Talking about GDP loss by 2100 is a joke. The planet has tipped. We are in an emergency and the use of GDP and 2100 are irrelevant. Humans might be able to adapt but our growth-based economy can not adapt. The need for growth caused the problem and will ultimately kill most of the life on the planet.
It's not "solving" climate change, it's adapting to climate change. Mankind has been doing that since the invention of animal skin coats and fire. All without absolutely destroying the economy of their own nations.
We must choose 'adapt,' but governments in the West (Biden = who ever the UK prime minister is today)are simply not listening. A frightening future to be honest.
Wow Richard great show of your ability to adapt to the current political climate goes to show that all it took was our president being willing to implement new ideas and make sure people see them through and actually adapt...wait a minute..
Can't really take a economist serious who still talks about the 'invisible hand' when the creator of that concept backed down on it. But I'm really biased, cause I grew up building snowmen in winter and don't see them anymore 🤷♂ (greets from germany)
Adaptation: trust technology to solve the problem Mitigation: trust government policy to solve the problem I don't know about you, but I'd trust tech/market innovation over government stagnation any day.
English degrees aren't "useless", as an immigrant who had to learn english at 5 years old...english is one of the most important things i have learned in life. I would never have been able to read great works of literature without it being translated to death , i can actually read the words of jane austen in the way that she wrote it...with all of its beauty and nuances, english is beautiful to me.
52:00 please explain to me why it's scary to say we should use nuclear energy. Fossil fuels have killed or shortened the lives of many more people than nuclear power.
Nuclear power hasn’t been built without the use of fossil fuels. It isn’t liquid at room temperature. The energy invested in building, maintaining, and then cleaning up makes it barley break even on EROEI. The cheapest way to safely build them is on coasts which also are the most dangerous places. The older models only were designed for 50 years of use. The potential for use as a weapon. The time it takes to safely build facilities. The price that is paid when disaster comes. Stable governments are a requirement. Build sites are only good for that one thing for the rest of time, while having a finite lifespan. And there isn’t enough uranium on earth to provide the power necessary without build 1000’s on every coast in the world. Just a few reasons. The most important being they are basically an expensive, dangerous, battery. And choosing between a punch, and a kick, is a false choice. There are other ways. The easiest of which is use less energy. Developed countries like the USA have a ridiculous per capita energy use when compared to similar lifestyles in other developed countries. Low hanging fruit, car culture and suburban sprawl.
I think the question comes down to this: Which is more scary, the risks of nuclear energy or the risks of runaway climate change (due to cascading feedback loops at higher global average temperatures). The risks of the former MIGHT be managed successfully; the risks of the latter are a sure species killer.
@@RussCR5187 disagree. You are using the assumption that the ability to maintenance them for safety is a given. When the Soviet Union fell that was a real concern. Would they be able to continue the stewardship of something that could destroy us all.
Using economics as a way to think about climate is really a signpost of what the root cause problem really is, in my opinion. Namely, the long-standing human attitude of complete dominion over all flora and fauna. We are the masters, with conscience-free permission to use up earth's finite natural resources and dump waste into the environment without limit. Completely forgetting, of course, what a very wise person once said: "That which cannot continue forever ... won't."
At roughly 59 minutes Bjorne’s answer to making poor people rich applies to developing countries becoming developed. It gives no consideration for the poor people currently existing in developed countries despite “free markets “.
Communists are hilarious. The poor in developed countries are staggeringly prosperous because of free markets and compared to poor countries. The working poor in America can afford their own cars, small homes of their own, clean running water, more food than they can eat, air conditioning, heating, electricity, TV, Internet and smart phones. Compare that to poor countries where they can barely afford food, have no running water or electricity, need to use wood fires for heating and cooking and have to travel everywhere on foot. You people are either incredibly ignorant or liars.
