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
@ReligionAndMaterialismDebunked
Жыл бұрын
First :3
@huamichaelchen
Жыл бұрын
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....
@samuelsaunders155
Жыл бұрын
@@AB-gj8re calm down climate karen
@gizaplateau979
Жыл бұрын
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.
@RueKing
Жыл бұрын
loser ad homs
@ajm01010
Жыл бұрын
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
@dereksupernaut
Жыл бұрын
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???
@jamestopliss7029
Жыл бұрын
I watched like 10 mins, I’m sure the rest was great though
@billcarson482
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Crosshatch1212
Жыл бұрын
Read a book .peace .
@laneczora1780
Жыл бұрын
It feels like a true flex to say I watched the 7+ hour episode on how to fix society in one go 💪🏽
@eitans7114
Жыл бұрын
The amount of amazing content Lex has been putting out recently is staggering
@Aspirintax
Жыл бұрын
STAGGERING
@SoarLong
Жыл бұрын
Recently? nah not recently
@coolbeanstu
Жыл бұрын
I didn't think he could keep it up! But he's still trending upwards!
@swivarithanlgooding-splatt3256
Жыл бұрын
Lex knows more about the subject than both of these plugs
@DarkPoindexter1982
Жыл бұрын
kzitem.info/news/bejne/ya2Dtnp6qquXpXY potholer54 destroyed bjorn analysis on ev vehicles!
@chrisbirch4150
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Sapnfap
Жыл бұрын
exactly.
@chrisbirch4150
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@Sapnfap
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@chrisbirch4150
Жыл бұрын
@@Sapnfap I guess we disagree on that one
@Dude0000
5 ай бұрын
All the proper scientists, like Physicists, have been driven out by ‘Climate Scientists’ with vested interests. It’s verifiable by the truly curious.
@gus72707
Жыл бұрын
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.
@alvareo92
Жыл бұрын
So, psychoanalysis, basically
@StrawberrySoul77
Жыл бұрын
Good way to put it that they’re, well, no right.
@jamesfergusson7917
Жыл бұрын
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
@dmtudder
Жыл бұрын
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.
@wmhs02dm
Жыл бұрын
Literally everyone else has already interviewed these guys
@jareddubiel7324
Жыл бұрын
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.
@springerlowell2745
Жыл бұрын
I agree 100%.
@benediktzoennchen
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Dude0000
5 ай бұрын
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.
@SteffiReitsch
5 ай бұрын
They don't know anything about all that.
@Dude0000
5 ай бұрын
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.
@achimaufachse5925
Жыл бұрын
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...
@timh7882
Жыл бұрын
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.
@centropygepotteri
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Montezuma0
Жыл бұрын
@@timh7882 Saying you care about the environment but not climate change is idiotic. Climate change will cause more devastation than environmental pollution or degradation
@benediktzoennchen
Жыл бұрын
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.
@timh7882
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@cosmos0909
Жыл бұрын
I love that there is no intro music in Lex podcast. It feels so real and natural, like it is happening right now
@HarryPainter
Жыл бұрын
Ironically, the reason for no intro music is grasping music's utility is outside Lex Fridman (TM)'s capabilities
@Lurch685
Жыл бұрын
@@HarryPainter he hasn’t gotten that software patch yet
@paulauerbach2874
Жыл бұрын
I really hate the intros that are in most podcasts. They’re a waste of our precious time & do absolutely zero good.
@mylesmagloire2250
Жыл бұрын
@@HarryPainter.
@a1b1c184
Жыл бұрын
@@Lurch685 He is a robot but he actually can play the hell out of the guitar. Dude is Batman.
@craiggillett5985
Жыл бұрын
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
@xShariNgaN01x
Жыл бұрын
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
@Dinesh-xd7jh
Жыл бұрын
@@xShariNgaN01x Can you elaborate further how Rogan went down the right wing hole?
@brodyhess5553
Жыл бұрын
He’s a trickster for sure . These two guys aren’t even on a different side about the debate lpl
@henryjfischer
Жыл бұрын
@@brodyhess5553 Exactly. This is half-assed propaganda targeting an intellectual audience who are made to feel like they're watching a debate.
@gazmasonik2411
Жыл бұрын
@@henryjfischer yes and not compelling either but alternatives in dumbed down education systems
@freddiebonifacio9158
Жыл бұрын
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.
@betwixt3193
Жыл бұрын
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.
@freddiebonifacio9158
Жыл бұрын
@@betwixt3193 well said!
@individual5021
3 ай бұрын
@@betwixt3193 Theyre not making that up though.
@zoyayt
Жыл бұрын
How thirsty we all are for these kinds of conversations. Thank you Lex for making it possible:)
@harrying882
Жыл бұрын
Pakistan destroyed their own country by over population of at least 200 million in 40 years. Shame on them
@henryjfischer
Жыл бұрын
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.
@davemartino5997
Жыл бұрын
@@henryjfischer get a grip
@englishdogs
Жыл бұрын
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.
@sigmapion5040
Жыл бұрын
It's sad that a civil discussion is no longer associated with the word 'debate'.
