Exposing Bjorn Lomborg's Climate Change Lies
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ค. 2024
- In this video, I cover many of Bjorn Lomborg social media posts, ideas and some articles, to show what is right and mostly wrong in what he says about climate change
Timeline:
00:00 Intro
00:44 Droughts
02:17 Flawed Numbers
03:46 Cold deaths
05:59 Renewables Expensive?
06:44 CO2 Greening
08:43 Hurricanes
09:49 Climate Disaster deaths
10:13 Stiglitz
13:20 Issue with electricity?
13:50 Innovation?
14:42 Media Never positive
15:14 Wildfires
16:31 Floods
17:04 Conclusions
Main Sources:
Bjorn's linkedin:
/ all
Droughts:
1) Lancet 2018 (Watts et al 2018):
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
2) Lancet 2020 (Watts et al 2018) (graph in appendix)
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
3) Lancet 2022 (Romanello et al 2022) (graph in appendix)
www.thelancet.com/article/S01...
4) EASAC 2013: Trends in Extreme Weather Events in Europe
easac.eu/publications/details...
Flawed Numbers:
1) IEA
www.iea.org/data-and-statisti...
2) Our World In data 2024: Share of energy consumption
ourworldindata.org/grapher/sh...
3) Ember 2024
Report-Global-Electricity-Review-2024
4) IEA World Energy Outlook 2015
Cold deaths:
1) GZERO World 2024: Challenging the climate change narrative with Bjorn Lomborg
2) Zhao et al 2021 (The Lancet)
www.thelancet.com/action/show...
3) Vicedo et al 2021
www.nature.com/articles/s4155...
4) Stevens 2023 (Wpost)
www.washingtonpost.com/climat...
5) Carleton 2022
academic.oup.com/qje/article/...
Renewables Make bills expensive?
1) Hoover Institution: The Heat Is On: Bjorn Lomborg on the Summer’s Record Heat
2) Carbon Brief 2022:
www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-...
CO2 Greening
1) Chen et al 2024:
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
2) Taylor (NASA) 2019:
www.nasa.gov/centers-and-faci...
3) Winkler et al 2021:
bg.copernicus.org/articles/18...
4) Chen et al 2022:
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.c...
5) Pan et al 2018:
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
6) Science and Climate
7) All About Climate
• WTF is he talking abou...
Hurricanes
1) Klotzbach et al 2018 (Pielke)
journals.ametsoc.org/view/jou...
2) Martinez et al 2023:
www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/1/15
3) IPCC AR6 2022 Chapter 11
www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/do...
4) NASA 2022:
A Force of Nature: Hurricanes in a Changing Climate
Climate Disaster Deaths
1) Science and Climate
• BJORN LOMBORG CLIMATE ...
Stiglitz
1) Stiglitz
www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/bo...
2) Bjorn Lomborg
/ new-york-times-stunnin...
3) Nordhaus 2018:
www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10...
4) Nordhaus 2013: DICE manual 2013
5) Jean-Marc Jancovici with Steve Keen
• Steve Keen OECD 18 sep...
6) Steve Keen Criticism of Nordhaus
evonomics.com/steve-keen-nord...
7) Glanneman et al 2020: Paris Cost-benefit analysis
8) Bob Ward 2024 LSE: More misinformation and nonsense on climate from Lomborg and Tol
9) ResolveMiniriffs: Steve Keen: Nordhaus and Climate
Innovation?
1) Bjorn Lomborg: False Alarm 2020
Corals:
1) Australian Government: Is the Great Barrier Reef reviving - or dying? Here's what's happening beyond the headlines
2) IPCC SR15 Chapter 3
Wildfires:
1) Yang et al 2014
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.c...
2) EPA
www.epa.gov/climate-indicator...
3) Andela et al 2017
www.science.org/doi/full/10.1...
4) Royal Society 2020: Global trends Wildfire
5) Carbon Brief
www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck...
Floods
1) Hinkel et al 2013
www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073...