@@Micscience you missed the point entirely. Poor people exist in developed countries as well. So developed doesn’t eliminate poverty. Lifting some out doesn’t mitigate the overall problem nearly enough. And it exasperates the climate change problem, which potentially will cause far more poverty
@@rustylidrazzah5170 I don't think that is a fair assessment of Bjorne's idea. You won't eliminate all poverty. Poverty is a very complex subject. Here is a United Nations definition of poverty: ================================== (The United Nations observes that, worldwide, “frequently, poverty is defined in either relative or absolute terms. Absolute poverty measures poverty in relation to the amount of money necessary to meet basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter. Relative poverty defines poverty in relation to the economic status of other members of the society: people are poor if they fall below prevailing standards of living in a given societal context.”") =================================== To me people on welfare is not poverty because their needs are met. The problem in these neighborhoods at least in the US isn't money but ignorance and also the welfare state. Bjorne wants to educate people in poorer neighborhoods so they can rise above their environment. We can't have an attitude that someone else is supposed to take care of us because we start pointing the finger at others and we stop trying as hard. I do think it is smart to put foundations in these communities to build seeds into the people's minds so they can gain success. I also don't understand how poverty will exacerbate climate change since it is the industries that are creating most of the C02. This climate change scare is so exaggerated they were wrong with their models for the longest time and now just recently the models have supposedly started to replicate the variations that were predicted but the doomsday claims are so exaggerated.
@Nathan Anderson I agree. It’s as if they’re holding on so tight to their power structure that they can’t even see they’re choking it to death. Their system relies on growth through the commoditization of everything resulting in the degradation of everything.
At first, I thought I liked these debates, but they are becoming increasingly irritating in that they take a complicated question and treat it as if it has a yes or no answer. Like most of our society, nuance has fled.
The Earth is cooler with the atmos/GHGs/albedo not warmer. To perform as advertised the GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0Jijw7-YG-U.html The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmos molecules render that scenario impossible. No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven climate change or Gorebal warming.
Those economists are living in a land of make-believe when they say that young, educated people will come up with innovative solutions that people will accept in the future, and at the same time sneeringly reject solutions today, like raising gas prices.
Raising gas prices to a level that discourages driving and purportedly saves the climate would lead to an economic depression so apocalyptic, that the end result would be a far worse global warming, plus total economic and political chaos.
I think the World should Come up With a formular to calculate how Much each Country or Nation contributes to the climate change and how Much each Nation can do to mitigate the effects of climate change
Classic manufacturing consent: the question being about 'adapting' to catastrophe is textbook. The question should be how and how quickly people can change the foundations of our global system such that we might actually FIX things, instead of living with disaster caused by the 1%. Ugh.
The Earth is cooler with the atmos/GHGs/albedo not warmer. To perform as advertised the GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0Jijw7-YG-U.html The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmos molecules render that scenario impossible. No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven climate change or Gorebal warming.
@carlykpdx I couldn't watch it much longer than 10 minutes. Did the two economists ever come to understand that without mitigation there is no adaptation?
Yes, just as they have rejected how economies actually work. Their work is all based on theoretical models that make completely unrealistic assumptions, all in the service of coming up with nice neat formulas.
1:00:00 "We aren't making poor people richer" says a woman who 200 years ago would have been illiterate. She's using a wireless microphone, wearing prescription eye glasses and has enough education and media to be aware of global conditions, and enough free time on her hands that she can attend something as practically useless as this debate. Whoever you are, lady, you're richer then any Roman senator, you are richer then Queen Victoria was.
These people are all members of the opulent. She also got all those things by being complicit with a system that exploits the global south through mass murder and American colonial mindsets. Yeah sure, western countries have a working class (which isnt even the person you are talking about, cause she is also a member of the opulent like the people you are referencing from the past) with a fair amount of creature comforts to distract them but we live in a system with a higher kill count of innocents than the Nazis and it is perpetually growing; at home and through our horrific foreign policy. But hey, at least we exploit members of the working class almost at the same rate now so you can be happy about that 👍
@@PalimpsestProd They just call you racist, sexist, etc. When you have a good point that they can't refute. Any time you make a argument and someone calls you an "ist" or a "phobe" just smile, you won the argument or made a good point.
Considering no one in the West is willing to do anything about China India or the rest of the rising industrializing world I think adapting is the only practical option
@@searose6192 We are not experiencing any weather our ancestors did not encounter. Ice ages happen as do warm periods. Humans are already adapted to both because, as you yourself stated, it is all cyclical.
