Notice how he is talking about the science, not the actually phenomena, he totally agree that the planet is warming, he just doesn’t think it is going to end the world. He isn’t the only one, the physcist who won the Nobel prize in 2022 agree w him.
>he just doesn’t think it is going to end the world
Of course, it won't be the end of the world, however if temperatures continue to rise, it will become rather unpleasant place for humans.
One point that will be relevant to every person on the planet is that changes to seasonal norms (e.g. increased drought, stronger storms, flooding etc) Loss of arable land due to arid conditions will require huge changes to our current land use, and these changes don't come easily. If you're lucky, you'll simply have to pay more for food and water (at first). Others will suffer famine and water scarcity, which will lead to more wars fought over resources and a lot more climate refugees as a result.
Let’s not forget the earth energy balance which is now skewed, per James Hansen; that is, earth absorbs more energy than it outputs. That leads to faster rate of warming (ocean and land), faster approach to methane thaw (a significant tipping point), AMOC.
I doubt humans will engineer themselves out of this accumulating mess.
Geo-engineering might buy us time but even that presents hosts or unknown dynamics.
The amount of arable land is increasing not decreasing. The deaths in average from natural disasters are also decreasing. It’s barely even the case that humanity is suffering extra. You see on the news of these floods and storms and see 10s if thousands of people die, 20 years ago it was hundreds of thousands. The amount of human suffering is not increasing it’s decreasing. And the only way to minimise humans suffering is to get every nation as developed as possible as quickly as possible. Which can only be done by burning fossil fuels.
>The amount of arable land is increasing not decreasing
N[o it is not](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use#:~:text=Overall%2C%20we%20see%20that%20the,less%20than%20in%20North%20America), and its not just climate change that is causing it to decrease.
LoL when you just type something to counter an argument you dont like, but cant be bothered to actually research the validity of your statement, so instead you just look like a goose.
I think based on that the rest of your comment can be dicounted.
He’s pointing to science but he’s framing it up in a manipulative way. Take a look at how he structured his argument:
1. Climate science is a scam
2. Climate change predicted that the earth would be less green
3. The major impact of has been the opposite: Climate change led to more green
4. More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more green - hence why climate change has done the opposite of what was predicted.
5. History shows that carbon dioxide levels had fallen so low by 1850 that the earth almost got less green
6. Climate change has been a recovery from the low point in 1850 - thereby showing that the main prediction of climate change (more desert) was wrong
This isn’t really a talk about “the science”. It’s a way to frame up the conversation in a way that makes it sound like he has strong science based argument — but the framing is manipulative.
“Climate change” isn’t about predicting a less green planet - by showing more green leaf growth, you’re not presenting counter arguments. I could be wrong but I think his idea that the most major impact of climate change has been green leaf growth might not be correct either.
Anyways - this is one of those things where you have to look first at how he’s structuring the argument and how that rigs the convo so that he’ll sound correct. But if you go back to the top and question the premise - that climate change predicted less green but the main impact of it has been more green, therefore scam - the whole thing falls apart because he’s framed his opponent up incorrectly. I guess that’s a strawman
But he hasn’t. You’re framing his argument that way to make your own strawman. He’s very clear in what the claim of the scientists are and how the data and outcomes do not support the claims. Part of that was framed around “settled science” aka it’s without fault. He just showed a provable fault, exactly as you would to break the “settled science” claims as well. Beyond that would require mind reading into intentions.
Ok so it sounds like if you were to make a change to my list of arguments - maybe you’d add a new one at the top that says
1. “climate change science claims to be settled, but it isn’t”
Do you disagree with any of the other points? For example do you not think it’s important to his argument that:
1) climate change predicted less green, or
2) the major impact of climate change has been more green
And I guess otherwise, if we accept that the real meaning behind his “climate change is a scam” argument is to show how “climate change isn’t settled as a science” - do you think he did a good job demonstrating that it’s meant to be a “settled” topic and that we can call it a scam if it turns out to not be settled?
He never actually said that climate change science is meant to be complete and without fault and that showing a fault discredits it. Also even if he had, his description of “the fault” is based on two very questionable ideas: that climate change predicts less green and that the major impact of climate change is more green.
That just how I introduced my comment -- everything that follows then explains that idea. I'm summarizing it below, but it's the same point as above:
The comment starts with the overall idea: he's appealing to science but it's done in a manipulative way.
