Will the kids be alright? Credit: Christopher Furlong - WPA Pool/Getty Images
Something unusual is happening among Britain’s youngest voters, known as Generation Z or the Zoomers. Increasingly, those under the age of 22 seem to be diverging from voters aged between 22 and 39, and appear considerably more conservative, to the point where today’s 18-year-olds are about as right-wing as 40 year-olds.
How might this be explained? Are Zoomers just more irreverent, reacting against their politically-correct older siblings? Or is it that Britain’s newest voters are simply too young to have been shaped by the Brexit shock? Whatever the explanation, in the immediate post-Brexit years the youngest voters were 40 points more liberal than the oldest. Today they are only 20 points more to the Left.
The rise of Right-wing populism in the West from 2014 onwards led some to argue that the future heralded a nationalist revolt against the multiculturalism of the post-1960s era. The staggering demise of mainstream Left parties in recent years is attributed to their pivot away from economic issues toward an embrace of globalisation and a concern with the claims of disadvantaged racial and sexual minorities, and other identity politics issues.
Against this is the theory, found both in conservative analyses like Ed West’s recent book Small Men on the Wrong Side of History, and liberal ones like Pippa Norris and Ron Inglehart’s Cultural Backlash, that young people are trending ever more Left. Less attached to tradition and more physically secure, they are embracing empathy and liberalising social change, and each new generation is more liberal than the last. Those who vote for anti-immigration parties like Ukip in Britain or the AfD in Germany tend to be older, and, as they die off, western societies will begin electing the Left once again.
The former theory suggests that Left parties need to shelve their wokeness and liberal immigration policies to avoid repelling disadvantaged whites. The latter counsels patience: history is on the Left’s side, and, with generational turnover, demography will carry it to victory. On this score, Biden’s strong poll numbers might be a harbinger of Left-liberal resurgence.
This certainly seemed to be the case in Britain, where, at the December 2019 election, the Tories won just 21% of the 18-24 age group but 67% of those 70 or above, so that age seemed to have replaced class as the primary cleavage of British politics. What seems to have occurred, starting slowly in the early 2000s, and gathering pace after 2010, very much fits his argument that newer generations, moulded in a progressive mediascape and education system, are set to enact “the biggest cultural shift in half a millennium”.
Figure 1, which I have compiled from waves of the British Election Study (BES) going back to 1964, shows little difference in the voting patterns of those under 25 and over 65 up until 2001. However, beginning with the 2005 vote, a six-point gap opened up between young and old, steadily widening until it reached 40 points in 2017 and again 2019. In the last election, according to the BES, nearly eight in ten young people voted for Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens or Left-inclined regional nationalists.
Young people really seem to inhabit a different world to the old, and it is about culture. Most of the age gap doesn’t concern economic redistribution, where Millennials tend, if anything to lean toward individualism and away from redistribution. Rather it revolves around “culture wars” questions, notably immigration, attitudes to race, gender and sexuality, as well as Brexit. Millennials are simply less attuned to British traditions of nationhood and more influenced by the liberal cosmopolitan ethos of film, vloggers, pop music, advertisers and the education system.
Figure 1.
The story of the never-ending march of each generation toward liberalism is difficult to square, however, with Gen-Z’s more conservative tilt. If the youngest voters are now moving in a conservative direction, much of the empirical ground under the West-Norris liberalisation claim collapses.
In the earliest stages of a new trend, it is often difficult to acquire sufficient data to rule out statistical blips — but the growing conservatism of the youngest British voters can no longer be readily dismissed. YouGov maintains what is arguably the largest panel of survey respondents in the western world, its Profiles dataset containing the views of over 200,000 people.
This means that for every single age (apart from the very old), there are some 3,000-4,500 people — a much larger sample than one finds for all age groups in most opinion surveys that make the news. So we can’t dismiss trends at the youngest edge of the age graph as a statistical aberration.
One YouGov question asks “Some people talk about ‘Left’, ‘Right’ and ‘centre’ to describe parties and politicians. With this in mind, where would you place yourself on this scale?” The scale is a 7-point question from “very Left-wing” through to “very Right-wing”. The share of those who don’t know where to place themselves is about 30-40 percent between age 18 and 40, with no clear relationship to age. If we remove those in the centre — where it is also difficult to discern an age pattern — and amalgamate all shades of left and right into two categories, this yields the graph in figure 2. (Coda for those sticklers out there: if we don’t remove centrists or those who don’t know, but instead compile everything into an index of all data, the results remain the same.)
What is striking is that the views of today’s 18-year-olds are basically aligned with those of 40-year-olds. If young people were trending consistently more liberal over time, the biggest gap between the two lines should be at age 18, but instead it is between 22 to 26, where there is a 40-point gap between Left and Right.
Figure 2.
