8 ms·

This is not my field and I am genuinely curious, are we fucked or not? I just listened to a 3 hour podcast from Lex Fridman with these guests: “Bjørn Lomborg i

This is not my field and I am genuinely curious, are we fucked or not? I just listened to a 3 hour podcast from Lex Fridman with these guests: “Bjørn Lomborg is author of "False Alarm". Andrew Revkin is a climate journalist (21 years at NY Times).” They refute many of the claims in this article about how much of a doomsday event faces us. Are they full of shit? Is this article sensationalist? My gut tells me Lex’s guests are downplaying too much and this article is sensationalizing the issue, but that may be my bias to look for the middle ground.

benpacker 4y ago
David Wallace Wells isn’t really sensationalizing beyond the title. A lot of the corresponding book (written after the article) is just a sober look at our best guess of the range of things that could happen with different emissions reductions hit - if no action is taken (and so far very little meaningful action has been taken), most of the Earth will be uninhabitable. If a full scale society wide mobilization happens now, it will be very different, but even under the best case scenario climate related conflicts will dominate domestic and geopolitics by the late 2030s and into the rest of the century, and it will be very difficult for economic growth to exceed annual losses in infrastructure, housing, etc.
- goatlover 4y ago
  > most of the Earth will be uninhabitable. I find that extremely hard to believe since the dinosaurs evolved on an Earth that was far hotter than what we'll see this century (as much as 10°C warmer). Yes, they evolved over millions years from the previous mass extinction event, but the point is that plenty of plants and animals were able to survive in such a warm world. It wasn't mostly inhospitable to life. Also because humans have existed in all sorts of environments from tundras to deserts for tens of thousands of years with stone-aged technology, including ice ages. The latest IPCC reports puts the upper limit of warming under 4°C.
  - Zircom 4y ago
    Uninhabitable as in unable to support modern civilization and population levels, probably in large part due to agriculture no longer being viable due to lack of water or weather related issues I'd assume.
    - nradov 4y ago
      That doesn't seem like a good assumption. The fossil record shows a lot of plants growing during previous global warm periods, enough to sustain many herbivores.
      - Zircom 4y ago
        Yeah, grass and bushes and trees and shrubs can, have, and will continue to grow in any but the most extreme conditions sure and those are going to be fine for herbivores who can digest and extract nutrients from them, but for the food crops that we can eat, they need pretty specific climates for us to successfully cultivate them at the scale needed to sustain sizable populations.
  - richardhod 4y ago
    This is an extremely naive and ascientific hot take. Dinosaurs are large creatures of a completely different order, not mammals. The sea ecosystem which had evolved over millions of years to deal with those temperatures is a completely different ecosystem from what we have now. It's not about whether some humans can survive in difficult conditions, it's whether the current ecosystem can survive the unprecedentedly fast and rapid warming. And whether billions of humans will starve
    - goatlover 4y ago
      Mammals, reptiles and amphibians existed back then as well, as did a variety of plants. Uninhabitable sounds like most of the Earth turns into Venus, which won't happen. The current ecosystem will undergo change as some species adapt and thrive while others go extinct, migrate or are confined to smaller areas. What this looks like for civilization and to what extent humans can mitigate is debatable. Climate models aren't civilization models.
- Gimpei 4y ago
  Didn't he amend this claim in a later article and now believes that we're headed for around a 3-3.5 degree heat increase, which won't render most of the earth uninhabitable? To be clear, I still think this is a terrifying number, which if it comes to pass will lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, in particular in the developing world. I think we should do all that we can to bring the number down as much as possible. [1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/climate-change-after-pandemic.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/climate-change-after...
HPMOR 4y ago
I've read places, that because of the actions we've been taking, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, and others, that we've taken ourselves away from the super fucked category and placed into a more reasonable one. When these alarmists pieces came out they were accurate, however, because of all the alarm, we've legitimately changed the future outcome we were facing. It's still important we keep at it and reduce our GHG emissions, but I don't think we are as royally fucked as we once were. I hope this offers some(?) clarity.
- aussiesnack 4y ago
  A couple of caveats about the IRA. Firstly, an Act does nothing in itself. Everything depends on execution, and whether or not forecasts of the Acts effects were good. I know I'm stating the obvious there, but it gets papered over frequently when Congressional victories are declared. Secondly, the US is only one nation. The most influential in terms of global ethos-and-markets-setting, yes, but there's a whole world out here. I don't personally believe much will improve globally without stronger global governance. I also think the latter is possible, but unlikely within the next couple of centuries. And we probably will be well and truly fucked by then.
- speed_spread 4y ago
  > away from the super fucked category and placed into a more reasonable one So, we're reasonably fucked.
aussiesnack 4y ago