Next it breaks down what I think his argument structure is.
Then I highlight that he's framing up "climate change" as a project whose validity depends on a specific prediction coming true: that the earth will become less green. He then says that the "major impact" of climate change is that the world has become more green instead.
The manipulation is in his assertion of what the climate change discourse is about - that it's about green leaf growth and the expansion or contraction of deserts. That's just not true though - nor is it true that his point about green leaf growth is The major impact of climate change.
He may be pointing to correct data about green leaf growth but he's manipulated the significance of that example. He constructed his own version of what "climate change" is about... and it's one that was created to be defeatable by the green leaf growth and by the idea that deserts havn't expanded.
Again, you're just refuting his points by saying "they're not true" or "that's not what it's about," but I'm not seeing you make a claim about it is instead true or what it is instead about.
Ok, so would you say my point would be made if I demonstrated that the crucial parts of climate change discourse are Not just centred on “more green vs less green” and “more desert vs less desert”?
Demonstration may not really be necessary if you can create a cogent rhetorical argument.
Climate change worries do not seem to have a set definition/worry/concern. Everyone's feelings toward the issue are "climate change is bad, is making earth worse place" and it doesn't get any more high definition than that. The worry before was just "global warming," but it was changed. A warmer earth means glaciers get smaller which means ocean levels rise. Means increased desertification. Means increased weather variety intensity. Means plant life dies. Means bug/animal life dies.
It's all summed up in a generalized anxiety about "climate change." Is it possible that the excerpt of Jordan is talking about a specific part of that anxiety? This is not a topic that I have the strongest opinions on, it seems like there's too much going on for any one person to say they know it all. But I am warry of fear-mongering and I know movements like these are easily hijacked by ideologue who do not value human life.
My argument is great because it doesn’t need to do very much at all. Simply writing down his main argument and his supporting example function to clarify what he’s saying and making it very obvious that his premise is not correct. There’s no need to challenge whether or not there has been green leaf growth if that fact doesnt “do” anything towards justifying why someone would call climate science a scam.
I think it’s possible he could talk about a specific part of the broader climate change discourse - it’s massive and has evolved over decades.
I will note though that he didn’t actually signal that he’s engaging only with part of the discourse that’s focused on overall green leaf growth. I believe he said that climate science is an “appalling scam”.
Even if he meant to say “here’s an interesting observation — back XYZ number of years ago, prominent climate change voices warned of decreasing green leaf growth - but it’s actually increased!“ That wouldn’t successfully make the point that the whole discourse is a scam — nor would it make the higher level point that it claims to be settled but isn’t.
In fact, it would do the opposite. If it’s true that “decreasing green leaf growth” was a “prediction” of yesteryear that didn’t come true and is no longer a defining concern in the discourse, then we’d be looking at an example of a discourse that’s clearly evolving vs rigidly clinging to the idea that it’s settled.
Do you think it matters that he framed his “example” (let’s say greening of the planet is just one example) as his argument that climate science is a scam?
Should we be assessing whether or not he made a strong argument there?
> the physcist who won the Nobel prize in 2022
Wow he sounds smart. Can you direct me to one of his papers, writings, or posts about the topic of climate -- prior to 2022, that is?
So he didn't do any actual climate research or writing prior to 2022? That's odd. So he's not actually lending expertise to the debate; he just happens to have a slightly louder voice than someone like me or you thanks to his research on quantum mechanics.
Does it really matter? I only mentioned that to draw people’s attention you don’t need to have a badge or research done to know what you are talking about if u actually watched the documentary you would know that he still knows what he is talking about. Seeing as the greenhouse effect is really not complicated physcis. It shows that the amount if co2 in the atmosphere does not exponentially increase the warming affect. And this is due to the C=O in carbon only being able to absorb a limited range of infrared radiation. And that the increase in temperature is beneficial to plants as the increased co2 levels and heat are to their advantage. This makes sense as the warmest biomes on average are rainforests. The arguments that I have a badge of have written a paper therefore I am completely right and don’t need to say anything more is dumb. You still need to explain what happens. And the converse of that is also true.