These trends seem to be ongoing. Profiles data (at least that which I have been able to see) begin in July 2019, and Figure 3 compares data from a year ago with data from now. There is always some variability in a sample, but if you look at the same question a year ago, what you find is that the most liberal age was 20. Now it is 21 or 22. This is consistent with the pattern of a more Left-wing Millennial generation moving through the electorate as it ages while a more conservative Zoomer generation takes its place.
Figure 3.
Weren’t 21-year-olds always more Left-wing than 18-year-olds? After all, the younger group haven’t attended university. Actually, no. The British Election Study allows us to go further back to see how things have changed since Brexit. In 2015, the BES age-voting series showed the classic West-Norris cohort liberalisation pattern of Left-identification and voting rising monotonically with age. Eighteen-year-olds were most Left-leaning. That is no longer true.
Why is this? Could it be that today’s 18-year-olds have yet to go through the liberalising crucible of university education, and when they do, they will be as liberal as today’s 22-year-olds? In a word, no. For one thing, the evidence that university has much effect on the political attitudes of students is pretty thin. For another, whether we look at men or women, students or non-students, in YouGov Profiles, the 18-year-olds seem more conservative than the 22-year-olds.
Further evidence comes from the BES. Unlike Profiles, whose data I can’t access for multivariate analysis (even the little I have shown is only permitted due to me purchasing an expensive survey), the BES allows me to screen out the effect of university attendance, gender and even attitudes to immigration and redistribution. Its latest wave asks people who they voted for in 2015 and 2019, so that assuming a 22-year-old in the 2019 data was 18 at the time of the 2015 election, this allows us to compare voters of the same age during both contests.
BES is a smaller sample than Profiles so the data are bumpier, but the basic trends are the same, and what the numbers reveal is twofold. First, in 2019, with the exception of a bump at age 20 which could well be noise coming from a smaller sample, support for the Left peaks at age 24, with 18-year-olds considerably less likely to vote for a socialist or liberal party. By contrast, in 2015, the line — with bumps for smaller sample size — slopes downward Left-to-Right: the younger the voter, the greater their chance of voting for a Left party.
Figure 4.
So what explains the Zoomers’ relative conservatism? While I can’t test this systematically because I don’t have the Profiles dataset, I have been able to look at patterns in the figures, and I believe there are two leading explanations. The first, which I consider more likely, is the fading of the Brexit shock. The second, revolving around Zoomers’ hostility to political correctness, receives weaker support.
After Brexit, Millennial voters shifted strongly against the Conservatives. The typical 23-year-old in 2019 had, controlling for gender and education level, an 80% chance of saying they voted Labour, Lib Dem, Green or for a regional nationalist party. But the same voters, aged 19 in 2015, reported just a 68% chance of having voted for a Left party. So young people moved against the Tories between the 2015 and 2019 elections. On the other hand, the 18- and 19-year-old voters of 2019, just 15 and 16 at the time of the Brexit result, hadn’t reached political maturity. Having missed the anti-Tory bump of Brexit, their voting patterns recall those of the pre-Brexit Millennials.
Is there any evidence for a “Jordan Peterson effect” of Zoomers rejecting the Left-liberalism of their older siblings? This would truly be the death-knell for the “coming left majority” thesis. One US survey finds Gen-Z to be more politically polarised, and, especially among men, less politically correct — influenced by countercultural voices on social media rather than the mainstream media and educational institutions. On the other hand, Pew finds American Zoomers to resemble Millennials. This said, firm conclusions are tricky because some of these surveys sample children as young as 13, before they have reached political maturity.
While the fading Brexit shock seems to explain Zoomer’s reduced leftism, this may not be the whole story. For example, in the BES data, which admittedly suffers from a smaller sample, a typical 18-year-old in 2015 — before the Brexit shock — had a 73% chance of voting for a Left party, whereas an 18 year-old in 2019 had only a 67% chance of doing so. This indicates a move to the Right despite Brexit, and that something else might be going on.
Attitudes to immigration or the economy in Profiles don’t appear to differ much between Zoomers and Millennials, so this is unlikely to explain the conservative drift among youth. On the other hand, support for political correctness (net of opposition to it) is 5-10 points lower among 18- and 19 year-olds compared to those aged 22-29. This seems to be especially marked among 18-19 year-old men, who are 10-15 points more opposed to PC than in favour of it — even as Zoomer women are 30-40 points more in favour of it than against it. This gender divide may become a critical one for the politics of Gen-Z.
Political correctness is generally a bigger issue for young people compared to the old. But even so, it’s noteworthy that in Profiles, 20% of 18 and 19-year-olds, the highest of any age, say political correctness is a top issue. This compares to around 13-14% of those aged 22-29 who say it is important. Despite this, there is bumpiness across age groups and results shift somewhat over time, so I am not convinced this relationship is as strong as the Brexit one, and the data seem to fit the story of a Brexit shock better than that of an anti-PC backlash.
West’s argument, like Norris and Inglehart’s, is that younger generations are becoming ever more liberal and will usher in a revolutionary change as the electorate ages. That story is yet to be written, but even though Zoomers appear more Right-leaning than Millennials, we’ll need to see evidence of further change before we can dismiss West’s thesis.