@DirtFlyer
14 күн бұрын
Is there something wrong with debates? Especially when there is such a huge divide between the sides? If all they do is agree with one another, then did it occur to you that maybe these two don't represent the different sides of the debate very well?
@theoriginalsuperpwny
Жыл бұрын
Thank you, Lex. We need this conversation.
@timangus
Жыл бұрын
We really don't.
@adveni323
Жыл бұрын
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.
@LowTide941
Жыл бұрын
I didn’t realize climate change was even up for debate. Maybe that’s the problem.
@LowTide941
Жыл бұрын
@@FarticusSnottington you want people to debate how many poor souls died in a mass genocide? Yikes bro maybe detach from the internet for while
@johnchristopher3032
Жыл бұрын
@@LowTide941 The solution is up for debate. The best path forward is uncertain.
@GodNeedsNoReligion
Жыл бұрын
"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.
@johnryan3102
Жыл бұрын
Most farms are massive corporations.
@cormackeeney3897
Жыл бұрын
@@johnryan3102 most farmers are not massive corporations.
@retrobob3802
Жыл бұрын
@@johnryan3102 What a ludicrous comment.
@GodNeedsNoReligion
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@boxingdonkey
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Charles-ij1ow
Жыл бұрын
Finally, Lex your singlehandedly sorting out all the BS for the human race.
@joeschmo3485
Жыл бұрын
@@fullsend8738 "scientific consensus" doesn't exist. That isn't how the scientific method works. It requires skepticism.
@trel9388
Жыл бұрын
@@fullsend8738 you sure sound impartial... "scientific consensus" lol
@fullsend8738
Жыл бұрын
@@notinterested8452 your brain is tiny
@fullsend8738
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@fullsend8738
Жыл бұрын
@@joeschmo3485 you absolute freak
@mirelgoi7855
Жыл бұрын
"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.
@TheShootist
Жыл бұрын
gaslight stinks. It was 6C warmer 5000 BCE, humanity thrived. holocene thermal optimum.
@johnchapman5125
Жыл бұрын
Thank you
@joeyservo
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Chemike21
Жыл бұрын
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.
@f1owm00
Ай бұрын
That is not correct... The literature and studies on warming and CO2 mainly focus on how the planet deals with it. There is plenty of literature and plenty of studies answering all the things you mention. The negative effects are way more serious and outweigh any of the "positive" effects we can expect. The margin of error on this topic lies in how fast certain changes will take effect and how significant those negative effects will be at a given time.
@Chemike21
Ай бұрын
@@f1owm00 ALL the predictions of the studies have been wrong. Precisely because of what I said. They use modeling and the problem with modeling is they can't take everything into account. When all your predictions are consistently wrong, we call that bad "science".
@hormunculus
Жыл бұрын
Where are the peer reviewed publishing scientists?
@jester9118
Жыл бұрын
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.
@2ez_travis899
Жыл бұрын
15% is not cost-effective. House prices are already a stretch.
@jester9118
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@sginrummy88
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@flacjacket
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@factsdontlie4342
Жыл бұрын
@@sginrummy88 The US government already forces climate rules onto corporations. So, I dont understand your point.
@luiscrawford1249
Жыл бұрын
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!
@bbinder5868
Жыл бұрын
I do that quite often and I find that most people don’t want to sit through a 2 3 or 4 hour podcast
@luiscrawford1249
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@alep7358
Жыл бұрын
There’s no point ppl don’t care if they did they’d seek it themselves
@luiscrawford1249
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@xmathmanx
Жыл бұрын
Who the heck is getting their information from TV? The over 70s maybe?
@James.Walston
Жыл бұрын
You left out the part of the debate that has genuinely opposing views. This is just a discussion on climate change.
@infinitytoinfinitysquaredb7836
Жыл бұрын
China’s annual CO2 emissions exceed those of *all developed countries combined,* yet Xi did not even bother to show up at the climate summit. China accounts for 27% of human-generated CO2 emissions or nearly 2.5 times the United States 11%. And while the US has _reduced_ CO2 by 10% in the last 20 years (primarily due to fracking which is cleaner) and the EU by 16%, China is adding new coal-fueled power plants almost weekly and has increased over 208%. Ironically, the Paris Climate Agreement actually *incentivized* China (and India) to rapidly increase their CO2 output until 2030 when the agreement finally applies to them also. This is called a "perverse incentive" in economics.
@boatsnhoes757
Жыл бұрын
As much as I agree with some of the points being brought up by Bjorn idk why people consistently let him get away with arguing “the world is getting greener”. He regularly brings this up and by doing so undermines the level of hardscaping, land use conversion, habitat functionality reduction, and overall ecosystem alteration that is globally taking place in both the global south/north. You can’t tell me the world is “getting greener” and plants are “happier”when we have more asphalt in parking lots, highways, and shopping centers than ever before. The rate in which we dredge/fill wetlands and clear cut old productive forests has consistently been on the rise over the past century and mitigation of such activities (our ability to reconstruct such natural systems through engineering approaches) are poor at best. Claiming an area is “greener” by looking through aerial imagery also completely looks past biodiversity extent and ecosystem functionality. Often times invasive species are best at occupying spaces following large scale land use type alterations. These are details I’ve never heard brought up to Bjorn whenever he brings this argument to the table. I’m also leaving out a lot of points here. I would LOVE for @LexFridman to speak with an ecologist or conservation biologists on the topic of biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse. Climate change will have a role to play in this, though sprawling development has undoubtably been the current spear head in such conversations.
