Let's get this message into our schools, especially our high schools. Young people are being fed a steady diet of catastrophe, which is demoralising them. This gives them hope to move forward in their lives, knowing they have a future and one that can be abundant.

Totalitarianism is expensive.

The trouble is greedy people have seen 'climate change' as a way to come up with very lucrative 'solutions'.

Canadians should watch this to have a better understanding of how stupid and damaging Trudeau's policies are.

ARC 2023 is a beacon of hope

You go Bjorn! You tell them! I wish the ARC all the success as this world needs something that is more credible than organisations like the WEF.

"i dont want you to hope, i want you to panic" Greta Thunberg. This says a lot about the plans of 'the environmentalists"

The biggest problem I see with individuals like Dr. Lomborg speaking with such logic and sense, is that the people who listen, the true humanitarians, have little power. Those who have benefitted from the tightening of our belts, time and time again, through their taxes, lobbying, laundering and polices simply value financial returns over human lives, period.

Read "Unsettled " by Dr Steven Koonin. There's no climate emergency.

Just incredible. This is exactly the kind of news that we millenials need to hear so that we can get to work creating the future. Without these stories, we risk huddling and panicing and doing nothing.

Greed is behind all the mess we witness currently

Almost the first statement "climate change is not the end of the world". Brilliant, that is what the majority of us think, pass it on

One of my neices is in college working on a major in environmental studies. As a former biologist and ecosystems modeler, I have been trying to widen her vision to include at least some exposure to the other side of the climate debate. Dr. Lomborg has been my primary source. Whether or not she listens is another

Bjorn and The Copenhagen Consensus are ridiculously genius.

Cl8mate change is not a problem, it's a norm that's been harnessed to leverage feeble minded people for money and control.

Every person from a developing country knows this to be factually true. When prices and fuel supply in Syria were strained, people turned to cutting trees, burning wood and dung just for winter heating, let alone cooking or having a warm shower. Respiratory problems spiked. All the cutting caused massive deforestation, and the excessive burning caused whole mountain forests to burn. Due to expensive fuel, transportation almost shut down. The poor couldn't afford a 100km trip to see a good doctor or attend a highschool or even find work. Of course this wasn't due to any climate policy, but the point is that those are the same results that inevitably follow a dramatic increase in energy prices. And every climate policy, especially net-zero, cause that to happen.

This guy is amazing!!!!

great start to ARC..... Thankyou Jordan Peterson and all the others involved in bringing this alliance to the world. This (ARC) is what we desperately need. Genuine facts and leadership. Now it is up to us, the public, to do our part. Spread the word, help grow the "Alliance for Responsible Citizenship", and do YOUR part to help bring about a better more positive world for all of humanity. Put an end to the distopian vision offered by the elites of Davos and the WEF gang. Bring individual Freedom and responsibility back to the forefront of a free and prosperous society. Thankyou.

It’s just astonishing how little money spent in the correct way can have such a disproportionally positive outcome….you have to wonder why institutions want to spend all this money on EV’s and infrastructure….follow the money

End the narratives which destroy hope and create nightmares in our children.

The Arc must generate local chapters.

I've watched a couple of these ARC talks now, all differing subjects, and they've all been absolutely brilliant.

I'm an economist who's delved pretty deep into the type of cost-benefit analysis on climate change and climate policies that he was talking about. What they usually don't emphasize is the enormous uncertainty that all such estimates involve. Anyone who shows you numbers, particularly on the expected climate damages, whether it is Lomborg trying to assure you that it'll all be fine or the alarmists going on about how we're all going to die, the truth is, they don't really know. There's so much uncertainty in the models, plus the issue of the discount rate you use to translate future damages into present costs, you end up with a ton of CO2 emission causing anywhere between 1$-1000$ damage. So we basically have to decide whether or not to spend huge amounts of money on emission reduction without reall knowing whether or not it's "worth it". And, depending on disposition, the uncertainty causes some to say "hey, we're not even sure it's going to be that bad so why spend all the money" and others will say "it could be much worse than we think so every expenditure is justified to avoid possible catastrophe". (But in reality, I don't think Bjorn & co need to worry too much because if you look at acual energy investments and policies, it doesn't look like anybody is taking their own net zero promises very seriously. Except maybe the EU - we might very well shoot ourselves in the foot economically while China & co make sure we will get to find out who's right about the future unmitigated climate damage estimates...)

Get on board the Arc!

Getting a warmer climate is so good for us. Why should climate be constant, error in the assumptions.

Simple common sense!

Think differently World. Amazing, thank you.

We know that it is not about climate change really, it is about power, rationality and common sense are out of place in this discussion.

