Perfection
The Great Head.
AIDS prevention comes first!
Really cool vid!
http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=b_lomborg
Really cool vid!
http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=b_lomborg
Screw global warming!
- Thread starter Perfection
- Start date
Communisto
Condottiere
i agree. Based on saving humans and also, I could go for some global warming about now, its bleedin freezing out.
Chandrasekhar
Determined
I find it amusing that it's sponsored by BMW. Watching it now.
Urederra
Mostly harmless
Bjorn Lomborg Somebody give him a Nobel Prize.
The Real Madrid of economists Too bad for the ones who say that Kyoto doesn't cost anything.
Chandrasekhar
Determined
His voice makes me want to kick him in the throat, but he makes some good points. Now, we just have to convince the rest of the world to believe him as well... 
Yoda Power
✫✫✫✫✫✫✫
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 13,870
Wow, does anybody still care about Bjørn Lomborg????
You do realize that he is a professor in economics, and really have no scientific understanding of global warming?
He's been around in the Danish media for many years now, and people have just stopped paying attention to him by now. Back in 2002 (I might be one or two years off) he was made chief of some goverment sponsered enviement group, but even the prime minister (who was originally a supporter) have now turned 180 degrees and wan't the focus back on global warming.
Bjørn Lomborg is a man who's really good at making everything seem easy, but he's eccentially just a good economist, not an envieremental- or AIDS-scientist.
You do realize that he is a professor in economics, and really have no scientific understanding of global warming?
He's been around in the Danish media for many years now, and people have just stopped paying attention to him by now. Back in 2002 (I might be one or two years off) he was made chief of some goverment sponsered enviement group, but even the prime minister (who was originally a supporter) have now turned 180 degrees and wan't the focus back on global warming.
Bjørn Lomborg is a man who's really good at making everything seem easy, but he's eccentially just a good economist, not an envieremental- or AIDS-scientist.
Urederra
Mostly harmless
His voice makes me want to kick him in the throat, but he makes some good points. Now, we just have to convince the rest of the world to believe him as well...
That is almost done. I mean, Are there more or less cars today in the US or in Europe than 20 years ago?
I do.
Chandrasekhar
Determined
That's exactly his point. Ask an environmentalist what's most important, they'll say "THE ENVIRONMENT!!!" Ask a biologist what's most important, and they'll say "THE DISEASES!!!" To get a realistic view of the way things work, you have to ask someone that can look at what can, realistically, be done.
Urederra
Mostly harmless
Yoda Power
✫✫✫✫✫✫✫
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 13,870
Only problem is that he doesn't know exactly what realistically can be done. His arguments are mostly based on assumptions.
That said, sure he has en interesting point, but over the last few years I've seen tons of different scientists explaining why his reasoning is wrong.
I guess Denmark has just been through a longer debate than most other countries, since he got his fame here.
Chandrasekhar
Determined
This is the first I've seen of him, so I haven't seen any refutations of his points. Does anyone have some links handy?
Narz
keeping it real
About 1/3 thru, he's just getting started.
He's talking about how curbing global warming will cost too much economically (which is stupid because ideally that money should be towards making more efficienct technology which ultimately will increase productivity).
Now he's saying with half the money that would be throw at global warming can feed, cloth, shelter and quench the thirst of every human being on that planet.
Wonder where he gets that from. Also, all of that is irrelivant if it's not sustainable. Give a man a fish and all that.
Now he's saying sanitation and water for poor people should be the 2nd lowest priority. That's just idiotic.
3rd best thing is increase globalization according to Bjorn, temporarily raising living standards (though not much) in the 3rd world but basically making them wage-slaves for the first world.
I turned it off about 2/3 thru. Ah, sweet silence, his voice was indeed annoying.
I agree that AIDS prevention is important (especially for those who will choose to have children despite knowing they have it) but calling it more important than global warming is shortsighted.