@kevinbeck8836
Жыл бұрын
biodiversity and ecological concerns will be ignored until the systems completely collapse 😓
@deborahmarinelli9277
Жыл бұрын
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 🙏🏼
@LightSearch
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for your comment, it saved me from wasting my time :)
@leninfernandez9279
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@next_door_rigil3270
21 күн бұрын
12 years* if we actually start doing something about it. Hahahah. Look at both US presidential candidates and most EU elections. Climate change? Who is that? Sit on your ass and vote for the guy that makes it worse though. Unless you want to "start fixing" it in 12 years? Hahaha
@justbusiness8402
Жыл бұрын
Love the content, I listen to your show while working overnight shifts. Will listen to this one tonight, thanks for what you do.
@LondraCalibro9
Жыл бұрын
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.
@pfcsantiago8852
Жыл бұрын
Me too.
@littlebird2573
Жыл бұрын
Very respectfully, neither of these people are climate scientists. These people are journalists. Can you please bring on non-partisan actual climate scientists to discuss their work and these topics?
@skylark8828
Жыл бұрын
Exactly
@Seanconnery1st
Жыл бұрын
That partially mattress. You can still read data and extrapolate without being a subject matter expert.
@skylark8828
Жыл бұрын
@@Seanconnery1st Non-partisan though.
@Seanconnery1st
Жыл бұрын
@@skylark8828 non-partisan in what regard? Is it partisan to state that climate is influenced way more by the Sun and irregularities of the geological activity? No it isn’t.
@skylark8828
Жыл бұрын
@@Seanconnery1st Yes it is in this regard, because it stems from a partisan belief that is without any real evidence, one that the oil industry would welcome for obvious reasons. But it's already been proved that this climate change we are experiencing is happening due to human activity.
@mathiaz943
Жыл бұрын
Why not invite actual scientists who study the subject to such a debate???
@chrisblahblahh4468
Жыл бұрын
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
@leninfernandez9279
Жыл бұрын
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.
@JohnSmith-ds7oi
Жыл бұрын
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.
@lucasreiYT
Жыл бұрын
Appreciate the community your team is building and allowing us a space to listen to these works.
@morgengold
Жыл бұрын
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?
@kapytanhook
Жыл бұрын
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
@billpapadopoulos7912
Жыл бұрын
This is a very serious and well conducted interview. I feel way more people should hear it.
@IronFurball
Жыл бұрын
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"
@archigoel
Жыл бұрын
I think there's a huge risks to these podcasts. While they are amazing, Lex does a poor job of countering his speakers -- he can't, as that would need a SME! And Lex can't be a SME everything. So, people can be left with wrong biases of the guest. I know a lot about EV, so I could catch their lack of knowledge about it. Most people won't.
@ShortVersion1
Жыл бұрын
Exactly, it's like they read an article about EVs from 10 years ago and then flipped the page in the newspaper and never looked back into it.
@InnsmouthAdmiral
Жыл бұрын
Debate? These two were just "yes and"ing each other for 4 hours. They shared pretty much the same view on everything and there were no challenges to anything either of them said at all. Also, Dr Lomborg here was found guilty of scientific dishonesty regarding this subject previously: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1128871/
@korpen2858
Жыл бұрын
Here's a nice little passage i found regarding the funding of Mr. Lomborgs "think tank" :The discovery of support from Paul Singer comes after a DeSmogBlog investigation last year found that CCC’s early funders included conservative think tanks with links to the network of organisations funded by the Koch brothers, who have pushed millions into organisations denying climate science and blocking action to cut fossil fuel emissions.
@michaeljbeach
Жыл бұрын
"You don't want agreement, you want cooperation." Love that, Mr. Revkin.
@chunksloth2746
Жыл бұрын
Yes it is eerily authoritarian, in all honesty it is how the left operates. “ you will own nothing and be happy” WEF
@qwerty6574
Жыл бұрын
@@alsalc55 work will set us free, apparently Lol
@alexgreen3375
Жыл бұрын
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!
@shak535
Жыл бұрын
Right on Lex thank you for all of these great podcasts !
@Pepper-rn4hh
Жыл бұрын
Gosh, I remember when they were shouting from the rooftops that "global cooling" was going to end the planet. That was the 1970's
@hedman
Жыл бұрын
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
@zaarkeru3391
Жыл бұрын
I mean, it was a reality... We stopped using aerosols, which solved the issue...
@Lurch685
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@zaarkeru3391
Жыл бұрын
@@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...
@Lurch685
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@commander_whats_his_bucket6785
Жыл бұрын
I don't get why this is a debate, they agree on most almost everything, and more importantly they almost always talked about what they agree on. Its important to distinguish the things you agree on but if you are having a debate you need to dedicate more time to the divergence of opinion.
