Source, email
GLOBAL WARMING OR OIL PRODUCTION?
Erik
- Bye
July 31, 2025
Introduction
The primary battle today is between the IPCC believers and the IPCC sceptics. The first group is afraid of GW caused by fossil CO2 and relies on the Green Deal and renewable energy. The second group denies the GW due to fossil fuel, and will produce traditional oil and gas for continuous energy production.
However, this is not the whole story. For several years, Danish scientist Bjørn Lomborg argued for using this money for international help for people who need support for food, water, health, and education.
Lomborg is one of the few academics in the world who has changed from being an IPCC sceptic to a believer in IPCC.
Global Warming, GW, is not so harmful
In this complexity of scientific and social thinking, a Norwegian high school lecturer, Øystein Sjølie, has contributed with an alternative strategy. He has suggested, although being an IPCC-believer, that the consequences of GW might not be so dangerous and serious as feared by the UN, the IPCC, and not least, by the MSM journalists. He underlined that a stop in the worldwide production would be a disaster for those countries that need more energy for survival. Even the UN has realized this, permitting many countries to emit more CO2 until 2030. This, according to the Paris Agreement, indicates that he might have a manifested reason to argue for 1
continued oil production, and a denial of the Green Deal, with its huge budgets, money classified as «thrown out of the window».
The Oil Book
The necessity of more energy for the people is not only announced by him in newspapers and various speeches. He has written a book about this oil regime:
(Oljeboka - slik gjør norsk olje og gass verden til et bedre sted)
A picture of the book:
The Oil Book - Here is how Norwegian oil and gas make the world a better place
The Main message of the book is that the world needs more energy, the GW makes no hindrance. Such a message is not trivial in an official storm based on the disaster effects of GW. It is by no means surprising that Sjølie had to produce the book on his own; none of the normal standard publishers would present the book.
The Oil Book - The Content
Here is a short description of the main content, from Norli bookstore in Norway:
Modern climate change is claimed to be caused by humans and results in many types of problems around the world. Although the problems are supposed to be serious, they are often heavily exaggerated by the mainstream media, organisations, and the official political system. Sjølie verifies several of such exaggerations.
He also describes how important access to enough cheap energy has been and still is for human welfare. Access to coal was crucial for the first industrial revolution in England, while access to oil was very important for the second industrial revolution in the US. During the last couple of 10 years, more and more countries have experienced economic development with a lower rate of child deaths, better houses, and a better environment.
This economic growth is always closely connected to an increased use of energy, particularly oil.
In particular, the increased use of oil is closely related to the first development, out of extreme poverty, and up to an acceptable level. Selling oil and gas has contributed to making Norway a safe and rich well-being
country, but the people's continued access to oil and gas ard still very important for their safety and wellbeing.
Access to oil and gas is important for basic welfare, and for most of the sustainable goals of the UN, access to oil and gas contributes to achieving the goals.
However, he still evaluates which measures would reduce the emissions of climate change gases are most rational and which measures are not. In particular, he evaluates the proposition of reducing the Norwegian production of oil and gas.
An IPCC-believer
When the standard viewpoint is that the oil production should be phased down due to the dramatic effects of man-made climate change, it is remarkable that an IPCC-believer asks for further oil production.
An interview
Here is a short summary from an interview with him in a Norwegian electronic Newspaper, E24 (by Magnus Blaker, August 17th, 2024):
Title:
E24 - Removing the myths of man-made Global Warming, GW, danger
The subtitle is:
- It may look as if a deal of the alarmists' dream of humanity should disappear, but this is not the case.
The messages above came in from an economist and university lecturer. The undersigned had just finished his new book "The Oil Book - How Norwegian Oil and Gas Makes the World a Better Place".
The book can be summarized quite simply by saying that the climate goals the world has set will not be achieved. If they are to be achieved, they must be solved in a completely different way than they are today. Moreover, we are dependent on Norwegian oil and gas resources.
He believes that humanity has experienced fantastic progress, which has been made possible by oil and gas. And that it will continue.
– Felt like my eyes were going to pop out of my head.
The book was conceived because he wondered why the climate became so overwhelming in society. How bad could climate change really be, which justified this?
– I found one answer in the UN Climate Panel's report on the 1.5-degree target, published in 2018. It states that without climate action, we could experience the world's average temperature rising by 3.7 degrees by the year 2100, Sjølie explains in the book.
According to the report, such a temperature change is as bad as humanity's total value creation being 2.6 percent lower.
– I felt like my eyes were going to pop out of my head. 2.6 percent lower?!
Not 2.6 percent lower than today, but 2.6 percent lower than what it would otherwise be, with another 80 years of economic growth. According to the IPCC, climate change was not a serious threat to human well-being, contrary to the impression I had received from the media.
My concluding remarks
There is a peculiar similarity between the message from him and Bjørn Lomborg. He has been an IPCC-believer for many years. He argues that the world should send the money related to the Green Deal cost to the people with the highest poverty in the world. The rich part of the world can afford this.
He is not afraid of the consequences of global warming. A continued oiland gas production is necessary for the poor Perplexity to obtain a good life.
Lomborg excludes the Green Deal and sends money to poor people. He excludes the minimal effects of GW and will allow more energy to the poor people.
When GW does not end up in dramatic consequences, do we have to win the scientific battle?
Is the survival of the poor more important than the scientific victory?
Is this the best strategy: If you can’t beat them, join them
Man-made Global Warming, GW, is just a fantasy,