The thing is, if you spend $5 trillion on something, it goes to someone or some company. It isn't just burned, so there are massive flow on effects such as inflationary effects and wealth distribution effects (if most money spent goes to major companies). These things need to be factored into as well. I can't help but think that smart and powerful business people have already positioned themselves into companies that would be taking advantage of climate change spending. They also possibly have a role in encouraging the narrative towards these outcomes. Always take a look at who benefits from every decision. Not many decisions are made out of altruism.

About time common sense came back to the front page.

I appreciate Bjorn and his valuable contributions, but I must admit that I found this speech to be somewhat lacking in quality. It seems that his response to the end-of-the-world narrative is leaning towards the "nothing-wrong" perspective. While I share the view that we should move away from constant doomsday scenarios, his alternative in this speech seems to consist of oversimplified statements and unelaborated graphs, with an excessive focus on human prosperity. It's unfortunate, as I believe he is capable of delivering more comprehensive and insightful analyses. Nevertheless, I'm thrilled to see him become a part of the ARC movement

Big Business, where only a select few truly benefit!

Great presentation

Awesome video Bjorn. Much needed!!

Wow, is so refreshing somebody with common sense, common sense, a true objective analysis, presentation of our world, our problems, our future in 2023!!!So refreshing, there is still hope out there!!!There is still hope!!!

Great message... I am actually writing my thesis on how to improve education and nutrition, 2 main pillars of our society!

Should include discussions of geoengineering as the major true cause of climate hoax. Plus chemtrails.

Thank you for the hope you give us all.

That was a very positive and uplifting presentation with plenty of actual facts and figures that matter to everyday folk, rich and poor alike ,and the massive push given to us on climate change by our respective collective governments is most definitely a push to prepare us for massive cost hikes they have planned in every day living ,especially us in the west.

I love, listening to Bjorn and his common sense factual, scientific and humanitarian approach. That said, it does not match the autocratic world we live in as too many people in power have a different agenda to make themselves more powerful and rich, no matter what it does to human life or the planet. I wish people would wake up to what’s really going on here🙏

Had quite heated discussion with my hubby last night about government of country where we live is planning to propose a flight travel tax in 2025, where people flying out of airports (with exception of transit flights) will need to pay flight tax to compensate carbon emitted from flying (amount varies depending on the distance). I mentioned Bjorn's ideas that there are better alternatives. I too feel many policies are not pro human (as in people in general, who live on paychecks to buy food, pay bills, etc.). The thing with the tax is not really about the amount but it is more about the principle, that it is being forced down on us by politicians. Incentives are the best way to motivate people and not yet another narrative about us, human, as the main source of problem and thus, we need to pay for our ''wrong deeds''.

I've been saying this for years...Put the monies and efforts we're wasting doing nothing for climate change into REAL global issues and maybe, just maybe, we'll actually help solve our real global issues as they arise.

We need to listen more to people like Bjorn. He understands the situation completely and can articulate it . Read his books and challenge the thinking of people blindly following misguided environmentalists and governments.

Thank you, youtube for the disclaimer!! I’m going to trust youtube over Bjorn? No way. Keep up the clear dialogue and communication, Bjorn!! We need a clear message that addresses the climate rather than quick sound bites that bamboozle people.

It's great to see fossil fuel companies getting behind these conferences, even if it's not publicly stated.

In Victoria, Australia gas has increased dramatically because the Gas and Fuel Corporation was sold off and the companies that took control of the gas fields sold it all off.

How were the governments of the world able to fix the minor ice age of the 18th. century or the dust bole of the 1930s?

He thinks in English. He isn't internally translating. And he also isn't using an accumulation of sentences that occur in the collection public speech. And he creates entirely new and original grammatical errors. But of course, there doesn't exist a mechanism by which Climate Change could cause extinction of humanity. Even in the absolutely worse case scenario, the most that can happen is that SOME people SOMEWHERE will experience some of the following: Floods Forest fires Droughts Excessive rain Heat (in some places) Cold (in some places) In other words, there doesn't exist a mechanism by which weather or climate could exterminate any more than a few thousands of us. On the other hand, if we follow the Globalist Agenda, millions of people (mostly in Africa) will die of starvation. You want to get rid of their cows and fertilizer? And stop cooking with fossil dung? And yet food security is number one on the list of the UN sustainability goals! Get a grip! The sustainable goals are precisely designed to ensure we decrease in number.

Nice to know this goes like 4 in the morning

AT LAST! Someone with brains and data has laid out the climate change / energy reform value proposition.

Brilliant BRILLIANT BRILLIANT 👏 yes so positive & very REAL

Finally!! A realistic and sensible presentation of climate change. Humans, and our forebears, had lived through several periods of extreme climate change, far more extreme than we are likely to experience anytime soon. The "fear of the end of mankind" that this 60% of the rich world have is actually the loss of their personal lifestyles and luxuries.