@ArtOlson2008
Жыл бұрын
Eutrophication, microplastics, point source pollution, accountability, organic and inorganic toxins, drinking water, nutritional content vs. yeild, data standardization and quality control, prioritized and rank ordering of carcinogenic chemicals in agriculture, flow rates, NIMBYs, illegal dumping, enforcement
@clintkeepin
Жыл бұрын
I'm not part of this supposed 89%, my EV is driven almost 100% of the time vs my gas car, which is just gaining dust in the garage. The part he mentions for the bus he didn't apply to cars, at the city level ignore the climate issue, it reduces air pollution. Period, this alone is worth it. EV also reduce my cost of operation per year. Less to worry about and less to operate. This is fact. I can drive to the mountains outside of LA, beach, and back to my city without issue.
@ShortVersion1
Жыл бұрын
Seconding this! Our gas car sits and rots, the Leaf is amazing and should unironically be forced on these people by threat of violence haha
@willclarke1863
Жыл бұрын
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 🙏🙏🙏
@Basieeee
Жыл бұрын
You lead great topics with great guests. Love you Lex.
@johnleeinslc
Жыл бұрын
As Lex admitted, it wasn’t much of a debate. But Andrew and Bjorn did throw out a lot of straw men to disparage others who think that urgency requires not just lip service but action. Lex, perhaps try to get someone like David Roberts, Kim Stanley Robinson or Katherine Hayhoe to represent a middle ground between the status quoism of Bjorn Lomberg and the so called Doomists.
@InnsmouthAdmiral
Жыл бұрын
I agree. This wasn't a debate at all and they agreed on everything. They were both status quo people who said nothing really needs to be done for some reason.
@johnleeinslc
Жыл бұрын
@@InnsmouthAdmiral , Lomborgs schtick for the nearly 30 years is that any money subsidizing renewable energy takes bread from children’s mouths. His tune has not changed even as climate impacts have emerged and the costs to displace fossil fuels have decreased.
@yinoveryang4246
Жыл бұрын
Here’s the problem: People on the other side of this debate will generally not want to appear. But why is this? It seems like a a fair question. I imagine Lex, who’s clearly trying to get all sides of this argument represented fairly, is encountering this problem.
@ArPerson5
Жыл бұрын
This was really not helpful. No real information provided. If you want to discuss this topic why would you not bring on experts (the actual scientist) to discuss this and provide actual information. Neither of these two guys are scientists or experts in the field. I’d rather hear what honest experts think and what the scientific reality is.
@YangfanZhou-n1f
3 ай бұрын
Totally agree
@ThalmeierDominik
Жыл бұрын
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.
@cristinataliani5619
Жыл бұрын
Sixth Mass Exinction,Abrupt Climate ,Overpopulation And Overconsumpton Of Natural Resources-This Will Have Grave Consequences For Global Industrial Civilization!!! Comments Welcome!!!
@MisterMonsterMan
Жыл бұрын
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.
@ncdave4life
Жыл бұрын
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.
@gzcwnk
Жыл бұрын
@@ncdave4life No as that is a false "balance" with the deniers un-supported by peer reviewed science, data and facts.
@ncdave4life
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@aeiouaeiou100
Жыл бұрын
Shame that food and meat consumption didn't get discussed. Very good discussion though! Much needed nuanced discussion to calm everyone down a bit.
@HereRightNowEternally
Жыл бұрын
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.
@alecchase2000
Жыл бұрын
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.
@brodyhess5553
Жыл бұрын
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
@brodyhess5553
Жыл бұрын
@@ConnorMedia what?
@Libertariun
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@alvareo92
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@tuckerluna6366
Жыл бұрын
Please do more of these Lex!
@tonywilson4713
Жыл бұрын
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.
@budthecyborg4575
Жыл бұрын
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.
@humansnotai4912
5 ай бұрын
I totally agree with that. Well said Bud.
@CatastrophicDisease
Жыл бұрын
Lomborg consistently begins with a true fact (i.e., people in developing countries depend on coal for energy access and it is wrong to deny them that), but then uses that fact to make logical leaps that just don't follow. The inequality between rich and poor countries is a massive problem, yes, but it's not reason to simply ignore the need for an energy transition.
@alaron5698
Жыл бұрын
Well, he's not arguing that you should "ignore" energy transition. He says you should invest in research rather than inefficient alternatives such as windmills and solar panels. Further, there is a limited amount of resources on Earth, and his argument is that you should address the low-hanging fruit that yields tremendous results over dreamy projects that result in next to nothing.
@webbswonderful
Жыл бұрын
At no stage does he suggest that we ignore energy transition. You are distorting what he says to fit your opinion rather than doing research as previously suggested.
@djtall3090
Жыл бұрын
You don't want agreement, you want cooperation. Thanks Lex, you are doing an amazing job expanding minds with your interviews.
@lukelucy1980
Жыл бұрын
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.
@mechtist
Жыл бұрын
lex was a test tube baby. please use discretion when making assumptions about birth circumstances /s
@tubecated_development
Жыл бұрын
Why didn’t he have a climate scientist in such an important ‘debate’?
