Bjorn is awesome! I love how he takes a very complex subject and explains it so everyone can understand. I just so wish MORE people would listen to him. Curry and Alex as well
The current sea level rise is 1 foot by 2100, not 3 feet. Given this the adaptations will be less costly, and it’s effects far less concerning. The planet doesn’t need saving from CO2, and there is no climate crisis; according to the IPCC reports.
I moved from Virginia to Arizona and adapted to the change of temperatures which are much more extreme in Arizona. I get cold and below 80° now it used to be 70°.
I appreciate, no, I have to say that I love the circumstance there are people out with this view on the whole subject. Excelent didactic output/ input 😊 Thank you. Worth mentioning but probably too much of good would be that in the past we had over mIllions of years even pretty much exactly negative corelation between CO2 and temperature. Luckily we can be sure to live in an extremely robust and balanced system, with capablemCO2 sinks and have today a very very low CO2 level compared to the past (Vostok ice core analysis).
Excellent this should be sent to every MSN and judges in every state. To prep they fir law suits to stop the lies by which we are being told we can't use natural gas and so many or restrictions costing us money and odious regulations
But there is hope: more and more people are understanding how unreasonable the Greens are, and how unsustainable, 'sustainable, renewable energy' really is. Once people start experiencing, as they are more and more, how expensive Green energy snd solutions are, they are rebelling more and more, just to that simple fact alone. Check out Alex Epstein as well, and his book 'Fossil Future'. He recently did a Kitco interview, and can be found at his channel 'Improve the Planet'.
Fantasy of todays politicians ends at taxations and prohibition. This is not how we got where we are. Administration has to get back to its roots, including central banks.
Models are not for data, they are for research direction. The meteorologists can't even be 100% correct with forecasting 3 days in advance, for heaven's sake. Politicians are negligent in their decision making based on models.
I do agree with Bjorn's assessment, but I do believe he misses some of the important fact's, like global warmings impact on the global food system. It's ok that people can move, but the fields can't be moved. So I would say he's biases are clearly visible in what statistics he chooses.
The greatest risk to food production in the world, if you believe climate will factor greatly in it, is the misdirected concentration of the worlds resources on replicating energy production with greener sources and not the adaption of agriculture to the supposedly inevitable change. You cant eat windmills and toxic batteries .
When the climate changes, why do you think the farm land also won't change? Farm systems and fields can developed. Most of the farmland in the US, and in Europe can be adapted pretty easily. If you look at the ideal growing area in the USA, the best place to grow large amounts of food, look north of it it, lots of land that with a small temp increase also great farmable land. Even where I live in Appalachia, over 20 years I was able to restart an old farm, and adapt it to growing lots of great things. My theory is we as humans will just change the food we eat. I'm far more concerned about the toxic gick, that we pour into the ground, or into our waters. All of this is why I don't think his assessment is bad
One of the factors of temperature increase is chemical reactions, like photosynthesis speed up? For every 1C increase in temp, the earth 'greens by 7% approx. This is based on the pretty well-known Arrehenius equation.
Is is the technology that gives us a flexible core supply, where we are able to build renewables and other innovations with and around. If you are not in a country like Nepal oder Austria, where water plants can supply most of the demamd, nuclear is currently the answer. IT is also innovating, and will be able to burn another 90% of what until today was considered as nuclear waste. Would you See a better concept for now?
Have slide show, will travel. A very long strawman argument designed for lesser informed audiences. A disreputable use of graphs. Not mentioned were tipping points or fifty year latent onset effects. This presentation represents a subtle shift from climate warming denialism to "they are just overreacting".
@@boo4273 One minute into the presentation Bjorn states that Global Warming is "Often exaggerated" to discredit the opposition Bjorn gives an example: "the world will end in twelve years"*. This is a SETUP (propaganda). I follow what the climate models say. The issue is given the trajectory of the climate warming curve, it would be good policy to make strong mitigation efforts now. * The twelve day comment come from Ocasio-Cortez(AOC) during an interview. AOC is a member of the US Congress and not a scientist. Using AOC to represent a scientific position is the SETUP.
Bjorn is awesome! I love how he takes a very complex subject and explains it so everyone can understand. I just so wish MORE people would listen to him. Curry and Alex as well
ua-cam.com/video/GKL8Ajefj7Y/v-deo.htmlsi=PMl0V8tp-J5r-d9P
Thank you Bjorn. These alarms are after money, big money.
This is a great presentation because it is climate realism and I've added it to one of my playlists.
The current sea level rise is 1 foot by 2100, not 3 feet. Given this the adaptations will be less costly, and it’s effects far less concerning.
The planet doesn’t need saving from CO2, and there is no climate crisis; according to the IPCC reports.