It's interesting to note that he didn't even address the REAL most important issue of the 21st century, which is hydrocarbon depletion and energy issues. Funny how economists ignore this, forgetting that almost all other economic issues these days are dependent on cheap energy.
He's talking about how curbing global warming will cost too much economically (which is stupid because ideally that money should be towards making more efficienct technology which ultimately will increase productivity).
Now he's saying with half the money that would be throw at global warming can feed, cloth, shelter and quench the thirst of every human being on that planet.
Wonder where he gets that from. Also, all of that is irrelivant if it's not sustainable. Give a man a fish and all that.Now he's saying sanitation and water for poor people should be the 2nd lowest priority. That's just idiotic.
3rd best thing is increase globalization according to Bjorn, temporarily raising living standards (though not much) in the 3rd world but basically making them wage-slaves for the first world.
I turned it off about 2/3 thru. Ah, sweet silence, his voice was indeed annoying.
I agree that AIDS prevention is important (especially for those who will choose to have children despite knowing they have it) but calling it more important than global warming is shortsighted.
It's interesting to note that he didn't even address the REAL most important issue of the 21st century, which is hydrocarbon depletion and energy issues. Funny how economists ignore this, forgetting that almost all other economic issues these days are dependent on cheap energy.
I agree. He talks too fast and too much also. Way too verbose. He could have cut the first half (10 minutes or so) down to about one.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
This man knows what he's talking about
he's not an up-in-the-clouds idealists, with great concepts that have little or no practical use. He's a realist who knows how to actually get things done.
Props
and Props to Perfy
he's not an up-in-the-clouds idealists, with great concepts that have little or no practical use. He's a realist who knows how to actually get things done.
Props
and Props to Perfy
Nope. He's not an expert in either of the related fields.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
That's his whole point
He's an economist. He knows how to get the most out of your money, he knows which areas will cost the most and be most futile to put money into.
Didn't you watch the video? He says it like five times.
He's an economist. He knows how to get the most out of your money, he knows which areas will cost the most and be most futile to put money into.
Didn't you watch the video? He says it like five times.
Narz
keeping it real
And what exactally has he "gotten done"?
He's created his version of the way nations should spend their money without any references. He seems pretty sure of how things (especially climate change) are going to go down without any hard evidence to back up his theories.No he doesn't. The people who specialize in the fields he is talking about do. He's just a guy with an opinion. He's no more assured to be correct than a stockbroker.
Yeah, he repeats himself alot. He needs a few million dollars dedicated towards his being more concise.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
Thank you for the logical fallacies, I will reject them well 
As he and a few above posters mentioned, as an environementalist and they'll say the environment is most important. Ask a biologist and it will be diseases. Everyone wants their share first.
He evaluates from a monetarial point of view how we can be most effective in trying to fix the worlds problems. He's not rejecting any of them as stupid. He's just trying to be practical.
Trying to get the whole world to stop using cars, for example, would take a HUGE amount of money, money better spent in other places.
And apparently he isn't concise enough when what he says is totally ignored
As he and a few above posters mentioned, as an environementalist and they'll say the environment is most important. Ask a biologist and it will be diseases. Everyone wants their share first.
He evaluates from a monetarial point of view how we can be most effective in trying to fix the worlds problems. He's not rejecting any of them as stupid. He's just trying to be practical.
Trying to get the whole world to stop using cars, for example, would take a HUGE amount of money, money better spent in other places.
And apparently he isn't concise enough when what he says is totally ignored
Narz
keeping it real
He is still victim to his own ideas of perceived limitations (solving global warming = reducing economic growth is one of his logical fallacies).
Just because he's an economist doesn't mean his economic forecasts are going to be correct.
Like I said, just a guy with an opinion trying to be controversial.
Just because he's an economist doesn't mean his economic forecasts are going to be correct.
Like I said, just a guy with an opinion trying to be controversial.
Perfection
The Great Head.
I've been pokin' around and I'll have to admit Urredera' criticisms have truth behind them. From the looks of it his data on global warming was biased.
