy. Anyone who can reason should be able to understand why the sky is now falling.
I respect your sentiment but, seriously, this was not stimulating. Real debates are stimulating. These two guys tiptoed pathetically. Draw out the disagreements or find a new pursuit, Lex.
Love that this is billed as a 'debate', but it's really just a great, perfectly civil, discussion. I felt good hearing them after thinking it was going to be contentious.
Is there something wrong with debates? Especially when there is such a huge divide between the sides? If all they do is agree with one another, then did it occur to you that maybe these two don't represent the different sides of the debate very well?
There's been hotter times and there's been colder times in the billions of years earth has existed. Humans thinking they have any control over the climate changing is a joke.
I hate that we slowly converted environmental problems into the clima problem. If we solve our crimes on rivers and forests and landfills we would solve alot. I grew up in east germany and after 30 years and a lot of effort and well spent money we are getting healthy rivers back. Lets work on stuff like that way more...
Yea, thats what makes me angry about the current climate activism. It's polarising the population. Most ppl would be on board with a big movement to address the damage we're causing ecologies but I think most thoughtful ppl are not going to buy into this apocalyptic climate cultisness that's happening, and rightly so.
@@timh7882 climate change is fundamentally different to wetland restoration though because it requires international cooperation on emissions rather than controlling point-source pollution. It isn't something that can be addressed by the sum of fixing all of the rivers and local ecological degradation. It is, however, having severe ecological consequences at the local scale.
@@timh7882 Saying you care about the environment but not climate change is idiotic. Climate change will cause more devastation than environmental pollution or degradation
Climate scientists have told the story of climate change since 1950 to the public, and nothing really happened. So why the hell are we surprised by some people's fear and outrage? This outrage comes too late and too soft. Change of power requires outrage, and to move from one to the other energy source will cause changes in power. Climate and environment are connected, but they are not the same. If you make the rivers cleaner, but the CO2 still goes up, the planet will be uninhabitable regardless of your clean river.
@@benediktzoennchen humans have been preaching about a forthcoming apocalypse since literally the dawn of history. That aspect of our nature is clearly involved in this issue. None of the cllimate shifts we're seeing will make the world uninhabitable, believe they will is maniacal.
I love getting paid for listening to Lex - its one of my favourite 'states'! I love put him on and then do my sketching/designing - two sides of my brain firing at once.
I think it's the job of the viewers of this podcast to distribute this episode and other ones to people who don't watch new media. People need to switch away from the shit show of television and start tuning in to the channels which are promoting empowered discussion for everyday people to understand and not get all hyped up in a non useful way. Stay blessed everyone!
@@bbinder5868 I completely agree with you. Perhaps instead of getting them to watch it on their own, watch it together or as a group. I always try and watch with someone like my wife. Over a couple of days. Makes it very interesting. You'd be surprised who might want to view it together! But I agree with the sentiment man very difficult.
@@alep7358 not entirely true, but I see what your saying. People do care about these issues, there just not presented in ways which people think they can digest it or make the time for ir
@@balazsmolnar2386 it’s a waste . The first few minutes in they both say they believe in AGW lol. Lex is such a weasel 😂. He dosent like extremists” he says so he won’t have lindzen or christy on .
@@hurkamur1 economic science is the best field to understand statistics and the difference between real data and predictions...correlation not being causation...selection bias etc..many doctors in the medical field and "climate specialists" seem to have forgotten that lately... maybe bc certain interest groups throw around big money for PR on that topics..just a guess
This is exactly the kind of conversations that should be commonplace in this new century. Lex, I thank your mother for bringing such a treasure into this world. I'll listen to this one over n over.
The doctor that built his home up in the FL panhandle, which saw each and every single home aside from his destroyed by hurricane Michael in 2017, says he only spent about 15% more when building it to make it 250mph wind and surge proof. It stood there alone with hardly any damage at all. Focusing on cost-effective immediate solutions is absolutely the best way to go, unfortunately that doesn’t generate as many clicks or headlines.
@@2ez_travis899 This was a house built immediately in front of the water. With what a beachfront house costs, and considering the audience that buys them, 15% is negligible. Mind you, this is percent of general construction cost, not of land and fixtures. Regardless, the point is that we should be dumping the “build it good enough and get insurance” model and adopt an approach where homes can survive these 1-in-100 year events. It’s doable.
@@jester9118 youre asking construction corps to spent more on every house built. they will not spend that money unless forced by the government. in the US, this is a big no-no.
@@sginrummy88 they don't necessarily have to be forced by the government, they could be forced by the insurance companies. It's not like the insurance companies like having to pony up for these massive claims every time a hurricane comes through.
Dear Lex, thank you for this episode. I would be really eager to see a follow up. What I would consider to be really valuable, would be a discussion with climate scientists, ideally from people who worked on the IPCC reports. May be someone like Saleemul Huq, who might challenge some of the views lined out by Bjørn Lomborg.
Sixth Mass Exinction,Abrupt Climate ,Overpopulation And Overconsumpton Of Natural Resources-This Will Have Grave Consequences For Global Industrial Civilization!!! Comments Welcome!!!
I think the problem at this point is that so, so many people simply dont trust that the modern science community isnt as corrupt as the federal government. COVID science did no favors for the trust level between the public and the scientific community...... especially where public policy and people bank accounts could be influenced by the findings of these scientists. Like it or not $cience has become a major part of "science" in the public perception and Im not sure the trust level will ever get back to where it once was.
It would be better to balance this interview by interviewing someone from the _OTHER_ side of the issue, who recognizes that there's really no scientific evidence supporting claims that climate change is net-harmful. The _CO2 Coalition_ has many distinguished member scientists who could ably represent that viewpoint.
@@gzcwnk If that is what you think, then you are obviously unfamiliar with the peer-reviewed literature. Let's see if youtube will let me post a few relevant DOIs for you, to get started: 10.1007/s10018-020-00263-w 10.1371/journal.pone.0198928 10.1111/gcb.13263 10.1002/grl.50563 10.1111/gcb.12830 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.12.042 10.1038/nclimate3004 10.1038/scientificamerican11271920-549 10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.11.015 10.1016/j.jplph.2009.01.003 10.1080/00103624.2018.1448413 10.3389/fpls.2017.01546 10.1111/1365-2745.13049 10.48550/arXiv.2103.16465 10.48550/arXiv.2006.03098 10.1038/ncomms8182 10.1038/npre.2012.7067.1
Thank you for this content. I am a keen follower of the way you ask and push people on matters in a calm fair and open manner with good faith. Excellent job!
Thank you for everything you do Lex, Thank you for inspiring me to be a better, more loving human being. And thank you for always calling us "dear friends"
WOW 🤩 I just finished this podcast on Spotify and I feel better. I understand now, solutions are much more complicated and time consuming as we think. But I understand also that there is more time then 12 years and we are definately not doomed! 😅 Thank you Lex for having so interesting guests and great conversations that educate us on so many levels 🙏🏼
@@LightSearch hahaha yeah, basically it is like: it's a hype to steal more money in taxes from the people and waste it in stuff instead of actually fixing thigs. Regular status quo thing.
12 years* if we actually start doing something about it. Hahahah. Look at both US presidential candidates and most EU elections. Climate change? Who is that? Sit on your ass and vote for the guy that makes it worse though. Unless you want to "start fixing" it in 12 years? Hahaha
It is..and shamefully Bjorn Lomborg who was supposed to take a position here in Australia in 2015 at the University of Western Australia was virtually 'ran out of town' with 'fire and pitchforks' by the Woke mob of far left students, faculty and Greens politicians. Unfortunately, this kind of reasoned and rational discussion does not exist among the MSM, Academia and political class in Australia..and that's a REAL shame for us.
I agree that decent public debates need to be had on all manner of subjects, but NOT worthless debates that take 4 hours to go nowhere with people who can't ever solve any of the issues. I'm an engineer and left a lengthy detailed response to this in the Lex's pinned comment at the top.
Really a conversation rather than a debate. I don't think there was an ounce of disagreement on anything here. At any rate, this was a very illuminating podcast, and has peeked my interest to look at these studies myself.
Lex, the reason your channel is going to explode beyond your wildest dreams is because you are literally the only real independent and unbiased journalist I could find on the internet! Love your work!
Absolutely. I used to think Joe was unbiased but while he is willing to have a lot of people on his podcast he's always speaking to them from a point of bias. Joe's good in that he's willing to platform people who most won't but he has a hard time not taking a side. Lex's method of making people steelman their opponents ideas is probably some of the best journalism I've seen in a while. Unfortunately in the Destiny podcast I heard Lex mention that Joe and others were telling him to take a stronger opposition to people he's talking to about ideas he does not agree with. I wish I could yell into that podcast at that point. If I wanted to listen to the JRE I would tune in there, and I do occasionally but Lex's podcasts appeal is that he doesn't attack people he doesnt agree with from the get go. He talks to them. Let's them speak and get their ideas out and I think Lex understands that just because he's got a successful podcast doesn't mean he's going to be right about each and every topic ever in existence. I think Joe sometimes forgets that.
He is a great journalist and we need more of him, however the real reason why there isn't many independent and unbiased journalist around is because they all get deplatformed from social networks like you tube if it doesn't fit the world economic forums agenda.
Was it supposed to be a debate between Lex and the guests or the guests against each other? It seemed like the two guests came from a very similar position. Also, why whenever I see climate skeptics on tv, they are not scientists first and foremost. Here one is trained in journalism and the other is trained in political science.
@@Sapnfap the longer the podcast goes on the more cynical it gets. They hook you in at the beginning by acknowledging anthropogenic climate change is real, then gradually get more and more dismissive of any of the dangers. Bjorn even argues at one point that 'we are not getting worse, we are getting better more slowly' like there is a model saying this. There is something very off about the whole thing
@@chrisbirch4150 Oh, I thought you were saying the opposite lol! I was disappointed that they agreed on virtually everything instead of having a genuine debate on the merits of anthropogenic driven climate change. People have good reason to be skeptical of the anthropogenic driven narrative. The models have routinely been proven wrong and revelations of the past 2 years alone during covid have shown scientists can get co-opted for govt. agendas and easily silenced aswell.
Thank you Lex. My brain is relieved. I have my bias and I have my opinions and my brain appreciates nothing more than an opportunity to get out of my echo chamber.
You know Bjorn is not a scientist. He's a conservative bullhorn that has been proven to be lying/misinforming a number of times. He should probably have someone shit in his mouth.
@@brodyhess5553 There is rarely ever a debate that makes it to any appreciable size audience. It’s not a debate if both people represent slight variations on the same side. But we will have to put up with this for the next ten years probably, or at least until economies really start to collapse enough.
@@brodyhess5553 Yes, I mean I've only watched little over 1 hour, but it seems to me both are on the centre Lex speaks of at the beginning: one a little left of centre, another a little right of centre. But they agree on way more than they disagree.