In the 2019 election 18- and 19-year-olds were about 10 points more likely to vote Conservative than those aged 22-30. There is a similar pattern for party identification, with 18-year-olds about ten points more likely to identify with the Conservatives than 22 year-olds. Nevertheless, the distance the Tories still need to travel among Zoomers is great.
Figure 5.
James Tilley, using data that tracked voters over a 30-year period, showed that people become 20 points more likely to vote Tory between the ages of 20 and 80. If this holds, today’s Zoomers will still be only 50% Right-leaning when they reach their ninth decade, and long before this the hyper-liberal Millennials will have worked their way through the electorate, causing elections to swing far to the Left before moving back toward the centre.
All told, Zoomer conservatism is currently not strong enough to alter the broad picture West paints. Only time will tell if younger members of Gen-Z drift even further Right, but it’s probably safer to assume otherwise. The Conservatives are going to have to do a lot more to reverse the leftward drift of the culture if they hope to remain competitive in a generation’s time. As things currently stand, they do appear on the wrong side of history.
Eric Kaufmann is Professor of Politics at the University of Buckingham and author of Taboo: How Making Race Sacred Led to a Cultural Revolution (Forum Press, 4 July).
epkaufm 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHe’s not a climate change skeptic, he’s a moderate and realist.
Refreshing.
It is refreshing to read, but to be fair, he’s named his own book the Skeptical Environmentalist. The environment takes more than just climate change into account, as does his thesis.
No, he’s not. He is a total fraud and his organisation is funded by climate sceptics.
https://www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/
.
What is it that is fraudulent about Lomborg?
When you have no counter argument and the evidence is all on Lomberg’s side, all that is left is insult and attack. Best of luck with that approach persuading anybody !
What is fraudulent about him? That he doesn’t bow to the Gods of windmills and solar panels? Just drove through half of Europe the last few days and noticed, that a third of windmills weren’t working. They spoilt beautiful landscapes and made me think about the foolish religious belief in renewable energy . Certainly these people aren’t concerned about preserving the environment.
.
What is it that is fraudulent about Lomborg?
When you have no counter argument and the evidence is all on Lomberg’s side, all that is left is insult and attack. Best of luck with that approach persuading anybody !
What is fraudulent about him? That he doesn’t bow to the Gods of windmills and solar panels? Just drove through half of Europe the last few days and noticed, that a third of windmills weren’t working. They spoilt beautiful landscapes and made me think about the foolish religious belief in renewable energy . Certainly these people aren’t concerned about preserving the environment.
You mean Man Made Climate Change sceptic. Nobody in their right mind challenges Climate Change. But he would be probably read by less people, if he challenged the doctrine of Man Made Climate Change. Would like to hear him debate sceptic physicists on that subject. But it is refreshing, that he is not buying into the Religion of Climate Change and is a realist, although he doesn’t come up with alternatives to fossil fuel. Guess, once nuclear becomes cheaper and more efficient, it will become our main form of energy. Right now we have no cheaper alternative than fossil fuels.
Obviously you didnt read the research that HE submitted. I guess he was depended on the intellectual laziness of unherd readers such as yourself. Shame on Unherd for no not researching this as well. Here is what one of the studies stated:
For both cold and heat, the effect was noticeably larger for the oldest age group, with 82 (72 to 91) and seven (six to eight) excess deaths per 100 000 person-years. This excess represented around 60% of the total burden for both cold and heat. In contrast, there was around one death per 100 000 person-years in the youngest age group for cold, and less than one per 100 000 person-years for heat. The impact of cold is important everywhere, but is generally smaller in the western region and larger in the northern and eastern regions, with a maximum of 240 (151 to 327) raw excess deaths per 100 000 person-years due to cold in Latvia. There is wider heterogeneity in the effect of heat, which is low in the northern region, with the exception of Latvia and Lithuania, and much higher in the southern region, with a maximum of 37 (25 to 49) excess deaths per 100 000 person-years in Croatia.”
So clearly the offset of “lives saved” by the so called reduced in cold weather spans does not result in a plus in lives saved.
It is refreshing to read, but to be fair, he’s named his own book the Skeptical Environmentalist. The environment takes more than just climate change into account, as does his thesis.
No, he’s not. He is a total fraud and his organisation is funded by climate sceptics.
https://www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/
You mean Man Made Climate Change sceptic. Nobody in their right mind challenges Climate Change. But he would be probably read by less people, if he challenged the doctrine of Man Made Climate Change. Would like to hear him debate sceptic physicists on that subject. But it is refreshing, that he is not buying into the Religion of Climate Change and is a realist, although he doesn’t come up with alternatives to fossil fuel. Guess, once nuclear becomes cheaper and more efficient, it will become our main form of energy. Right now we have no cheaper alternative than fossil fuels.
