Climate Change Debate: Bjørn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin | Lex Fridman Podcast
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ค. 2024
- Bjørn Lomborg is author of "False Alarm". Andrew Revkin is a climate journalist (21 years at NY Times). Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- 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
EPISODE LINKS:
Andrew's Twitter: / revkin
Andrew's Substack: revkin.substack.com
Andrew's Linktree: linktr.ee/revkin
Bjørn's Twitter: / bjornlomborg
Bjørn's Website: lomborg.com
Andrew's Books:
The Human Planet: amzn.to/3MRuLUY
The Burning Season: amzn.to/3Dmr5Hq
Bjørn's Books:
False Alarm: amzn.to/3Sqt5D4
How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place: amzn.to/3gwoIJ7
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
OUTLINE:
0:00 - Introduction
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
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
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
th-cam.com/video/hwMPFDqyfrA/w-d-xo.html potholer54 destroyed bjorn analysis on ev vehicles!
"Farmers are the heroes of humanity" - finally. And I'm not a farmer nor do I know any farmers but man do I think they need to be credited more by state and citizens.
Most farms are massive corporations.
@@johnryan3102 most farmers are not massive corporations.
@@johnryan3102 What a ludicrous comment.
@@johnryan3102 In some countries yes, but where I am we also have a lot of local self-owned farms, or individual farms that choose to join co-operative middle-men to bring their produce to market. The ownership of the farms still reside with the individual farmers.
I'm a farmer. Very poor. Family of 4. I work on another person's farm. He's an unincorporated single father of 2.
It's hard.
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.
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'.
This CD is very calming th-cam.com/users/postUgkxzpa8CIfZcihW4Z0F_ja0QF3W9KIatrsq the first meditation focuses on breathing, the second guides you through the Buddhist metta bhavana--loving kindness to all, and the third is a meditation to be used when walking. him is originally from Scotland, so there is a little accent to his voice, but it is very soothing and not at all distracting. If you are a beginner to meditation, this CD will walk you through all the steps of relaxing and breathing as well as sending out the positive thoughts of love and kindness that will be returned to you. We have several CD's, but this one is a favorite that we choose most often.
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
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 :)
This isn’t a debate. It’s two guys agreeing that the media is hysterical
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
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.
@@FriedHedgehogBalls you want people to debate how many poor souls died in a mass genocide? Yikes bro maybe detach from the internet for while
@@HighTide_808 The solution is up for debate. The best path forward is uncertain.
Gosh, I remember when they were shouting from the rooftops that "global cooling" was going to end the planet. That was the 1970's
Yes a few people wanted to throw of the consensus of global warming for a while before they were proven wrong. Probably paid by big oil
I mean, it was a reality...
We stopped using aerosols, which solved the issue...
@@zaarkeru3391 no, it was complete nonsense. It’s called weather. They were just wrong, completely and catastrophically wrong. And guess what? They’re still wrong.
@@Lurch685
Buddy, stop being an idiot...
Climate is defined as weather patterns over a longer time, climate change is the changing of these patterns.
And we humans are diatrupting natural climate change (we should be cooling now) which will result in social collapse.
Like every single other time we have seen rapid climate change, which have previously been natural change and quitw slow.
Compare that to what we see now and these previous event seems like nothing in comparison.
The rate of change we see now is like nothing we have seen before except when we have had extreme external events (like a major meteor impact).
Babylon fell, and we lost centuries worth of human development because of climate change.
It only took a few rough years for a civilization with advanced agricultural practices to fall.
Stop being a reality denying idiot.
Reality and facts doesnt care about your fragile feelings.
Science doesnt agree with you.
We had a event of global cooling because of the massive amount of aerosol pollution we created.
We legialated them away and fixed that issue.
We can legislate and fix the warming issue, except you people (who probably went against the removal of lead based fuels) act like deranged idiots who eats the propaganda from the fossil fuel lobby...
