Economist Bjorn Lomborg: Global warming is not a priority Videos

fjaoaoaoao Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - One of the reasons why a lot of people would rather do something about global warming instead of things like malaria and HIV/AIDS is that people will naturally be concerned with issues that affect or can affect them directly. Also, dealing with global warming is a much less messy and trendy issue to combat.

776281 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Stuffed climate = NO economy

JonThm Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - GW was ficiton made up by nuclear power, so it is not even real.

Philosophickle Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Fail.

ghayklan Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - This is such clear thinking... we need to do this... we need to prioritize and GW is bottom

stopglobalwarming08 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - "Stephen H. Schneider, one of the foremost climate scientists in the United States, discredits Lomborg on global climate change and takes Cambridge University Press and the media to task for publishing and praising a polemic."grist org

scarredqatsi Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - I know it sounds negative, but according to the natural law, our priority should be population control. That would help the other priorities along. We wouldn't have all these other problems if it weren't for our own self destructive attitudes. Unfortunately our system is based on growth and expansion. It is obvious that on such a small planet there is only so much growth possible. Then what?

FoamingGypsy Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - To say that global warming doesn't exist is like me saying hiroshima wasn't bombed.

nlhennings Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - this guy's an idiot. who do you ask to prioritize? an economist? does anyone else find this retarded? hey idiot you ask a philosopher to prioritize. not someone whose lifestyle is based on currency.

FaithIsImaginary Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - "this guy's an idiot. who do you ask to prioritize? an economist? does anyone else find this retarded?"Not at all. Evaluating the consequences of various kinds of prioritization is pretty much the core reason for the existence of economists.When you talk about "lifestyle is based on currency" you miss the point entirely. Currency is just symbols of our ability to perform work/produce things. It limits what is practically possible to do. Economics helps by making our limits plain.

FaithIsImaginary Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - I don't think a philosopher's input would be worthless, but in the end I think the combination of scientists and economists is likely to be more important. Scientists can tell us about hard limitations on human activities, such as environmental problems and economists can show us our ability to solve the remaining problems.Either way, humanity has to vote on what's to be done. The role of any expert is to help the rest of us make good choices, not dictate solutions.

esnap Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - curing aids and malaria would just create more starvation.

WooferWegrow Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Killing starving people will cause less starvation.

776281 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - "The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissionsinto the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climatechange. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable." The Royal Society

robdurbin Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - This is a cost-benefit analysis. That is why an economist is important. If you are in favor of spending money on climate change you are wasting money. Climate change is an unproven theory based upon a model with questionable assumptions. CO2 is not a pollutant any more than O2 is. People are responsible for less than 5% of CO2 emissions. The planet earth and its oceans is the biggest source of carbon emissions. Like 94%. What happen to the hole in the Ozone layer?It is gone.How did that happen?

neestle Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - The whole point of this brilliant talk is that global warming is A problem, but nowhere near THE problem. The comments here with hysterical outrage or parroted talking points only underline his call for a rational, prioritized effort to combat the world's problems.Yes, we can work on climate change. We can put some money towards solving it. But how about doing 100 times more good working on malaria and HIV first? We don't have unlimited resources. Is it really that hard to grasp?

nlhennings Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - as an engineer, i know that there are no limitations on what the human mind can accomplish. limitations arise when you bring money into the equations. when someone tells us smart people that we can't make something because we don't have enough money to do it. so i guess you're right. as long as our number one priority is not to collapse economically, we shouldn't try too hard on the environment. but why is it so hard to understand that without this planet, we have nothing. maybe thats the..

nlhennings Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - idea, make this place completely uninhabitable, and then we won't have any problems whatsoever.

Slimdawgc Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Yes, but there is a false dilemma, a logical fallacy, he's suggesting. Many of the problems tie into each other. Increased manmade CO2 emissions make water less available, contribute to the spread of diseases, decrease agriculture, and decrease biodiversity. Tackling climate change addresses many problems simultaneously. Besides that, Lomborg doesn't have the scientific qualifications to be taken seriously; he's a political scientist, not an earth and atmospheric scientist or geophysicist.

Slimdawgc Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - I'm glad that someone recognizes the scientific consensus on this issue. The whole global warming debate reminds me of the CFC problems - back then, businesses fed media the myth that there's no "scientific consensus" that CFC emissions tear the ozone layer. No rational person today doubts that CFCs tear open the ozone layer. Same thing with global warming. It's special interests interfering in politics: corporations and industry. Exon Mobil even had a memo, revealed in a 1998 NY Times article

Slimdawgc Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Wrong. Non-manmade CO2 emissions are 75%. Source: "Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems," Peter M. Vitousek, Science Journal, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vitousek works at Stanford. Dude, many economics models have "questionable" assumptions. For example, the Heckscher-Ohlin model assumes free factor mobility between nations. It also assumes that both nations have constant returns to scale. THOSE are questionable assumptions, my friend.

Merany1 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Whether you beleive in AGW or not it has to be admitted that an international governmental scientific orgaqnization should not be created based on a hypothesis as it will pervert the scientific process.Creating the IPCC with the goal of trying to understand why the global mean temperature has increased is fine, but creating the IPCC based on the hypothesis that the temperature has increased as a result of anthropogenic CO2is just plain bad science.

Tbonyandsteak Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Say in other words: Nothing will be done on global warming, better live with it :(

Tbonyandsteak Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - btw is BMW sponsering this??Well that make sence hehe

neestle Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - That's right. It's a conspiracy. You figured it all out. They sponser almost every video, but this one was their repayment.Everything now neatly fits into your prejudices about the world. You can sigh with relief and go back to not thinking critically.