Global Warming | Bjorn Lomborg | Oxford Union
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лис 2013
- Bjorn Lomborg talks about solutions to global warming.
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
STAY CONNECTED
Twitter @ / oxfordunion
Facebook @ theoxfordunion
Oxford Union Website @ www.oxford-union.org/
Filmed on Monday 14th October 2013.
ABOUT BJORN LOMBORG:
Dr Bjorn Lomborg is the author of best-selling and controversial book 'The Skeptical Environmentalist', and is considered to be one of the most prominent intellectual commentators on climate change. He caused a storm in the scientific community by claiming that the current consensus on how to deal with environmental concerns is largely mistaken.
Arguing that "global warming is by no means our main environmental threat", Dr Lomborg has previously campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, instead arguing for adaptation to short-term temperature rises as they are inevitable, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions, and on other important world problems such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY:
The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 190 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
![How Did The Wealthy Gain Power In The Past? - Yuval Noah Harari [2015] | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TYAKHLrr51w/mqdefault.jpg)
![How Did The Wealthy Gain Power In The Past? - Yuval Noah Harari [2015] | Intelligence Squared](/img/tr.png)
Jorden Peterson recommendation is why I’m here.
Yeah, sorry for the waste of time. Jordan should know better!
It's how social media works . Very surprised Jordan is still allowed on these platforms 🤔
Same
Same
... That makes sense, Jordan is the King of the Word Salad and just as hard to parse connecting details from ! ...
So even here, kids can only talk the way they learned on Twitter
.They just want the proffesor to tell them that their parents were evil and caused all this
My generation was in university in the late 80s and early 90s. We really thought we were going to make a huge dent in pollution and the need to destroy the planets resources.......then China happened.
You’re talking nonsense
As a totalitarian communist, I prefer it when people don't ask questions or try to prioritise spending.
Exactly! Sit down and shut up!!!! And just let me handle that money for you
As a totalitarian communist, I prefer blocking all major roads and the underground in London beating my drum.
Yep, that would be far better. Lenin would agree.
You are wrong 100% to be a totalitarian communist. Better dead than red.
Bjorn fortunately handles the arrogant questions quite assertively. Hard to do when the question literally states that he doesn't know what he's taking about. Oxford students would do well to research Lomborg's life work before thinking they can just brush all of it aside after a 15 minute lecture.
I am disappointed. They certainly could have phrased their criticism is a more respectful manner. But, I have an extra decade of maturity on a lot of those students. I just hope we can find a solution to all of this mess. It's such a beautiful planet.
@@forrestl5597 look I'm french and I was wondering if in the UK students just behaved like that usually but that doesn't seem to be the case. In France we won't ever do that especially in prestigious schools because we know how much we suck compared to the different teachers
Climate change has become almost like an ideology, if you show people the inconvenient truth on how to actually make a difference, they'll just dismiss you and try to discredit you too.
When it comes to climate change, just like Trump, questions about them are not asked out of trying to learn, they are asked because they are trying to ‘gotcha’, essentially they have been indoctrinated by their professors
Wow, 5 years ago the ignorant students were just as vocal as they are today. Impressive how Bjoern handled those kids.
He simply put his tail between his legs and agreed with them...
Praxis71 No I think he handled it well.
You don’t have to be a Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos type of aggressive provocatour (btw just to be clear I don’t support the censoring or deplatforming of neither of those individuals in any way) to hold the line.
I think Bjorn was being reasonable, he didn’t really give in any of his points, he was just being constructive.
@@Praxis71 not sure you were listening.
Why does UA-cam find it necessary to link a Wikipedia article to all of Lomborg's videos? He's not even a denier. Apparently UA-cam wants to keep you safe from rational thought and make sure that instead of listening to the guy that has devoted his life to finding economic solutions to climate change, you hear from the REAL experts over at Wikipedia. (When I went to school, Wikipedia was not a valid source)
Kids defending paying their governments more money under the pretence it will solve their problems.