"If you live in a desert region, you may have to leave, as there may be no water for you in the future, and it may be very difficult for food to reach your community. Do not live near moving water, near rivers that will overflow in the face of violent weather and changing climate conditions. It is wise to move away from coastal regions that will be affected by violent weather and in many cases from certain large cities that will be subject to extreme social unrest." This is one of the recommendations mentioned in one of the most important books I know, called *"The Great Waves of Changes - Navigating the Difficult World Ahead" by Marshall Vian Summers* It's free to read online.
@@johnchapman5125 that is at least two billion people. Likely more since with the Hadly cells expanding tropical deserts are expanding too. And in case the AMOC is collapsing, India and Westafrica will have a weaker monsoon seasons.
As someone who researched climate change a lot, I was quite staggered about the deflection and whataboutism here in the "debate". I was hoping for a discussion about climate, but instead found a lot of talk about past events, economy, and what was incorrectly predicted... There was a brief point about worst case scenarios, where food shortage and drinkwater shortage was briefly touched. In fact that is what the whole topic is all about: climate charge affects humans, animals and plants; the world will continue regardless of anything. We can already see the effects here of harvests failing in an unprecedented scale, with India even limiting export because they are afraid they won't have enough to feed the local population. Lower lands like Holland already have issues with drinking water, for various reasons including climate change. And in parts of Africa, both food and water just became more scarce. Rich countries are mentioned - but it should be remembered that their money is only any good as long as other countries sell them food. For instance, Holland is one of the biggest suppliers of livestock- but to do this, they heavily rely on imported soya and imported fertilizer (Russia plays a role here!). The moment one of these collapses, the rest will cascade. Given how much of a role grain plays in the Ukraine war, and how much Russia already has, its not even unlikely that Putin wanted to control the majority of that resource. Think about it for a minute - nobody fights a war just for fun; it's always about gain! When harvests fail, the best way to gain power is through food. The harvests failing is worse than you might expect. That's mainly because the models about temperature predict an average. They don't predict weather extremes, rapid changes in the ecological system and local changes. That is also why so many crops nowadays fail. If you were poor and food and water were an issue, what would you do? Move, right? Europe already spends hundreds of millions each year to stop people from doing just that. Not just by asking people politely or sending them home - also by paying corrupt leaders, and providing guns. So what's next? Will the rich countries sit and wait? Will countries that starve sit and wait? Do you think we can solve this with talk, humanity and technology? Or do you believe it's more likely that we will use the weapons and influence that we already have and kill a lot of people, either indirectly or directly... Just keep in mind that we would rather buy the grain heading to Africa than share it, regardless of agreements. So. To summarize, the worst case scenario a billion of people will die. We won't become extinct. Countries will put their own population first, famine and violence do the rest. I could be off by a factor of 10 or 50... you can decide if that gives you a better feeling about the issue or not. With such scenarios, I for one would certainly prefer a future that gives me a bigger smile on my face.
If all that is true, then what would be the reason for holland shutting down farms? Which they are, cutting co2 emissions by closing down farms seems like the only option you don’t do. Of course only if preventing humans from dying is your priority, and if not “overpopulation” was considered a problem from the climate change proponents,oh wait 🤔
Wow, that was illuminating! It was not as much a debate (because both participants agreed on all the prevailing issues) as it was a discussion. Thank you for doing this!
@@OscarMaris yep theyre the hoax really :) There is not Gov in this world even disputing the climate change happening right now but these guys know better.
Great to see this topic getting tackled! But I didn't feel it was a debate. Hope to see more viewpoints in the future. What about: - tipping points? - uninhabitables places (far east, northern africa, south america, australia)? - migration waves? - biodiversity?
I agree, it would be nice to add a person in. Tipping points are addressed and middle of the road predictions were used. People have been good at converting uninhabitable places into habitable ones, on average the world isn't becoming less habitable. The zones slowly shift, most of the North is becoming an easier place to live with slightly higher temperatures. Immigration is also mostly driven by poverty, poverty dictates how well people deal with climate. I really think well informed economists are the best to talk about this issue. It's easy for ecologists to say stop polluting without seeing the the full story of what energy means to people. That said it would have been nice to have an ecologist POV to steelman that side
My God ! That was 4 hours REALLY well spent. Thanks to all three of you for a truly uplifting and inspiring conversation. A journalist, an economist and and a computer scientist just put the whole climate debate into context - in a way that the many thousands of active climatologists we always hear about, never have. The world needs so many more people like this - not shrill histrionic activists, not ostrich-like deniers - but clear-headed people who clearly understand the entire picture, who are not sufficiently ham-strung by politics or ideology, to obscure the ability to chart a logical AND sustainable way forward.
As much as I agree with some of the points being brought up by Bjorn idk why people consistently let him get away with arguing “the world is getting greener”. He regularly brings this up and by doing so undermines the level of hardscaping, land use conversion, habitat functionality reduction, and overall ecosystem alteration that is globally taking place in both the global south/north. You can’t tell me the world is “getting greener” and plants are “happier”when we have more asphalt in parking lots, highways, and shopping centers than ever before. The rate in which we dredge/fill wetlands and clear cut old productive forests has consistently been on the rise over the past century and mitigation of such activities (our ability to reconstruct such natural systems through engineering approaches) are poor at best. Claiming an area is “greener” by looking through aerial imagery also completely looks past biodiversity extent and ecosystem functionality. Often times invasive species are best at occupying spaces following large scale land use type alterations. These are details I’ve never heard brought up to Bjorn whenever he brings this argument to the table. I’m also leaving out a lot of points here. I would LOVE for @LexFridman to speak with an ecologist or conservation biologists on the topic of biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse. Climate change will have a role to play in this, though sprawling development has undoubtably been the current spear head in such conversations.
Hey Lex. I am a big fan of the podcast. A guest I would love to see would be Stephen Cook, the Canadian computer scientist. Thanks for everything you do and have a good one
I recently discovered Lex's podcasts and am drawn not only to the interesting and salient guests, but also to his questions. Almost always he asks every question I would ask and questions I wish I would have thought of.
@Virginia Theresa real pollution like hazardous material plastics and private jets are the problem. Sadly our government is so corrupt they will never do anything that will cost the rich money. we need a total revolution that gets rid of all the politicians judges and bankers. At the very least we need to make it illegal for politicians to earn money except for their wage.F
Lex, you are amazing dude! I haven't even watched this - and I intend to - but I just wanted duck in to say: 4hrs, wow! I can't think of anyone who comes even close to getting the amount of viewers with such long-fomat videos on youtube. This is a great thing, bravo!
As a student of biology I am thoroughly disappointed by this "debate." Very little disagreement actually happens in this conversation. There needs to be representation here as to what is happening to the natural world, and the positive feedback mechanisms which can be triggered by continued warming. Mass extinction, ocean acidification, concerns about things like methane sinks in the Arctic or mass wildfires/deforestation in places like the Amazon, mass crop failure, the extinction or die off of pollinator species that our crops rely on, degrading of top soil...I may have missed it, but none of these things are addressed, even in the "worst case scenario" section of the conversation. I get the sense that these two are "on either side of the center" really means that they mostly agree with each other and that true and valuable disagreement is totally absent. It reeks of enlightened centrism and economic emphasis where the impacts go well beyond the economic. Was really hoping for better from the podcast on this one.
finally, someone critical. I think the discussion was damaging for the course of action we have to go, and it all went wrong at the start where both guests painted the current situation as not that bad, but what do you expect from a guy who thinks we can deal with 4 degrees increase in temperature.
Please, I have no problem with you practicing your religion, it’s your right, but in private. You’re causing more harm than the Catholic Church ever did, burdening society with your doctrines, through State intervention. People are dying, many more suffering unnecessarily due to your religion which they do not practice themselves. It’s cruel, so please, keep your worship private, and you’ll, by law, remain unmolested.
Oh, you are the one who dictates what people speak about, as if they do it volunteerily, then they get it wrong, according to your higher knowledge. Thanks for revealing you true nature to me. At least you're not intentionally deceptive about it.
Interesting conversation. Even with so much time there's still so much ground to cover. I wish they touched more on how climate impacts food insecurity.
@@JoeZorzin how people can even come out with this crap is beyond me. Fossil fuel industry has far more money... Has been shown to spend huge amounts of money lobbying and covering up climate change... And now are the ones trying to get in on renewables where subsidies exist. This guy has in the past talked about renewable subsidy... Which in many countries now have been stopped because they are economically competitive. Where as fossil fuels still rake in gov money. And climate science has been predicting this long before 'big renewable' which is still tiny compared to the fossil fuel lobby had any money to fund them... Not that there is any evidence they are. I can only think a comment like yours is intentionally disingenuous or just utterly utterly uneducated. There is no real other explanation
This was great. Huge gratitute for your work as always, Lex, and I really appreciate the insights of these two genial "debate" guests. And, I feel like the elephant in the room is biodiversity loss (including old-growth forest and other carbon capturing natural phenomena) and the spike in the species extinction rate, the human contributions to these and their effect on the whole system, including climate. These issues weren't discussed at all in this conversaton, which may be because it would take another 4hours, and maybe it isn't so much in the wheel-house of Bjorn and Andrew, however, personally its a gap in my knowledge and I'd love for you to interview someone who could speak in an informed way about the relationship of these issues to climate change and the broader ecological and economic impacts, even including GM crops etc, the benefits and drawbacks... If anyone wants to suggest an apropriate canditate I'd be interested to check out their work. Thanks again 🙏🙏🙏
I absolutely love listening to the guests on this podcast be able to speak in a conversational format. We are so fortunate to be able to eavesdrop on some candid talk from some of the world's great thinkers.
I agree on the ideology of being constructive and efficient, but I wish they were more precise about what to implement. I wish it was more focus on discussing and confronting their ideas. After one hour, I couldn't convince myself to keep listening. Anyway always a pleasure to discover new people and ideas thanks to your podcast :) Much love
They almost had nothing to discuss, the whole alarmist hype about climate change is a hype and basically the journalist talks too much without saying anything and seems to criticize using cost/benefit analysis without proposing anything relevant to rational decision making on the matter. Thanks god I didn't waste too much time before researching this leftist BS about global warming being the end of times.
But that was the point. You think global warming means we're going to make things cleaner. They know global warming means you're going to eat bugs and live in a tiny house.
Thankx Lex, was very interesting. The optimism is something I really needed to her in the climate talk. . I would like to see more debates in such a format on different topics. Way to go!
About the 2013 Haiyan typhoon in the Philippines, part of the reason so many died was that the Tacloban Mayor refused to evacuate and thus some of his constituents followed his lead. Another is that some mangrove forests that grows on the shores have been destroyed through the years removing its protection. Those with standing mangrove forests had a lot less deaths than the denuded areas.