@@zaarkeru3391 every word of this is complete pablum. We are still emerging from the last ice age. There is nothing - at all - unusual or alarming about the temperature increase. It has not accelerated, it is not “extreme”, and the hottest temperatures on record are still from over 100 years ago in the 1930s.
You have bought the cult narrative, hook, line, & sinker, without even a shred of evidence to support it. None.
Where's the debate?
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?
Here in Australia, we have had some flooding. It's not unusual in an historical perspective, however the impact on people was huge. In Lismore and many other places in NSW, the impact was amplified by the number of people who had built their houses on a flood plain since the last major flood. It hasn't stopped the media constantly claiming that the floods were caused by climate change, which MAY or may not be partially true, but utterly irrelevant compared to the fact that people should not be building inappropriate houses on flood plains.
This is a debate? They both agree on everything lol!
Presented as a debate but its nothing of the sort.
@@gerokeeffe4014 Lex Fridman is a controlled opposition bot. Look at all these sheep seal clapping how wonderful this was actually believing there was any disagreement to begin with.
Clearly you didnt listen close enough. They agree on some things but heavily disagree on the propositions.
@@joeshmoe4207 they both agree climate change is real and man made. What a debate!
@@DhulqarTen yeah, didn’t you hear the first part. They disagree on what we should do about it but don’t disagree on the fact of the matter. They explicitly say that if you don’t even see that there is some human made climate change then it’s not even worth trying to argue with you. You’re so blind to the most basic question that you don’t understand that not everybody who disagrees with you agrees on everything.
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
Where are the peer reviewed publishing scientists?
Appreciate the community your team is building and allowing us a space to listen to these works.
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.
This is a very serious and well conducted interview. I feel way more people should hear it.
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
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.
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.
Well done. Thank you Lex for bringing these people together for a talk on something that impacts us all.
"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
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.
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
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
Right on Lex thank you for all of these great podcasts !
I missed the “debate” part 😂
All I heard was an echo chamber.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Excellent discussion. Sanibel Island was almost wiped out by hurricane Charley in 2004. And they keep rebuilding there.
You lead great topics with great guests. Love you Lex.
Passively listening and just now got a sense on which side these guys are on. I love conversations like this.
amazing what the journalist can say once his mortgage is paid off.
Maybe you should listen more closely
@@gosnellktn His approach isn't unique to him, most climate journalists and scientists see the problem through similar lens. Instead of writing half-witted remarks on the internet, try educating yourself on climate systems.
Well enlighten me, as I'm totally unclear as to their positions 3 hours in.
What "side" these guys are on? Please expand on what you mean by the "sides".
On the electric car point, isn't holding on to and putting money into an older car to keep it running rather than dumping it and building a new EV from scratch. Earlier this year I bought a 2012 Lexus IS. Was it not better to buy that rather than buy a new Tesla Model 3 which needs to be built from scratch?
Amazingly well moderated and put together. Go Lex!
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.
This is the comment I was looking for. I had to scroll through a sea of clapping seals to find it.
These two people are in lockstep agreement on climate change. There are no conflicting viewpoints.
Pretty dissapointed with Lex on this one.
@@mufasafalldown8401 Yes, and for such an important issue too
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.
You're the best Lex, keep exploring and letting us do so along with you.
I very much enjoyed the conversation. I learned a lot. Thank you, gentlemen, for this podcast.
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
The next debate should be between two actual scientists preferably, climatologists.
The issue isn't about the climate changing, indeed there are very few who actually deny the science on the climate changing, so climatologists are not needed for it. The debate is about the repercussions for human society, what we should prioritise and our values. That's a political debate.
@@Generative_Midi_ Exactly and Andrew pointed to the fact that there are super scientist on the extremes of both sides of the augment so having more scientist on is counterproductive.
@@derekaarts4997 if there are super scientists on two different sides, a debate would not be counterproductive, unless you want to move forward on one of the specific sides and dismiss the other.
Do you want actual scientists or climatologists? You can't have both.