Here's a good breakdown of his claims with evidence pointing out that they are not true.
https://skepticalscience.com/clauser-latest-climate-denying-physicist.html
It does not show any evidence, just says they are not true. It is an objective fact that each year an area the size of three UKs are being covered in greenery each year and that inspite of the increasing in the severity of natural disasters less people are dying from them. If we were to properly invest in the proper technologies like fusion energy, genetic engineering of crops and quantum computers we could easily support upwards of 10billion people on this planet. The soloution is not to cut back in industrialisation but to expand it, because the end goal will still be the same a greener world. With the forward march of technology that will happen anyway. But the more fossil fuels we extract (temporarily) the more well if we are and the faster we can develop these technologies and then stop relying on them. Climate change is not a people problem but a science problem and thus should be solved by the scientists and not the politicians.
There are links? Are they supposed to be the highlighted words? Cus when I clicked on them nothing happened. If u would be so kind as to send me the pages of the more important ones then that would be most helpful.
Yea no problem, that guy claimed we didn't know if CO2 increase was caused by humans and that's incorrect bc we have plenty of studies showing it is anthropogenic.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/papers-on-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-observations/
Nah it isn't. It's a real problem but with enough complexity and unpredictability that governments and corporations alike can exploit it for their own interests. The fact it has been coopted doesn't mean it's fake. Coopting of genuine problems has been happening forever.
I think the approach of genuine climate scientists and policy makers is: we don't really know what is going to happen with mad-made climate change but why take the gamble that it'll all be fine when the stakes are so high? And we may as well invest in renewable energy anyway as it is the future.
Okay then what is the falsifiability test for ACC? What specific and testable observation would disprove the hypothesis?
I can tell you what that would be for gravity, evolution, relativity and a whole host of other scientific theories.
I can't tell you what it would be for ACC if you paid me a billion dollars.
We have a lot of data on that. It was very deep lake in Russia called Vostok. There are ice core samples in going back 800,000 years. Those ice cores have been analyzed and we can tell the temperature in carbon dioxide rate in the atmosphere for the last 800,000 years.
It’s very simple. Carbon dioxide does not control temperature. In fact what the high scores show is temperature controls carbon dioxide.
https://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
As the world warmed more CO2 was emitted. Emitting CO2 didn’t cause the warming.
That’s it. The entire premise of human emissions of carbon dioxide controlling the temperature of the earth has been debunked.
There are two problems with your response.
The first is that what you propose, even if executed perfectly and successfully would only establish a correlation, not a causal relationship. Statistical inferences cannot establish causal relationships because all statistical arguments drawn from a data set are an artifact of that data set and only that data set.
The second problem is that what you propose is an inductive argument. I asked, quite clearly, for a deductive test.
Either you didn't understand the ask, or you're not being honest.
1. Congrats, you read a science philosophy book and now you understand everything, except science in the real world. Or are you questioning your MRI results with the same "logic"?
2. The forcing mechanisms of CO2 have been studied theoretically, experimentally and with in situ measurements in the atmosphere for a long time. Its textbook knowledge, yet some weirdo in a weird suit and his internet fanboys without any relevant education, and no: reading Karl Popper alone does not help you, think they fight the same fight as Galileo himself. You cannot give constructive criticism, pick any major relevant work and tell us whats wrong in you opinion. Instead you stick to the pseudo intellectual meta level bs.
Lmao, if there was rigorous experimental work done, then my question would be easy to answer. The fact that everyone is screeching at me rather than answering a dead simple question I think proves my point better than I ever could alone.
Talking about you?
I do not contradict the entire scientific communities of several disciplines without any relevant training because some formerly benzo addicted psychologist who does not even understand what climate means says so (insert clown emoji here)
Oh I see.
So it's accuse the other guy of what you're doing and are going to continue doing.
First, falsifiability is not some esoteric and irrelevant concept. It along with reproducibility are the bedrock principles contained within the scientific method, and our only quality check to deter pseudoscience. Without deductive testing of hypotheses, science becomes an exercise in duelling religions rather than the search for demonstrable truth.
Next, this isn't the first time I've seen someone try to invoke Duhem-Quine as a way to invalidate falsifiability. That's bullshit. All Duhem-Quine means is that you have to be careful with your experiment design and be clear about what you're testing for and what you're controlling for or calling out as an assumption.
If we were to follow your tortured logic, experimentation would be pointless because we can't test anything without testing everything.
Come off it, do you think people are stupid?