Interesting conversation between two people who, at least during this podcast, seem to largely agree with each other. Or perhaps too polite to challenge each other in this format? Either way, we need more in depth conversations like these as a starting point. They discuss some important concepts such as building resiliency and adaptability, next gen nuclear, the psychosocial effects of alarmism and media, etc. All valuable topics, and it is important to keep evaluating our assumptions wherever one stands on the spectrum of these issues. I liked the emphasis on finding appropriate solutions that fit specific situations and innovative thinking. That being said, I would encourage anyone who watched the entirety to also seek out the critics of the guests assertions, as there are plenty of issues worthy of challenge and deeper consideration. For example, Bjorn brings up the Green Revolution in India as a major success story, but omits many of the significant and well-documented problems that are relevant to this broader discussion of how we address climate and sustainability in a better way. It's a good example of a blind spot in a strictly economic and academic think tank type view of development, a lofty perch that can often be out of touch or indifferent to on the ground problems. Anyway, too much to tackle in the comments section. Lex, appreciate you hosting these discussions and the very thoughtful, philosophical approach. Also to your guests for being willing to dive in long form.
didn't watch it yet but im surprised as to why on the issue of climate change not bring scientists, or maybe a scientist and a person with conflicting view. Bjorn from wikipedia: Lomborg's views and work have attracted scrutiny in the scientific community.[4][5][6] The majority of scientists reacted negatively to The Skeptical Environmentalist[7] and he was formally accused of scientific misconduct over the book; the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded in an evaluation of the book that "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited."[8] His positions on climate change have been challenged by experts and characterised as cherry picking.[6][9]
@@colinpalmer9070 Was thinking the same thing. Writing from Switzerland where it'll be above 50 degrees for nearly the entire month of February. Anyone who has eyes not up their rectum should be rightfully alarmed, and not thinking about zoning...
@@colinpalmer9070 loll idk about the oil but bjorn i think is clearly on the statu quo side with the 300 economist, on his side. theres a lack of perspective behind a lotss of what he say. He is well spoken and convincing, but if you dig a little you can find flaws and counter arguments pretty easily
I appreciate the effort, but a lot of people in the comments are just ball-washing Lex instead of providing constructive criticism. I found this "debate" to be quite listless and lacking coherent threads. Much of what the guests said seemed disconnected with what the other was saying. And Lex still has a terrible habit of asking what seems to be a complex question, but then ends the question with a closed-ended false dichotomy. This should have been much better.
Neither of these guys are “skeptics” . This what you call weasel move trying to form consensus by interviewing two guys on the same side and pretend he’s covering the real questions
@@brodyhess5553 If you mean neither of them are skeptical about whether or not humans contribute to climate change, that's because it's not really a reasonable position at all. Those "skeptics" are the equivalent of people who believe vaccines have microchips or give you autism; excluding them might seem bad if you agree with their opinions, but in reality if you're still on that page you have nothing meaningful to contribute to the conversation.
Jordan Peterson has been having this conversation for several years now. It's nice to see people like Lex spreading this awareness, given what the authoritarians will do with the momentum of the consensus narrative if unquestioned by the ignorant masses. It's the next thing. Brace yourself.
@@JohnChampagne Exactly. I don't know, neither do you, and we are having irreconcilable trust issues with establishment authorities on these matters. I'm don't claim to be a climate scientist, but I am a proficient generalist capable of understanding models and systems. I've seen enough chicanery in the climate alarmism movement over the last 30 years to be very sceptical of any claims of certainty in this field, given the abysmally inaccurate track record of model predictions. What I do know is that we need moral courage, intellectual honesty, exposure of perverse incentives and nefarious political machinations, and we need honest conversations, innovation, and proper and proportionate cost/benefit analyses of solutions and action. It's very, very hard.
@@JohnChampagne I too believe ocean acidity should be given more focus, as a environmental manager and policy analyst from Australia, it certainly worries me that one of our great attractions, The Great Barrier Reef although in recent years has had more focus on reversing and mitigating the effects, was allowed to get so bad in the first place, even when we were warned in the 90s
@@JohnChampagne This guy doesn't have an answer to your questions, he's another victim of the age of distrust. On top of people who uncritically believe everything they're told, there are also people who uncritically distrust every institution or idea usually based on single incidents of inaccuracy or falsehoods. Probably in this case the climate alarmism from the early 2000s from people like Al Gore or Michael Moore who predicted fairly extreme and imminent destruction (going from memory here, it's been a while). But basically they see everything as a nefarious plot by a shadowy cabal of globalists.
50:22 "If you have a good case, pound the case, if you have a bad case, pound the table." There is an overwhelming amount of table pounding in modern public discourse. Great quote
One problem with calculating the future of global warming and co2, is that they focus on the warming and co2 emissions, but not on many of the ways the planet is able to deal with those things to achieve a sort of equilibrium. All the fossil fuels used to be on the surface they are living organisms that ended up berried at one point or another. As this co2 re enters the atmosphere, OVER TIME the forests get bigger because they thrive on co2, as well as marine plant life from warmer waters. This allows there to be more food for more animals to repopulate and consume more of this vegetation. This is the natural balance our planet achieves, but it takes TIME, it won't happen over 50 years. How many studies are they doing on this subject specifically? They are doing a lot of number crunching about how heat and co2 enters the planet, and very little studies on how the planet reacts. So yes, its a very very very limited perspective, and because of this, people shouldn't be dictated on how to live because of some rich peoples extremely limited perspective.
That is not correct... The literature and studies on warming and CO2 mainly focus on how the planet deals with it. There is plenty of literature and plenty of studies answering all the things you mention. The negative effects are way more serious and outweigh any of the "positive" effects we can expect. The margin of error on this topic lies in how fast certain changes will take effect and how significant those negative effects will be at a given time.
@@f1owm00 ALL the predictions of the studies have been wrong. Precisely because of what I said. They use modeling and the problem with modeling is they can't take everything into account. When all your predictions are consistently wrong, we call that bad "science".
The problem with this whole debate is "climate change" has almost nullified "environmentalism". We do have more immediate environmental threats and carbon isn't one of them, the oceans need to be cleaned of plastic and heavy metals right now, but governments and mass media are so focused on the nebulous "climate change" that relative to the trillions of dollars being spent on carbon reduction the problem of ocean pollution is completely ignored.
Why? Because in between big oil and big green (largely activists groups), there are billions of dollars of dollars involved here with the interest in securing as strong a monopoly on the conversation as possible. This is also why alternative ideas are often laughed out of the room.
@@Azeminad Irrelevant. The data speaks for itself. Moreover, scientists would be rewarded greatly for disproving global warming. They'd instantly be famous.
Good comments in general but did anyone notice they used '12 years before the end if the world' statement to discredit the climate alarmist? Why would they misinterpret the urgency like that? The majority of the alarmist are not saying the 12 years deadline is not the end of the world but rather the amount of time we have left of carbon budget before the irreversible tipping points start to occur. Also, this ended up not being debate between the two speakers as basically they agreed with each other and were just adding to eachothers comments.
Yes, that comment plus the one about most people believing climate change would be the end of mankind created straw man arguments that made me lose faith in the guests early in the piece. The guests basically say human science/ingenuity will get us through (well, sufficiently rich people anyway), while dismissing scientific findings that suggest that we may end up in big trouble if we just let it all play out.
As Lex admitted, it wasn’t much of a debate. But Andrew and Bjorn did throw out a lot of straw men to disparage others who think that urgency requires not just lip service but action. Lex, perhaps try to get someone like David Roberts, Kim Stanley Robinson or Katherine Hayhoe to represent a middle ground between the status quoism of Bjorn Lomberg and the so called Doomists.
I agree. This wasn't a debate at all and they agreed on everything. They were both status quo people who said nothing really needs to be done for some reason.
@@InnsmouthAdmiral , Lomborgs schtick for the nearly 30 years is that any money subsidizing renewable energy takes bread from children’s mouths. His tune has not changed even as climate impacts have emerged and the costs to displace fossil fuels have decreased.
Here’s the problem: People on the other side of this debate will generally not want to appear. But why is this? It seems like a a fair question. I imagine Lex, who’s clearly trying to get all sides of this argument represented fairly, is encountering this problem.
Fabulous presentation. First time here and I listened to the entire "debate". I look forward to following you more Lex! Solid questioning in a relaxed manner. Love it!
Even if I watched this entire thing on mute, simply the way that Bjorn looks at Andrew with respect and a smile while he speaks, in the context of a debate, alone does so much to build civility and love in the world. I have almost completely tuned out on this topic (having once having been a climate alarmist) due to ideological politicization of the topic I just feel it is nearly impossible to know what is real. Thank you Lex for not only providing a balanced, nuanced discussion on an important topic, but also showing the world how we can have these difficult conversations in a healthy way that brings us together, rather than makes us fearful and angry just to generate clicks and votes for failing political parties.
I'm not part of this supposed 89%, my EV is driven almost 100% of the time vs my gas car, which is just gaining dust in the garage. The part he mentions for the bus he didn't apply to cars, at the city level ignore the climate issue, it reduces air pollution. Period, this alone is worth it. EV also reduce my cost of operation per year. Less to worry about and less to operate. This is fact. I can drive to the mountains outside of LA, beach, and back to my city without issue.
Thanks Lex. I know I have some biases on this topic so it's helpful to have some differing perspectives to help me evaluate my own thoughts and feelings on the subject
I agree that decent public debates need to be had on all manner of subjects, but NOT worthless debates that take 4 hours to go nowhere with people who can't ever solve any of the issues. I'm an engineer and left a lengthy detailed response to this in the Lex's pinned comment at the top.
thanks for this, Lex. as a professional self-doubter (and mechanical engineer), I am amazed by how little both of your guests seem to understand about production and technology in general (I'm referring to the EV bit) and still they feel entitled to talk about it rather than replying with an honest "I'm not the best person to ask"
You started of by saying how little in general then previced it by direct reference to EV Tech . Try to be more precise and what didn't they mention about EV tech that you can teach us
As an ecologist and conservationist, the argument that we are living in a greener world only (1:05:00) highlighted the huge blind spots present within this debate. What a bizarre argument to make! Who cares if there is more biomass if it isn’t capable of supporting functioning ecosystems.
Love the debate format. Please do more of these, Lex. I'm confident history will reflect on you as one of the greatest philosophical minds of our time.
Very interesting interview! When you had the discussion about authorities in Pakistan and Germany blaming global warming for various disasters I had a thought about the people who are probably going to have serious trouble feeding themselves this year... I have already seen people who claim that the food insecurity in places that used to get some of their food supply from Ukraine and Russia is also caused by global warming 😒.
Our Primeminister in New Zealand is an alarmist on the spectrum. She uses it for political gain. So a number of us are more afraid of totalitarianism than climate change.
Thank you so much for talking about climate change in such detail! This really clears things up and it will be easier to not think catastrophe when I hear about it going forward.