Quick reply with no links to hand, but I keep up to date with climate science (at a layperson's level). In short - I haven't read the compressed article, but I did read Wells' book and followed up most of the refs in detail. Yes, parts of it were exaggerated. Little outright false, but he tended to take worst-case scenarios, particularly regarding the chance of vast methane burps from tundra, etc. It was a reasonable if tendentious summary of what could happen, but it didn't describe the most likely trajectory. It was more like a possible black swan warning. But much has changed since. Somewhat to our advantage on the basic science - temperature sensitivity to CO2 increases seems to be towards the lower end of earlier IPCC estimates. It also seems that earth's systems are more responsive to reductions in CO2 emissions, so there's a better payoff to actions we do take. Renewable energy costs have reduced much faster than earlier projections suggested. One significant factor is worse - extreme weather events are worsening much faster than climate models had prevously suggested. The on-the-ground effects of climate change are worse per degree of increase than we thought. The higher-end temp rises once talked about (4 degrees plus) are now all but ruled out. So, no, we're not technically fucked. But 30 years wasted since we understood climate change dangers at least in outline have taken their toll. We have made it much harder to keep the globe's temperature within limits that our societies can deal with than if we had just thrown a few fossil fuel suits in prison 3 decades ago (semi-joking). Our political chances of staying within the 1.5C (which isn't a magic number, just an estimate of the temp rise whose costs we can reasonably deal with) are in my estimation miniscule. But political guesses aren't worth much. No-one is really confident that our political systems can deal with the vast numbers of refugees and disasters resulting from a likely 3C end-of-century rise. Our best projection isn't anything silly like human extinction or complete global collapse. More a sort of increasing dystopia: more wars, more disposessed, more hunger. And ever fewer nonhumans.
- tempestn 4y ago
  TIL: ten·den·tious /tenˈdenSHəs/ adjective: tendentious expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one. "a tendentious reading of history"
- sacrosancty 4y ago
ggm 4y ago
Lomborg made a lot of a well known science trope: you can dash to the door with the current technology, or wait for the 2nd to market and use less of them, more cheaply, for greater effect. The problem is he didn't consider a couple of things. Firstly, it takes competitive tension to derive a second to market and the full tenor of his proposal removed it. Secondly, it assumed there was no accelleration in the problem. You can arrive late at the 2nd to market, in a worse world than the one you could have been fire-fighting in. Leslie Groves said it best, about choices of how to proceed in the Manhatten project: "do both" -And in fact, this turned out to be key because using thermal diffusion as a feed stock enrichment to the calutrons turned out to be critical for time dependent delivery: Massive improvement in delivery because they didn't cheapen the investment. I personally would have had no problem with CCS, BioChar and Solar/Wind being pursued aggressively at broadly equal levels of funding, and then looking back to decide which one had the best bang for buck. Instead, CCS was massively over funded against evidence of fugitive gas leak problems, Biochar was sold to the idea of "not having to do the others" and as a bribe to farmers, and both CCS and Biochar backers howled down funding for wind and solar claiming it was green nonsense.
unlikelymordant 4y ago
The recent UN "gap report" concludes that we are on track for 2.7 degrees of warming by end of century, even assuming the recent commitments made by countries at COP26. So far too little is being done, and 2.7 degrees of warming is quite catastrophic. Considering most climate models even from 30 years ago have been reasonably accurate (within 10%) there isnt much chance that the predictions are totally incorrect. [1] https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021 https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021
chordalkeyboard 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries There are more than enough apocalypses to go around even if the optimists are right about this one.
- stevenwoo 4y ago
  It seems more than likely that multiple of those will occur since we as a species tend not to change our behavior if a large enough profit/cost is involved. "We will probably go on solving our problems by borrowing from the future until we are forced by the consequences of our own behavior to change." Octavia E. Butler
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  Yeah, aside from the much bleaker predictions of the article, we shouldn't forget just how exceptional and fragile the current interglacial is : we were already overdue for the end of it (give or take a few thousand years) !
lisper 4y ago
We are fucked, not because the problem can’t be solved, but simply because we aren’t seriously addressing it. The window for solving the problem is still open but closing rapidly.
pdonis 4y ago
> Is this article sensationalist? Yes. The idea that a couple of degrees rise in temperature makes most of the Earth uninhabitable is nonsense. Two simple observations will help to put all of this in a better perspective: (1) The range of human habitation on Earth is limited by cold, not heat: the hottest areas of Earth are inhabited; the coldest are not. (Also, in the range that is inhabited, humans find it more difficult to adapt to cold than to heat--extreme cold causes more deaths.) (2) The temperature rise is not uniform over Earth; in the hottest regions (the tropics), the temperature rise is much less than the average, while in the coldest regions (the poles), it is significantly more than average. Putting these two observations together makes it clear that the overall effect of a couple of degrees rise in average temperature will most likely be to increase the portion of Earth that is habitable for humans, not decrease it. Adding in the fact that humans can and will adapt to these changes, just as we have been adapting to change throughout human history, makes it even less likely that the net impact will be negative--if only the alarmists will stop trying to get huge amounts of resources squandered on "mitigation" efforts that will cost far more than any putative benefits they might provide.
- hollerith 4y ago
  >extreme cold causes more deaths [than extreme heat] How would you convince a skeptic that that is actually true?
  - pdonis 4y ago