@davemartino5997
Жыл бұрын
@@tubecated_development because climate change is a total scam
@dmfaccount1272
Жыл бұрын
Really? To discuss climate change you get a journalist and a wannabe economist? You couldn't find a single climate scientist on the entire planet? Framed as a debate is a joke, it is two guys who have the exact same views on pretty much everything after watching 3/4 of the episode.
@asheinamerica7718
Жыл бұрын
This isn’t a debate. It’s two guys agreeing that the media is hysterical
@deejay8ch
Жыл бұрын
50:22 "If you have a good case, pound the case, if you have a bad case, pound the table." There is an overwhelming amount of table pounding in modern public discourse. Great quote
@wadeboggs5163
Жыл бұрын
You couldn’t find two scientists to have this same debate?
@calbearstein9196
Жыл бұрын
I think this was meant to be more of a discussion of policy to improve the global human condition.
@Crateria
Жыл бұрын
What to do in the face of climate change is a policy question, not science.
@piptyson5512
Ай бұрын
@@Crateria So you think the science is "settled" so to speak? I do not. But as climatologist Judith Curry put it, the policy horse was put in front of the science cart long ago. In other words, there was a high likelyhood of BS from then on...and the more I study, the more I find evidence of exactly BS.
@laithmeister
Жыл бұрын
Still waiting for a opposite views between those 2. Was hoping for true opposite point of views and discussion of main points of contentions.
@Mgoblue301
Жыл бұрын
Here is what frustrates me about this video: Bjorn seems to be downplaying the actual worst case scenario, which is that rampant fossil fuel use makes the climate incompatible with advanced human civilization. This worst case scenario no longer seems possible, but largely in part due to the very investments that he decries. Unfortunately, we don't necessarily have the time to wait for technologies to develop on their own without large subsidies and investments. For every degree less of warming the world will be better for human civilization and life in general. I also disagree with the notion that fossil fuels are some immutable thing we will have to live with for a long time and we should accept it. I don't know exactly which estimate Bjorn is referring to when he mentions that the Biden administration predicted we'll still have 70% fossil fuel use by 2050, but the IEA recently released their 2022 report on this. Their stated policies scenario (the estimate of fossil fuel use under today's stated policies) predicts that it falls to 60% by 2050, or around 32 gigatons of CO2 emissions (compatible with 2.5 degree of warming), down from more than 50 gigatons before the Paris Agreement. The announced pledges scenario (which is the more optimistic path) could cut fossil fuel even further to around 12 gigatons of CO2 emissions by 2050, which will keep us to around 1.7 degrees of warming by 2100. And it might be possible to drive it down even further if advanced technologies materialize and the transition proceeds quickly and smoothly. Hopefully some form of carbon capture technology will emerge to fill in any missing gaps. I make no prediction here about which scenario is most likely to materialize; my only intention is to show that these scenarios are hardly unrealistic and not worth fighting for. Yes, rich nations do offshore some CO2 emissions to China and other developing countries, but it doesn't account for the total reduction in fossil fuel use. If you examine and separate consumption-based vs. production-based CO2 emissions, then you will still see a sustained decline in the fossil fuel usage of consumption in rich countries, which suggests it's not just an illusion of offshoring. After all, rich countries still do a lot of onshore manufacturing as well. Finally, I want to say that I do agree with the notion that we probably won't end fossil fuel use by making it unreasonably expensive for everyone; it is politically unpalatable and unnecessary. We do need to make clean energy cheaper and an appealing alternative. But Bjorn is just too sanguine about the dangers that will occur if we delay this transition for much longer. Now perhaps Bjorn is right and everything I wrote is wrong, but I didn't see him address these points in the debate and so it appears to me that his premises are somewhat faulty.
@brucefrykman8295
23 күн бұрын
You make huge assumptions which are untrue or unproven *1) The "global' [surface?] temperature can be measured.* It cannot be, global temperature models are not global temperatures measurements there is no "record" of the "global temperature of the Earth either of the past, present, or future. *2) Man made CO2 emissions are the primary driver of "global" temperature variability* Again, how is this provable when global temperature cannot be measured? The only systemic attempt to survey the mean average surface temperature of a large area (The entire USA) began in 2005 with NOAA's USCRN (United States Climate Reference) in 2005. This network has measured only a random noise signal with no discernible positive or negative temperature trend (measured in 0.01 degree gradients) over its entire 19 year period of USCRN data collection. *3) "Policy Makers" (autocrats) have the capacity to monitor, measure, and control the entire Earth climate system through legislation with the intention of creating a less hostile existence for the Earth's 8 billion people* Do I really need to dismantle this Utopian fairy tale for you? *4) The hazards of reliable energy (high energy dense fuels) far outweigh the benefits of there continued use (except by its prolific use by "policy makers" and their myriads of subalterns)* How about we wean these people off fossil fuels first. Do we really need travel and air conditioning provided for these people? In fact why do we need places like Washington DC at all? Can't every all these paper shufflers simply tele-commute from their own kitchens in order to show us all how to "save the Earth?" *5) CO2 is "pollution," but only when it's produced as a byproduct of a thriving economy.* In all other respects it is the base of the food pyramid for all life on Earth. Man made CO2 feeds life and excess life on Earth is simply downstream CO2 "pollution." The moon has no CO2 and therefore is not suffering "life pollution" Similarly while rain forests are toxic waste dumps of life pollution while the Sahara Desert is "pristine and clean"* This is the basic enviro _weltanshauung_ for which I can offer no rebuttal. Its basic assumption requires one to accept that the notion that human life (except their own, of course) is a disposable commodity.