No, I am disappointed with Bjørn Lomborg. In 2012 I was at one of his talks here in Denmark, he said "if we just had a cheap source of energy we should use it everywhere". So now 10 years later just like at the talk in 2012 it is still all about Whataboutism. No reason to solve any of our problems, especially not climate or energy, because there is always another problem we should fix first. So why is this wrong in 2022? Why should climate and energy be the first problem we humans solved? I will tell you, in 2020 a "MIRACLE" happened solar panels became the cheapest source of electricity in human existence, and do you know what is the second cheapest source of electricity? Wind power! So when Bjørn Lomborg still to this day in 2022 say we shouldn't solve our energy and climate problems he is DEAD WRONG. The sooner and faster we switch to wind+solar the cheaper everything will be for us humans. Bjørn Lomborg you are smart, you should know this! So what happened in the last 10 years? Well, exactly what Bjørn Lomborg told us not to do. Lomborg said stop subsidizing wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and batteries etc... etc.. thank god nobody listened to Lomborg on this point. Since we subsidized great technologies over the last 10-15 years all around the globe this "MIRACLE" happened. They all became cheaper much cheaper! In 10 years the cost of: Wind power fell 50% Solar power fell 70% Electric vehicles fell 50% Batteries fell 90% Because of previous subsidizes we managed to make a fossil free future a viable options at low cost and we accelerated to adoption of clean solutions. We have been soo successful that new wind and solar farms around the world are being installed without any government money! Yet to this day fossil fuel remains the biggest subsidized industry on the planet while wind, solar and EV companies are thriving on fewer and fewer subsidizes. We have a bright future because we didn't listen to Lomborg back in 2012, why should we now?
@@Arpedk Wind is such a bad thing to invest in. Way too unreliable and it destroys other forms of energy production by making the price energy insanely variable. In a storm electricity is free and with no wind very expensive. Other sources simply can't afford that kind of competition.
@@Arpedk absolute fucking lies its not cheap because its not reliable, spoken like a truly privileged person who has no idea how much people around the world need energy, and also spoken like someone who doesn't actually follow the data for global warming. He also does still recommend investments in renewables, just not this absolutely unrealistic joke of a goal to replace 50+% of our electricity by 20XX. Do me a favor, stop participating in society or using anything that benefits from our energy based economy, since a complete breakdown of this economy is what you're advocating for. And it would hardly slow down global warming. What a joke.
@@Crateria Maybe you should do the numbers before you talk. I have done the calculation and wind+solar is much cheaper than fossil fuels. There is no breakdown since the transition is still taking +30 years to complete. At the moment without government incentives wind+solar is already trending for 40% of global electricity production in 2030. Why should we actively stop a transition that is happening by itself by economic reasons?
Lex, this episode is lot better than Joe's episode with Lomborg. Joe came across as overly combative to the point that I, as a listener, became uncomfortable. Your pushbacks, in contrast, came across as very fair. It's a hard line to walk. Nonetheless, you've exceeded my expectations! You also did a very good job of this in the Ye episode. Keep it up!
The most information I have ever gotten about climate change in my life... This episode speaks volumes about Lex and his support for an open discussion on hot topics. On the other hand it says just as much of useless media, school system and the establishment which reports, teaches or commands with focusing only on the side of the story which benefits them, when the 1st and most important point of all those 3 is "WORKING FOR the PEOPLE".
still a question why a scientist from one field would interview on the topic of climate change a journalist and an author but not other scientists from fields of climate science when he's asking questions about climate change.
Here are the timestamps. Please check out our sponsors to support this podcast.
0:00 - Introduction & sponsor mentions:
- Eight Sleep: www.eightsleep.com/lex to get special savings
- Linode: linode.com/lex to get $100 free credit
- InsideTracker: insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off
- Onnit: lexfridman.com/onnit to get up to 10% off
1:51 - Politics of climate change
18:53 - Greta Thunberg
25:23 - Electric cars
32:45 - Economy
40:22 - Journalism
54:23 - Human emissions
1:12:11 - Worst-case climate change scenario
1:32:32 - Hurricanes
1:51:20 - Climate change vs Global warming
1:55:27 - Climate alarmism
2:10:17 - Economic models
2:41:44 - Climate change policies
2:57:46 - Nuclear energy
3:04:22 - Alex Epstein
3:14:52 - Public opinion on climate change
3:36:49 - US presidents
3:47:27 - Advice for young people
4:01:02 - Meaning of life
First :3
If one zooms out the horizon, climate change debate is meanlingless... Fossile fuel will run out whether climate change has any effect on human or not. Renwable, such as, Wind, Tidal, Geo, Solar, Nuclear, even Fusuion are not only cheaper than fossile in the long run but more important a combination of them it can be easily transferrable to other planets other than just Earth....
@@AB-gj8re calm down climate karen
Lomborg is a known liar for attention. Big mistake to have him on. He's a sickly drama queen, shifting stance to whatever he thinks will get him attention.
loser ad homs
In an era of short attention spans, it's a relief to see someone creating in-depth, long-form content with real substance. Fantastic work. Thank you
nothing says "short attention span" like the rise of the long form podcast??? kids used to watch MTV and play Video Games that lasted a couple hours (today's games can go 100+ hours)... in public the youth used to do nothing when they hung out with their parents just waisting their time, now they have access to the internet... what are you talking about???
I watched like 10 mins, I’m sure the rest was great though
Playing mind numbing video games or watching dopey music videos is not the same as 4 hrs of nuanced discussion on climate science. Let alone the dopomine tik tokers. Stupid comment.
Read a book .peace .
It feels like a true flex to say I watched the 7+ hour episode on how to fix society in one go 💪🏽
The amount of amazing content Lex has been putting out recently is staggering
STAGGERING
Recently? nah not recently
I didn't think he could keep it up! But he's still trending upwards!
Lex knows more about the subject than both of these plugs
ua-cam.com/video/hwMPFDqyfrA/v-deo.html potholer54 destroyed bjorn analysis on ev vehicles!
This is not a debate. There is not a single contradiction happening between these guys. Revkin seems kind of unable to argue. They are just talking to Lex but not to each other.
Ur dumb. The title says it’s about the climate change debate that they were going to debate each other.
Would only add that they seem to agree on most things anyway.
Then you got the people bellow saying it was a great debate....bruh this ain't a debate
That’s because there really is no debate once you get two clear headed people together
@@MichaelStanwyck So much of what they said is hugely up for debate, obviously.
Arrogant centrists have a logical fallacy ingrained in them that assumes because they're in the centre they must be the "responsible, clear headed adults in the room". As the centre of politics collapses around us, this gets clearer by the day.
I love that there is no intro music in Lex podcast. It feels so real and natural, like it is happening right now
Ironically, the reason for no intro music is grasping music's utility is outside Lex Fridman (TM)'s capabilities
@@HarryPainter he hasn’t gotten that software patch yet
I really hate the intros that are in most podcasts. They’re a waste of our precious time & do absolutely zero good.
@@HarryPainter.
@@Lurch685 He is a robot but he actually can play the hell out of the guitar. Dude is Batman.
Lex has expanded my horizons more in the last 6 months that the previous 20 years, I’ve rediscovered critical thinking, challenged my assumptions and perceptions of the world around me and definitely triggered my personal Unherding. Thank you for the enlightenment
Hmm I recommend watching some talks of Michael Parenti , it will open a different dimensions in your thinking and you will thank me later . ✌️
He covers capitalism , climate,politics , IR , military , media , culture , systems etc ….
Lex is definitely great much better than Rogan who went down the right wing rabbit hole z
@@xShariNgaN01x Can you elaborate further how Rogan went down the right wing hole?
He’s a trickster for sure . These two guys aren’t even on a different side about the debate lpl
@@brodyhess5553 Exactly. This is half-assed propaganda targeting an intellectual audience who are made to feel like they're watching a debate.
@@henryjfischer yes and not compelling either but alternatives in dumbed down education systems
What I love about this channel is that people interviewed, get to talk to the point that they hear themselves, and almost question what they are saying because we are actually hearing them out.
So, psychoanalysis, basically
Good way to put it that they’re, well, no right.
Legit. I have turned a few people on to lex and there abillity to hear an aposing perspective as there own without starting a war has improved. I have thouht about walking in his shoes and making my own chanelle like this.
You know its obvious lex was well ruted in retention of knowlage before he started this. Id love to have been a fly on the wall to see how much his guests have expanded his mind and understanding
Neither of these guys describe the real problem we are facing. They are journalists and not scientists. The left and the scientific institutions have turned science into pay for play advocacy. They started with climate change and copied that approach with Covid. So they destroyed earth science and medicine in a decade.
I am a scientist. The saturation phenomena of co2 has been known since 1901. The effects of co2 can’t increase much more than is currently being observed. This has been shown and repeated in laboratory tests for a century. There is so much money and power to be gained by this issue. Thus censorship and “fact-checks”. Science has changed from data and skepticism to modeling and advocacy. Anyone who can reason should be able to understand why the sky is now falling.
Literally everyone else has already interviewed these guys
How thirsty we all are for these kinds of conversations.
Thank you Lex for making it possible:)
Pakistan destroyed their own country by over population of at least 200 million in 40 years. Shame on them
I respect your sentiment but, seriously, this was not stimulating. Real debates are stimulating. These two guys tiptoed pathetically. Draw out the disagreements or find a new pursuit, Lex.
@@henryjfischer get a grip
Love that this is billed as a 'debate', but it's really just a great, perfectly civil, discussion. I felt good hearing them after thinking it was going to be contentious.
It's sad that a civil discussion is no longer associated with the word 'debate'.
Is there something wrong with debates? Especially when there is such a huge divide between the sides? If all they do is agree with one another, then did it occur to you that maybe these two don't represent the different sides of the debate very well?
Thank you, Lex. We need this conversation.
We really don't.
There's been hotter times and there's been colder times in the billions of years earth has existed. Humans thinking they have any control over the climate changing is a joke.
I didn’t realize climate change was even up for debate. Maybe that’s the problem.
@@FarticusSnottington you want people to debate how many poor souls died in a mass genocide? Yikes bro maybe detach from the internet for while
@@LowTide941 The solution is up for debate. The best path forward is uncertain.
Appreciate the community your team is building and allowing us a space to listen to these works.
I hate that we slowly converted environmental problems into the clima problem. If we solve our crimes on rivers and forests and landfills we would solve alot. I grew up in east germany and after 30 years and a lot of effort and well spent money we are getting healthy rivers back. Lets work on stuff like that way more...
Yea, thats what makes me angry about the current climate activism. It's polarising the population. Most ppl would be on board with a big movement to address the damage we're causing ecologies but I think most thoughtful ppl are not going to buy into this apocalyptic climate cultisness that's happening, and rightly so.
@@timh7882 climate change is fundamentally different to wetland restoration though because it requires international cooperation on emissions rather than controlling point-source pollution. It isn't something that can be addressed by the sum of fixing all of the rivers and local ecological degradation. It is, however, having severe ecological consequences at the local scale.
@@timh7882 Saying you care about the environment but not climate change is idiotic. Climate change will cause more devastation than environmental pollution or degradation
Climate scientists have told the story of climate change since 1950 to the public, and nothing really happened. So why the hell are we surprised by some people's fear and outrage? This outrage comes too late and too soft. Change of power requires outrage, and to move from one to the other energy source will cause changes in power. Climate and environment are connected, but they are not the same. If you make the rivers cleaner, but the CO2 still goes up, the planet will be uninhabitable regardless of your clean river.