@Wes Baumguardner You asked "adapting to what? What exactly is changing" implying that you don't believe adaptation is necessary at this time and implying you don't see any change. Again, it seems you are coming from a position of climate change denialism. Or perhaps you have another reason for implying there is no need for adaptation and there is no Change occurring.
@@searose6192 I am not seeing anything that is changing to the extreme that would force adaptation of the human species. The human species has already been through several major temperature swings including ice ages and the ending of ice ages. We are not presently experiencing any weather that we have never experienced before as a species. I was asking the question because I simply don't see what you are talking about.
Not true... Heat can be easily bore by humans via Air conditioning and more heat leads to more rainfall and more vegetation cover... The nature works beautifully under heat.. Its the cold that should ring an alarm as it did during 1970s when Leonard Nimoy himself came on TV and declared about return of ice age by 1990..
I wish I shared you optimism. Governments in the West (thinking here of the UK and USA under Biden) are simply NOT listening, and continue with their crazy plans. Climate change is very real, but not as the IPCC and the UN in particular, see it.
Generation Four Nuclear needs to be decriminalized, this will reduce its cost substantially. The nuclear regulatory commissions around the world have failed to move with the times and are acting to stop timely nuclear energy development.
The Earth is cooler with the atmos/GHGs/albedo not warmer. To perform as advertised the GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0Jijw7-YG-U.html The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmos molecules render that scenario impossible. No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven climate change or Gorebal warming.
@carlykpdx Generation 4 reactors will be built on assembly line in a factory setting then trucked to the site while the site is prepared, which will be mainly underground. The plans are for four or more a year for each factory, once up and running. The cost will only be a small fraction of the current stick build price. Most of the current cost goes into building the high pressure safety dome because of the high pressures needed in light water reactors. Gen 4 reactors operate at much higher temperature and only slightly above atmospheric pressure.
@carlykpdx I would just point out that NOTHING will be more expensive than runaway climate change due to the cascading feedback loops that will be triggered by higher average global temperatures.
@carlykpdx I can certainly agree that no single thing is a silver bullet against climate change. The main reason I say this is because of the real, most basic root-cause problem we are facing. Namely, our widespread and long-standing human attitude of absolute dominion over the earth and all of its flora and fauna. We are the masters, with conscience-free permission to use up earth's finite natural resources and dump waste into the environment without limit. Completely forgetting, of course, what a very wise person once said: "That which cannot continue forever ... won't."
We have adapted to the 10 degrees of global cooling since Homosapian first set foot on earth, I am sure we can manage the next 10 degrees of cooling too,.
This is such a non issue that is pisses me off. Mitigating all of the pollution is not feasible at this moment. As such even if we some how get to negative emissions eventually adaptation will be absolutely (already is) completely necessary. This is what happens when you let economist debate a geophysical issue.
Teslas are free? That guy is hallucinating! The 10K rebate he is referring to doesn't even apply to Teslas and even if it did it certainly doesn't cover the cost of a 60K+ Tesla!
He never said Tesla was free, Tesla is not the only electric car. He specifically said that the average electric vehicle was free in Sweden through pay back incentives. You are spouting something that was actually corrected in the video which shows that you don't care about the truth but rather you just want to demonize a particular side.
Mitigation will pave the way for Humans to adapt. So both sides were actually on the same side. But as it often happens in debates, the best debater/s draws supporters to their side because of their persuasive skill and not necessarily because they put forward a strong argument.
Lake mead is about dry. The Mekong delta is drying out. Fires and floods everywhere. What we won't survive are the wars we will have as systems break down.
Yes. It's all quite simple. A warming planet causes … Warmer air & water => (leading to) more humidity, heavier rain, and heavier floods. Hotter air & topsoil => more evaporation, more drought, and more wildfires. Hotter Arctic => less ice, less albedo, much less ice. That's the way it works. It is simple physics. The evidence is everywhere. Expect more of the same, only worse.
The world is unfair. Societies will choose the cheapest way to go for their societies. Unfortunately, the Third World will be on its own, and it will have to adapt in its own way.
Bjorn: Instead of 450% richer at the end of the century, with climate change we'll still be 434% richer. Yeah, but we won't be able to go outside during the day between March and October.