And western countries getting into insurmountable debt, forever slaves to the international bank cartels and subject to perpetual blackmail and extortion. That's the endgame, really.
I noticed that a lot of the younger people (students) had a very condescending tone in which they addressed the presenter of this talk. Toning down the I'm smarter than you attitude might help with people wanting to work with you more than tuning you out for sounding like a smart ass kid.
Sad the students didnt even listen to the lecture and just focused on some points to debunk and missed the whole point. It's about the cost and benefit, not about solving every single problem on the world. Its doing the most good with a limited source of ressources, we cant do everything you want like in a fantasyworld without consequences.
Smug faces, each of them with a mobile phone welded to one hand and a plastic bottle of drinking water in the other.
Arrogant students... Like they know so much? Al they think they know, they picked up from the professors.
+judomagyar the arrogance struck me as well. it's as if they felt that this 8 min presentation was all that bjorn had considered. it's very shallow thinking
the kids are smarter
Where else would you like them to get their info?
Climate change?
There are $ trillions at stake for governments and global companies on both sides if the climate alarmists convince pollies and NGOs that Climate change is a major election issue. Fact is 99.99% of scientists are not climate scientists and like many are being conned by these activists that make fossil fuels the scapegoat when it represents only 3% of all CO2 emissions. This FACT comes from Australian Emeritus Prof Ian Plimer who addressed the UK government on climate change . In fact man's worldwide obsession with deforestation (15 billion trees annually) and burning the waste, generates 8 times atmospheric CO2 as fossil fuel. He also says if CO2 in the atmosphere was halved, plant and marine life would be severely threatened. *Research shows plants thrive in contrived atmospheres where CO2 is up 300ppm*
Let me assure readers, if you see it, smell it, if it makes you ill and causes cancer, it is not CO2. The latter is a colourless odourless and invisible gas. *Without it, the world would be desolate, lifeless wasteland.*
Governments won't continue to fund researchers to investigate rising sea levels and temperatures if they don't come up with the results they want.
@@patricklincoln5942 mine the arsehole!
Jesus Christ these students come off as arrogant brats.
we won't get out of life alive but the earth will be fine when we are gone.
Terry Pankhurst You a George Carlin fan?
There are people in this comment section citing Bjorn's work as evidence that climate change and global warming does not exist or is not a serious threat. That is NOT what he is saying. He disclosed from the very beginning that he acknowledges climate change is real, is bad, is caused by human activities and needs to be mitigated. He is simply proposing an alternative (and more efficient) way to tackle the issue along with all the world's other problems.
Climate change used to be called the 4 seasons. It's not manmade, it's not an emergency. It's not real and I don't want to pay bogus carbon taxes to "solve" what is not a problem.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 can you please provide evidence for this claim?
He was full of shit in 2013 and hes full of shit in 2019. The models have never predicted the observed warming or lack of, and yet somehow hes able to project out to the end of the century? that is dishonest.
@@mysteryyoutuber2683 Can you provide evidence to challenge their ideas?
I like how he actually try to understand the point of the others
This talk is not worth a squirt of piss when it's based on the IPCC numbers & models that have never been right. What a waste of time!
Thats not the point. Since he takes on their premise, he shows how idiotic all proposed policies are to tackle those problems. They cant debate him on the models since he takes theirs, so they have to debate him on the field he has the advantage and they dont have any logical justification to go with their proposals.
@Stephanie Mujan horse shizen
Environmentalism is a secular religion. Look how smug and self-righteous the questioners were. Those weren't questions from people interested in the merit of his points. They were questions from people protecting their virtue.
I agree with your assesment of the students. But Bjørn Lomborg IS wrong. I trust that Bjørn Lomborg is right that a carbon tax needs to be about the same for all and global for it to be effective. But I disagree with this view that we get more out of investing in solving other problems than climate change. CO2 is a problem of persistent pollution which is filling the whole atmosphere. When my mom was born in 1950 the CO2 concentration was at 325ppm Now its at about 410ppm and is projected to reach 1000ppm by 2100 assuming business as usual. The accepted EU limit for how high CO2 is allowed to get in indoor environments is 1000ppm. This is insanity. You just can't let that happen to the whole planet. Sorry. We have to deal with this problem no matter how expensive it may be.