@taylorramos2992
Жыл бұрын
You should interview more Climate scientists like how you interview people from other specialties. Neither of these guys are climate scientists.
@that_heretic
Жыл бұрын
That might challenge his bias. Can't have that. It feels better to believe we can keep burning fossil fuels without worrying about what the world looks like in 300 years, then to take responsibility for our actions today.
@MichaelPlatson
Жыл бұрын
I love how much of a non-debate this turned out to be.
@chrismcdonald5775
Жыл бұрын
We'll solve climate change before Revkin puts one cohesive thought together.
@emailjwr
Жыл бұрын
Jesus, Revkin is brutal
@shogun......
Жыл бұрын
!!! Spoiler alert !!!!
@thesilkpainter
Жыл бұрын
Full agreement here!😁
@TheHamburgler123
Жыл бұрын
@@chrismcdonald5775 Lmao savage but true.
@michaelgentile9580
Жыл бұрын
Just so you are aware... A debate happens between opposing viewpoints. It is very disingenuous to host two people that agree on 99.9% of the topic and call it a "debate".
@johnswafford2614
Жыл бұрын
Thought I had a great understanding about energy consumption but this podcast changed my position. What a great pod. Thanks for the banger Lex.
@yunushermann4873
Жыл бұрын
which positions specifically were changed? would love to know
@DoobiusPiff
Жыл бұрын
what were your understanding before and what is your position changed from and too? strange comment.
@TechProFury
Жыл бұрын
@@DoobiusPiff little triggered? Probably know who you listen to
@DoobiusPiff
Жыл бұрын
@@TechProFury just a strange comment imo who do i listen to ? im confused now if im honest :D
@pulsar22
Жыл бұрын
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.
@KanesTrades
Жыл бұрын
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!
@KnightIndustries572
Жыл бұрын
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?
@snowflakeca2079
Жыл бұрын
Revkin’s comment about the poles warming faster and that the process “calms the whole system down” is ABSOLUTELY STRIKINGLY THE SECOND DUMBEST THING I’VE HEARD. Revkin acknowledged earlier, the ice at the poles melts above 33 degrees, which HOPEFULLY is not debatable. What does Revkin think will happen to ocean and land temperatures if ALLLLL that moisture is in the atmosphere instead of frozen at the poles? What does Revkin think will happen to temperatures if there is ONLY oceans at the poles absorbing MORE energy from the Sun and not ice to reflect it??? I’m just a sales guy who can think and read and I feel these 2 are scared to death of the reality and they are just simply in denial and figure “Well… we’re fucked. Might as well try getting rich before the whole thing melts”.
@roadtoserfdom3020
Жыл бұрын
Bjorn is such a stone when he listens. By that you can tell he isn't waiting to say his next "premeditated line"
@justinzwahr6726
Жыл бұрын
Fr I noticed in the first few minutes that he looks like he's straight up paralyzed
@jeffreyrogers8151
Жыл бұрын
@Scotch Barrel um, ok
@undefinedfreedom8580
Жыл бұрын
When u lose a debate, start calling names.
@bobobobo3142
Жыл бұрын
I am from a district in Pakistan which is one of the highest hit by floods. It constantly rained for 5 days non-stop so much that our concrete made house started seeping. Almost all of the houses in our neighborhood collapsed because those were mud houses. We were struck in our houses for a month with water everywhere, no mobile network or internet. So many domestic animals died due to starvation, snakes and reptiles everywhere, all of our crops died because of stagnant water. Total deaths are still unknown because govt is incompetent and there is no mechanism to know. I can only hope we do not have to face kind of situation again in my life.
@davidwell686
Жыл бұрын
You country has a history of flooding and heavy rains. Just research it a bit.
@weegieboard8432
Жыл бұрын
@@davidwell686 are you for real, what a prick
@davidwell686
Жыл бұрын
@@weegieboard8432 Sure boomer
@TheJustinpgardner
Жыл бұрын
Let's be clear about Bjørn Lomborg and his background. First and foremost, he is NOT an environmental or climate scientist. He has degrees in Political Science. And while he has a doctorate, nobody would consider him a scientist in the traditional sense. Also, he is the head of a think tank, and he's selling books. He seemingly started his public career on the basis of climate change skepticism. He has a point of view about climate change, and routinely dismisses some data in favor of other. In fact, his first book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, was specifically cited as going well beyond the conclusions of the data that is being provided, and his second book, Cool It, has also been cited for inconsistent views on the data he's presenting. I hold no definitive opinion about Lomberg, but I will say this as I listen to him... he is a very effective speaker. I can see why people are attracted to his point of view. But ask yourself... what if he's wrong? Because if he's wrong, and his viewpoints catch on, it will be devastating for humanity. If he's right, and we're merely wasting money and not getting people out of poverty quicker... that obviously has effects, but it's just slowing progress, not stopping it. I don't view these outcomes as compatible. As humans, we tend to get bored easily. And hearing that we need to address climate change year in and year out eventually wears us out and we start to care less and less about it because there's no "finish line" to this fight. It will keep going well past when we are dead. But that doesn't mean that the scientific community is wrong about our world warming and the effects that it's having. And we've done very little to stop it. So do we really want to stop investing in trying to stop and it possibly developing the solution... just because those actions are slowing progress in other parts of our world? I don't think so. Thanks Lex for providing the forum where we can talk about these civilly.