Inspiring debate, as a researcher on Adaptation in the Lake Chad Basin in Central Africa, i liked the argument that we could use complex maths to simulate potentials scenarios. This could help decision-making making on what more to focus on- Adaptation or Mitigation
The yes position, the economists, are basically arguing we can afford monetarily to let people die. Money is their only measure. That bias is severely clouding their judgement, and unwittingly proving the NO positions point that bias in examining complex systems is a serious issue.
Using money as the only measure is really a signpost of what the root cause problem really is, in my opinion. Namely, the long-standing human attitude of complete dominion over all flora and fauna. We are the masters, with conscience-free permission to use up earth's finite natural resources and dump waste into the environment without limit. Completely forgetting, of course, what a very wise person once said: "That which cannot continue forever ... won't."
@@RussCR5187 I come to a similar conclusion from a different direction. Most of the things that you, and I, describe stem from agricultural societies. Nomadic, and hunter gatherer, societies never developed those systems. I have a saying I use a lot. Humans have an issue with believing what they are witnessing now has always been, and will always be. Neither is true.
@@rustylidrazzah5170 I agree 100%. I'm 76 and have seen and experienced a lot in my lifetime. Your final observation is something I have noticed in spades with younger people. The world they were born into defines, for them, what is normal. From my perspective, the world they were born into is a world that had changed significantly during my time on earth before they were born.
@@RussCR5187 I see it in every generation. There are colloquial sayings, and slogans, that highlight this attitude humans have when viewing the world. Like the ideas that come from the Protestant work ethic. Or, concepts of beauty, success, and failure. They do not have a consistent definition from generation to generation, but every individual perceives it as normal. I’m your years how many times have you heard, “Why don’t they do it like we used to?”
@Nathan Anderson never thought of it outside of an ecological perspective. I guess it would apply to everything perceived by humans. My wording of it is slightly different though. What I am referring to can occur even without a baseline. Unless you go to extremes. For instance. If I say today most people have an expectation for instant communication with anyone, anywhere, on earth. I guess there is a baseline that has shifted, but it occurred rapidly from the telegraph to cell phones. Less than 3 consecutive lifetimes. But either way, thank you for the observation. I’m going to have to reflect on that one more.
Three ways to influence people. Charism, as per Bjorney boy, ha ha ha. Otherwise, you can control information. Otherwise you can control fear. Three ways ... what a mouth for a science debate, Bjorney. Boy, oh boy.
They are asking the wrong question. Humanity has survived some of the most extreme climates the planet ca throw at us. The REAL question should be? Can our civilisation survive climate change?
The motion in this debate is so miserably stated. The pro side agrees that mitigation is necessary; the con side agrees that humans may be able to adapt. The organizers of the debate really should have figured out the differences between their speakers and written a motion accordingly. Instead we're treated to 3/4 of the speakers fumbling around, trying to figure out where the disagreement is on stage, punctuated by Lomburg deploying his flimsy understanding of science against strawmen.
Wildfires are not worse than in the past, in fact fires are less serious and less acres burned than in the early 20th century. Mitigation for fires (which are not a consequence of climate change) is better forest management and zoning planning.
Farmers can’t adapt as well as urbanites??? Farmers are constantly adapting to climate and weather changes. I think I completely disagree with that statement. In spite of the statement I think the yes team won. The No team was virtue signaling.