@@patricklincoln5942 what in your life have you changed can you do with 2 hours electricity a day?
@@bejentle7774: Nice of you to ask. I have cut meat from my diet (with the exception of fish on occasion). Fish are at the low end when it comes to contribution to green house gases from meats. I have cut milk from my diet unless it is going to get thrown out. I have reduced but not excluded completely my consumption of dairy. I wish I could say that I don't fly. But I am flying to the upcoming COP in Santiago to cohost a show that Stuart Scott does (he has cancer and needs someone to step in). I am also going to hold a talk in Washington state and California. During my talks I will be talking about how we need to reduce flights drastically (so I will see if the trip is more benefit than damage; if I can convince people to not fly or fly less, then there will no doubt be benefit). I rarely drive my kia picanto. I bicycle to and from work. Driving when it happens tends only to happen in the weekend. In my household (I am married and have 3 children), we keep our electricity consumption down to 8 kilowatt hours per day. I had my children when I trusted humanity will solve its problems. I don't trust that anymore, and wouldn't have had more than 1 kid had I known how severe the situation was back then when I choose to have children. I buy things second hand and I buy food that is as local as possible. I want to avoid emissions from transport of goods. I often skip showers to save on water and I try to maximize on the consumption of the food that is grown in our garden just outside our house. These are among the lifestyle changes I have made to try to minimize my carbon footprint. This is separate from the changes in my life that have made as a climate activist. I have joined Citizens Climate Lobby (the Danish chapter here in Denmark) and I am a core team member at www.ScientistsWarning.org. I teach math a school where I am trying to get my students to agree that they don't want to fly for fieldtrips and I have managed to get our local municipality here in Guldborgsund municipality in Denmark to divest from fossil fuels. I authored a blog www.2savehumanity.com, where I recommended 6 tools that all citizens should take to heart to avoid the worst of human caused climate change. Please feel free to ask questions if you have any more. Sincerely Patrick Lincoln
The morale virtues of protecting our environment should be pretty obvious. Truth is also a virtue. The students did not seem level headed.
@@patricklincoln5942 Are there any solutions that cost less money than we have?
The guy at 14:30 knows a bit about this stuff, but obviously not enough. Did I miss it, but did any of the students who spoke demonstrate any respect for an obviously superior mind, and a man who clearly has carried out a wide range of research around climate and has drawn some interesting conclusions? The main point he makes, I believe, is that there is a problem that no-one has come up with a viable solution to.
you didn't miss it. . .the arrogance is staggering.
Thought it was Gordon Ramsay from the thumbnail
I found the kid drinking the can of Coke at 2:00 quite funny.
Jeez that's a low bar, don't go to a comedy show you may die of laughter.
yes in his head he is probably helping the planet by drinking carbon dioxide
Anyone who could share that slideshow?
Guy at 12:00 is a special kind of evil
Agreed. To think that he just indifferently brushed off the poverty and malnutrition ordeals of millions of underprivileged people in the midst of something as arbitrary as the effects of climate change just shocked me. It's saddening.
On a slightly different note, an old boyfriend of mine brushed off the severity of street harassment by saying verbatim 'cuz um, there are bigger problems like climate change'. I'm Sri Lankan, and street harassment is a really big issue over here. He was American, and a radical leftist. I'm still recovering from the end of that relationship, but I guess I should also feel a little relieved that I'm not together with him anymore, now that I've written this down and got better clarity.
@@SakinahMissSakinah That is of course the problem: "If it doesn't directly effect me then it's not important".
Better wind turbines, how about dismantling the killing machines and and put the wrecked environment back, they cost more in energy to create than they could ever return.
Joseph King and they are eyes sores
I thought they were perpetual motion machines 200% efficient. My Marxist gender studies professor said so.
