Bjorn Lomborg-- The Cost of Climate Alarmism

It's funny how there was no media coverage of this year's low hurricane activity....... good news isn't news eh?

Love the UN alerts...it's like having the bully in class that everyone ignores jumping up and down screaming "look at me!!!"... Great lectures y'all... much more to learn and big fights for freedom... Happy 4th of July!!!!

"Renewable" energy is not "renewable" because it relies on non-renewable resources such as iron, lithium, cobalt, carbon (coal), cadmium, and oil.

We need to promote his videos that challenges all the current media climate polemics that dominate all discussion.

Not only in China is authoritarianism increasing, the UK is doing pretty well - especially in some local authorities like London and the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales and also, these eminent scientists advising the WEF, they wouldn't be the same "experts" who advised about covid would they?

If you want to see what happens when climate policies go too far, just examine what's going on in Sri Lanka today. If the climate movement gets their way, this is what we are headed toward.

Think our best approach to climate issues is to follow Walter Jehne's approach of harvesting water, regreening especially with trees, and building soil. Mark Shepard has a great model for farming that keeps the meat, dairy and eggs we like, adds more food variety (here the poultry eats the bugs, not humans), harvests water, creates more diverse resources, wildlife habitat, produces food with more nutrition than food conventionally grown, produces more nutrition and calories per acre than conventional methods, etc. We add smart things like community level methane harvesting old oil wells, denser freight and passenger rail, making hydrochar from sewage, and other reasonable ventures, our resilience increases as well as wealth, health, leisure, and so on. Taxes do zero except centralize government.

I studied the Middle Ages at Brown and people have always believed the world was coming to an end.

Temps were significantly higher 150 years ago. It’s an inconvenient truth for climate alarmists.

Logic and sanity isn't easily taught to emotionally driven beings who are compelled to respond to alarmism and fear mongering. Great talks on this channel!

Archeologists threw out the theory of catastrophism in the early 20th century. Yet we still use it for future predictions.

One month after publication, this video has 1057 views and 45 upvotes. I’d say this is a problem.

A presentation of this quality and importance deserves less than 500 views, while hundreds of minute long releases of one actor slapping a host on stage are all the rage with millions of views! Just sad. .

An excellent presentation that removes the emotion in favour of practical solutions and outcome. I firstly want to say this approach is important because it actions the infrastructure we can control around making any climate change less of an impact on our daily lives. The major reductions in global fires and cost of flood and wind damage, not really mentioned here, is due to huge urbanisation, also a negative against the cost of flooding, burning off the undergrowth unhindered up to the later twentieth century, but above all the great increase in technological advancements in building codes and urban planning. Minor temperature related to global climate change will continue to occur because of the persistent change in the sun's energy and electromagnetic cycles over the next century or so. While the sun's magnetic field rotation towards the solar elliptic is well known, measured in sunspot counts, cycling between wet periods and dry periods of 5.5 years over the 11 year cycle, a sub basic of the full 22 year cycle and its repetitive 44, 88 ,176 and 1408 year cycles are not well known but show an increasing of intensity and change up to the mid 24th century where it will peak. Historically, these events can be traced back to ancients times, from the minimum in the mid 16th century, peak in the mid 10th century and minimum in the 2nd century and all the way back into recorded history that show the sun's effect on varying cold and hot periods in 1408 year cycles. The whole global alarmist approach in not only inaccurate but far more damaging in psychological as well as financial costs to everyone. As represented in this presentation is far more effective approach to climate change and its supposed effects is all about adaption and prevention to mitigating fire outbreaks by burning undergrowth, dams, pumping stations and levies for flood mitigation but maybe more than all of these, a better engineering approach to build more resilient residential and commercial structures, with better infrastructure and better fire and flood mitigation programs. Renewables will not change the sun cycles and its catastrophic effects but it is better to power our energy requirements in the long term with renewables than with coal and gas. To avoid the biggest issue with running renewables is base power and the biggest energy density, safest, cost effective provider of base power is nuclear power, with Thorium molten salt reactors being the most bullet proof of all the designs. Consider the issues properly, plan in a practical and project driven manner towards a cost effective and safe future for humans and the planet.

The scale of climate changes or fluctuation on the Earth is not scale of human life or recent human history. In processing data the observer must be disengaged, neutral, what is not the case in current debates on climate. The climate changes is mainly political issue not scientific or economic. Thus the outcome of any discussion is political not scientific. The Lomborg's presentation is showing it to us clearly.

To understand the climate "crisis", you can ignore costs and concentrate on on the incredible profits being made.

This lecture was an hour long, but much shorter if you play at 1.5 speed. It is time well spent, and you have to wonder why Lomborg's views do not have a larger more audience.

My problem is (without pointing out on intentional or unintentional reasons) the assumption of anthropogenic “damage” to the planet’s ecosystem which supposedly impacts the ability of energy radiation. 1. It requires interdisciplinary research and approach to establish major contributing factors. Using very power hungry, huge processing powers alongside big data managed with basic statistical principles reflected in little upscaled computer codes (Climate computer modeling, AI, deep learning ect.) can have analogical value but should never be taken seriously as a lens through which we claim to acknowledge reaity and the future possible outcomes.

the climate system is very complex - we cannot even conclude that humans are having even a minimal impact on climate. It's in a constant state of flux (overwhelmingly from natural fluctuations). John Christy, Richard Linzden and Koonin allude to this

What people need to understand if you want to reduce man-made CO2, you have to be affluent. The current energy policies are raising energy prices and impoverishing people and when a certain level of impoverishment occurs, they are going to say take your green policies and stuff it. We can't maintain our current level of affluence when energy prices spike and energy at the wall is no longer reliable. Consider what this means for underdeveloped countries if energy prices spike. They will not be able to shift to modern fuels but instead will be chopping down forests for crops and heating and cooking fuel not to mention burning untold tons of animal dung. Is this what we want? Is destroying forests better than burning natural gas at least until something better comes along? Once the greens figure out that China is the primary supplier of the materials needed for a green transformation we can only hope they understand the security hole this will create. It's not likely that the massive amount of mining for rare earth materials is going to occur in the U.S. because, guess who, the greens will stop it. Being green in the way that is currently happening makes no sense at all, and it's destructive to the cause, it is destructive to national security, and it will impoverish the masses.