The IPCCs best case scenarios all have built into them the assumption that we will have access to carbon capture and carbon removal technology. While both of those technologies exist, neither one of them is scalable to size. However, just saying that they “aren’t scalable to size” is the understatement of the year. At the current levels of effectiveness in these brand new mechanisms, they would only remove the tiniest fraction of the carbon emissions that we are putting out, each year. They wouldn’t even begin to make a dent in the carbon emissions that are already in the atmosphere. Furthermore, no one is working on such systems for methane, or any of the dozens of other greenhouse gases that we have polluted our air with. And, to top things off, we continue to subsidize fossil fuels companies, as well as *increase* our annual emissions rates, rather than decrease them. We are on the brink of a “blue ocean event,” meaning that the Arctic sea ice will be gone. It’s not going to be completely gone, but all the scientific evidence shows that it will be so far gone that it will cause rapid passing of other tipping points. The experts who are the most well-versed in the cycles of Arctic ice agree that this will occur within the next few years. The ice in the Arctic is our “global air conditioner.” The white, reflective surface radiates the sun’s rays back into space. Once that ice is gone, the ocean water rapidly begins heating up, like a drink that you leave outside on a summer day. The resulting mass die off of ocean life will cascade throughout the rest of the global ecosystem. We are not even close to being on track for any of the survivable scenarios put forth by the IPCC. We’re actually right on track with the worst case scenario, RPC-8.5, the “business as usual” scenario. That means 8.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. No, humans cannot, and will not, adapt to climate change. It’s not “climate change,” a “climate crisis,” or even “global warming.” It is, in fact, a “climate catastrophe,” or “global cooking.” You will not hear any of this in the media, because they have advertisers that they must keep happy. So, you’ll get no serious discussion of the impacts of even 2.5 degrees Celsius, which is more than sufficient to cause massive famine, due to crop failures. You’ll hear nothing about the aerosol masking effect, or any of a few dozen other scientific reasons why this is an absolutely devastating situation. Human hubris is prevailing over the whole fiasco. And, cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug. People have lived through centuries of nearly endless growth and prosperity, hence they assume that it will always be so. It will not. This will not end well.
Well put. Only one thing: There is no need for a scapegoat regarding the lacking media coverage (or lacking discussions in whatever society we are part of). Most of us are to blame. Much too many choose to ignore the elefant in the room. Too many rather have this catastrophe than changing anything to make things a bit better. I am so fed up with this. Things will only worsen throughout my life.
@@TrentBoswell Well, since 1850, the seas have risen ~30cm, and it’s warmed about C. And in that time, mankind has flourished by every measure-we adapted just fine with far lesser technology. Climate-related deaths a tiny fraction of what they were. So what’s the evidence that we can’t adapt? We already have, and continue to do so today.
@@matthewsmith8249 You’re making huge, sweeping assumptions about the rate of environmental change remaining steady, and slow, as it was in the past. Every current indicator is “faster than expected.” New records are being broken on the regular. If you don’t want to admit the facts, fine. Don’t. But don’t expect me to agree with someone who is unwilling to face scientific data. You can have the last word now if you want it, I’m done here.
This is the wrong question. *Why should humans HAVE to adapt to Climate Destruction* ? Here's the *biggest factor* in climate change: World population 1804 : 1,000,000,000 1927: 2,000,000,000 1974: 4,003,794,172 1999: 6,064,239,055 2020 : 7,794,798,739 Think of the impact that 8 times the number of resource consumers has had on the planet. The latest, and by no means definitive study I have seen states the Earth can reliably sustain a population of around 3 to 4 billion people. That's 1970. In a little more than 50 years we have doubled that number. We talk about "Human Rights to housing and food" like claiming a "right" makes it a necessity for Earth to provide the resources. It is clear that the Earth is pointing out that perpetual population growth is unsustainable. Around 70% of this planet is water. We already understand monkeying around with water, one of the 3 prime necessities for human existence along with air and sustenance, has led to dramatic failures. Fresh potable water is a miniscule portion of that 70%. It is estimated by the US government that 92% of the water used by Americans is "clean" water. What is *not* said is that the vast majority of that water has to be chemically treated in order to make it clean, and that almost 100% of the water being used is polluted with micro particles of plastic. Little to no studies have been done to see the medium to short term effects of these particles which, by the way are not eliminated by our digestive systems. They are in us forever. The air pollution globally is toxic. Land use, particularly in areas of high urban populations has been "reclaiming *landfills* which is a "nice" term for garbage dumps. Housing and industrial "parks" are being built on unstable, polluted ground and that pollution is poisoning the water table which has to be treated with toxic chemicals in order to make it "safe" to drink. That old meme "Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns" might be looked at from a behavioral scientific viewpoint when evaluating Climate Change and proposals to mitigate it. *Humans are the cause of ALL Climate Change* Stop breeding consumers.
Michelle seems hopelessly uninformed. The Iranian guy seems more focused on shouting down the opposition than presenting valid arguments although he had a good point about modelling complexity. Lomborg and his plus one fumbled a few questions but still I think they had much better arguments. Quite surprised by the outcome of the audience voting.
