Lex Fridman 
Bjørn Lomborg is author of “False Alarm”. Andrew Revkin is a climate journalist (21 years at NY Times). Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
– Eight Sleep: https://www.eightsleep.com/lex to get special savings
– Linode: https://linode.com/lex to get $100 free credit
– InsideTracker: https://insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off
– Onnit: https://lexfridman.com/onnit to get up to 10% off
EPISODE LINKS:
Andrew’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/Revkin
Andrew’s Substack: https://revkin.substack.com
Andrew’s Linktree: https://linktr.ee/revkin
Bjørn’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg
Bjørn’s Website: https://lomborg.com
Andrew’s Books:
The Human Planet: https://amzn.to/3MRuLUY
The Burning Season: https://amzn.to/3Dmr5Hq
Bjørn’s Books:
False Alarm: https://amzn.to/3Sqt5D4
How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place: https://amzn.to/3gwoIJ7
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
Clips playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41
OUTLINE:
0:00 – Introduction
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
SOCIAL:
– Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman
– LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman
– Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman
– Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman
– Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman
– Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman
– Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman
source
About The Author
Here are the timestamps. Please check out our sponsors to support this podcast.
0:00 – Introduction & sponsor mentions:
– Eight Sleep: https://www.eightsleep.com/lex to get special savings
– Linode: https://linode.com/lex to get $100 free credit
– InsideTracker: https://insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off
– Onnit: https://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
Sunshine…?
Sunshine…?
Bjorn is a climate change denier funded by fossil capitalists at his think-tank. Fridman the National Enquirer.
I am only 28 minutes into this but I wanted to just lay something out. I forget who it was, but some guy is trying to educate people about how he believes that farmers tilling the land is what's causing massive rises in greenhouse gasses and the erosion of our soil. And the erosion of our soil consequentially is the cause of the flooding. I think his argument is pretty sound. He has a lot of data to back it up too. I wish I could remember his name but I bet if anyone wanted to find out, you could find him by researching tilling causing global warming. Another fun fact is that he says tilling actually reduces crop yield. He's got many other points on how our agricultural industry is just in dire need of re education and has been stolen by corporations that need to be taken down by a united front of independent farmers.
The debate should be: why do our governments spray the sky with chemicals and then manipulate them?
They have changed from Global warming to Climate change to Climate crisis to Climate Emergency to Climate Catastrophe to Climate despair to Climate Anxiety to Climate Apocalypse.
Lamborg is a long debunked fossil fuel shill who’s lying about the effects of global warming. By platforming him you’re complicit.
50 years of false predictions, why does anyone listen to these fascists?
I like some of Lomborgs ideas, but he isn't always honest about his data material.
He has a reputation for fiddling with the numbers to make a point.
Andrew Revkin and other MSM deceptively claim the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) bill was bipartisan but it was passed along party lines in both the Senate and the House:
Senate Vote: The IRA passed with a vote of 51-50. This was strictly along party lines, with all Democrats voting in favor and all Republicans voting against. Vice President Kamala Harris cast the tie-breaking vote.
House Vote: The House passed the bill with a vote of 220-207. Every House Democrat voted in favor of the bill, while every Republican voted against it, indicating a complete party-line vote.
Thus, the IRA was supported entirely by Democrats in both chambers of Congress, with no Republican support in the final votes. The very opposite of bipartisan.
The source of the trouble we are in in actions of fossil fuel industry from 1970s and 1980s when they decided to make all possible effort to postpone transition away from fossil fuels in so called rich countries. This halted developments of alternatives to fossil fuels by 30 years at least.
But how much of warming is man made? The hoax isn't about the existence of climate change but the intitial observations post Little Ice Age compared to temps/weather during the LIA, sea level rising over 400' in the last 14,000 years which increased post LIA and the fact we have periodic warm periods with the last the Medievel warming period supposedly caused the collapse of the Mayan empire so warming a conincidence or caused by humans to what extent.
grossly misleading
Look, when China and India must cut their CO2 emissions and the USA can mine its own lithium and make nuklear power plants then I will consider the pro global warming case. Otherwise it is highly syspect of being a CCP fraud and regular folk have no way to verify it other than the word of people who put men in womens sports and forced us to vax, mask and social distance.
It seems like one of these guests should have been an "alarmist". That position is nuanced I don't think it was well represented.
The problem is that climate change affects so many aspects of the human and natural world that the sum of all the impacts is huge. It's easy to say we could build in ways that reduce risk but cc is so much more than that.
Conversations Are much better than "debate's" Because debate implies winner and loser, Or I'm right and you're wrong..
Humans have such a hard time seeing anything outside of the human perspective, but its still possible. The disrupted phenology of insects and plants due to erratic weather, earlier springs, is driving a strong decline in insect populations. That fact + neonic pesticides is compounding the problem tremendously. Decline in biodiversity (species extinctions) are making our ecosystems far less resilient to abrupt changes. Less caterpillars = less food for birds to feed their young, etc. If our ecosystems start to collapse, we will too. Believe it or not, you rely on them. We need to reevaluate our values— if we dont start to heavily consider other living creatures other than humans, then we are indeed going forth into an uncertain and frightening future. Industrialism and anthropocentrism are pushing the biosphere toward a mass extinction event.
They don't seem to be aware of new energy sources/or not believe/or not be willing to discuss — that could solve the problem of replacing all fossil fuels with new clean energy producing technology. I am not talking about just renewables, but if I discussed this here my entry would be removed. ie: suppression. and, also, something I forgot to say: the false scientific paradigm.
.04
Two men who make their living on people believing climate idiocy talking shop. Scientifically this is a worthless conversation.
Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.
Was incredibly happy that the leading global infectious disease killer Tuberculosis was brought on the scene! So much inequality in attention to TB as mainly it is considered as a disease of poor… Have been following these incredible podcasts by Lex, and as a scientists working in TB was humbled TB was mentioned, along the great content of entire conversation. Dedicated podcast for TB can be such a game-changer for people suffering from Tuberculosis… There is so much more than just drugs, as very correctly was mentioned.
I don't believe it in the 70s we had 7 years left, then in and 20s.its a hoaxs to make money for elites.
Ngl, I have a hard time listening to elite science after seeing how corrupt the medical system is. Bought and paid for, is it the same with climate? Looking at ice cores we significant fluctuation of temperature over the last 12000 years. The ice age ended in 5-10 years, the oceans rose 400 feet in a couple of flash flood impulses.
We got as low as 180 ppm carbon, plants fail at 150 and thrive at 1000.
I don’t think anyone cares about manmade climate change, I think the concern is stemmed from a growing intolerance to discomfort.
If we were going into a natural ice age we would stop it by warming the planet.
But to touch on it again. It was a mass extinction event 12000 years ago coming out of the ice age, clearly the climate changes and it will mess you up. But I have a hard time believing “the experts”
38:28 wait the climate scientist is poo pooing economic models like climate models are any better?