    https://www.lomborg.com/the-heresy-of-heat-and-cold-deaths https://www.lomborg.com/the-heresy-of-heat-and-cold-deaths Or, if you are wondering if Lomborg is a partisan source, look at the study in The Lancet that he references: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...
    - hollerith 4y ago
      Thanks.
- 4y ago
gonzo41 4y ago
My tip, move somewhere where the heat is dry in summer. Get a house with good AC and upp on a slope to avoid rain bombs and flash flooding. Fires, floods and extreme storms are one thing, but wet bulb temperature events are what really terrify me.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Fires and floods are up there in the scare factor for me.
beders 4y ago
Lomborg is not taken seriously by other climate scientists. For good reason. Here's just a few counter-arguments: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/ https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examin...
- ospray 4y ago
  Q: Is Bjorn Lomborg a climate scientist? Answer: Lomborg is not a climate scientist or economist and has published little or no peer-reviewed research on environmental or climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented, errors and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, "follow a general pattern" of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions.
titzer 4y ago
"Us being fucked" is not uniformly distributed across the globe, but island nations are being forced to relocate their people and some places are seeing increasing death tolls from heat waves. The whole system is getting stressed. The rising tide that was lifting the destitute from poverty seems likely to saddle them with the worst climate consequences. In the west, we'll mostly shrug off high gas prices and continue to sleepwalk, occasionally stumble into oblivion. We're gonna use every ounce of fossil fuels and history does not stop in 2100. Incidentally, 2100 is closer to now than 1940. So buckle up, tikes.
sammalloy 4y ago
> Bjørn Lomborg Not a reliable source at all. He’s been linked to climate deniers for more than 20 years.
- nradov 4y ago
  That is false. Bjørn Lomborg has explicitly stated that he thinks anthropogenic global climate change is a real phenomenon, and that he accepts the science in IPCC reports. https://www.ipcc.ch/ https://www.ipcc.ch/ https://lexfridman.com/climate-change-debate/ https://lexfridman.com/climate-change-debate/
  - sammalloy 4y ago
    It’s true, and some of us have memories like elephants and remember how Lomborg has been at this for years. Lomborg is playing the climate denial delay tactic, and since his first book was published in 1998, he has been trying to slow, stall, and put the brakes on any binding mitigation.[0] This is one of many standard climate denial tactics. They admit that climate change is happening, but they don’t support doing anything about it. Furthermore, Lomborg has been accused by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) of fabricating data, cherry picking results, deliberately misusing statistical methods, distorting conclusions, plagiarism, and deliberate misinterpretation.[1] We also know that Lomborg has been funded by billionaires like Singer and the Kochs.[2][3] Lomborg is not and never has been a climate scientist. He’s a climate denier playing the long game. [0] In Wall Street Journal op-ed, Bjorn Lomborg urges delay with misleading stats https://skepticalscience.com/lomborg-WSJ-debunk-CSRRT.html https://skepticalscience.com/lomborg-WSJ-debunk-CSRRT.html [1] Annual Report 2003 Danish Committees Scientific Dishonesty. https://web.archive.org/web/20081217162831/http://en.fi.dk/publications/2004/annual-report-2003-danish-committees-scientific-dishonesty/annual-report-2003-danish-committees-scientific-dishones.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20081217162831/http://en.fi.dk/p... [2] Bjorn Lomborg Think Tank Funder Revealed As Billionaire Republican 'Vulture Capitalist' Paul Singer https://www.desmog.com/2015/02/05/exclusive-bjorn-lomborg-think-tank-funder-revealed-billionaire-republican-vulture-capitalist-paul-singer/ https://www.desmog.com/2015/02/05/exclusive-bjorn-lomborg-th... [3] The Millions Behind Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center US Think Tank https://www.desmog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center/ https://www.desmog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomb...
blueflow 4y ago
> this article is sensationalizing the issue Yes, 3.5 degrees increase won't make the earth uninhabitable. 50 Million years ago it was 10-15 degrees hotter and we survived it. Data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m...
- digitalscribe 4y ago
  The 10°C higher average temperature during the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is a great counter example to the alarmist view. I have not seen a very persuasive argument for why it's different now. If anything, there's video clip of Schrag (Harvard climate scientist) admitting that 10°C is perfectly fine, but that it's the rate of change that's alarming. I disagree with this too, because the story of humanity is the story of migration and adaptation (out of Africa, bronze age collapse, population bottlenecks, etc.) -- and these have nothing to do with man-made climate change. https://youtu.be/sZsnAdGaxkY?t=3037 https://youtu.be/sZsnAdGaxkY?t=3037
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > and we survived it FSVO "we".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
denton-scratch 4y ago
> this article is sensationalizing the issue I think the point of the article is that the authors regard the issue as grossly under-sensationalized.
IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
The problem I have with this article is that it straight up calls the permian mass extintion event as induced by global warming changes. Being generous, that is -at best- a lie of omission. The Permian event was caused by massive lava flows from tectonic changes and a rise on the lava stratum to to lower end of the earth crust " The scientific consensus is that the main cause of extinction was the large amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the volcanic eruptions" [1] Its really hard to take articles like this seriously when they play so hard and fast with the facts to fit their narrative. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_ext...