Obviously you didnt read the research that HE submitted. I guess he was depended on the intellectual laziness of unherd readers such as yourself. Shame on Unherd for no not researching this as well. Here is what one of the studies stated:
For both cold and heat, the effect was noticeably larger for the oldest age group, with 82 (72 to 91) and seven (six to eight) excess deaths per 100 000 person-years. This excess represented around 60% of the total burden for both cold and heat. In contrast, there was around one death per 100 000 person-years in the youngest age group for cold, and less than one per 100 000 person-years for heat. The impact of cold is important everywhere, but is generally smaller in the western region and larger in the northern and eastern regions, with a maximum of 240 (151 to 327) raw excess deaths per 100 000 person-years due to cold in Latvia. There is wider heterogeneity in the effect of heat, which is low in the northern region, with the exception of Latvia and Lithuania, and much higher in the southern region, with a maximum of 37 (25 to 49) excess deaths per 100 000 person-years in Croatia.”
So clearly the offset of “lives saved” by the so called reduced in cold weather spans does not result in a plus in lives saved.
He’s not a climate change skeptic, he’s a moderate and realist.
Refreshing.
I don’t know how someone can listen to Bjorn Lomborg with an open mind and criticize him. It’s flabbergasting really.
You didn’t notice his book title ‘False Alarm’ is an obvious appeal to confirmation bias…?
You didn’t notice his book title ‘False Alarm’ is an obvious appeal to confirmation bias…?
I don’t know how someone can listen to Bjorn Lomborg with an open mind and criticize him. It’s flabbergasting really.
He may be right about deaths, but I would need to understand more. We have also had very cold winters despite 1.2C of warming. Are these going to reduce?
What about sea level rise, extinctions…?
That’s the problem with Lomborg, I’d say. If you are looking for the most cost-effective solution to well-defined short-term problems I am sure his advice is excellent. But the big risk with the climate is with uncertain, very-high-risk longer-term problems. And by focusing on the simpler short-term stuff he is implcitly downplaying the bigger long-term risks.
After all, the big worry is not that we have a single, major heatwave, but that it is a possible symptom of much bigger problems to come.
The problem with this argument is we’re not doing anything to combat climate change today. Wind and solar are not the solution. It’s a sinkhole of govt money. If we were building a bunch of nuclear power stations, I would totally buy into that – but we’re not. India and China will continue to increase their emissions and the west will be left with a bunch of intermittent, unreliable power plants.
Think outside the box.
Look at energy demand; separate industrial demand from domestic. Decentralise generation: local domestic needs could be satisfied by municipal generating stations using wind-solar-bio and other renewable alternative input to satisfy domestic demand.
“A bunch of nuclear reactors…?” Why bother?
We have the best and biggest at a safe distance and it does not pollute the environment with deadly waste. We have also science that could learn how plants manage to live on sunlight they discovered a billion of years ago.
Think outside the box.
Look at energy demand; separate industrial demand from domestic. Decentralise generation: local domestic needs could be satisfied by municipal generating stations using wind-solar-bio and other renewable alternative input to satisfy domestic demand.
“A bunch of nuclear reactors…?” Why bother?
We have the best and biggest at a safe distance and it does not pollute the environment with deadly waste. We have also science that could learn how plants manage to live on sunlight they discovered a billion of years ago.
“…A possible symptom…” isn’t much of an excuse for the near universal hysteria. By the same thinking every meteor shower is a possible symptom of an approaching killer comet.
You are treating this as if it was an isolated, one-off weather event. It is not. There is excellent and well-supported scientific reasons to think that the climate is likely to be changing drastically – even if no one can say for sure exactly how drastically.
If astronomical observations had shown that a swarm of killer comets were heading straight for the inner solar system, then, yes, every comet passing would be a cause for worry.
Why do you believe the Climate is changing drastically? In the U.K. in the last 20 years the Climate hardly changed. There was an increase in temperatures before and overall the temperatures increased by about 1.1C since the 19th century Industrial Revolution, coming out of a mini Ice Age.
Just saw a chart about the U.S. heatwaves and the current one isn’t any bigger than extended heat wave in the 1930s.
Why do you believe the Climate is changing drastically? In the U.K. in the last 20 years the Climate hardly changed. There was an increase in temperatures before and overall the temperatures increased by about 1.1C since the 19th century Industrial Revolution, coming out of a mini Ice Age.
Just saw a chart about the U.S. heatwaves and the current one isn’t any bigger than extended heat wave in the 1930s.
You are treating this as if it was an isolated, one-off weather event. It is not. There is excellent and well-supported scientific reasons to think that the climate is likely to be changing drastically – even if no one can say for sure exactly how drastically.
If astronomical observations had shown that a swarm of killer comets were heading straight for the inner solar system, then, yes, every comet passing would be a cause for worry.
The problem with this argument is we’re not doing anything to combat climate change today. Wind and solar are not the solution. It’s a sinkhole of govt money. If we were building a bunch of nuclear power stations, I would totally buy into that – but we’re not. India and China will continue to increase their emissions and the west will be left with a bunch of intermittent, unreliable power plants.