@@benediktzoennchen humans have been preaching about a forthcoming apocalypse since literally the dawn of history. That aspect of our nature is clearly involved in this issue.
None of the cllimate shifts we're seeing will make the world uninhabitable, believe they will is maniacal.
This is a very serious and well conducted interview. I feel way more people should hear it.
Love the content, I listen to your show while working overnight shifts. Will listen to this one tonight, thanks for what you do.
I love getting paid for listening to Lex - its one of my favourite 'states'! I love put him on and then do my sketching/designing - two sides of my brain firing at once.
Me too.
I think it's the job of the viewers of this podcast to distribute this episode and other ones to people who don't watch new media. People need to switch away from the shit show of television and start tuning in to the channels which are promoting empowered discussion for everyday people to understand and not get all hyped up in a non useful way. Stay blessed everyone!
I do that quite often and I find that most people don’t want to sit through a 2 3 or 4 hour podcast
@@bbinder5868 I completely agree with you. Perhaps instead of getting them to watch it on their own, watch it together or as a group. I always try and watch with someone like my wife. Over a couple of days. Makes it very interesting. You'd be surprised who might want to view it together! But I agree with the sentiment man very difficult.
There’s no point ppl don’t care if they did they’d seek it themselves
@@alep7358 not entirely true, but I see what your saying. People do care about these issues, there just not presented in ways which people think they can digest it or make the time for ir
Who the heck is getting their information from TV? The over 70s maybe?
This is exactly what the world needs more of. Thank you Lex
Podcasts/Debate channel would be very nice
Is this an honest conversation? Or a polite fake show? I'm afraid to waste my time on it if it's not the former.
@@balazsmolnar2386 It's honest. Just know Bjorn is an economist not an ecologist.
@@balazsmolnar2386 it’s a waste . The first few minutes in they both say they believe in AGW lol. Lex is such a weasel 😂. He dosent like extremists” he says so he won’t have lindzen or christy on .
@@hurkamur1 economic science is the best field to understand statistics and the difference between real data and predictions...correlation not being causation...selection bias etc..many doctors in the medical field and "climate specialists" seem to have forgotten that lately... maybe bc certain interest groups throw around big money for PR on that topics..just a guess
This is exactly the kind of conversations that should be commonplace in this new century. Lex, I thank your mother for bringing such a treasure into this world. I'll listen to this one over n over.
lex was a test tube baby. please use discretion when making assumptions about birth circumstances /s
Why didn’t he have a climate scientist in such an important ‘debate’?
@@tubecated_development because climate change is a total scam
The doctor that built his home up in the FL panhandle, which saw each and every single home aside from his destroyed by hurricane Michael in 2017, says he only spent about 15% more when building it to make it 250mph wind and surge proof. It stood there alone with hardly any damage at all. Focusing on cost-effective immediate solutions is absolutely the best way to go, unfortunately that doesn’t generate as many clicks or headlines.
15% is not cost-effective. House prices are already a stretch.
@@2ez_travis899 This was a house built immediately in front of the water. With what a beachfront house costs, and considering the audience that buys them, 15% is negligible. Mind you, this is percent of general construction cost, not of land and fixtures. Regardless, the point is that we should be dumping the “build it good enough and get insurance” model and adopt an approach where homes can survive these 1-in-100 year events. It’s doable.
@@jester9118 youre asking construction corps to spent more on every house built. they will not spend that money unless forced by the government. in the US, this is a big no-no.
@@sginrummy88 they don't necessarily have to be forced by the government, they could be forced by the insurance companies. It's not like the insurance companies like having to pony up for these massive claims every time a hurricane comes through.
@@sginrummy88 The US government already forces climate rules onto corporations. So, I dont understand your point.
Right on Lex thank you for all of these great podcasts !
You lead great topics with great guests. Love you Lex.
Dear Lex,
thank you for this episode. I would be really eager to see a follow up.
What I would consider to be really valuable, would be a discussion with climate scientists, ideally from people who worked on the IPCC reports.
May be someone like Saleemul Huq, who might challenge some of the views lined out by Bjørn Lomborg.
Sixth Mass Exinction,Abrupt Climate ,Overpopulation And Overconsumpton Of Natural Resources-This Will Have Grave Consequences For Global Industrial Civilization!!! Comments Welcome!!!
I think the problem at this point is that so, so many people simply dont trust that the modern science community isnt as corrupt as the federal government. COVID science did no favors for the trust level between the public and the scientific community...... especially where public policy and people bank accounts could be influenced by the findings of these scientists. Like it or not $cience has become a major part of "science" in the public perception and Im not sure the trust level will ever get back to where it once was.
It would be better to balance this interview by interviewing someone from the _OTHER_ side of the issue, who recognizes that there's really no scientific evidence supporting claims that climate change is net-harmful. The _CO2 Coalition_ has many distinguished member scientists who could ably represent that viewpoint.
@@ncdave4life No as that is a false "balance" with the deniers un-supported by peer reviewed science, data and facts.
@@gzcwnk If that is what you think, then you are obviously unfamiliar with the peer-reviewed literature. Let's see if youtube will let me post a few relevant DOIs for you, to get started:
10.1007/s10018-020-00263-w
10.1371/journal.pone.0198928
10.1111/gcb.13263
10.1002/grl.50563
10.1111/gcb.12830
10.1016/j.foreco.2015.12.042
10.1038/nclimate3004
10.1038/scientificamerican11271920-549
10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.11.015
10.1016/j.jplph.2009.01.003
10.1080/00103624.2018.1448413
10.3389/fpls.2017.01546
10.1111/1365-2745.13049
10.48550/arXiv.2103.16465
10.48550/arXiv.2006.03098
10.1038/ncomms8182
10.1038/npre.2012.7067.1
Thank you for this content. I am a keen follower of the way you ask and push people on matters in a calm fair and open manner with good faith. Excellent job!
Thank you for everything you do Lex, Thank you for inspiring me to be a better, more loving human being. And thank you for always calling us "dear friends"
You don't want agreement, you want cooperation. Thanks Lex, you are doing an amazing job expanding minds with your interviews.
WOW 🤩 I just finished this podcast on Spotify and I feel better. I understand now, solutions are much more complicated and time consuming as we think. But I understand also that there is more time then 12 years and we are definately not doomed! 😅
Thank you Lex for having so interesting guests and great conversations that educate us on so many levels 🙏🏼
Thanks for your comment, it saved me from wasting my time :)
@@LightSearch hahaha yeah, basically it is like: it's a hype to steal more money in taxes from the people and waste it in stuff instead of actually fixing thigs. Regular status quo thing.
12 years* if we actually start doing something about it. Hahahah. Look at both US presidential candidates and most EU elections. Climate change? Who is that? Sit on your ass and vote for the guy that makes it worse though. Unless you want to "start fixing" it in 12 years? Hahaha
Ahh, yes, there is more time ... the argument from the 70s of the last century again.
Excellent discussion! Four hours and it’s worth the re-listen! Thank you Lex
It is..and shamefully Bjorn Lomborg who was supposed to take a position here in Australia in 2015 at the University of Western Australia was virtually 'ran out of town' with 'fire and pitchforks' by the Woke mob of far left students, faculty and Greens politicians. Unfortunately, this kind of reasoned and rational discussion does not exist among the MSM, Academia and political class in Australia..and that's a REAL shame for us.
Finally, Lex your singlehandedly sorting out all the BS for the human race.
@@fullsend8738 "scientific consensus" doesn't exist. That isn't how the scientific method works. It requires skepticism.
@@fullsend8738 you sure sound impartial... "scientific consensus" lol
@@notinterested8452 your brain is tiny
@@trel9388 it's crazy that you are being serious. We have no respect for academia today you psychos will send us back to the dark ages
@@joeschmo3485 you absolute freak
Please do more of these Lex!
I agree that decent public debates need to be had on all manner of subjects, but NOT worthless debates that take 4 hours to go nowhere with people who can't ever solve any of the issues.
I'm an engineer and left a lengthy detailed response to this in the Lex's pinned comment at the top.
Hats off to all of you who made it thru 4 HOURS of this stuff.
It’s not hard when it’s this relevant to the future of our civilization
It’s relevant to policy and how that effects freedom and prosperity not much else.
@@freemocean489 which is directly tied to how our society operates and determines what characteristics it will foster in the future.
@@Thyrion07 oh we're so fucked. After 4 hours of this there's no other conclusion that comes to my mind.
Lex coming with the HEAT lately 🔥
I see what you did there lol
@@sonny5068 hahah.. I thought about adding "no pun intended"..but I didn't think anyone would get it 😂🤙🏼
He’s definitely not the only one it’s getting way too hot in here
@@Cardioid2035 I feel like taking off all my clothes.
Really a conversation rather than a debate. I don't think there was an ounce of disagreement on anything here. At any rate, this was a very illuminating podcast, and has peeked my interest to look at these studies myself.
Conflict drives progress not non commital positions
They didn't agree on the the extent to which the sea levels would rise.
Radio Ecoshock has a lot of interviews with scientists on it.
Reddit/climate change and Reddit/collapse also contain a lot of interesting material.
@@mufasafalldown8401 Yes, and for such an important issue too
Bjorn is such a stone when he listens. By that you can tell he isn't waiting to say his next "premeditated line"
Fr I noticed in the first few minutes that he looks like he's straight up paralyzed
@Scotch Barrel um, ok
When u lose a debate, start calling names.
Lex, the reason your channel is going to explode beyond your wildest dreams is because you are literally the only real independent and unbiased journalist I could find on the internet! Love your work!
Absolutely. I used to think Joe was unbiased but while he is willing to have a lot of people on his podcast he's always speaking to them from a point of bias. Joe's good in that he's willing to platform people who most won't but he has a hard time not taking a side. Lex's method of making people steelman their opponents ideas is probably some of the best journalism I've seen in a while.
Unfortunately in the Destiny podcast I heard Lex mention that Joe and others were telling him to take a stronger opposition to people he's talking to about ideas he does not agree with. I wish I could yell into that podcast at that point. If I wanted to listen to the JRE I would tune in there, and I do occasionally but Lex's podcasts appeal is that he doesn't attack people he doesnt agree with from the get go. He talks to them. Let's them speak and get their ideas out and I think Lex understands that just because he's got a successful podcast doesn't mean he's going to be right about each and every topic ever in existence. I think Joe sometimes forgets that.
He is a great journalist and we need more of him, however the real reason why there isn't many independent and unbiased journalist around is because they all get deplatformed from social networks like you tube if it doesn't fit the world economic forums agenda.
Check out Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan. He’s very different from Lex. It’s goofy and fun but great gonzo journalism.
unbiased journalism does not exist, but lex really lets his guests appear as themselves and it is very impressive.
@@theholistic360coach Which is ? I’ve checked their website and nothing there worries me.
Was it supposed to be a debate between Lex and the guests or the guests against each other? It seemed like the two guests came from a very similar position.
Also, why whenever I see climate skeptics on tv, they are not scientists first and foremost. Here one is trained in journalism and the other is trained in political science.
exactly.