A very valuable speech!

True. Problems are best faced by us being level-headed, not by being scared of it all the time.

People lived into their 50s and 60s all the time before technology, but since childhood mortality was like 50%, the average is 32. If you took out childhood mortality, the average length of a persons life, who made it to adulthood, was 55-60. Please stop perpetuating this idea that everyone used to die at 35 years old. It's preposterous.

I remember, here in Canada, when grade school children were given the day off from school to protest climate change. I'm not sure if every province participated, but many did. I argued that instead of protesting or marching for climate change, kids were exposed to the science and technology of alternative energy production, which could possible be a solution to reduce our reliance on 'fossil fuels'. Basically put, instead of bitching about climate change, we get our children involved and interested in the research and development of new alternative energy solutions, so that they may, one day, actually solve this problem in the future. It's one thing to point out the problem, but wholly another to try to come up with solutions.

I like Bjorn. He has to say that CC is a problem so that he doesn’t get completely kicked out of polite circles. If the “Milankovich Cycle” theory comes out to be true, then it’s going to cool again. They need to consider this. It’s only 20 years before we find out.

Thank you ARC, hoping this message will have a wider impact to counteract the false alarmist version so heavily peddled to the populace.

This man cracks me up. A visionary plan with just one small hitch: it assumes surplus tax revenues and it assumes that those governments dont have it spent before it's collected. A+ in theory. F in economics.... politics.... finance ... the things required to get a job done. As a practical note, there are global charities for each one of the initiatives he identifies. Work with them, and you might make some headway.

Brilliant!

These key points will help me debate my "woke" college grad children who think panic and doom are the best way foreword.

Exactly. Everyone make fun out of Germany for its energy policies, and I am here in Berlin must print every paper and use envelopes to submit/exchange documents. While emails exist and would make exchange instant and with no paper involved. Damn

This is the message we should be telling our children and leaders (they are much the same at the moment). Its a common sense, positive, and aspirational message. Enough of the current thing message! Its backward, confrontational, negative and drives down peoples aspirations.

This is great!

Dr. L did a very good job categorizing the impacts of Climate Change. The real future hazard is the exhaustion of fossil fuels. We had a preview of this in the early 1970s. Not good. The amount of all fossil fuels beneath the surface of the Earth is finite. It will end some day. When that happens if we have not transitioned to a cleaner more efficient energy source, we are in a world of hurt.

Wish I could have attended this conference!!

Great economic analysis. Many grades above the types of analyses used by legislators and climate change alarmists. Only a realistic approach is going to work; what's proposed now is not even physically possible.

No one will debate this man. They would be floored continually.

Thanks

I like Lomborg and he’s right to be rational on the solution to this non problem.Its a shame 99.999% ,and this isn’t a direct criticism because it is an involved argument,don’t understand the physics of the greenhouse effect.Apparently this ignorance of the facts is also found in the “science” community, but there are many people who understand the physics that know this is not a catastrophic problem, and never will be.

i have a solution. give me the 26 trillion and ill take care of it.

Saving people's lives!!! I can just feel the WEF members cringing.

Can we get an AMEN!!!!

I am curious as to why climate change is being addressed. The models by which a catastrophic future is being predicted are simulations that don’t guarantee any certain outcome. It is only those who wish to interpret those simulations who decides upon which outcome we should prepare for if at all. Maybe ARC is only addressing it to curb the extreme misinformation we’ve been given. Either way, the information provided in this address is very refreshing as it reminds us of hope and what we truly have faced, endured and overcome with perseverance and innovation. Well said. Let’s get this message to the masses.

Well said!

U are always spot on with ur critique, that’s easy. What are ur solutions?

My understanding is that the increase in average lifespan of the modern day is primarily driven by a reduction of infant mortality, not that adults are living twice as long as they used to. I'm surprised that Dr Lomborg isn't aware of this.

Everyone should see this.

Thank you, Sir, for shedding some light on such controversial issue, and make so much sense ❤

How refreshing common sense at last! Thank you Jordan.

You fix nothing that isnt broken , they tell us its broken but dont tell us whats broken and how they know. They just tell us something is broken so give us all your money.

Tell this to the COP summit now in Dec 2023! All that oil money spent on…

Only point I disagree with is about institutionalized birth care. Midwifery care, meeting the moms where they are at, is a better, faster, more efficient way to address that problem.

Words matter.

What rate of sea level rise are your climate figures based upon? What is your cost for relocating coastal cities?

Can you please provide the source for the costs vs benefits of going net-zero that was mentioned in the presentation by Mr. Lomborg?

If we need to fix anything we need money.

The "solutions" to the climate problem are much worth than the problem itself. Thomas Sowell has taught us a profound insight: “There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs; and you try to get the best trade-off you can get, that's all you can hope for.” We cannot achieve a perfect outcome.