“…A possible symptom…” isn’t much of an excuse for the near universal hysteria. By the same thinking every meteor shower is a possible symptom of an approaching killer comet.
What about sea level rises? It’s been rising for centuries, due to the earth warming for centuries, and the rate isn’t increasing.
Meanwhile the likes of Obama and Pelosi happily buy expensive properties adjacent to the sea (and there appears to be no monetary devaluation of such property in regard to their location). And they’re still building hotels in the Maldives etc, despite their melodramatic protestations about disappearing into the ocean.
Extinctions are another matter, though the human causes for these are often not to do with climate change.
I suppose we just move New York somewhere else
I suppose we just move New York somewhere else
Part of his point, it seems to me, is that the alarmist activists have not been honest in their public presentation of the data.
They’ve done the same with sea level issues, never admitting that there has been a general rise since the end of the Ice Age, well known and fairly well understood by people who study this. And the same with the extinctions crisis. Darwin’s theory directly explains that most species eventually die out; with no help from the humans. In both cases the numbers are not nearly as “existential” as we’re being led to believe.
The strange commonality with most of these doomish predictions is a devotion to the idea of stasis; everything is supposed to remain just like it was at some imagined point in the past. Kind of childish, really.
That’s the problem with Lomborg, I’d say. If you are looking for the most cost-effective solution to well-defined short-term problems I am sure his advice is excellent. But the big risk with the climate is with uncertain, very-high-risk longer-term problems. And by focusing on the simpler short-term stuff he is implcitly downplaying the bigger long-term risks.
After all, the big worry is not that we have a single, major heatwave, but that it is a possible symptom of much bigger problems to come.
What about sea level rises? It’s been rising for centuries, due to the earth warming for centuries, and the rate isn’t increasing.
Meanwhile the likes of Obama and Pelosi happily buy expensive properties adjacent to the sea (and there appears to be no monetary devaluation of such property in regard to their location). And they’re still building hotels in the Maldives etc, despite their melodramatic protestations about disappearing into the ocean.
Extinctions are another matter, though the human causes for these are often not to do with climate change.
Part of his point, it seems to me, is that the alarmist activists have not been honest in their public presentation of the data.
They’ve done the same with sea level issues, never admitting that there has been a general rise since the end of the Ice Age, well known and fairly well understood by people who study this. And the same with the extinctions crisis. Darwin’s theory directly explains that most species eventually die out; with no help from the humans. In both cases the numbers are not nearly as “existential” as we’re being led to believe.
The strange commonality with most of these doomish predictions is a devotion to the idea of stasis; everything is supposed to remain just like it was at some imagined point in the past. Kind of childish, really.
He may be right about deaths, but I would need to understand more. We have also had very cold winters despite 1.2C of warming. Are these going to reduce?
What about sea level rise, extinctions…?
Resist the tribe! Let’s be rational and act on what is achievable whilst adapting and investing in climate change.
Resist the tribe! Let’s be rational and act on what is achievable whilst adapting and investing in climate change.
I don’t believe Lomborg is a fraud or a fool. But I do think people should read Rob’s links (above) and also The Lomborg Deception by Howard Friel (Yale UP).
I don’t believe Lomborg is a fraud or a fool. But I do think people should read Rob’s links (above) and also The Lomborg Deception by Howard Friel (Yale UP).
In the short to medium term, lol
Test
Mere catnip for the convinced.
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
And this lad is a mere stats man, for heaven’s sake.
He knows nothing about science.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just-a-scientist-with-a-different-opinion/
The Unherd blob needs to find a more credible teat to suckle on.
Maybe you should find another teat…
Maybe you should find another teat…
Mere catnip for the convinced.
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
And this lad is a mere stats man, for heaven’s sake.
He knows nothing about science.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just-a-scientist-with-a-different-opinion/
The Unherd blob needs to find a more credible teat to suckle on.
Sorry, one result of the climate change is a weakening of the Gulf stream, which will ultimately make Britain’s climate more like that of Nova Scotia.
Moreover, my village has experienced an unprecedented three floods in two decades–unprecedented in the past. Dozens of homes were affected.
So when I see drought in British summers, and unprecedented floods in the winter, I begin to suspect it’s not natural.
Figures don’t lie, but liars sure do figure….
I live in western Canada. Forest fires have increased here. Yet forest fires in Canada have decreased, and forest fires globally have decreased.
“Statistics on the fires — which help place their scope in historical context — continue to show how extreme they are. And they’re part of a trend toward larger, fiercer fires and more-damaging fire seasons.
The fires have burned the most land on record so early in the season — more than 4.7 million hectares (11.6 million acres). And already, even though the fire season is just underway, more area has burned than in all but three entire fire seasons since modern records began in 1983.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/12/canada-record-wildfire-season-statistics/
Again, Jim, not very reassuring.
“Statistics on the fires — which help place their scope in historical context — continue to show how extreme they are. And they’re part of a trend toward larger, fiercer fires and more-damaging fire seasons.