Also, soy has more protein than meat. And lifting the European ban on transgenic modified soy has nothing to do with German Bayer acquiring Monsanto.
@@squarerootof2 Not at all, but even if they were brilliant and did more than expected, at the cost of thousands of birds millions of insects and the annihilation of certain species of bats, there wiping out species quicker than any climate catastrophe.
@@josephking1947 The film "Kingsman" had the proper solution. Wiping out the entire human race in the most violent, cruel way possible, except for a few select elites.
I wonder if that's the real plan behind it all.
Umm... no, they need us to work for them.
On the other hand, maybe a million slaves or so would be enough to meet their needs.
@@squarerootof2 I'm not aware of the film, but I've given that idea thought before, like space exploration what complete bollocks that is, they can't solve what's in front of their eyes on this planet let alone fucking up another one, and who would benefit from all this stuff? The Ridiculously rich elite of course not the cannon fodder masses...let's hope that a plague wipes out 48% of humans indiscriminately that should sort things out for a while..keep well..
I heard one eruption of some volcano was throwing same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere as human civilization for 100 years. Is that true ?
If yes how human civilization can make global warming ? Some people say global warming and cooling is natural, cyclical process.
Doubt it (maybe if Yellowstone were to blow). Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are around 60x the emissions from natural sources (on average per year).
Sorry matespider. Its just not true. You were lied to.
Paul Almond very interesting comment. Are you able to provide me with a link to this research so that I may learn more about it?
Yes, matespider....that is correct. Warming and cooling cycles are Normal and Natural. That being said, the earth is NOT in a warming cycle right now, and the global warming scam is a lie.
@@powermetal26
Yes warming and cooling cycles are natural. However it is the RATE of warming that has occurred over the past century that isn't natural. The warming that has occurred over the last century, is equivalent to what would normally occur over tens of thousands of years naturally. 97% of scientists that express an opinion on recent climate change, believe the planet is being warmed as a result of humans (source below).
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
This is what happens when you never get punched in the face. You become obnoxiously self important. The presenter handled this dweebs professionally
Like Jordan Peterson, Bjorn's fingernail clippings are more intelligent than so many of today's students because of the tripe they are preaching in universities worldwide.
He's articulate and critical, and the students are sceptical and respectful, I don't get what either side of those in the comments see wrong here
" Lomborg was an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned an M.A. degree in POLITICAL SCIENCE at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a PhD degree in POLITICAL SCIENCE at the University of Copenhagen in 1994. "
... Political Science is NOT Climatology and it is NOT Atmospheric Chemistry ... But it IS POLITICAL - Keep THAT in mind.
Lomborg is great at the economic issues. He is a bit weak on the AGW theory, which is inconsistent with the laws of physics. More importantly, combustion of all fossil fuels known to exist on Earth today would not create enough CO2 to reach the concentrations that AGW theory (if it were correct) need to raise the temperature by even 2 deg. C. For example, there are 1.7 trillion barrels of oil; each barrel fully combusted can create only 433 Kg of CO2; the atmosphere has a mass of 5.146e18 kg; and, combustion of all existing oil would generate a maximum amount of CO2 equivalent to 140 ppm of atmosphere. Since about one third of oil goes into asphalt and petrochemicals, oil could never contribute more than 100 ppm to atmospheric CO2 which would add 0.2 deg. C under the most aggressive AGW models. Natural gas even less, where the same analysis indicates it could create CO2 equal to about 20 ppm of atmosphere. There is a reason why Nobel laureates Ivar Giaever and Richard Lindzen, both actual physicists, see belief in the AGW theory as the equivalent of belief in the Tooth Fairy.
It’s the cows.
Interesting. Thanks
There's so many intellectuals today whose ideas and outlooks (which make sense and in a lot of cases are true), who are just ignored, or actively opposed. This way of thinking, and the people who think like this should be the ones leading our countries, or advising the leaders of our countries. They go against the low resolution and simplistic thinking that plagues our society today, they're our greatest hope.
Low resolution thinking. Ahhh... You too came here from Jordan Peterson's video!