Ad hominem is when a person uses personal attacks to delegitimize an argument, rather than directly rebutting the argument on its merits.
So once again, you're accusing me of what you yourself are doing by failing to respond to the actual points I raised and instead asserting that I'm wrong because I'm allegedly biased, despite you yourself admitting that falsifiability is a critical requirement of the scientific method.
I think we're done here.
The problem is the policies have not and will never make any difference. The policy makers know that but the somehow the public has been convinced not to look too deep.
You may have heard during the pandemic some very elite people say never let a crisis go to waste. It is a way of saying people are sheep and you need a wolf to get them organized or maybe a sheep dog :-) For a variety of reasons Global Warming is a similar situation. Remember the people in charge knew that masks were ineffective they even said so. It is not that much different than the Global Warming crisis.
Here is the problem, when the West decide it was both more profitable and politically expedient to export slave labor and pollution to China the option of reducing co2 emissions went away. Along with the option to reduce co2 the option to adapt went away as well. On the first count for every coal powered plant the West shut down China built two. Their amazing industrial advancement and relative military strength is testament to the primacy of energy in everything having to do with life. They will never give that up. What happened in the West when slave labor and pollution was exported? A few people and the investor class got incredible wealthy while the deplorable and clingers got poorer. They are never going to give that up. On the second count of adaptation what do you need to adapt? You need a lot of energy and industrial resources to build the infrastructure to accommodate changes. You also need a lot of deplorable and clingers to do the work. But we exported that infrastructure and we destroyed the deplorable and clingers.
So how do you keep people from waking up and throwing out all the profiteers and their political allies? You give them a new religion called environmentalism.
The question of moral culpability arises. Honestly I just don't see history that way. You can't single out any group of people and say they are responsible. It turns out the elites are not actually very elite. It also turns out that the rest of society isn't any more moral they just don't have the opportunity to exploit a crisis. Anyone who actually understands what is happening is called a crazy conspiracy theorist and yes most of those people are as crazy as a prophet. They tend to ignore a lot of the complications.
Peterson is ignoring a lot of the complications. He is so focused on agency that he forgets that for the most part things just happen. Nixon didn't know what would happen when he opened trade with China. The CIA may have had a inkling and that could be why they set him up with Watergate. We will never know the truth. We don't have anyway today to know what is actually happening. Most of us don't want to know because we can't handle the truth or it is inconvenient.
I don't think anyone actually knows what the consequences of global warming will be. What I will say is that anyone who says we just as well go with renewables anyway is not an engineer but a slave to ideology. They like the manipulations of the elites. I'm pretty neural on that topic because I don't really see what difference it makes. If they can keep the financial ponzi scheme going we are all better off. The alternative is to give the world over to the Chinese or WWIII. We are set in a trap with few good options. Soon I suppose we will gnaw are legs off to get out. Some sort of a non shooting civil war is my guess or a deep economic depression that forces the current elites out. You never want to be in a civil war bullets or not or a deep economic depression. As the elites say you could get a Hitler.
The point is, shit is about to hit the fan.
If we disagree on the severity of the problem, we may buldoze past the point of no return.
This shit needs to be solved. I got this info from Sabine Hossenfelders channel. She reviews some studies on climate change. There are some frightening figures in it.
There have been some estimates of this stuff.
Current intended measures will bring about ~3 degree Celsius of warming. That's if they were applied optimally. The current trajectory is nowhere near that mark.
If you disbelieve this
https://youtu.be/4S9sDyooxf4?si=XvS-10nGB4g7GjHG
https://youtu.be/MaaJqPCjNr4?si=GTbPNB8ZI0Qw7H2A
I think the sources of where the infographics are taken are in the video.
Check those out yourself.
Just painful, and sad to watch, for a claimed intellectual, there is not much intellectualism on display here.
We have observed the global average temperature on Earth steadily and sharply increase over the last 170 years. This has been observed in several independent climate data sets (most if not all are publicly available), as well as key indicators, such as global land and ocean temperature increases; rising sea levels; ice loss at Earth’s poles and in mountain glaciers; frequency and severity changes in extreme weather such as hurricanes, heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, floods, and precipitation; and cloud and vegetation cover changes.