People benefit from sea-level rise (because it makes ocean-shipping easier). 30 feet by 2100 would be better than 1 foot by 2100.
Another voice of reason in the climate debate.
I moved from Virginia to Arizona and adapted to the change of temperatures which are much more extreme in Arizona. I get cold and below 80° now it used to be 70°.
Most of us adapt overnight to a 10C day-night change in temp too.
Somewhat overstated anxiety.
I appreciate, no, I have to say that I love the circumstance there are people out with this view on the whole subject. Excelent didactic output/ input 😊 Thank you. Worth mentioning but probably too much of good would be that in the past we had over mIllions of years even pretty much exactly negative corelation between CO2 and temperature. Luckily we can be sure to live in an extremely robust and balanced system, with capablemCO2 sinks and have today a very very low CO2 level compared to the past (Vostok ice core analysis).
We need to log our forest. I live in fire prone Oregon and the fires predominantly burn state and federal land that are not properly managed.
Excellent this should be sent to every MSN and judges in every state. To prep they fir law suits to stop the lies by which we are being told we can't use natural gas and so many or restrictions costing us money and odious regulations
To see 315 views after 2 days. There is no hope stopping the climate madness until it is too late.
But there is hope: more and more people are understanding how unreasonable the Greens are, and how unsustainable, 'sustainable, renewable energy' really is. Once people start experiencing, as they are more and more, how expensive Green energy snd solutions are, they are rebelling more and more, just to that simple fact alone.
Check out Alex Epstein as well, and his book 'Fossil Future'. He recently did a Kitco interview, and can be found at his channel 'Improve the Planet'.
Enough with the carbon tax!
Fantasy of todays politicians ends at taxations and prohibition. This is not how we got where we are. Administration has to get back to its roots, including central banks.
Models are not for data, they are for research direction. The meteorologists can't even be 100% correct with forecasting 3 days in advance, for heaven's sake. Politicians are negligent in their decision making based on models.
There is a difference between meteorological models and climate models. Climate models have developed and provide credible projections.
I do agree with Bjorn's assessment, but I do believe he misses some of the important fact's, like global warmings impact on the global food system. It's ok that people can move, but the fields can't be moved. So I would say he's biases are clearly visible in what statistics he chooses.
The greatest risk to food production in the world, if you believe climate will factor greatly in it, is the misdirected concentration of the worlds resources on replicating energy production with greener sources and not the adaption of agriculture to the supposedly inevitable change. You cant eat windmills and toxic batteries .
When the climate changes, why do you think the farm land also won't change? Farm systems and fields can developed. Most of the farmland in the US, and in Europe can be adapted pretty easily. If you look at the ideal growing area in the USA, the best place to grow large amounts of food, look north of it it, lots of land that with a small temp increase also great farmable land. Even where I live in Appalachia, over 20 years I was able to restart an old farm, and adapt it to growing lots of great things. My theory is we as humans will just change the food we eat. I'm far more concerned about the toxic gick, that we pour into the ground, or into our waters. All of this is why I don't think his assessment is bad
One of the factors of temperature increase is chemical reactions, like photosynthesis speed up?
For every 1C increase in temp, the earth 'greens by 7% approx.
This is based on the pretty well-known Arrehenius equation.
From Dr. John Clauser '22 Nobel Laureat in Physics: "Climate science is pseudoscience" I don't believe in climate change"
ua-cam.com/video/_kGiCUiOMyQ/v-deo.htmlsi=hq0ICZUaM3Oe5SHB
Why nuclear power plants?
Is is the technology that gives us a flexible core supply, where we are able to build renewables and other innovations with and around. If you are not in a country like Nepal oder Austria, where water plants can supply most of the demamd, nuclear is currently the answer. IT is also innovating, and will be able to burn another 90% of what until today was considered as nuclear waste. Would you See a better concept for now?
I don't like cake.
Kooky. This guy really only appeals to deeply ignorant people.
The Steamboat Institute resembles that remark.
Have slide show, will travel. A very long strawman argument designed for lesser informed audiences. A disreputable use of graphs. Not mentioned were tipping points or fifty year latent onset effects. This presentation represents a subtle shift from climate warming denialism to "they are just overreacting".
@@boo4273
One minute into the presentation Bjorn states that Global Warming is "Often exaggerated" to discredit the opposition Bjorn gives an example: "the world will end in twelve years"*. This is a SETUP (propaganda). I follow what the climate models say. The issue is given the trajectory of the climate warming curve, it would be good policy to make strong mitigation efforts now.
* The twelve day comment come from Ocasio-Cortez(AOC) during an interview. AOC is a member of the US Congress and not a scientist. Using AOC to represent a scientific position is the SETUP.