I am so alarmed that throughout the debate, no actual concern for the survival of birds, bees and berries during periods of intense heat was noted. Last year in the heat dome over Oregon and Washington, berries actually fried on their bushes. Blooms were blasted. The bee population (anecdotally) seems much reduced this year. Bees cannot hang out in airconditioning. These things may not immediately affect humans, but they will, definitely, affect us down the road.
The question should have been Can humans adapt to climate change or is it too late? Of course we can adapt but that was not was meant by the question in my opinion.
Of course humans can adapt to climate change. We have been adapting to it for our entire history. Climate change never stops. There is no such thing as a static climate. 5,000 years ago, the Sahara was a tropical jungle. 15,000 years ago, almost all of North America was covered in glaciers. Yet these people will sit up here and claim that an average temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius occurring over a century is going to cause some sort of crisis when there is absolutely no record of such a temperature change causing a crisis on the geologic record. The temperature changes by several degrees on an hourly basis, what difference is it going to make if it changes by 1 degree over a century?
@@wesbaumguardner8829 check your data .. it is the accelerated rate of change that is different this time... caused by the greenhouse effect of burning fossil fuels.
@@martynhaggerty2294 " it is the accelerated rate of change that is different this time." Accelerated compared to what? During the Younger Dryas time period, a vast glacier covering the majority of North America thawed in about a century causing sea levels to rise about 90 feet. It must have gotten pretty warm pretty quick to melt a 2 mile thick glacier that covered almost all of North America. Are you saying that the rate of change is higher now than during the Younger Dryas time period? I'll bet all those people were sitting there thinking if they had just burned less fossil fuels, they could have kept their huge ice block, since CO2 is the only thing in the universe that can cause climate change at the "unprecedented rates" we are experiencing today. (sarcasm)
@@martynhaggerty2294 I am pretty sure it takes a much greater warming rate to melt a 2 mile thick glacier almost the size of North America in 100 years than the present rate of 1 degree average temperature increase over 100 years.
That really strikes me as the wrong question, as others have noted. Of course, in one way or another, humans will adapt, but at what cost? The human species presumably won't completely die out, so of course the species is probably going to adapt, but in what way, and at what cost? Some species of fish, trapped in dark cave lakes adapt by losing their eyes which became useless, and they adapted to the dark. What will the human species lose in order to "adapt" to climate change on the scale some are anticipating?
Adaption only makes sense when the planet hasn’t reached the tipping point yet and resilience ( not hitting the tipping point) is only possible with the mitigation!
To the extent that adaptation eases the struggles of the next generation (my kids) somewhat, and perhaps the one after that (my grandchildren), then I'm all for it.
@@micjohn701 Problem is, you don't know you're right at a tipping point until it's too late. Tipping point means out of our control; the point of no return.
Adaptation: trust technology to solve the problem Mitigation: trust government policy to solve the problem I don't know about you, but I'd trust tech innovation over government stagnation any day.
@@gistfilm Might there be a third possibility (remote as it may be): Emancipation? Rise up massively to free ourselves from the tyrannical oligarchic rule that has us (and all of our descendants) by the throat. One reason I'm leery of trusting tech innovation is because the corporate masters who control it are part of the oligarchy that rules us.
What I felt is that the word adaptation is perceived differently by the people for the notion and against the notion There should be a proper definition of what we really mean by adaptation? Is it leaving things rambling around or taking measures (well in order to adapt) Well where I got confused is, migitatiion so that we can adapt Is it more like a cause and effect thing?
You're half right. While climate change has always existed, it has never been as fast as it is in modern times. The amount of change in the past 50 years is insane and it will only keep accelerating, at a pace far greater than we can meaningfully adapt to. I think humanity will survive, but not without terrible sacrifices.
Climate change has been a fact since the planet has had an atmosphere, billions of years. Man and our predecessors have existed for only a couple of hundred million of years as primates, but this is true for all vertebrates. The only reason mankind has adapted is his/her ability to reason, coupled with the invention of machines and discovery of fossil fuels to fuel them.