The fires have burned the most land on record so early in the season — more than 4.7 million hectares (11.6 million acres). And already, even though the fire season is just underway, more area has burned than in all but three entire fire seasons since modern records began in 1983.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/12/canada-record-wildfire-season-statistics/
Again, Jim, not very reassuring.
I live in western Canada. Forest fires have increased here. Yet forest fires in Canada have decreased, and forest fires globally have decreased.
Sorry, one result of the climate change is a weakening of the Gulf stream, which will ultimately make Britain’s climate more like that of Nova Scotia.
Moreover, my village has experienced an unprecedented three floods in two decades–unprecedented in the past. Dozens of homes were affected.
So when I see drought in British summers, and unprecedented floods in the winter, I begin to suspect it’s not natural.
Figures don’t lie, but liars sure do figure….
Very telling article, this is typical Lomborg misleading his audience. He makes a compelling argument about deaths by heat, yet this is just a massive strawman. The big problems from climate change are drought, floods, famine and political upheaval. But most of all mass migration from the affects of the above.
Name me one major food crop that has suffered a decline in yield over the last 35 years? Ag yields have increased tremendously and 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty. According to NASA, the world is 5% greener than it was in 2000. Up until the Covid crisis, when 165 million people slipped back into poverty, we have made great progress on hunger.
Spot on, Sir!
Spot on, Sir!
Lomberg cites studies and provides compelling numbers. You do neither. Reputable studies for deaths from drought, famine and floods are needed and compelling evidence they are predominantly linked to warming.
There are reams of reports detailing this.
IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/
UN https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports
What do these reports say? You provide a link to IPCC report AR6, which does not support claims of increased deaths due to climate.
In the AR6 report, Chapter 11, Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate, concludes that changes in the number and intensity of severe weather events have not been detected, nor can any changes be attributed to human caused climate change. There is high confidence in heat extremes, which shouldn’t shock anyone, considering global temps have risen 1.3 degrees since 1860. However, there is low confidence for drought, flooding, heavy precipitation and severe weather events like hurricanes.
All of this is stated in the IPCC report you link to.
And he disappeared… Thank goodness.
Jim, this is from Chapter 11 of AR6:
“At the global scale, and also at the regional scale to some extent, many of the changes in extremes are a direct consequence of enhanced radiative forcing, and the associated global warming and/or resultant increase in the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere, as well as changes in vertical stability and meridional temperature gradients that affect climate dynamics (see Box 11.1). Widespread observed and projected increases in the intensity and frequency of hot extremes, together with decreases in the intensity and frequency of cold extremes, are consistent with global and regional warming,”
Doesn’t sound so reassuring.
And he disappeared… Thank goodness.
Jim, this is from Chapter 11 of AR6:
“At the global scale, and also at the regional scale to some extent, many of the changes in extremes are a direct consequence of enhanced radiative forcing, and the associated global warming and/or resultant increase in the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere, as well as changes in vertical stability and meridional temperature gradients that affect climate dynamics (see Box 11.1). Widespread observed and projected increases in the intensity and frequency of hot extremes, together with decreases in the intensity and frequency of cold extremes, are consistent with global and regional warming,”
Doesn’t sound so reassuring.
What do these reports say? You provide a link to IPCC report AR6, which does not support claims of increased deaths due to climate.
In the AR6 report, Chapter 11, Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate, concludes that changes in the number and intensity of severe weather events have not been detected, nor can any changes be attributed to human caused climate change. There is high confidence in heat extremes, which shouldn’t shock anyone, considering global temps have risen 1.3 degrees since 1860. However, there is low confidence for drought, flooding, heavy precipitation and severe weather events like hurricanes.
All of this is stated in the IPCC report you link to.
There are reams of reports detailing this.
IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/
UN https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports
The opposite is true, the planet was never as green (stats from,NASA)and fertile.
Name me one major food crop that has suffered a decline in yield over the last 35 years? Ag yields have increased tremendously and 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty. According to NASA, the world is 5% greener than it was in 2000. Up until the Covid crisis, when 165 million people slipped back into poverty, we have made great progress on hunger.
Lomberg cites studies and provides compelling numbers. You do neither. Reputable studies for deaths from drought, famine and floods are needed and compelling evidence they are predominantly linked to warming.
The opposite is true, the planet was never as green (stats from,NASA)and fertile.
Very telling article, this is typical Lomborg misleading his audience. He makes a compelling argument about deaths by heat, yet this is just a massive strawman. The big problems from climate change are drought, floods, famine and political upheaval. But most of all mass migration from the affects of the above.
Okay, he might be right with cold weather causing more deaths than warm. But seriously using one metric is just dumbfoolery at its peak. What about rising sea levels, food shortages, ocean acidification, wildfires etc etc. They’re nothing to worry about, right? Duh
That’s what Lomborg does, he takes a narrow subject to make an appealing point of view. Absolute charlatan funded by the sceptic industry.