benpacker 4y ago

David Wallace Wells isn’t really sensationalizing beyond the title. A lot of the corresponding book (written after the article) is just a sober look at our best guess of the range of things that could happen with different emissions reductions hit - if no action is taken (and so far very little meaningful action has been taken), most of the Earth will be uninhabitable. If a full scale society wide mobilization happens now, it will be very different, but even under the best case scenario climate related conflicts will dominate domestic and geopolitics by the late 2030s and into the rest of the century, and it will be very difficult for economic growth to exceed annual losses in infrastructure, housing, etc.

goatlover 4y ago
> most of the Earth will be uninhabitable. I find that extremely hard to believe since the dinosaurs evolved on an Earth that was far hotter than what we'll see this century (as much as 10°C warmer). Yes, they evolved over millions years from the previous mass extinction event, but the point is that plenty of plants and animals were able to survive in such a warm world. It wasn't mostly inhospitable to life. Also because humans have existed in all sorts of environments from tundras to deserts for tens of thousands of years with stone-aged technology, including ice ages. The latest IPCC reports puts the upper limit of warming under 4°C.
- Zircom 4y ago
  Uninhabitable as in unable to support modern civilization and population levels, probably in large part due to agriculture no longer being viable due to lack of water or weather related issues I'd assume.
  - nradov 4y ago
    That doesn't seem like a good assumption. The fossil record shows a lot of plants growing during previous global warm periods, enough to sustain many herbivores.
    - Zircom 4y ago
      Yeah, grass and bushes and trees and shrubs can, have, and will continue to grow in any but the most extreme conditions sure and those are going to be fine for herbivores who can digest and extract nutrients from them, but for the food crops that we can eat, they need pretty specific climates for us to successfully cultivate them at the scale needed to sustain sizable populations.
- richardhod 4y ago
  This is an extremely naive and ascientific hot take. Dinosaurs are large creatures of a completely different order, not mammals. The sea ecosystem which had evolved over millions of years to deal with those temperatures is a completely different ecosystem from what we have now. It's not about whether some humans can survive in difficult conditions, it's whether the current ecosystem can survive the unprecedentedly fast and rapid warming. And whether billions of humans will starve
  - goatlover 4y ago
    Mammals, reptiles and amphibians existed back then as well, as did a variety of plants. Uninhabitable sounds like most of the Earth turns into Venus, which won't happen. The current ecosystem will undergo change as some species adapt and thrive while others go extinct, migrate or are confined to smaller areas. What this looks like for civilization and to what extent humans can mitigate is debatable. Climate models aren't civilization models.
Gimpei 4y ago
Didn't he amend this claim in a later article and now believes that we're headed for around a 3-3.5 degree heat increase, which won't render most of the earth uninhabitable? To be clear, I still think this is a terrifying number, which if it comes to pass will lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, in particular in the developing world. I think we should do all that we can to bring the number down as much as possible. [1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/climate-change-after-pandemic.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/climate-change-after...