@@Just-Ross Absolutely
We have not decided carbon increases global temperature if you observe the fossil record there was more carbon in atmosphere and lower temperatures for hundreds of years. The climate is impossibly complex and is literally even affected by the suns thermonuclear patterns. You cannot reduce a massive problem to one factor.
skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
I really like Bjorn, but how does he KNOW that the current temperatures and CO2 levels are the norm when there are so many variables and feedbacks we have yet to understand. We DON'T know and have no real evidence to support such a claim. Even the IPCC can not provide the evidence. Doesn't mean we stop working on it, but to claim that we are facing a catastrophic future in a 100 years based on the little we know is insane. The global temperature has been steadily rising since coming out of Little Ice Age. Increased by approximately 1.2 deg C yet no crisis. And approx half of that increase occurred BEFORE the CO2 problem. Why did it increase if we weren't pumping CO2 into the skies? Just asking. I personally believe that the CO2 levels could be tripled and we would be fine. So, far I have seen no evidence to prove me wrong. Good job Bjorn. At least he is approaching the issue with some reason. So much we do not know.
Correlation is no proof of causation. Statistics show that shark attacks peak when consumption of ice cream is at its highest. Fact is shark attacks occur mostly in summer when beaches are crowded.
He stated multiple times he doesnt know and only calculates based on the various models and takes them as a premise. He is a economist and not a enviroment scientist and he calculates spending and benefit, not temperatures. If the models were right, he would have the most beneficial solutions to tackle them, if the models are wrong so are his calculations.
skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
Bjorn is working on the data at hand and analysing it without a political standpoint. He's not a forecaster as that's unreliable. In fact, anyone using modelling isn't any more accurate - that's only as good as the data going in and can be too easily manipulated to produce outcomes.
One main tenet is that education is the way forward. If we can bring everyone up to a good level of education then people are doing better and less likely to be living hand to mouth burning resources around them just to exist. They'll better understand how to live sustainably. A better-educated planet sounds positive to me. And none of the current climate activists running around like headless chickens are pushing for that.
Very interesting talk, it‘s obviously a hard problem I hope we will find a feasible solution.
I really hate that this topic has become so political. It‘s hard enough to find out what exactly is going on even without always having to check for political agenda.
Sadly, as the humanities pump out more biased rubbish the university lose credibility; and so also the natural sciences suffer from a loss of trust.
I am curious to whether humanity will be able to find a solution.
It's all about politics I'm afraid.
Humans always do - it just takes time.
A climate researcher here - CO2 has no effect on the climate.......none. Look at CO2 concentrations over the last billion years. There is no correlation of CO2 level and atmospheric temperatures- yes that's right none over the last billion years. We have completed experiments that show no correlation of atmospheric temperature with CO2 levels as high as 2000 ppm. The problem with the climate discussion is that there has been no experimental evidence one way or the other. Climate researchers who are funded according to how dire their models scare the populous and politicians. We are just coming out of the ice age. The climate is doing great. Scaremongering, pure and simple.
Sadly people don't want to hear the truth. The brainwashing has been going on way to long.
What are you talking about? These students question the authority with their own arguments and even dr. Lomborg acknowledged them.
Oh the Web we weave when we start out to deceive
Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to deceive
Solution 2 surely can't be such a good idea because it only reduces greenhouse gas emissions by maximum 25%?
Yes it's long term ,because know one knows how to fix it. X1
So we’re screwed basically sounds about right
Bio Chemists, Plant Biologists
and Agronomists wonder as to why CO2, which is essential for plants (they use
it for photosynthesis to make sugars - food), often gets branded as a pollutant
by the IPCC (UN) machine. This IPCC CO2 message brought to you courtesy of a
government very near you. The current
trend of global greening in all regions is mainly attributable to increased CO2
levels; from a near starvation level of 280 PPM (from the plant life
perspective) to the current level of 400 PPM. We are informed from over 60
years of measurement the optimum level of CO2 for the majority of plant life is
about 2500-3500 PPM of CO2. Many greenhouse horticulturalists actually induce
more CO2 (buy CO2 in bottles) to reach those figures or higher, in order to
improve crop yields. The only possible conclusion is plant life is adapted to
CO2 levels orders of magnitude higher than is current. In a USN submarine the maximum sustained level
of CO2 allowed is 6000 PPM (was for many years 7500 PPM). But what about CO2’s impact on GW- Climate
Change - Climate Crisis? (Sorry, the control cult keeps changing their labels
as their model predictions consistently fail, I can hardly keep up). Well.