@michelleboggs4672
Жыл бұрын
Climate engineering/geoengineering needs to be a part of the conversation.
@funma2353
Жыл бұрын
Susan krumdieck maybe?
@maryjane5998
Жыл бұрын
Let's not forget that the biggest payouts in the markets don't come from great performances but rather it's great promotions. Stay invested, diversification for streams of incomes is very important And with the right skills and proper understanding of how the market works.
@perfect1616
Жыл бұрын
well there are some profitable Investment one can do convenantly at this moment which are
@perfect1616
Жыл бұрын
: Estate : Share : Stock : Nft
@tessyclifford
Жыл бұрын
Forex trading is really profitable, investing in it now will be the wisest thing to do especially with the current rise in btc.
@Lisaobrian
Жыл бұрын
@@tessyclifford you're right Forex trading is surely a lucrative way to invest whether you want growth, leverage, stable income or something in between
@csretcpedrobrouw
Жыл бұрын
I made 62,800 dollars within 6days of trading with her.
@xyz9571
Жыл бұрын
Where's the debate?
@santocheen
Жыл бұрын
Wow, that was illuminating! It was not as much a debate (because both participants agreed on all the prevailing issues) as it was a discussion. Thank you for doing this!
@OscarMaris
Жыл бұрын
It was a couple of guys bullshitting and there was nobody there to call out their bullshit
@elise9537
Жыл бұрын
@@OscarMaris yep theyre the hoax really :) There is not Gov in this world even disputing the climate change happening right now but these guys know better.
@skoolwifi3835
Жыл бұрын
@@OscarMaris Those guys have decades experience in their respective fields, you have a toon link pfp. Get a life
@OscarMaris
Жыл бұрын
@@skoolwifi3835 their respective fields are lying and bullshit artistry. I agree that they have a lot of experience in those fields.
@briananderson9152
Жыл бұрын
@@OscarMaris what are they lying about?
@Mrguitarcraze
Жыл бұрын
The first thing to do is follow the money, the second thing is to contrast that with facts. Thank you Lex
@EdoKwin
Жыл бұрын
That's...honestly the smartest and most concise advice I've heard on climate in a while. Very well said.
@mstrG
Жыл бұрын
money and gained power my friend
@jzuni001
Жыл бұрын
I read this in Scarface's (Al Pacino) voice for some reason.
@JoeZorzin
Жыл бұрын
right, follow the money that goes to renewable energy producers- though that might not be what you were hinting
@bobbybrown1258
Жыл бұрын
@@JoeZorzin how people can even come out with this crap is beyond me. Fossil fuel industry has far more money... Has been shown to spend huge amounts of money lobbying and covering up climate change... And now are the ones trying to get in on renewables where subsidies exist. This guy has in the past talked about renewable subsidy... Which in many countries now have been stopped because they are economically competitive. Where as fossil fuels still rake in gov money. And climate science has been predicting this long before 'big renewable' which is still tiny compared to the fossil fuel lobby had any money to fund them... Not that there is any evidence they are. I can only think a comment like yours is intentionally disingenuous or just utterly utterly uneducated. There is no real other explanation
@71avis
Жыл бұрын
It would be better to invite two well renowed scientists each on the extreme side of the spectrem and let them debate.
@alexforget
Жыл бұрын
Such a good idea Lex! Your podcast is amazing, please keep it up, there is no other place like it.
@glike2
Жыл бұрын
Lex never asked Bjorn where his funding has come from over the years? It's easy to be optimistic like Bjorn when your life is funded by Billionaires.
@potterj09
Жыл бұрын
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 :)
@bennieknape4857
Жыл бұрын
Co2 is not pollution
@childrenoftolkien
Жыл бұрын
Never understood why we can't discuss this. Thanks lex
@LonewolfProd_
Жыл бұрын
Why? Because in between big oil and big green (largely activists groups), there are billions of dollars of dollars involved here with the interest in securing as strong a monopoly on the conversation as possible. This is also why alternative ideas are often laughed out of the room.
@RocketmanUT
Жыл бұрын
It is substantially discussed in scientific literature.
@Azeminad
Жыл бұрын
@@RocketmanUT by scientists who are funded one way or the other.
@RocketmanUT
Жыл бұрын
@@Azeminad Irrelevant. The data speaks for itself. Moreover, scientists would be rewarded greatly for disproving global warming. They'd instantly be famous.
@bjjpenguin
Жыл бұрын
@@RocketmanUT It's not irrelevant. Funding is not given to things that challenge narratives. You can't collect data if you have no money to do so.