HPMOR 4y ago

I've read places, that because of the actions we've been taking, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, and others, that we've taken ourselves away from the super fucked category and placed into a more reasonable one. When these alarmists pieces came out they were accurate, however, because of all the alarm, we've legitimately changed the future outcome we were facing. It's still important we keep at it and reduce our GHG emissions, but I don't think we are as royally fucked as we once were. I hope this offers some(?) clarity.

aussiesnack 4y ago
A couple of caveats about the IRA. Firstly, an Act does nothing in itself. Everything depends on execution, and whether or not forecasts of the Acts effects were good. I know I'm stating the obvious there, but it gets papered over frequently when Congressional victories are declared. Secondly, the US is only one nation. The most influential in terms of global ethos-and-markets-setting, yes, but there's a whole world out here. I don't personally believe much will improve globally without stronger global governance. I also think the latter is possible, but unlikely within the next couple of centuries. And we probably will be well and truly fucked by then.
speed_spread 4y ago
> away from the super fucked category and placed into a more reasonable one So, we're reasonably fucked.

aussiesnack 4y ago

Quick reply with no links to hand, but I keep up to date with climate science (at a layperson's level). In short - I haven't read the compressed article, but I did read Wells' book and followed up most of the refs in detail. Yes, parts of it were exaggerated. Little outright false, but he tended to take worst-case scenarios, particularly regarding the chance of vast methane burps from tundra, etc. It was a reasonable if tendentious summary of what could happen, but it didn't describe the most likely trajectory. It was more like a possible black swan warning. But much has changed since. Somewhat to our advantage on the basic science - temperature sensitivity to CO2 increases seems to be towards the lower end of earlier IPCC estimates. It also seems that earth's systems are more responsive to reductions in CO2 emissions, so there's a better payoff to actions we do take. Renewable energy costs have reduced much faster than earlier projections suggested. One significant factor is worse - extreme weather events are worsening much faster than climate models had prevously suggested. The on-the-ground effects of climate change are worse per degree of increase than we thought. The higher-end temp rises once talked about (4 degrees plus) are now all but ruled out. So, no, we're not technically fucked. But 30 years wasted since we understood climate change dangers at least in outline have taken their toll. We have made it much harder to keep the globe's temperature within limits that our societies can deal with than if we had just thrown a few fossil fuel suits in prison 3 decades ago (semi-joking). Our political chances of staying within the 1.5C (which isn't a magic number, just an estimate of the temp rise whose costs we can reasonably deal with) are in my estimation miniscule. But political guesses aren't worth much. No-one is really confident that our political systems can deal with the vast numbers of refugees and disasters resulting from a likely 3C end-of-century rise. Our best projection isn't anything silly like human extinction or complete global collapse. More a sort of increasing dystopia: more wars, more disposessed, more hunger. And ever fewer nonhumans.