Chemistry informs us that the logarithmic diminution of the effect of CO2 is
probably the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming from CO2 in
earlier eons when CO2 levels were *known
to be* at levels of *Several
thousands of PPM*. What that means is that CO2 is a weak “greenhouse gas”
and is totally subsumed by water vapour and clouds as a “greenhouse gas”. Further;
CO2 levels lag global temperature by 800 years (up or down). CO2 level follows
climate change; climate is not driven by CO2 level. This is proven from
Greenland and Antarctic ice core samples. Not even the IPCC can bury that fact.
Under billions of tonnes of ice.
Climate change?
There are $ trillions at stake for governments and global companies on both sides if the climate alarmists convince pollies and NGOs that Climate change is a major election issue. Fact is 99.99% of scientists are not climate scientists and like many are being conned by these activists that make fossil fuels the scapegoat when it represents only 3% of all CO2 emissions. This FACT comes from Australian Emeritus Prof Ian Plimer who addressed the UK government on climate change . In fact man's worldwide obsession with deforestation (15 billion trees annually) and burning the waste, generates 8 times atmospheric CO2 as fossil fuel. He also says if CO2 in the atmosphere was halved, plant and marine life would be severely threatened. *Research shows plants thrive in contrived atmospheres where CO2 is up 300ppm*
Let me assure readers, if you see it, smell it, if it makes you ill and causes cancer, it is not CO2. The latter is a colourless odourless and invisible gas. *Without it, the world would be desolate, lifeless wasteland.*
Governments won't continue to fund researchers to investigate rising sea levels and temperatures if they don't come up with the results they want.
skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm
Okay - implement all these carbon taxes and programs.
When you don't achieve the results you think you can by a specified date, refund all of that money to us tax payers with interest, okay?
The point of the carbon tax isn’t to make gas cost 7$ more so people pay 7 extra $, it’s so they use less gas.
And ideally push for a cheaper alternative. But, alternatives require R&D and R&D has a high energy costs… seems like we’re in a catch 22 situation.
But if people need to drive to earn meagre wages then they can't use less gas.... And the extra they pay doesn't go into research for clean alternatives either.
Actually the point of the carbon tax is to rob people of their money for a phoney cause.
Every day I thank God that I did not waste my youth in college
We had global warming in the 30's n CO2 was low but everyone seems to forget that. Record heat temps in the 30's hotter than what we have had recently. But no one seems to mention that. Scrape that under the rug will ya, we have $$$ to make!! We had global cooling in the 70's n 80's we were all going to FREEZE TO DEATH and STARVE and that didn't happen either. We have global warming again and no one seems to know why except blame it on the CO2. So if the CO2 was high in the 70's n 80's not in the 30's than its NOT CO2 that is causing global fake warming.....its the SUN!!!!! And there's scientific proof verifying that. Global warming is a HOAX!!!!!!!!!!
I never see in any of these conversation that decreasing humans counts it the real way to solve this
down to zero ?
can you say anything that is implicitly more genocidal and evil than that
Bill Gates and the Democrats have that covered ... ua-cam.com/video/VHUtEd2gXNs/v-deo.html
He obviously need to update this with the latest science.
You're saying that there's been dramatic changes which tell us that the world is going to end in 10 years or something?
nyrtzi I said science, not alarmism.
@@bigike1313 Sorry, I've been getting so used to people not being able to tell the difference that it's already become the default for me to assume that.
You can hardly predict even 10 years into future because the variability of outcome is huge.