What about the single supposed cause: man made CO2? We need CO2 for plants to survive and there is a lower limit of 150ppm; below which crops stop growing. We are at 440ppm and rising – good; late 1700’s – 180ppm – widespread famine. Jurassic period between 5000 and 8000ppm – big plants, big herbivores -> big carnivores. Go figure. Oh, and go study the El Nino/Nina effect and the Milancovich cycle. But that will be science wouldn’t it? Not hip in the groupthink religion.
Is any of this happening? Global forest fires have decreased. Sea levels are rising, no question, but they have for thousands of years and we know countries like Holland have adapted to this. 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 35 years. Ag yields continue to rise.
And it’s not just cold deaths. All climate related deaths have dropped a staggering 94% over the last 80 years. And it’s year over year.
So not to worry about sea level rise? Antarctic temperatures are rising even faster than projected, Antarctic ice is melting faster than expected, and a complete melting of the ice (admittedly only likely if we burn every last drop of fossil fuel in the ground, and even then not for a century or more) would raise sea levels 200 feet, enough to drown every coastal city, where 37 percent of global population lives. And, you know, there are people who would like to burn every last drop of fossil fuel in the ground.
I think that’s worrisome.
So not to worry about sea level rise? Antarctic temperatures are rising even faster than projected, Antarctic ice is melting faster than expected, and a complete melting of the ice (admittedly only likely if we burn every last drop of fossil fuel in the ground, and even then not for a century or more) would raise sea levels 200 feet, enough to drown every coastal city, where 37 percent of global population lives. And, you know, there are people who would like to burn every last drop of fossil fuel in the ground.
I think that’s worrisome.
Well he cites studies and numbers from the most reputable sources (UK Lancet for instance). Where is your evidence, your sources? Raising some objections on the basis of vague notions of this or that being more deadly doesn’t work in Science or any field of human endeavour requiring rigour and scrutiny.
That’s what Lomborg does, he takes a narrow subject to make an appealing point of view. Absolute charlatan funded by the sceptic industry.
What about the single supposed cause: man made CO2? We need CO2 for plants to survive and there is a lower limit of 150ppm; below which crops stop growing. We are at 440ppm and rising – good; late 1700’s – 180ppm – widespread famine. Jurassic period between 5000 and 8000ppm – big plants, big herbivores -> big carnivores. Go figure. Oh, and go study the El Nino/Nina effect and the Milancovich cycle. But that will be science wouldn’t it? Not hip in the groupthink religion.
Is any of this happening? Global forest fires have decreased. Sea levels are rising, no question, but they have for thousands of years and we know countries like Holland have adapted to this. 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 35 years. Ag yields continue to rise.
And it’s not just cold deaths. All climate related deaths have dropped a staggering 94% over the last 80 years. And it’s year over year.
Well he cites studies and numbers from the most reputable sources (UK Lancet for instance). Where is your evidence, your sources? Raising some objections on the basis of vague notions of this or that being more deadly doesn’t work in Science or any field of human endeavour requiring rigour and scrutiny.
Okay, he might be right with cold weather causing more deaths than warm. But seriously using one metric is just dumbfoolery at its peak. What about rising sea levels, food shortages, ocean acidification, wildfires etc etc. They’re nothing to worry about, right? Duh
Lomborg is not a neutral voice in this subject. He’s making a living from being a climate sceptic and creating material that will appeal to that group. Confirmation bias through and through. It’s this kind of stuff that future generations will look back on and hold their heads in despair.
You are hysterical. Now calm down and stop bombarding this forum with nonsense.
One should be able to block trolls like your antagonist, as on the Spectator’s website. The modus operandi of this one is clear: scream, assert, denounce – or “SAD”. Reasoning with creatures like this is futile, they will not engage, they will supply no evidence (beyond links to articles, which is no more than a dodge) and they return to perform the same ugly tricks again and again.
Just hilarious. The audience here are in a curious right wing bubble that seem to prefer an echo chamber, dissenting voices therefore decribed as trolls. Top tip – the subject of climate change is not a political value.
Another example of S.A.D. Sad, really.
Only here to keep the left wing bubble honest!
Another example of S.A.D. Sad, really.
Only here to keep the left wing bubble honest!
Just hilarious. The audience here are in a curious right wing bubble that seem to prefer an echo chamber, dissenting voices therefore decribed as trolls. Top tip – the subject of climate change is not a political value.
One should be able to block trolls like your antagonist, as on the Spectator’s website. The modus operandi of this one is clear: scream, assert, denounce – or “SAD”. Reasoning with creatures like this is futile, they will not engage, they will supply no evidence (beyond links to articles, which is no more than a dodge) and they return to perform the same ugly tricks again and again.
The big money is on the alarmist side.
Clearly not. JSO resport to geurrilla tactics because they don’t have money – Exxon pay PR firms and people like Lomborg to discredit the science.