The point is that climatologist can’t say anything about how the problem (human suffering) should be remediated. It’s not the science that’s questionable but policy decisions like government substitutes for electrical cars and open mines in Africa
Everytime I watch lex in the beginning of a video I imagine he’s a suit on top and board shorts and flip flops on the bottom. 😂
This video looks good. Wonder what I’ll learn.
I think he wears his 3 piece suit to the beach
Sensational interview. Thank you for letting it continue as long as it did!
👆Let's talk >👍
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.
just finished the cast .. wow, over 4 hours of knowledge, humility, and goodwill.
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.
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
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!
Thank you for this conversation. As someone who works in the field but is not a scientist or technical person, this is very enlightening.
For the first time, I realized how complex the climate issue is. Thank you.
These guys are both so moderate you can’t even tell which side is which
Thats why its useless
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.
It took me more than a week to finish this fascinating discourse. Grateful. 🙏🏾👏🏾
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.
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"
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
Lex you're amazing, love your work. After 3.5 hours of one subject I didn't expect, nor have the appetite for a long divergence into media / journalism/ & waxing poetic. Just a thought.
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 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!😁
@@chrismcdonald5775 Lmao savage but true.
Such a good idea Lex!
Your podcast is amazing, please keep it up, there is no other place like it.
1:02:57 the life expectancy thing juste means that there was a lot of death at birth or young age not that people lived till 30. I think he got a bit carried away there
They therefore lived to 32 on average globally, which is the point of the argument.
@@joel_seth_media i'm affraid that most people assume that if you are 30 years old at that time, you are considered old and about to die which is not the case. I hope he knows better but i thought it needed more explanation
Another informative podcast. Thanks lex
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
Damn your lineup of guests is on fire 🔥🔥 lately.
Brilliant discussion. I have been digesting this over several days.
You are the man Lex
"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
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.
It would be better to invite two well renowed scientists each on the extreme side of the spectrem and let them debate.
The biggest problem with Lomberg seems to be that he views climate change as a problem we can deal with rather than the symptom that it is of the predicament humanity is in because of planetary ecological overshoot.
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.
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.
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
Great discussion! Thank you Lex. I will personally start using the term "Adaptation" instead of Climate Change, Greenhouse effect and other (per point 1:55). Seems more appropriate for the things that are seemingly set in motion, the time we are in presently and what we need to focus on.
Always question science. if it stands up to scrutiny then you know its good science. i hate how climate change has become a no go zone for questioning
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!
Thank you for inviting them!
Your topics are so informative and balanced. Great questions. Happy to share with my grandson because he shares the interest, but needs to wade through so much conflicting information on subjects important to him. 🇦🇺
👆Let's talk >👍
Shame that food and meat consumption didn't get discussed. Very good discussion though! Much needed nuanced discussion to calm everyone down a bit.
You don't want agreement, you want cooperation. Thanks Lex, you are doing an amazing job expanding minds with your interviews.
I wanted to copy the video transcript but it's too long to select by scrolling. How I wish TH-cam would install a 'Select All' button just for the transcript text to be copied easily. Even better would be a low fee service to obtain an edited transcript of important dialogues like this. While the automatically generated text is a start, it's the cleaned up text that one wants. There was SO much material in this amazing conversation that I want to follow up and I am sure that the same is true for many of Lex's podcasts. I can but dream of one further evolution of this interface for public education!
to highlight a prior comment .. it is encouraging to see how closely Bjorn listens .. listening is (has become) an art!!!
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.
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.
Great debate, but is anyone's opinion different after listening to this debate?
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.
I'm hearing so much garbage here. As someone who lives in an area where fracking happens (PA) it is an AWFUL practice that negatively impacts the environment in ways other than just CO2 emissions. There's huge risk of PERMANENTLY destroying the water table for an entire local area (and without knowing if it's happened or not for many years). It's easy to support fracking if you don't live where it's happening and it sounds like neither of these guys do. Makes me question all the info they spread when there was no pushback on this.