(why can't we just collect the carbon as it comes out) of the car or coal power plants or ships and everything else ? not saying this would be easy but if that was done there are lots of smart people why can't this be done
while technology is being developed for this purpose there's isn't a viable easy solution to implement. Plus research and inventing takes a lot of funding. Best option would be trees since they use carbon to grow. But we cut down more trees than we plant and we would also need huge amounts.
The problem isn’t whether we do X policy or Y policy, the problem is that governments are doing hardly anything and if they are it’s not enough
it does matter if X or Y doesn't work
rich countries produce energy cleaner and more efficiently than poor ones
Isn´t i just an argument of convenience to say that we will see the full effect not until 50 years?
So these students want to save their asses.
He sounds like chuck charles from peguins of madagascar
There is no solution. It is as stupid as saying we can control tomorrows weather by creating a new tax or emitting less CO2. If we could we would do it make it rain in drought affected areas and stop the rain in flood prone regions. Sadly we can't but wait a minute isn't that what they a proposing?
As far as I know green energy is a joke, at least up to thispoint in time. Just go ask David Keith and Alan Robock about the possible negative effects of geoengineering. David Keith says we may lose tens of thousands of people. Great idea, not.
The Earth will wear out and die when it does and no one can change it.
We can only try and clean our act up while sustaining life to the best of our ability!
'try and clean up our act' is a little bit of an understatement. Natural ecosystems all over the planet are being destroyed because of intensive farming and palm plantations... Something needs to change, it's not as simple as 'well the earth's going to die so it's okay'.
Yes! Bjorn! We could spray heavy metals into the atmosphere and give people all these cancers and other health issues!! Oh, wait, we already do!!!
Yeah there's no proof for that mate
He would sound clued up on it, but once he starts advocating for Geo-engineering it becomes worrying. Most climate scientists wouldn't touch it with a barge pole due to the massive and potentially catastrophic risks involved.
I wonder what is it to be like Jordan kids :) He'd rip you apart in every debate. I dont't get a good feeling when he says "Good luck with that"! :)
The students asked very reasonable questions. The authors of many comments here have yet to learn to handle critique and interrogative questions.
Who cares about poor countries.. statement, not a question
These kids have a lot of answers for being students. Oxford must not be sending their best.
Bjorn, a political science major, employs what is known as the 'lukewarm' strategy to impede climate change mitigation.
Well, the students are speaking up, but I think the attitude of at least two of the students featured is a little arrogant. I agree that it appears they are not listening, let alone trying to process Bjorn's ideas before they decide to speak. I would have to listen and process before piping up with an opinion or criticism.
Only stupid people would expect a young School kid to answer the corrections to save the world. To listen to a Professor who has an excellent cv talk a lot of drivel is painful to listen to. But the Schoolkid is right to complain and appeal to her adults to save the world for her future. To expect her to explain how the world's climatic change is insulting to anyone! intelegence.
BRILLIANT!!!!!!
Smaller population...seems this has been decided as best ...kick can down the road option
Far off future is very cold loking
I like this guy, except for the uuhhs. Slowing down the speed a bit would be preferable
With maybe ten yrs left.in.life i dont really give a damn Just dont raise gas so high cant afford it!
Moin
Moin mein Guter Kompagnon.
@@jannesklein2539 es ward mir eine Ehre sie hier zu begegnen herr Nes.
@@liptonsugarwaster7987 Ah! Herr Arl! Ich entsinne mich ihrer, welch Freud sie hier anzutreffen aber werde nun aus Gründen, deren Nennung der Aussage, die ich beibringen möchte, nicht beiträglich sind, des Weges ziehen.
It's REAL, it's an IMPORTANT PROBLEM, it's MAN-MADE...