Errr, JSO are funded by rich Americans who are happy to see people’s lives in Europe disrupted by deranged, misanthropic zealots, as well as the green energy magnate Dale Vince, who knows what side his bread’s buttered when it comes to the eternal income stream of public subsidies.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12230763/Wealthy-entrepreneur-bankrolling-Just-Stop-Oil-turns-unproductive-climate-mob.html
In any case, of course Just Stop Oil have money – you’re forgetting about Tarquin, Lady Henrietta and Indigo’s bounteous trust funds. That’s why they don’t need to work and can spend so much time inconveniencing people who do.
The alarmist arguments seem to fall in three categories:
1. Appeal to authority
2. Call people names
3. Make emotional pleas
An argument isn’t wrong because Exxon funded it. I’ve been down this road with Robbie before and shown him compelling evidence that alarmists receive much much more funding than skeptics. It doesn’t make a difference.
I salute your patience, Jim.
Of course alarmists receive more funding than skeptics. For one thing, nearly 100 percent OK, around 97 percent) of climate scientists are alarmists. There aren’t many people for Exxon et al to give money to. For another thing, although Exxon is very big, it’s not bigger than all the governments and foundations in the world, who all believe in climate change (well, we don’t know about North Korea), and therefore have more money to give than Exxon. The valid comparison to make your point would be: does someone or some group that stands to make money from reducing CO2 emissions give more money to climate change alarmists than Exxon gives to skeptics? Of course not.
I salute your patience, Jim.
Of course alarmists receive more funding than skeptics. For one thing, nearly 100 percent OK, around 97 percent) of climate scientists are alarmists. There aren’t many people for Exxon et al to give money to. For another thing, although Exxon is very big, it’s not bigger than all the governments and foundations in the world, who all believe in climate change (well, we don’t know about North Korea), and therefore have more money to give than Exxon. The valid comparison to make your point would be: does someone or some group that stands to make money from reducing CO2 emissions give more money to climate change alarmists than Exxon gives to skeptics? Of course not.
The alarmist arguments seem to fall in three categories:
1. Appeal to authority
2. Call people names
3. Make emotional pleas
An argument isn’t wrong because Exxon funded it. I’ve been down this road with Robbie before and shown him compelling evidence that alarmists receive much much more funding than skeptics. It doesn’t make a difference.
Errr, JSO are funded by rich Americans who are happy to see people’s lives in Europe disrupted by deranged, misanthropic zealots, as well as the green energy magnate Dale Vince, who knows what side his bread’s buttered when it comes to the eternal income stream of public subsidies.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12230763/Wealthy-entrepreneur-bankrolling-Just-Stop-Oil-turns-unproductive-climate-mob.html
In any case, of course Just Stop Oil have money – you’re forgetting about Tarquin, Lady Henrietta and Indigo’s bounteous trust funds. That’s why they don’t need to work and can spend so much time inconveniencing people who do.
Clearly not. JSO resport to geurrilla tactics because they don’t have money – Exxon pay PR firms and people like Lomborg to discredit the science.
He’s making a living from meticulously argued books and articles presenting compelling evidence. He was director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute at one point. He believes that Science – real Science – listens to all evidence (for and agains) t and is not some close minded cult that attempts to smear anyone who disagrees with them
His arguments are indeed compelling and well presented, which appears to give him integrity. As in the article above, it’s a solid discussion and well supported.
It is however just a big strawman, deaths from heat as detailed are not a climate change issue, it’s utterly ridiculous.
All his work is like this.
His arguments are indeed compelling and well presented, which appears to give him integrity. As in the article above, it’s a solid discussion and well supported.
It is however just a big strawman, deaths from heat as detailed are not a climate change issue, it’s utterly ridiculous.
All his work is like this.
I get very suspicious of “right side of history” arguments – this is an indication of a lack actual substantive arguments.
What does climate sceptic mean? A bit more specific please. Do you mean a Man Made Climate Change sceptic or just a Climate Change sceptic? Nobody in their right mind is a Climate Change sceptic as it is taking place since the creation of Earth. He is also not a Man Made Climate sceptic as he always points out.
You are hysterical. Now calm down and stop bombarding this forum with nonsense.
The big money is on the alarmist side.
He’s making a living from meticulously argued books and articles presenting compelling evidence. He was director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute at one point. He believes that Science – real Science – listens to all evidence (for and agains) t and is not some close minded cult that attempts to smear anyone who disagrees with them
I get very suspicious of “right side of history” arguments – this is an indication of a lack actual substantive arguments.
What does climate sceptic mean? A bit more specific please. Do you mean a Man Made Climate Change sceptic or just a Climate Change sceptic? Nobody in their right mind is a Climate Change sceptic as it is taking place since the creation of Earth. He is also not a Man Made Climate sceptic as he always points out.
Lomborg is not a neutral voice in this subject. He’s making a living from being a climate sceptic and creating material that will appeal to that group. Confirmation bias through and through. It’s this kind of stuff that future generations will look back on and hold their heads in despair.