@@Sapnfap the longer the podcast goes on the more cynical it gets. They hook you in at the beginning by acknowledging anthropogenic climate change is real, then gradually get more and more dismissive of any of the dangers. Bjorn even argues at one point that 'we are not getting worse, we are getting better more slowly' like there is a model saying this. There is something very off about the whole thing
@@chrisbirch4150 Oh, I thought you were saying the opposite lol! I was disappointed that they agreed on virtually everything instead of having a genuine debate on the merits of anthropogenic driven climate change.
People have good reason to be skeptical of the anthropogenic driven narrative. The models have routinely been proven wrong and revelations of the past 2 years alone during covid have shown scientists can get co-opted for govt. agendas and easily silenced aswell.
@@Sapnfap I guess we disagree on that one
All the proper scientists, like Physicists, have been driven out by ‘Climate Scientists’ with vested interests. It’s verifiable by the truly curious.
Thank you Lex. My brain is relieved. I have my bias and I have my opinions and my brain appreciates nothing more than an opportunity to get out of my echo chamber.
You know Bjorn is not a scientist. He's a conservative bullhorn that has been proven to be lying/misinforming a number of times. He should probably have someone shit in his mouth.
Both of these guys believe in AGW . Bjorns not on the other side of the debate . It’s two people on the same side of the argument
@@ConnorMedia what?
@@brodyhess5553 There is rarely ever a debate that makes it to any appreciable size audience. It’s not a debate if both people represent slight variations on the same side. But we will have to put up with this for the next ten years probably, or at least until economies really start to collapse enough.
@@brodyhess5553 Yes, I mean I've only watched little over 1 hour, but it seems to me both are on the centre Lex speaks of at the beginning: one a little left of centre, another a little right of centre. But they agree on way more than they disagree.
Lex loving your studio. My office/hangout room is similar with a lot of a low-sheen black surfaces contrasted with dark oak tables a shelving :)
99.9999% of comments : wow this content is so important
0.0001% of comments: actually discusses the content
Exactly, bot like behavior. Positive bots. Yeah, men discussing things, so what?
You are right. Yet human must change ways, to throw away items-and corporations can help too. Glad he’s doing this talk. If not win-win , -What?
Who are you responding to, because you sound like you are in a completely different conversation?
"You don't want agreement, you want cooperation." Love that, Mr. Revkin.
Yes it is eerily authoritarian, in all honesty it is how the left operates. “ you will own nothing and be happy” WEF
@@alsalc55 work will set us free, apparently
Lol
"If you live in a desert region, you may have to leave, as there may be no water for you in the future, and it may be very difficult for food to reach your community. Do not live near moving water, near rivers that will overflow in the face of violent weather and changing climate conditions. It is wise to move away from coastal regions that will be affected by violent weather and in many cases from certain large cities that will be subject to extreme social unrest."
This is one of the recommendations mentioned in one of the most important books I know, called *"The Great Waves of Changes - Navigating the Difficult World Ahead" by Marshall Vian Summers*
It's free to read online.
gaslight stinks. It was 6C warmer 5000 BCE, humanity thrived. holocene thermal optimum.
Thank you
@@johnchapman5125 that is at least two billion people. Likely more since with the Hadly cells expanding tropical deserts are expanding too. And in case the AMOC is collapsing, India and Westafrica will have a weaker monsoon seasons.
As someone who researched climate change a lot, I was quite staggered about the deflection and whataboutism here in the "debate". I was hoping for a discussion about climate, but instead found a lot of talk about past events, economy, and what was incorrectly predicted...
There was a brief point about worst case scenarios, where food shortage and drinkwater shortage was briefly touched. In fact that is what the whole topic is all about: climate charge affects humans, animals and plants; the world will continue regardless of anything. We can already see the effects here of harvests failing in an unprecedented scale, with India even limiting export because they are afraid they won't have enough to feed the local population. Lower lands like Holland already have issues with drinking water, for various reasons including climate change. And in parts of Africa, both food and water just became more scarce. Rich countries are mentioned - but it should be remembered that their money is only any good as long as other countries sell them food. For instance, Holland is one of the biggest suppliers of livestock- but to do this, they heavily rely on imported soya and imported fertilizer (Russia plays a role here!). The moment one of these collapses, the rest will cascade.
Given how much of a role grain plays in the Ukraine war, and how much Russia already has, its not even unlikely that Putin wanted to control the majority of that resource. Think about it for a minute - nobody fights a war just for fun; it's always about gain! When harvests fail, the best way to gain power is through food.
The harvests failing is worse than you might expect. That's mainly because the models about temperature predict an average. They don't predict weather extremes, rapid changes in the ecological system and local changes. That is also why so many crops nowadays fail.
If you were poor and food and water were an issue, what would you do? Move, right? Europe already spends hundreds of millions each year to stop people from doing just that. Not just by asking people politely or sending them home - also by paying corrupt leaders, and providing guns.
So what's next? Will the rich countries sit and wait? Will countries that starve sit and wait? Do you think we can solve this with talk, humanity and technology? Or do you believe it's more likely that we will use the weapons and influence that we already have and kill a lot of people, either indirectly or directly... Just keep in mind that we would rather buy the grain heading to Africa than share it, regardless of agreements.
So. To summarize, the worst case scenario a billion of people will die. We won't become extinct. Countries will put their own population first, famine and violence do the rest. I could be off by a factor of 10 or 50... you can decide if that gives you a better feeling about the issue or not.
With such scenarios, I for one would certainly prefer a future that gives me a bigger smile on my face.
If all that is true, then what would be the reason for holland shutting down farms? Which they are, cutting co2 emissions by closing down farms seems like the only option you don’t do.
Of course only if preventing humans from dying is your priority, and if not “overpopulation” was considered a problem from the climate change proponents,oh wait 🤔
Wow, that was illuminating! It was not as much a debate (because both participants agreed on all the prevailing issues) as it was a discussion. Thank you for doing this!
It was a couple of guys bullshitting and there was nobody there to call out their bullshit
@@OscarMaris yep theyre the hoax really :) There is not Gov in this world even disputing the climate change happening right now but these guys know better.
@@OscarMaris Those guys have decades experience in their respective fields, you have a toon link pfp. Get a life
@@skoolwifi3835 their respective fields are lying and bullshit artistry. I agree that they have a lot of experience in those fields.
@@OscarMaris what are they lying about?
Great to see this topic getting tackled! But I didn't feel it was a debate. Hope to see more viewpoints in the future.
What about:
- tipping points?
- uninhabitables places (far east, northern africa, south america, australia)?
- migration waves?
- biodiversity?
I agree, it would be nice to add a person in.
Tipping points are addressed and middle of the road predictions were used.
People have been good at converting uninhabitable places into habitable ones, on average the world isn't becoming less habitable. The zones slowly shift, most of the North is becoming an easier place to live with slightly higher temperatures.
Immigration is also mostly driven by poverty, poverty dictates how well people deal with climate.
I really think well informed economists are the best to talk about this issue.
It's easy for ecologists to say stop polluting without seeing the the full story of what energy means to people.
That said it would have been nice to have an ecologist POV to steelman that side
Damn your lineup of guests is on fire 🔥🔥 lately.
My God ! That was 4 hours REALLY well spent. Thanks to all three of you for a truly uplifting and inspiring conversation.
A journalist, an economist and and a computer scientist just put the whole climate debate into context - in a way that the many thousands of active climatologists we always hear about, never have.
The world needs so many more people like this - not shrill histrionic activists, not ostrich-like deniers - but clear-headed people who clearly understand the entire picture, who are not sufficiently ham-strung by politics or ideology, to obscure the ability to chart a logical AND sustainable way forward.
Shame that food and meat consumption didn't get discussed. Very good discussion though! Much needed nuanced discussion to calm everyone down a bit.
As much as I agree with some of the points being brought up by Bjorn idk why people consistently let him get away with arguing “the world is getting greener”. He regularly brings this up and by doing so undermines the level of hardscaping, land use conversion, habitat functionality reduction, and overall ecosystem alteration that is globally taking place in both the global south/north. You can’t tell me the world is “getting greener” and plants are “happier”when we have more asphalt in parking lots, highways, and shopping centers than ever before. The rate in which we dredge/fill wetlands and clear cut old productive forests has consistently been on the rise over the past century and mitigation of such activities (our ability to reconstruct such natural systems through engineering approaches) are poor at best. Claiming an area is “greener” by looking through aerial imagery also completely looks past biodiversity extent and ecosystem functionality. Often times invasive species are best at occupying spaces following large scale land use type alterations. These are details I’ve never heard brought up to Bjorn whenever he brings this argument to the table. I’m also leaving out a lot of points here. I would LOVE for @LexFridman to speak with an ecologist or conservation biologists on the topic of biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse. Climate change will have a role to play in this, though sprawling development has undoubtably been the current spear head in such conversations.
biodiversity and ecological concerns will be ignored until the systems completely collapse 😓
bc, the world is getting greener despite all that. The problem is, Lomborg is not telling you what the actual mechanism is.
Hey Lex. I am a big fan of the podcast. A guest I would love to see would be Stephen Cook, the Canadian computer scientist. Thanks for everything you do and have a good one
I recently discovered Lex's podcasts and am drawn not only to the interesting and salient guests, but also to his questions. Almost always he asks every question I would ask and questions I wish I would have thought of.
Such a good idea Lex!
Your podcast is amazing, please keep it up, there is no other place like it.
I needed this debate Lex, nobody does this any more. Thank you.
Lol 30 min in all they have done is agree.
@Virginia Theresa real pollution like hazardous material plastics and private jets are the problem. Sadly our government is so corrupt they will never do anything that will cost the rich money. we need a total revolution that gets rid of all the politicians judges and bankers. At the very least we need to make it illegal for politicians to earn money except for their wage.F
Lex, you are amazing dude! I haven't even watched this - and I intend to - but I just wanted duck in to say: 4hrs, wow! I can't think of anyone who comes even close to getting the amount of viewers with such long-fomat videos on youtube. This is a great thing, bravo!
Amazingly well moderated and put together. Go Lex!
As a student of biology I am thoroughly disappointed by this "debate." Very little disagreement actually happens in this conversation. There needs to be representation here as to what is happening to the natural world, and the positive feedback mechanisms which can be triggered by continued warming. Mass extinction, ocean acidification, concerns about things like methane sinks in the Arctic or mass wildfires/deforestation in places like the Amazon, mass crop failure, the extinction or die off of pollinator species that our crops rely on, degrading of top soil...I may have missed it, but none of these things are addressed, even in the "worst case scenario" section of the conversation.
I get the sense that these two are "on either side of the center" really means that they mostly agree with each other and that true and valuable disagreement is totally absent. It reeks of enlightened centrism and economic emphasis where the impacts go well beyond the economic.
Was really hoping for better from the podcast on this one.
I agree 100%.
finally, someone critical. I think the discussion was damaging for the course of action we have to go, and it all went wrong at the start where both guests painted the current situation as not that bad, but what do you expect from a guy who thinks we can deal with 4 degrees increase in temperature.
