Thomas Sowell: Global Warming Manufactured by Intellectuals?
FORA.tv0 HN recommenders · 2017–2020
667K views · commentary · dated · Uploaded 2010-01-25
A short clip in which Thomas Sowell argues that demand for intellectuals is manufactured by intellectuals, using global warming predictions as an example. It is an excerpt from a longer talk on his book Intellectuals and Society.
Mostly debated or criticized; one commenter found his points fair, while others questioned his climate views.
57:19Republic, Lost | Lawrence Lessig | Talks at Google
Talks at Google
21:08Christopher Hitchens - Free Speech
hitch archive
6:18Fear the Boom and Bust: Keynes vs. Hayek - The Original Economics Rap Battle!
Radical Discourse
18:20We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim | Lawrence Lessig
TED
52:11Václav Smil at Driva Climate Investment Meeting 2019
Nysnø Klimainvesteringer
22:20How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory
TED
15:50Can YOU Fix Climate Change?
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
1:21:10Debt: The First 5,000 Years | David Graeber | Talks at Google
Talks at Google
3 comments from Hacker News
To be honest, I'd never heard of Thomas Sowell. So I looked him up. One of the first things I find is this interview: [VIDEO] I'm sure he has some very compelling writings. But do you find his take on climate to be logical and reasonable? I do not.
I found this [VIDEO] He calls climate science a "racket". Why are you encouraging people to listen to him?
Thomas Sowell is a critic of the climate change/environmental science initiatives, and it's one of the reasons I heavily question his other views. Here's a 3 min video of him talking about it: [VIDEO] The points he makes are quite fair. The science isn't perfect, yes. Often, people try to hide that the science isn't perfect, too. But the impact is roughly the product of the magnitude of the impact and the probability of the event. In this case, the magnitude is enormous and the probability is less than 100% but seemingly quite large. Dr. Sowell seems to simply argue that climate reports suggest that the probability is higher than it truly is. But if a report suggest 95%, and Dr. Sowell thinks it's more like 40%, the core issue is still enormous. I would want him to talk about why he thinks the huge effects of anthropogenic climate change are such a vanishingly small probability to the point that we shouldn't do anything about it. Here's another article by him: [LINK]