first, a different opinion doesn't warrant an insult. And who told you interviewers dont take sides, you need to watch a little more television. All I know is what I see, both in India where Im from and NYC where I live and negative changes in weather is what I see. Good for you if you dont see it my way, but dont try to insult anyone with a different view.

Fareed Zakaria is a interviewer... he dosnt have a stand when is live. And second of all, you should know better than crying about bad weather in NY. The earths lane around the sun is in a flattern elipse.. i hope you got the brain to figure out what that means every 1000 year or so...

You are stupid as fuck...Michael Pawlyn is known as a fraud, AND Bjorn Lomborg is not lying.. he is telling facts... i mean..listen to what he says...!

Google for lomborg errors? Google for sites telling you about god existing! How about you discuss what's actually in the video. His arguments are strong. Yours are not.

You realize that your paranoia about the weather is no proof of global warming, right?

Against desinformation:1. Just google: lomborgs errors / info-pollution 2.1 Lomborg deconstructed by Michael Pawlyn:watch?v=w_c5g6tXvK8The high-cost-thesis has lost all credibility!2.2 Pawlyn also criticizes Lomborgs biased selection of scientists and their reputation in the community/peer-review!

Global warming is not even happening. I am the skeptical environmentalist here, folks. It is all a giant conspiracy between Richard Stallman, Tim Berners-Lee and Al Gore and actor Steve Buscemi.It has turned into a multi-billion industry of enviro-marxist work lazy liberal hippies now.Jesus is coming back in this century, so what does it matter if it gets a bit warmer these last decades?

I have the impression that even if one focuses in the problem of global warming, the decisions that are being taken now are far from efficient. We are talking about 100 years. Provide education for children in Asia, South America and Africa. Imagine the impact of this within one century. To say few, you get: a big number of activists there, reduction of emissions and preservation of the rain forests. Besides, the cost of this would be smaller.

ah I see what you're saying. Anyways, global climate has always changed. You need to first find a causal relationship between what humans do and the amount by which climate changes before you can prescribe certain actions for us to take.As far as refugees goes, they're not a problem as long as there's economic freedom, so the problem is that most places don't have enough economic freedom. Also turns out that wealthier people and nations are better able to take care of the environment.

No, a cold summer means weird weather, and thats whats been happening for a few years now, around the world, hurricanes have increased with intensity, tornado's have started appearing more often. Talking bout global migrants, go to Calcutta and see why it looks bombed out, close to 4 million refugees settled there illegally 30 years ago because of war, thats a sign of things to come, Calcutta is but a small reminder of refugees in large no's. If we can change our bad habits, now is the time.

oh I see what you're saying, lol. By the way, how does a colder summer mean global warming? Anyways, India wouldn't have to "deal" with 20 million people. IT's really that simple. They don't have to. Anyone who understands economics knows this. They simply have to have enough freedom to be allowed to go to work and keep what they earn. Hong Kong has about 20 times the population density of India from last I heard and they totally turned around their status as a 3rd world nation. ;-)

I heard everyword, and I still do not agree, its june and Im still wearing a sweater here in New York, somethings terribly wrong with the weather and its only going to get weirder. If tracts of Bangladesh go underwater, its India that will have to deal with 20 million people, thats global warming migrants, not the few thousands that move around the world yearly. I still agree with Fareed.

Scientists the world over agree? Did you even listen? Not even the scientists the UN gets their info from agree that it'd be a catastrophe. Bad? Of course, but not a catastrophe. Not to mention there's nothing bad about "global warming migrants." People move all the time. The concept that Bjorn is illustrating here is an economic one. Maximizing benefit under a budget constraint.

I agree with Zakaria, I ask Bjorn to go to middle India in the middle of summer and tell me with a straight face that global warming isnt going to be catastrophic. Scientists the world over agree, what has this guy been reading ? Living in NYC, I see a change in climate and weired weather patterns ever year. If we cannot turn the tide, then clean drinking water and good sanitation isnt going to mean shit to 100 million global warming migrants by 2100.

Fareed Zakaria is an idiot of monumental proportions. Bjørn is everything Fareed is not; intelligent, well-informed and, frankly, gay. The latter, I suppose, doesn't matter. It is good, however, seeing at least one gay person in this world not being a bleeding heart liberal but actually having some common sense.

I'm sure Gore would never risk debating with anyone who is knowledgeable. Gore is a politician and therefore a trained liar. His motivations for his environmental positions are based more on his megalomania and grandiose self-esteem than any concern for the planet. In addition as long as he has people scared he stands to make billions of dollars. If he debated a someone like Bjorn he would stand to lose politically and financially.

Did Zakaria hear a word the guy said. No.

I don't think Bjorn is arguing that we should ignore global warming. There are numerous ways we can cut back and save money while saving the environment.Bjorn is simply rating which problems, given an equal amount of money, would have the largest impact if changed.

Extensive citation (even without accompanying text) is something to embrace, not critique, because we can only evaluate his arguments by looking to the authorities upon which his arugments rely.

Well I meant gore canceled twice, Bjørn wanted to debate gore, and was rather disappointed when he didn't get a chance to!