Bjorn acknowledges and "accepts" silly things like "net zero has some value" and "the Ukraine conflict is a factor in rising energy costs", not because they are true, but because of the audience he's trying to reach. The people who most need to hear his message are the same people who would reject his arguments and turn away, if he were to tell the complete truth about these things. So I sympathize with his method, but am still irritated by the difficulty of simply discarding and fully discrediting false arguments and goals.

While he is pointing out some important things, it merely shifts the folly to a more refined level. It ignores the cost of everybody being a king with many servants. Because it is an awful lot exactly like the analogy. Behind those machine servants we have are people slaving away in the system to make them. Progress preachers never want to look at the other half of the balance sheet; how spiritually empty that progress is if it is merely technological. Smart people understand that having more stuff is far from a guarantee of being happier and might even have the opposite effect. Machine servants are not service for free. It's not even just others who have to toil to make them, but you also have to toil to be able to buy them. So how long do you work in order to have a machine take over some tasks? And would those tasks be even relevant in a world where you didn't have that machine helper? - The machines are so you can become more effective in serving machines. Same folly to talk about life expectancy but not life quality. People long ago worked less than we today in our fancy presumably luxurious world, and that only applies to the arrogant industry nations, not the slave nations who make it feasible in the first place. Same technocratic hype shit again and again. Also very selective timescales, just like the climate crooks. 200 years ago many people were poor? Well, a lot of mass poverty in the world was (and still is) created by capitalism. (And then there's also statistical shenanigans with the definition of poverty, by nature tweaked to serve the bullshitters.) His angle is a smarter way to still fool people. A spiritual trap. Anything just to not have to look at the problem at the core and the solution from there. The label "smart" everywhere. Indication of it all still being quite mental. 13:42 Ah, and there is the mandatory buy-my-book part. _'get mothers into institutional care'_ _'make school kids more productive'_ _'we fixed tuberculosis through antibiotics'_ Can you hear it?

"Profit = protecting and enriching the environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides to all of us". I agree with Dr. Lomborg when he says that presently it is too expensive to fix the problems associated with man-made climate change; however, he doesn't realize that he has revealed the core cause of man-made climate change. All of our profit, or actual gains, come to us from the environment. In light of this fact, it should seem extremely odd to all of us that our general definition of "profit = income - expenses" not only fails to include the word "environment" but also defines the entire environment as nothing more than expenses. We are also mere expenses. The only viable way to reverse man-made climate change is by changing what we mean by "economic expenses". The only way we can change what is meant by "economic expenses" is by changing the definition of profit. "Profit = protecting and enriching the environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides to all of us". With this new profit model, we will be able, in fact required to create millions of new jobs that will come under the heading "Caretakers of the Environment". Caretakers will earn higher wages than most other workers. There would probably be hundreds of thousands of subcategories of Caretakers, each dealing with specific aspects of protecting and enriching the environment. (1) removing pollution that is already contaminating the environment (2) collecting pollution before it contaminates the environment (3) dealing with the waste in such ways that are good for the environment and or good for the production of products. (4) regulating human population by economically incentivizing families with 2 or fewer children and economically punishing families with too many children. The list goes on and on. Thanks! I hope my comment is helpful to you. p.s. It may already be too late to correct the definition of profit, but it is never too late to try; besides, there is no other viable way to reverse man-made climate change and as an added bonus virtually put an end to homelessness.

The "context" box has its work cut out for it now ;)

The low life expectancy average is not an indicator of how long people lived. The insanely high child&infant mortality rate pushed the "average" life expectancy down to unrealistic expectations. If you survived childhood, your chances to live to past your 60s were quite good. Having all the electronic servants and conveniencies is not neccessarely a good thing. Luxury creates complacency and laziness. Conveniences lead to psychological slavery. Calculating average wealth by how much currency people are earning is BS. If you want to know the increase in wealth, look at how much *same item* people can afford to buy on their monthly income (1kg bread, 1kg lamb, 1kg potatoes, etc...). Economic historians have a list of items that they consider constants and compare the monetary cost of throughout ages and cultures to estimate the value of everything in ancient economies These Constants include but are not limited to: cost of a loaf of bread, 1 hour wages of a carpenter, etc

Temp increase is logarithmic. Doubling CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm will up the ave temp by 0.71degC. Not worth a second thought.

i love this man.

How do I share this to instagram story? The copy link doesn’t work….?

Good man

Truth

That’s like saying smoking is a problem yes, but you’re not going to get cancer for another 5 decades. Concentrate on what is important, like your blood pressure and your job security first. If climate change is a problem, even if it’s not doomsday, we should still offer the “smart” decisions for it now rather than later.

Common sense,so refreshing.