2) Money Desmog 2014: Millions behind Bjorn Lomborg Copenhagen consensus center
#climatechange #misinformation #bjornlomborg #wildfires #floods #energy #news #debunk #lies #denial #falsenarrative
💡What are your thoughts on Bjorn Lomborg?
🗞Feel free to comment other interesting topics I should cover
🎁Consider subscribing and liking!
Also, for the coral reef recovery, the situation is more complex, and reefs are becoming ever more vulnerable. Check out the description for sources on this.
He's a shameless grifter with a seemingly endless supply of weasel words.
Lomborg layers his disinfo like an onion to trick non specialists. More people should call him out like you did!
A well researched critique of one of the more prominent and credible climate disinformation sources on social media. You have shown how much effort it takes to dismantle the tangled web of half-truths, misdirections and disinformation these influencers weave. Keep up the good work.
@@clivepierce1816 Thank you so much!! This video is a prime example of Brandolini's law.
Thanks for taking on this charlatan
On the coral reef recovery point. Although it's technically true that a certain part in Australia's reef did recover, the situation is much more complex, and less positive than it sounds. First I recommend reading the papers that I put in the description on corals. Then, to check other resources about this "recovery".
The video we were all waiting for, thank you Climate Club
@@TimRex thank you TimoTheErex
Excellent video!
@@AllAboutClimate Thanks Rosh!
Thank you for exposing this person
@@fj103 my pleasure
Thanks for pointing out Björn Lomborg Im going to listen to what he has to say. Somehow im sure there will be many interesting things to learn. Time to start listening to people who got small things right like "no we wont see this catastrophe come true either" instead of those who got it wrong every single time.
@@tomtetomtesson2477 it seems you didn’t understand the video… Does Bjorn sometimes say correct stuff? Sure. But is most of the major things he says wrong or misleading? Yes, unfortunately. Are there certain select people who go over the top? Yeah. But what Bjorn does is completely downplay everything because he either a) lacks critical thinking, or b) is paid to say what he says. So, I do think you should go and watch him and build your critical mind, but the point of this video is to show how misleading Bjorn really is. Which from your comment, I don’t think you fully understand.
Merci Climate Club!
Merci (encore) pour cette Masterclass avec un grand Y
Merci pour les commentaires et tes relances clean from the back Mr Wolff
Great video, superb debunking of Lomborg! Subscribed.
@@TheDisproof Thanks!!
Brilliant work! 👏👏👏
Thanks!
The first rule of Climate Club is to talk about climate club... Like all the time. 👍
@@QT5656 i hadn’t thought about that joke before 😂. Hope you don’t mind if I start using it! But thanks a lot 🙏
@@theclimateClub Please go for it! 👍 Katherine Hayhoe would approve.
Awesome video. I really wanted to make video like this, but you beat me too it 😅.
@@DDDecarbon Thanks a lot! Go for it I think. The more the merrier.
@@theclimateClub my plan was to go through his paper that he cites everytime he posts something.
Great job!
@@drjuluka thanks!!
Thanks for the video.
@@LastManOnPlanet my pleasure
This is a grat channel. Well referenced, clear and concise.
Thank you!
Great video! Very informative
Thank you
You've done your homework. Well done. Can you do a similar take-down of the Climate Discussion Nexus or CDN? How about Patrick Moore as well?
Thanks. I might do more similar videos, but unfortunately I don't have much time at the moment. I hadn't heard of CDN so will take a look. But in the future absolutely!
@@theclimateClub You really did an impressive job here. Citing scientific papers gives you great credibility. I'm going to link to your video whenever I need to debunk Lonborg. Climate Discussion Nexus is a climate change denial channel laoded with propaganda, verbal sleight of hand, lies of omission and cherry-picked data. Fact-checking them is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Outstanding work here
@@williampage355 thank you Lord Page
Something sort of related in these discussions. Keeping nuclear is good. Building new nuclear is bad. The climate deniers increasingly support nuclear. Because it's a delaying tactic.