Please, I have no problem with you practicing your religion, it’s your right, but in private. You’re causing more harm than the Catholic Church ever did, burdening society with your doctrines, through State intervention. People are dying, many more suffering unnecessarily due to your religion which they do not practice themselves.
It’s cruel, so please, keep your worship private, and you’ll, by law, remain unmolested.
They don't know anything about all that.
Oh, you are the one who dictates what people speak about, as if they do it volunteerily, then they get it wrong, according to your higher knowledge.
Thanks for revealing you true nature to me. At least you're not intentionally deceptive about it.
Interesting conversation. Even with so much time there's still so much ground to cover. I wish they touched more on how climate impacts food insecurity.
The first thing to do is follow the money, the second thing is to contrast that with facts. Thank you Lex
That's...honestly the smartest and most concise advice I've heard on climate in a while. Very well said.
money and gained power my friend
I read this in Scarface's (Al Pacino) voice for some reason.
right, follow the money that goes to renewable energy producers- though that might not be what you were hinting
@@JoeZorzin how people can even come out with this crap is beyond me. Fossil fuel industry has far more money... Has been shown to spend huge amounts of money lobbying and covering up climate change... And now are the ones trying to get in on renewables where subsidies exist. This guy has in the past talked about renewable subsidy... Which in many countries now have been stopped because they are economically competitive. Where as fossil fuels still rake in gov money.
And climate science has been predicting this long before 'big renewable' which is still tiny compared to the fossil fuel lobby had any money to fund them... Not that there is any evidence they are.
I can only think a comment like yours is intentionally disingenuous or just utterly utterly uneducated. There is no real other explanation
This was great. Huge gratitute for your work as always, Lex, and I really appreciate the insights of these two genial "debate" guests.
And, I feel like the elephant in the room is biodiversity loss (including old-growth forest and other carbon capturing natural phenomena) and the spike in the species extinction rate, the human contributions to these and their effect on the whole system, including climate.
These issues weren't discussed at all in this conversaton, which may be because it would take another 4hours, and maybe it isn't so much in the wheel-house of Bjorn and Andrew, however, personally its a gap in my knowledge and I'd love for you to interview someone who could speak in an informed way about the relationship of these issues to climate change and the broader ecological and economic impacts, even including GM crops etc, the benefits and drawbacks...
If anyone wants to suggest an apropriate canditate I'd be interested to check out their work.
Thanks again 🙏🙏🙏
I absolutely love listening to the guests on this podcast be able to speak in a conversational format. We are so fortunate to be able to eavesdrop on some candid talk from some of the world's great thinkers.
Fine print is the front page Best quote in this post journalism age
Check out the Joscha Bach episodes. In case you haven't already. I started with the round 2.it was fascinating and inspiring
I love how much of a non-debate this turned out to be.
We'll solve climate change before Revkin puts one cohesive thought together.
Jesus, Revkin is brutal
!!! Spoiler alert !!!!
Full agreement here!😁
@@ActualFactsRacing Lmao savage but true.
You are improving a lot, Lex. Keep going! this is great stuff
I agree on the ideology of being constructive and efficient, but I wish they were more precise about what to implement.
I wish it was more focus on discussing and confronting their ideas.
After one hour, I couldn't convince myself to keep listening.
Anyway always a pleasure to discover new people and ideas thanks to your podcast :)
Much love
They almost had nothing to discuss, the whole alarmist hype about climate change is a hype and basically the journalist talks too much without saying anything and seems to criticize using cost/benefit analysis without proposing anything relevant to rational decision making on the matter. Thanks god I didn't waste too much time before researching this leftist BS about global warming being the end of times.
But that was the point. You think global warming means we're going to make things cleaner. They know global warming means you're going to eat bugs and live in a tiny house.
Thankx Lex, was very interesting. The optimism is something I really needed to her in the climate talk. . I would like to see more debates in such a format on different topics. Way to go!
About the 2013 Haiyan typhoon in the Philippines, part of the reason so many died was that the Tacloban Mayor refused to evacuate and thus some of his constituents followed his lead. Another is that some mangrove forests that grows on the shores have been destroyed through the years removing its protection. Those with standing mangrove forests had a lot less deaths than the denuded areas.
This is the perfect format. Thank you Lex.
Interesting conversation between two people who, at least during this podcast, seem to largely agree with each other. Or perhaps too polite to challenge each other in this format? Either way, we need more in depth conversations like these as a starting point. They discuss some important concepts such as building resiliency and adaptability, next gen nuclear, the psychosocial effects of alarmism and media, etc. All valuable topics, and it is important to keep evaluating our assumptions wherever one stands on the spectrum of these issues. I liked the emphasis on finding appropriate solutions that fit specific situations and innovative thinking. That being said, I would encourage anyone who watched the entirety to also seek out the critics of the guests assertions, as there are plenty of issues worthy of challenge and deeper consideration. For example, Bjorn brings up the Green Revolution in India as a major success story, but omits many of the significant and well-documented problems that are relevant to this broader discussion of how we address climate and sustainability in a better way. It's a good example of a blind spot in a strictly economic and academic think tank type view of development, a lofty perch that can often be out of touch or indifferent to on the ground problems. Anyway, too much to tackle in the comments section. Lex, appreciate you hosting these discussions and the very thoughtful, philosophical approach. Also to your guests for being willing to dive in long form.
didn't watch it yet but im surprised as to why on the issue of climate change not bring scientists, or maybe a scientist and a person with conflicting view. Bjorn from wikipedia:
Lomborg's views and work have attracted scrutiny in the scientific community.[4][5][6] The majority of scientists reacted negatively to The Skeptical Environmentalist[7] and he was formally accused of scientific misconduct over the book; the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded in an evaluation of the book that "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited."[8] His positions on climate change have been challenged by experts and characterised as cherry picking.[6][9]
You are being way too polite here. This is just a pair of oil shills.
@@colinpalmer9070 Was thinking the same thing. Writing from Switzerland where it'll be above 50 degrees for nearly the entire month of February. Anyone who has eyes not up their rectum should be rightfully alarmed, and not thinking about zoning...
@@colinpalmer9070 So wrong. They have nothing to do with oil. You didn't listen to the logic and solutions proposed?
@@colinpalmer9070 loll idk about the oil but bjorn i think is clearly on the statu quo side with the 300 economist, on his side. theres a lack of perspective behind a lotss of what he say. He is well spoken and convincing, but if you dig a little you can find flaws and counter arguments pretty easily
I appreciate the effort, but a lot of people in the comments are just ball-washing Lex instead of providing constructive criticism. I found this "debate" to be quite listless and lacking coherent threads. Much of what the guests said seemed disconnected with what the other was saying. And Lex still has a terrible habit of asking what seems to be a complex question, but then ends the question with a closed-ended false dichotomy. This should have been much better.
Great episode. Looking forward to other debates on difficult topics, though I don't think this conversation was a debate. Thank you, Lex.
Definitely, it looked more like a friendly chat. If all debates like this end with a consensus.
Thought I had a great understanding about energy consumption but this podcast changed my position. What a great pod. Thanks for the banger Lex.
which positions specifically were changed? would love to know
what were your understanding before and what is your position changed from and too? strange comment.
@@ReggaeRemake little triggered? Probably know who you listen to
@@TechProFury just a strange comment imo who do i listen to ? im confused now if im honest :D
This podcast keeps getting better and better! Please don't slow down the magic, Lex! ❤️
Neither of these guys are “skeptics” . This what you call weasel move trying to form consensus by interviewing two guys on the same side and pretend he’s covering the real questions
@@brodyhess5553 If you mean neither of them are skeptical about whether or not humans contribute to climate change, that's because it's not really a reasonable position at all. Those "skeptics" are the equivalent of people who believe vaccines have microchips or give you autism; excluding them might seem bad if you agree with their opinions, but in reality if you're still on that page you have nothing meaningful to contribute to the conversation.
Finally, a reasonable, good faith discussion on this important issue. Only with Lex these days!
Jordan Peterson has been having this conversation for several years now. It's nice to see people like Lex spreading this awareness, given what the authoritarians will do with the momentum of the consensus narrative if unquestioned by the ignorant masses. It's the next thing. Brace yourself.
@@JohnChampagne Exactly. I don't know, neither do you, and we are having irreconcilable trust issues with establishment authorities on these matters. I'm don't claim to be a climate scientist, but I am a proficient generalist capable of understanding models and systems. I've seen enough chicanery in the climate alarmism movement over the last 30 years to be very sceptical of any claims of certainty in this field, given the abysmally inaccurate track record of model predictions. What I do know is that we need moral courage, intellectual honesty, exposure of perverse incentives and nefarious political machinations, and we need honest conversations, innovation, and proper and proportionate cost/benefit analyses of solutions and action. It's very, very hard.
@@JohnChampagne I too believe ocean acidity should be given more focus, as a environmental manager and policy analyst from Australia, it certainly worries me that one of our great attractions, The Great Barrier Reef although in recent years has had more focus on reversing and mitigating the effects, was allowed to get so bad in the first place, even when we were warned in the 90s
It's not good faith if Lomborg is invited.
@@JohnChampagne This guy doesn't have an answer to your questions, he's another victim of the age of distrust. On top of people who uncritically believe everything they're told, there are also people who uncritically distrust every institution or idea usually based on single incidents of inaccuracy or falsehoods. Probably in this case the climate alarmism from the early 2000s from people like Al Gore or Michael Moore who predicted fairly extreme and imminent destruction (going from memory here, it's been a while). But basically they see everything as a nefarious plot by a shadowy cabal of globalists.
Content just keeps on getting better, this is just the kind of content I want to see. Would love to see more debates :)
50:22 "If you have a good case, pound the case, if you have a bad case, pound the table."
There is an overwhelming amount of table pounding in modern public discourse. Great quote
One problem with calculating the future of global warming and co2, is that they focus on the warming and co2 emissions, but not on many of the ways the planet is able to deal with those things to achieve a sort of equilibrium. All the fossil fuels used to be on the surface they are living organisms that ended up berried at one point or another. As this co2 re enters the atmosphere, OVER TIME the forests get bigger because they thrive on co2, as well as marine plant life from warmer waters. This allows there to be more food for more animals to repopulate and consume more of this vegetation. This is the natural balance our planet achieves, but it takes TIME, it won't happen over 50 years. How many studies are they doing on this subject specifically? They are doing a lot of number crunching about how heat and co2 enters the planet, and very little studies on how the planet reacts.
So yes, its a very very very limited perspective, and because of this, people shouldn't be dictated on how to live because of some rich peoples extremely limited perspective.
That is not correct... The literature and studies on warming and CO2 mainly focus on how the planet deals with it. There is plenty of literature and plenty of studies answering all the things you mention. The negative effects are way more serious and outweigh any of the "positive" effects we can expect. The margin of error on this topic lies in how fast certain changes will take effect and how significant those negative effects will be at a given time.