He lost me at "man-made"... It's sad, really. I used to respect this man
SCIENCE IS A LIBBRUL CONSPIRACY THEORYY IM AN A MURICAN ONLY WORDS I NEED TO KNOW IS U S A
NUCLEAR POWER NUCLEAR POWER NUCLEAR POWER THORCON NUCLEAR POWER CHEAPER THAN COAL CHEAPER THAN COAL CHEAPER THAN COAL
God help Oxford if this a representation of its student body...they will be unemployable with their crappy attitudes
Hey Bjorn, I am in Canada freezing my butt off. I am counting on some global warming. So far it just ain't happening.
skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm
How was your 2023 summer? Went on any walks in the forest? :)
Nonsense
matters only in second half of the century ? Really ? I see a lot of impact right now impacting real people with real lives ......
No you don’t.
Arrogant and ignorant pretty much describes these students. They don't even know who he is and his massive knowldge on this subject.
100% Bullshit. How convenient that we won't know if he is right for 80 years while the suggestions he offers will virtually destroy our life now.
What model? Your model? I have given up listening to guys like this. Carbon tax? You are preaching to students. They don't pay tax. Father and mather pay it. Go away whoever you are. Do your proper study and find better solutions. As far as I am concerned most scientists are a bunch of bludgers to lazy to get a proper job. I remember as a kid that I was told to eat lots of carrots so I'll have good vision. Go away leave us alone.
He is a economist, not a enviroment scientist. He takes the ipcc models as a premise and shows how the proposed policies are just bad and how it is more beneficial to spend money into free trade, tackling heartdiseases or investing into research.
The.smart people are looking at sun manipulation to cool.planet Most likely right way to go.not destroying oil industry
Money from The carbon tax does not just disappear, you have a big pile of money that could be deployed for other more cost efficient policies
Ardy Hagen yeah like bailing out banks at the next crash
The millenials are funny people.Stare too much into their cellphones and in general are living in virtual reality.
Phone Bad, good argument.
My God, these questions are absolutely dripping with indoctrination. Is Oxford all out of actual thinkers?
Get ready for +5 degrees centigrade. Full stop. If you are afraid start praying for the new Ice Age to come soon or enjoy the weather with me.
ClimateCon
The people should remember that all they learnt came from professors.
@MrBadabimBadabum Its indoctrination...not education...
What does Lomborg know about climate science?
Ceist 8 Do you have to be a priest to criticise the bible?
@@RevoltingPeasant123 You're not making any sense. We're talking about science and evidence, not religious beliefs
be very careful about geo-engineering. There will certainly be some unintended constituencies. Scary!
+judomagyar nothing frightens more than people who think we can modify nature on a global scale with such precision
Why don't people speak of the benefits of a warmer world? The increased whale habitat alone would be priceless.
@MrBadabimBadabum I thought you beatniks liked whales.
Bjorn is a good name for a tennis player but you probably get better prize money for climate change cult activities
Total BS - I’m out,
You certainly are.
😂😂😂😂😂
I trust that Bjørn Lomborg is right that a carbon tax needs to be about the same for all and global for it to be effective. But I disagree with this view that we get more out of investing in solving other problems. CO2 is a problem of persistent pollution which is filling the whole atmosphere. When my mom was born in 1950 the CO2 concentration was at 325ppm Now its at about 410 and is projected to reach 1000ppm by 2100 assuming business as usual. The accepted limit for how high CO2 is allowed to get in indoor environments is 1000ppm. This is insanity. You just can't let that happen to the whole planet. Sorry. We have to deal with this problem no matter how expensive it may be.
Patrick Lincoln But see... you said it yourself: assuming business as usual.
I think it is a commonly overlooked possibility that technological advancements are going to decrease carbon dioxide emissions.
I mean, if the projection is for 2100; do you honestly think that no groundbreaking inventions are going to be made in the next century?
I don’t.
One word: Permaculture. Industrial society NEEDS to fragment.
That would be an eco disaster for sure.
Silly bugger. Take an o level math course and try to do Mann’s math. Also look at the Met data. Free
These students are embarrassing
This guy reminds me of Trump when he said bleach can cure coronavirus. He is not an 'evil' person but his scientific knowledge is lacking greatly, as his "solutions" show which are purely based on finance and not science.
Absolute BS
BS