@@climatechange6513 yeah I think it’s perhaps a tricky one. Keeping what we have as long as possible is a no brainer for sure which Germany blundered. The question on building them is in my opinion debated. If costs and time making them can’t come down (partly because of regulation), then yeah we need to look elsewhere. But there are countries who manage to build them faster and cheaper, which is why I personally still think it can be a good idea. But yeah, not too sure what the deniers say on nuclear tbh.
@@climatechange6513 i will try and do a video in the future with a few guest experts on nuclear, because I don’t think it’s black and white
@@theclimateClub Hello, well, the German government(s) [first nuclear phase-out under the Schröder government in 2003, second nuclear phase-out under the Merkel government after Fukushima in 2011] made the mistake of preferring the phase-out of nuclear power to the phase-out of coal. On the other hand, nuclear power accounted for 18% of electricity production in GER year 2011, coal & gas nearly 65%. The phase-out is now complete and coal & gas still make up around 40%, renewables almost 60%. (Energy charts) Nice Greetings from southwest Germany
Brilliant analysis. Keep up the great work
@@elijahjimenez8365 thanks!
This is very important work, thanks mate!
@@alanfortunysicart4919 Thank you!
i recup the ball
You should also do one calling out climate doomers
Of course it will cost more in the future if something is damaged. More people more constructions and over time everything costs more so rises is expected. People are now seeing the cost of trying rapidly to go for net zero and no matter how much we are told that it wont cost us that much we know its false when our capacity to buy thing go down. You can as you say use what kind of word salad you want it still wont change peoples reality.
BL is a good example of the evolved human reasoning style being satisficing. we reason to explain & justify ourselves, to convince others, and to evaluate others' reasons, usually in a community setting. intersubjectively, it makes sense to just produce satisfactory & sufficient - satisficing - reasons as limited organisms. this goes hand in hand with basic status-quo apologism, where all you need are some appeals to 'reasonableness', verbal intelligence and rhetoric, instead of thorough, critical epistemological virtues and self-correcting, transparent empirical methodologies to convince people.
the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. this is a heuristic, but accurate when it comes to sly status-quo apologists like BL.
@@real_pattern was just about to say that. No but for real, you’re absolutely right about that, especially the extra energy it takes to refute bs compared to the simple action of saying bs
Saying that coral has rebounded is like saying that a forest has regrown because weeds covered the burned area two years after a fire. The coral species that have expanded re9cently are analogous to the fast-growing plant species that colonize recently disturbed landscape. This does not mean that a diverse coral ecosystem has been reestablished.
(Recovery of coral was supposedly the good news that had been neglected by the American press.)
Yep! I had initially written a section giving more context on that point in the video, but decided to cut it due to length. But I've put some articles in the description on that point, namely the source that showed the "positive" news.
The task of judging whether this person knows more or less than the other person, whether this interpretation of some set of literature is better than the other person's interpretation of a slightly different set of literature... It is beyond my ability to discern who is closer to the truth.
Thanks for taking on this guy on his disproportionate & non objective bias
@@garrenosborne9623 It was a pleasure
🤢🤢🤢
Excellent take-down of a compulsive liar. Shared on X.
Thanks a lot! What is your X account name?
It's amazing how many people take Bjorn Lomborg seriously even after you point out his shameless cherry picking, special pleading, and bad faith interpretations. He's clearly a dishonest grifter with a political agenda.
@@QT5656 yeah, whilst doing the research for the video I was surprised by the sheer amount of crap that he posts. The video was supposed to be like 6 minutes long at the very start
To bad Earth's history arent at your side. Nothing in Earth's history shows that Earth has become a dessert when it has been warmer. I didn't think you where a climate denier or history denier.
I'm afraid I don't get your point. Could you explain that?
@@theclimateClub You talk about droughts but the earth has become greener and greener so whats the problem if more areas get greener then areas that get dry? Its always ohh but models says that in the future but where is the historical evidence for that? We don't trust the models.
@@tomtetomtesson2477 dude, watch the video. I literally talk about the greening...
He lies. I have often called his lies out. There are various ways to lie. He is a shill, working to prevent necessary actions
i recup the ball
i recup the ball
@@AdamWolff-j2q 😂