tempestn 4y ago
TIL: ten·den·tious /tenˈdenSHəs/ adjective: tendentious expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one. "a tendentious reading of history"
sacrosancty 4y ago

ggm 4y ago

Lomborg made a lot of a well known science trope: you can dash to the door with the current technology, or wait for the 2nd to market and use less of them, more cheaply, for greater effect. The problem is he didn't consider a couple of things. Firstly, it takes competitive tension to derive a second to market and the full tenor of his proposal removed it. Secondly, it assumed there was no accelleration in the problem. You can arrive late at the 2nd to market, in a worse world than the one you could have been fire-fighting in. Leslie Groves said it best, about choices of how to proceed in the Manhatten project: "do both" -And in fact, this turned out to be key because using thermal diffusion as a feed stock enrichment to the calutrons turned out to be critical for time dependent delivery: Massive improvement in delivery because they didn't cheapen the investment. I personally would have had no problem with CCS, BioChar and Solar/Wind being pursued aggressively at broadly equal levels of funding, and then looking back to decide which one had the best bang for buck. Instead, CCS was massively over funded against evidence of fugitive gas leak problems, Biochar was sold to the idea of "not having to do the others" and as a bribe to farmers, and both CCS and Biochar backers howled down funding for wind and solar claiming it was green nonsense.

unlikelymordant 4y ago

The recent UN "gap report" concludes that we are on track for 2.7 degrees of warming by end of century, even assuming the recent commitments made by countries at COP26. So far too little is being done, and 2.7 degrees of warming is quite catastrophic. Considering most climate models even from 30 years ago have been reasonably accurate (within 10%) there isnt much chance that the predictions are totally incorrect. [1] https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021 https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021

chordalkeyboard 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries There are more than enough apocalypses to go around even if the optimists are right about this one.

stevenwoo 4y ago
It seems more than likely that multiple of those will occur since we as a species tend not to change our behavior if a large enough profit/cost is involved. "We will probably go on solving our problems by borrowing from the future until we are forced by the consequences of our own behavior to change." Octavia E. Butler
BlueTemplar 4y ago
Yeah, aside from the much bleaker predictions of the article, we shouldn't forget just how exceptional and fragile the current interglacial is : we were already overdue for the end of it (give or take a few thousand years) !

lisper 4y ago

We are fucked, not because the problem can’t be solved, but simply because we aren’t seriously addressing it. The window for solving the problem is still open but closing rapidly.

pdonis 4y ago

> Is this article sensationalist? Yes. The idea that a couple of degrees rise in temperature makes most of the Earth uninhabitable is nonsense. Two simple observations will help to put all of this in a better perspective: (1) The range of human habitation on Earth is limited by cold, not heat: the hottest areas of Earth are inhabited; the coldest are not. (Also, in the range that is inhabited, humans find it more difficult to adapt to cold than to heat--extreme cold causes more deaths.) (2) The temperature rise is not uniform over Earth; in the hottest regions (the tropics), the temperature rise is much less than the average, while in the coldest regions (the poles), it is significantly more than average. Putting these two observations together makes it clear that the overall effect of a couple of degrees rise in average temperature will most likely be to increase the portion of Earth that is habitable for humans, not decrease it. Adding in the fact that humans can and will adapt to these changes, just as we have been adapting to change throughout human history, makes it even less likely that the net impact will be negative--if only the alarmists will stop trying to get huge amounts of resources squandered on "mitigation" efforts that will cost far more than any putative benefits they might provide.

hollerith 4y ago
>extreme cold causes more deaths [than extreme heat] How would you convince a skeptic that that is actually true?
- pdonis 4y ago
  https://www.lomborg.com/the-heresy-of-heat-and-cold-deaths https://www.lomborg.com/the-heresy-of-heat-and-cold-deaths Or, if you are wondering if Lomborg is a partisan source, look at the study in The Lancet that he references: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...
  - hollerith 4y ago
    Thanks.
4y ago

gonzo41 4y ago

My tip, move somewhere where the heat is dry in summer. Get a house with good AC and upp on a slope to avoid rain bombs and flash flooding. Fires, floods and extreme storms are one thing, but wet bulb temperature events are what really terrify me.

quickthrower2 4y ago
Fires and floods are up there in the scare factor for me.

beders 4y ago

Lomborg is not taken seriously by other climate scientists. For good reason. Here's just a few counter-arguments: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/ https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examin...

ospray 4y ago
Q: Is Bjorn Lomborg a climate scientist? Answer: Lomborg is not a climate scientist or economist and has published little or no peer-reviewed research on environmental or climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented, errors and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, "follow a general pattern" of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions.