@@TheUnchainedMind There is no indication that climate is changing faster or slower than it has in the past. There have been times when climate changed much slower than it is currently and times when it has changed much more abruptly.
after watching this discussion for 40 years, it goes like this let's do something. We start to do something then the fossil fuel industry under minds those actions by bribing politicians and creating an economic crisis We are incapable of even adapting to moving away from using fossil fuels The invisible hand of the market keeps pushing us back to oil
You think it's going to be any different if we convert to renewables? You have another thing coming these climate change actions are going to steal our freedom
@@oleonard7319 I'm not even going to attempt to argue with you. You made up your mind there is nothing I can say to you. In your mind humanity is doomed unfortunately. When I hear the term fossil fuel energy troll, I wonder if you are aware of how much the Oil Industry is pushing for climate change. The big problem though is media. We keep getting positive feedback loops of media constantly through these algorithms bombarding everyone with narratives and that attacks your subconscious mind and I seen it here in this debate. How the against side of this debate won is beyond me. The facts were against them in my opinion and their argument was essentially we don't know what can happen so act now. The way I see society shifting is worrisome because people aren't making much sense anymore. When I hear the term fossil fuel energy troll, I wonder if you are aware of how much the Oil Industry is pushing for climate change.
@@oleonard7319 ("We are incapable of even adapting to moving away from using fossil fuels The invisible hand of the market keeps pushing us back to oil") Yeah that is the problem, you believe we are doomed. You obviously drank the koolaid.You say it is the invisible hand that keeps us on oil but where is this evidence? All the evidence suggests that it is the oil industry and the rest of the power elite establishments that are pushing for climate change onto the people.
The motion in this debate is so miserably stated. The pro side agrees that mitigation is necessary; the con side agrees that humans may be able to adapt. The organizers of the debate really should have figured out the differences between their speakers and written a motion accordingly. Instead we're treated to 3/4 of the speakers fumbling around, trying to figure out where the disagreement is on stage, punctuated by Lomburg deploying his flimsy understanding of science against strawmen.
So no then . no ones adapting , mitigating , except record military spending , GHG are accelerating upwards , 2020 was the very last date for leveling off..but were accelerating the wrong way straight into feedback zones and beyond any ability for control .
I definitely vote for No, as Prof. Kave Madani enlightened how it is necessary to make the decision when you need to consider people all around the world, secondly, Prof. Kave well-noted that climate change is one by-product of sustainable development that we suppose to Adaptatively
Exactly and that's how we adapt further and further... Problems were far far worse when poor people used to be direct victims of weather natural disasters but that number is severely reduced.. Madani is talking about a time when no one had invented the term innovation and entrepreneurship
Solution is, when we collectively had reduced our impact on our planet, our biosphere to one planet. We for decades have overshot our one planet marker. That I would present at solution, by whatever tactic.
I highly recommend NOT trying to adapt to a hot house Earth. We need to transition to a green economy. It's not that hard, for example there are scrubbers now for removing CO2 & sulphur from exhaust on shipping. There are hydrogen fuel cells for trucking. Wind turbines with electrolyzers to convert wind energy into hydrogen from sea water. Come on folks, let's make it easier on ourselves not HOTTER.
Removing sulphur from ship exhaust has ironically caused warming, fuel cell trucks have such miserable end to end efficiency they're essentially useless which is why you don't see them around, wind power is pretty useless without backup as it goes offline randomly for days. You could use wind to produce hydrogen, methane, ammonia or whatever but it's not very cost effective due to the intermittency
Climate has always changed and will continue to, we have maybe a minute influence on it, if at all. Trying to stop it or reverse it is not smart and too costly, won't do anything. Adaptation, as Lomborg is advocating, is the best way forward. Also, it hasn't warmed up for the past 8 years, measurements are slanted by the urban environments they take place in. Sea levels are not rising much, ice cover is not decreasing all that much. Nuclear energy is the best of both worlds, it lowers CO2 emissions, if you are worried by them, and is reliable. The real science is clear, alarmists are exagerrating everything and ignoring the real data.
I adapt to climate change everyday. If it's cold, I put on a coat. If it's hot I put on a t-shirt and shorts. Survival of the fittest. Thank you Darwin.