@michaelthompson2118
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for talking about climate change in such detail! This really clears things up and it will be easier to not think catastrophe when I hear about it going forward.
@tubecated_development
Жыл бұрын
koolaid soothes
@good_ant
Жыл бұрын
Even if I watched this entire thing on mute, simply the way that Bjorn looks at Andrew with respect and a smile while he speaks, in the context of a debate, alone does so much to build civility and love in the world. I have almost completely tuned out on this topic (having once having been a climate alarmist) due to ideological politicization of the topic I just feel it is nearly impossible to know what is real. Thank you Lex for not only providing a balanced, nuanced discussion on an important topic, but also showing the world how we can have these difficult conversations in a healthy way that brings us together, rather than makes us fearful and angry just to generate clicks and votes for failing political parties.
@alaron5698
Жыл бұрын
That's because this wasn't a debate. They agree on practically everything.
@dsgio7254
Жыл бұрын
False from the beginning : the green new deal is NOT designed to make green energy MORE expensive but equally or less expensive than fossil fuels. IF of course it would be applied fairly among classes and nations.
@adambrewer8606
Жыл бұрын
So where was the debate? I love what you do Lex allowing people of science to talk in long form about what they do. Please, please, please let a climate scientists, geologists, earth scientists, ecologists explain what's happening to our planet. These guys underplayed the risks involved massively. This topic is too important to treat lightly.
@piptyson5512
Ай бұрын
Maybe see podcasts from Jordan Peterson with Judith Curry and another with Richard Lindzen.
@yvesaugustin912
Жыл бұрын
Damn your lineup of guests is on fire 🔥🔥 lately.
@hackebeil20
Жыл бұрын
OMG they are talking about hurricanes like it is the only problem with climate change. we get it, but it's besides the actual point. what makes climate change so dangerous is not the individual little things that get worse. it's the systemic, global and accelerated degradation of multiple ecosystems and biospheres all at the same time. and once the tipping points have passed, there is no stopping it. for sure we will adapt, we will become resilient. but that's not the issue.
@BibleSongs
Жыл бұрын
What a great discussion. Lots of podcasts have intelligent people sharing ideas. This is one of the very few that has three polite people actually listening to one another, waiting their turn to talk, never speaking over one another, and not trying to one-up each other. Such an enjoyable experience. Lomborg, especially, is such a humble and generous listener.
@pikaso6586
Жыл бұрын
I had no trust in economists' ability to predict the future. After this podcast I still don't.
@stinkysbscvids
Жыл бұрын
Lex, this episode is lot better than Joe's episode with Lomborg. Joe came across as overly combative to the point that I, as a listener, became uncomfortable. Your pushbacks, in contrast, came across as very fair. It's a hard line to walk. Nonetheless, you've exceeded my expectations! You also did a very good job of this in the Ye episode. Keep it up!
@GrubblandeGrapplern
Жыл бұрын
I love Joes podcast but he is a bit of a... Well lets just say he's not great at everything.
@TheRealStevovo
Жыл бұрын
Jamie was especially combative
@simonbannow3905
Жыл бұрын
Agree,.
@jiriheinz1489
Жыл бұрын
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!
@BeefLoverMan
Жыл бұрын
This 4 hour podcast has been up for 16 minutes but I've already listened to the whole thing and I have very strong and angry opinions on every detail that was said.
@nwogamesalert
Жыл бұрын
I will be waiting to hear them with interest. I have only heard about five minutes so far, and I also expect to have strong opinions about this discussion.
@Dan16673
Жыл бұрын
Lol
@sventorpedo
Жыл бұрын
I haven’t heard anything but the most important part is the format of the discussion as most comments are mentioning.
@leonardstitt4821
Жыл бұрын
Wow. A rational discussion about climate change and global warming. Only halfway through this LOOOONG podcast but finding much interesting information.
@Chemike21
Жыл бұрын
I like how Trump is always compared to Hitler. Oh the 2nd grade name calling strategy. Still works on those with a 2nd grade intelligence level.
@clebs1261
Жыл бұрын
1 hour in and I still don't quite understand how it's a debate though, they seem to agree on everythinh lmao
@mikegray8776
Жыл бұрын
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.
@alfx4356
Жыл бұрын
thanks for this, Lex. as a professional self-doubter (and mechanical engineer), I am amazed by how little both of your guests seem to understand about production and technology in general (I'm referring to the EV bit) and still they feel entitled to talk about it rather than replying with an honest "I'm not the best person to ask"
@Junglebtc
Жыл бұрын
You started of by saying how little in general then previced it by direct reference to EV Tech . Try to be more precise and what didn't they mention about EV tech that you can teach us
@Ryan.......
Жыл бұрын
What would have been relevant to mention?
@janew2108
Жыл бұрын
Andrew is a fascinating man. I’m glad to see some healthy growth at the NYTimes.
@leoptit7992
Жыл бұрын
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
@joel_seth_media
Жыл бұрын
They therefore lived to 32 on average globally, which is the point of the argument.
@leoptit7992
Жыл бұрын
@@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
Пікірлер: 5 М.