titzer 4y ago

"Us being fucked" is not uniformly distributed across the globe, but island nations are being forced to relocate their people and some places are seeing increasing death tolls from heat waves. The whole system is getting stressed. The rising tide that was lifting the destitute from poverty seems likely to saddle them with the worst climate consequences. In the west, we'll mostly shrug off high gas prices and continue to sleepwalk, occasionally stumble into oblivion. We're gonna use every ounce of fossil fuels and history does not stop in 2100. Incidentally, 2100 is closer to now than 1940. So buckle up, tikes.

sammalloy 4y ago

> Bjørn Lomborg Not a reliable source at all. He’s been linked to climate deniers for more than 20 years.

nradov 4y ago
That is false. Bjørn Lomborg has explicitly stated that he thinks anthropogenic global climate change is a real phenomenon, and that he accepts the science in IPCC reports. https://www.ipcc.ch/ https://www.ipcc.ch/ https://lexfridman.com/climate-change-debate/ https://lexfridman.com/climate-change-debate/
- sammalloy 4y ago
  It’s true, and some of us have memories like elephants and remember how Lomborg has been at this for years. Lomborg is playing the climate denial delay tactic, and since his first book was published in 1998, he has been trying to slow, stall, and put the brakes on any binding mitigation.[0] This is one of many standard climate denial tactics. They admit that climate change is happening, but they don’t support doing anything about it. Furthermore, Lomborg has been accused by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) of fabricating data, cherry picking results, deliberately misusing statistical methods, distorting conclusions, plagiarism, and deliberate misinterpretation.[1] We also know that Lomborg has been funded by billionaires like Singer and the Kochs.[2][3] Lomborg is not and never has been a climate scientist. He’s a climate denier playing the long game. [0] In Wall Street Journal op-ed, Bjorn Lomborg urges delay with misleading stats https://skepticalscience.com/lomborg-WSJ-debunk-CSRRT.html https://skepticalscience.com/lomborg-WSJ-debunk-CSRRT.html [1] Annual Report 2003 Danish Committees Scientific Dishonesty. https://web.archive.org/web/20081217162831/http://en.fi.dk/publications/2004/annual-report-2003-danish-committees-scientific-dishonesty/annual-report-2003-danish-committees-scientific-dishones.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20081217162831/http://en.fi.dk/p... [2] Bjorn Lomborg Think Tank Funder Revealed As Billionaire Republican 'Vulture Capitalist' Paul Singer https://www.desmog.com/2015/02/05/exclusive-bjorn-lomborg-think-tank-funder-revealed-billionaire-republican-vulture-capitalist-paul-singer/ https://www.desmog.com/2015/02/05/exclusive-bjorn-lomborg-th... [3] The Millions Behind Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center US Think Tank https://www.desmog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center/ https://www.desmog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomb...

blueflow 4y ago

> this article is sensationalizing the issue Yes, 3.5 degrees increase won't make the earth uninhabitable. 50 Million years ago it was 10-15 degrees hotter and we survived it. Data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m...

digitalscribe 4y ago
The 10°C higher average temperature during the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is a great counter example to the alarmist view. I have not seen a very persuasive argument for why it's different now. If anything, there's video clip of Schrag (Harvard climate scientist) admitting that 10°C is perfectly fine, but that it's the rate of change that's alarming. I disagree with this too, because the story of humanity is the story of migration and adaptation (out of Africa, bronze age collapse, population bottlenecks, etc.) -- and these have nothing to do with man-made climate change. https://youtu.be/sZsnAdGaxkY?t=3037 https://youtu.be/sZsnAdGaxkY?t=3037
denton-scratch 4y ago
> and we survived it FSVO "we".

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

denton-scratch 4y ago

> this article is sensationalizing the issue I think the point of the article is that the authors regard the issue as grossly under-sensationalized.

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago

The problem I have with this article is that it straight up calls the permian mass extintion event as induced by global warming changes. Being generous, that is -at best- a lie of omission. The Permian event was caused by massive lava flows from tectonic changes and a rise on the lava stratum to to lower end of the earth crust " The scientific consensus is that the main cause of extinction was the large amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the volcanic eruptions" [1] Its really hard to take articles like this seriously when they play so hard and fast with the facts to fit their narrative. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_ext...