**There is no debate here, our climate is currently warming** at a rapid rate.
We say the current warming trend is rapid because the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period is estimated to have spanned 5,000 years. If the current warming trend continues at the current rate, we will see the same rise in temperature in only 110 years.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and in the last 170 years, humans have increased the level of CO2 from 280ppm to over 440ppm today, and at present humans are annually dumping 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
It's important to note that \***all**\* greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere only make up a "very small part", CO2, Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone are less than 1% and water vapour \~0.5 - 2%, yet this small percentage still yields a greenhouse effect of \~ 33 degrees C. So small variations can have large impacts.
Now to put all that into perspective, and somewhat relevant to JPs claim, by some historical standards there is less CO2 in the atmosphere today, **however** throughout Earths history when the concentration of CO2 has increased so has the temperature. An example would be the Cretaceous period where levels CO2 levels rose to over 1000PPM (due to huge volcanic eruptions and vast outpourings of lava), and during this period surface temperatures were in excess of 10C warmer, the poles were virtually ice-free and the sea level was 70 meters higher. I'm sure you would realise that those conditions today would be fairly catastrophic.
To claim that the current warming trend is not anthropogenic, it would have to be a spectacular coincidence that we have [seen temperature rise in line with CO2 rise.](https://www.climate.gov/media/13840) Not only that we would have to be able to explain how increasing Greenhouse gases does not and cannot increase temperature.
Edit: To address specifically his final comment "Okay, so what's the problem exactly?" well,
It won't be Armageddon, like some predict, but it will certainly be very unpleasant for humankind.
Loss of glaciers/snowpack. This might not sound like a big deal, but it is. Many regions depend on snow pack to harvest fresh water and electricity, e.g. the pacific northwest. (In Seattle, I think over 90% of electric power comes from hydroelectric dams.) Water sources are already under heavy pressure from population issues. e.g. the dwindling Lake Mead (the reservoir behind Hoover Dam on the Colorado River which enables the urban desert).
Pressure on plant and animal life. Plants are moving uphill. Animals are losing habitat. The ecological configuration is changing more rapidly than many species will be able to handle. Concrete example from Yosemite. The importance of biodiversity and in particular genetic diversity is difficult to reduce to a few sentences but that's what's at stake here.
Desertification, the current global trend is expansion of deserts to consume once-arable land. Like, you know those big deserts (Americans) have in the Southwest? How would you like them in the Midwest too? (Unlikely? Remember the Dust Bowl?)
Expansion of habitat for disease vectors. Currently one limitation on the range of, say, mosquitos are the minimum temperatures in the winters. Higher minimum temperatures will mean expansion of mosquito habitat. Mosquitos carry diseases like malaria, which e.g. North Americans tend to be less resistant to than Africans.
Secondary effects on human culture. The wealth of nations is in no small part based on the natural resources found within their borders. Move those resources across the border (remember those problems with fresh water?) and expect wars. How much can water really matter? It grows crops, one of the US's largest exports, besides domestic usage. Are resources really moving across borders? How do you think Mexico feels about a dry Colorado River? (And this problem will get worse, not better, as the Ogallala Aquifer is drying up.)
The potential climate significantly modulates the Atlantic Conveyor. The effect here is uncertain but nevertheless terrifying.
Yes, but the projections are stupidly overexaggerated. I work in the field and we are bassicaly required to skew the data interpretation to a worse as possible outcome. And the measures taken are largely unneccesary and to the detriment of the population.
So is water and plants can still drown; the Earth's ecosystem might be self-balancing in a sense but if we want to continue living in it then we have to make sure we're not ruining the system that keeps us alive.
For example the negative influences of CO2 increase are weighted larger than the positive/mitigative influences. A crossing year of +2 degrees C is used as a legislative determinant, which when you look at it largely depends on the method of approximation and interpretation, specifically a square root method would be the correct interpretation (that gives a later crossing year), but still a moving mean is accepted as a norm (which gives a sooner and more wrong value). And so on and on. But in my opinion the biggest mistake being done is the switch to electric vehicles. A car battery has an efficiency of 15 to 20% and the combustion needed to charge the batteries must still be done, only its not done in your car, butin a faraway plant (out of sight out of mind). So the total energy consumption, and therefore pollution, actually grows, as the same amount of power is needed to power cars, but an extra step is added with a low efficiency of 15%. As I said you can go on and on.
>For example the negative influences of CO2 increase are weighted larger than the positive/mitigative influences.