@@f1owm00 ALL the predictions of the studies have been wrong. Precisely because of what I said. They use modeling and the problem with modeling is they can't take everything into account. When all your predictions are consistently wrong, we call that bad "science".
Thank you for what you do Lex. Your podcasts do a lot for reasoned debate and discussion in all fields!
Where are the peer reviewed publishing scientists?
Andrew is a fascinating man. I’m glad to see some healthy growth at the NYTimes.
The problem with this whole debate is "climate change" has almost nullified "environmentalism".
We do have more immediate environmental threats and carbon isn't one of them, the oceans need to be cleaned of plastic and heavy metals right now, but governments and mass media are so focused on the nebulous "climate change" that relative to the trillions of dollars being spent on carbon reduction the problem of ocean pollution is completely ignored.
I totally agree with that. Well said Bud.
Never understood why we can't discuss this. Thanks lex
Why? Because in between big oil and big green (largely activists groups), there are billions of dollars of dollars involved here with the interest in securing as strong a monopoly on the conversation as possible.
This is also why alternative ideas are often laughed out of the room.
It is substantially discussed in scientific literature.
@@RocketmanUT by scientists who are funded one way or the other.
@@Azeminad Irrelevant. The data speaks for itself. Moreover, scientists would be rewarded greatly for disproving global warming. They'd instantly be famous.
@@RocketmanUT It's not irrelevant. Funding is not given to things that challenge narratives. You can't collect data if you have no money to do so.
Good comments in general but did anyone notice they used '12 years before the end if the world' statement to discredit the climate alarmist? Why would they misinterpret the urgency like that? The majority of the alarmist are not saying the 12 years deadline is not the end of the world but rather the amount of time we have left of carbon budget before the irreversible tipping points start to occur. Also, this ended up not being debate between the two speakers as basically they agreed with each other and were just adding to eachothers comments.
Yes, that comment plus the one about most people believing climate change would be the end of mankind created straw man arguments that made me lose faith in the guests early in the piece. The guests basically say human science/ingenuity will get us through (well, sufficiently rich people anyway), while dismissing scientific findings that suggest that we may end up in big trouble if we just let it all play out.
@@betwixt3193 well said!
@@betwixt3193 Theyre not making that up though.
As Lex admitted, it wasn’t much of a debate. But Andrew and Bjorn did throw out a lot of straw men to disparage others who think that urgency requires not just lip service but action.
Lex, perhaps try to get someone like David Roberts, Kim Stanley Robinson or Katherine Hayhoe to represent a middle ground between the status quoism of Bjorn Lomberg and the so called Doomists.
I agree. This wasn't a debate at all and they agreed on everything. They were both status quo people who said nothing really needs to be done for some reason.
@@InnsmouthAdmiral , Lomborgs schtick for the nearly 30 years is that any money subsidizing renewable energy takes bread from children’s mouths. His tune has not changed even as climate impacts have emerged and the costs to displace fossil fuels have decreased.
Here’s the problem: People on the other side of this debate will generally not want to appear. But why is this? It seems like a a fair question. I imagine Lex, who’s clearly trying to get all sides of this argument represented fairly, is encountering this problem.
Fabulous presentation. First time here and I listened to the entire "debate". I look forward to following you more Lex! Solid questioning in a relaxed manner. Love it!
The level of attention each of these guys give each other makes this whole show for me.
Agreed, seldom do they cut each other off or try to talk over each other
Even if I watched this entire thing on mute, simply the way that Bjorn looks at Andrew with respect and a smile while he speaks, in the context of a debate, alone does so much to build civility and love in the world. I have almost completely tuned out on this topic (having once having been a climate alarmist) due to ideological politicization of the topic I just feel it is nearly impossible to know what is real. Thank you Lex for not only providing a balanced, nuanced discussion on an important topic, but also showing the world how we can have these difficult conversations in a healthy way that brings us together, rather than makes us fearful and angry just to generate clicks and votes for failing political parties.
That's because this wasn't a debate. They agree on practically everything.
These guys are both so moderate you can’t even tell which side is which
Thats why its useless
Excellent discussion. Sanibel Island was almost wiped out by hurricane Charley in 2004. And they keep rebuilding there.
I'm not part of this supposed 89%, my EV is driven almost 100% of the time vs my gas car, which is just gaining dust in the garage. The part he mentions for the bus he didn't apply to cars, at the city level ignore the climate issue, it reduces air pollution. Period, this alone is worth it. EV also reduce my cost of operation per year. Less to worry about and less to operate. This is fact. I can drive to the mountains outside of LA, beach, and back to my city without issue.
Seconding this! Our gas car sits and rots, the Leaf is amazing and should unironically be forced on these people by threat of violence haha
Thanks Lex. I know I have some biases on this topic so it's helpful to have some differing perspectives to help me evaluate my own thoughts and feelings on the subject
I agree that decent public debates need to be had on all manner of subjects, but NOT worthless debates that take 4 hours to go nowhere with people who can't ever solve any of the issues.
I'm an engineer and left a lengthy detailed response to this in the Lex's pinned comment at the top.
@@tonywilson4713 I'm also an engineer (an electrical power engineer). Is there a particular reason I'd want to hear your input on the matter?
@@tonywilson4713 Your comment is not visible to me there.
@@RussCR5187 I can’t locate Tony’s comment either?
The facts are already clear there's no man made climate change, this whole thing is politics
thanks for this, Lex. as a professional self-doubter (and mechanical engineer), I am amazed by how little both of your guests seem to understand about production and technology in general (I'm referring to the EV bit) and still they feel entitled to talk about it rather than replying with an honest "I'm not the best person to ask"
You started of by saying how little in general then previced it by direct reference to EV Tech .
Try to be more precise and what didn't they mention about EV tech that you can teach us
What would have been relevant to mention?
As an ecologist and conservationist, the argument that we are living in a greener world only (1:05:00) highlighted the huge blind spots present within this debate. What a bizarre argument to make!
Who cares if there is more biomass if it isn’t capable of supporting functioning ecosystems.
Bjorn is a tool
Love the debate format. Please do more of these, Lex. I'm confident history will reflect on you as one of the greatest philosophical minds of our time.
Very interesting interview!
When you had the discussion about authorities in Pakistan and Germany blaming global warming for various disasters I had a thought about the people who are probably going to have serious trouble feeding themselves this year... I have already seen people who claim that the food insecurity in places that used to get some of their food supply from Ukraine and Russia is also caused by global warming 😒.
lol
Our Primeminister in New Zealand is an alarmist on the spectrum.
She uses it for political gain.
So a number of us are more afraid of totalitarianism than climate change.
What? Wow… what an ignorant comment .
What? Wow... what an intelligent comment.
"I have great respect for Greta thuneberg." LOL!!! These guys are hysterical, but funny.
Thank you so much for talking about climate change in such detail! This really clears things up and it will be easier to not think catastrophe when I hear about it going forward.
koolaid soothes
just finished the cast .. wow, over 4 hours of knowledge, humility, and goodwill.
So excited to see Lomborg as a guest. He needs to be heard a lot more.
No, I am disappointed with Bjørn Lomborg. In 2012 I was at one of his talks here in Denmark, he said "if we just had a cheap source of energy we should use it everywhere". So now 10 years later just like at the talk in 2012 it is still all about Whataboutism. No reason to solve any of our problems, especially not climate or energy, because there is always another problem we should fix first.
So why is this wrong in 2022? Why should climate and energy be the first problem we humans solved?
I will tell you, in 2020 a "MIRACLE" happened solar panels became the cheapest source of electricity in human existence, and do you know what is the second cheapest source of electricity? Wind power!
So when Bjørn Lomborg still to this day in 2022 say we shouldn't solve our energy and climate problems he is DEAD WRONG. The sooner and faster we switch to wind+solar the cheaper everything will be for us humans. Bjørn Lomborg you are smart, you should know this!
So what happened in the last 10 years? Well, exactly what Bjørn Lomborg told us not to do. Lomborg said stop subsidizing wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and batteries etc... etc.. thank god nobody listened to Lomborg on this point. Since we subsidized great technologies over the last 10-15 years all around the globe this "MIRACLE" happened. They all became cheaper much cheaper!
In 10 years the cost of:
Wind power fell 50%
Solar power fell 70%
Electric vehicles fell 50%
Batteries fell 90%
Because of previous subsidizes we managed to make a fossil free future a viable options at low cost and we accelerated to adoption of clean solutions. We have been soo successful that new wind and solar farms around the world are being installed without any government money!
Yet to this day fossil fuel remains the biggest subsidized industry on the planet while wind, solar and EV companies are thriving on fewer and fewer subsidizes. We have a bright future because we didn't listen to Lomborg back in 2012, why should we now?
@@Arpedk Wind is such a bad thing to invest in. Way too unreliable and it destroys other forms of energy production by making the price energy insanely variable. In a storm electricity is free and with no wind very expensive. Other sources simply can't afford that kind of competition.
he's an oil plant
@@Arpedk absolute fucking lies its not cheap because its not reliable, spoken like a truly privileged person who has no idea how much people around the world need energy, and also spoken like someone who doesn't actually follow the data for global warming. He also does still recommend investments in renewables, just not this absolutely unrealistic joke of a goal to replace 50+% of our electricity by 20XX.
Do me a favor, stop participating in society or using anything that benefits from our energy based economy, since a complete breakdown of this economy is what you're advocating for. And it would hardly slow down global warming. What a joke.
@@Crateria Maybe you should do the numbers before you talk. I have done the calculation and wind+solar is much cheaper than fossil fuels.
There is no breakdown since the transition is still taking +30 years to complete. At the moment without government incentives wind+solar is already trending for 40% of global electricity production in 2030.
Why should we actively stop a transition that is happening by itself by economic reasons?
Well done. Thank you Lex for bringing these people together for a talk on something that impacts us all.
Lex, this episode is lot better than Joe's episode with Lomborg. Joe came across as overly combative to the point that I, as a listener, became uncomfortable. Your pushbacks, in contrast, came across as very fair. It's a hard line to walk. Nonetheless, you've exceeded my expectations! You also did a very good job of this in the Ye episode. Keep it up!
I love Joes podcast but he is a bit of a... Well lets just say he's not great at everything.
Jamie was especially combative
Agree,.
This isn’t a debate. It’s two guys agreeing that the media is hysterical
Lex your show is what we need right now. Rational thinking has been rejected long enough.
The most information I have ever gotten about climate change in my life...
This episode speaks volumes about Lex and his support for an open discussion on hot topics. On the other hand it says just as much of useless media, school system and the establishment which reports, teaches or commands with focusing only on the side of the story which benefits them, when the 1st and most important point of all those 3 is "WORKING FOR the PEOPLE".
still a question why a scientist from one field would interview on the topic of climate change a journalist and an author but not other scientists from fields of climate science when he's asking questions about climate change.
Wow! Super excited for this conversation. I literally just finished reading Cool It.
This is an excellent discussion and I have shared it several times. I wish more people would approach the subject in this way.
Why? These guys are charlatans
These guys are pushing a fraudulent claim
@@remcovanek2 why ?
@@remcovanek2
Troll