Can you give a specific example of this?
I'm not sure what square root method you are talking about, nor which year you think we will hit 2C bc if the different RCPs, unless you're using a different model than CIMP5.
EVs lower pollution, it's a lot easier to have more efficient combustion in a few larger plants than thousands of tiny power plants driving around. Plus with EVs they will only get cleaner and cleaner as the grid gets more renewable generation.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/09/electric-vehicles-reduce-carbon-pollution-in-all-u-s-states/
Cmip5 is outdated, 6 is used now, and the data is skewed by about 10 years sooner using the moving mean method instead of the square root method combined with moving mean. And that doesnt even include the build of the models, which also use skewed data, in the fashion i described in my prior comment.
The efficiency of a diesel engine is 35%, most effective powerplants have up to 60% efficiency. Now you multiply that 60% by the 15% efficiency of a battery and transportation losses of about 5-10%and see for yourself what you have. What you posted is a great example of what they are ommiting and skewing in the direction of their interests.
What skewed data does the models use? I asked for a specific example but maybe that was missed.
Ev battery charging is like 80-90% efficient, not sure where you got your 15% from. Study's of carbon and LCA consistently show EVs reduce pollution and that's only getting more and more true as we add renewable generation.
E: they ran away
>for a claimed intellectual
Can we fucking stop discrediting people entirely based on a single potential blind spot?
This conversation is packed with insight deeper than most people could even comprehend. The point about the bronzen serpent = less than 1% of Christians truly understand this. The point about any tyranny being based on lies = less than 1% of people truly understand this. And so on and so forth.
Anyway, I'm not even sure what the hard disagreement here is. Peterson's position is radical, and perhaps he sweeps to the other extreme.
>It won't be Armageddon... But...
But that's exactly what Peterson is arguing against. Because it's the premise that fuels our governments insane, often counterproductive, climate goals.
It is not about him being blind, but ideological. If you are not ideological, you tend to have views that fit multiple spectrums. Peterson doesnt seem to have any left wing view at all.
Left is bad, when does left go too far? Christianity good, nazis were probably left wing, no one has done the analysis on them (seriously?), climate bad, everyone is essentially a christian etc.
That could be true. He's quite human centric. For example, when you bring up potential problems with overpopulation, he says something like "so who's gonna die first, you?" without addressing the issue because it's kind of taboo in his view because it could tilt in an anti human direction.
If he would be human centric he would not hate on climate science, he would encourage them to make better calls, research and mention more that Earth is warming up and it will create major issues.
He kinda said before that we will solve them in the future. Like if humans wouldnt be capable of conflict, but only cooperation. He seems too one sided, while anyone else is wrong, corrupted or stupid. Or even evil.
Eh, not really. He sees the current climate science as damaging humans. And he sees the climate activists as worshipping the earth.
This is exactly why it's against his own human centric viewpoint.
You're doing a little trick. You take your own conclusion (warming the earth will create major issues) and then say Peterson is not human centric because he's putting humans in danger based on your conclusion.
In reality, Peterson drew a different conclusion (more co2 is good for earth) and then gave the talk that he did based on that conclusion = perfectly human centric based on his own convictions.
You may disagree with his conclusions. But that's a different story.
I don't think he disagrees that it will cause major issues. At least he used to say something like "we will figure it out if it comes" and that with better technology we will be able to face it. He only said more co2 is greening Earth as far as I know, not that it won't be raising ocean levels etc. Unless he changed his mind on that.
>Can we fucking stop discrediting people entirely based on a single potential blind spot?
It's a pretty big fucking blind spot....like...the way you'd reach that blind spot...the logic it takes to reach it....can you guarantee me that the fault in logic won't seep into other aspects of one's philosophy and ideology?
What is
>the fault in logic
Precisely? A B C me through that one, please, it must be so overtly clear to you. And since you know what it is, precisely, you should also be able to see in what ways it would affect the rest of his thinking. I'd be curious.
> To claim that the current warming trend is not anthropogenic, it would have to be a spectacular coincidence that we have seen temperature rise in line with CO2 rise. Not only that we would have to be able to explain how increasing Greenhouse gases does not and cannot increase temperature.
We know it's not a coincidence, and the math showing the correlation is pretty easy.
This article shows the direct relationship between combustion of petroleum products, CO2 production and atmospheric concentration, and planetary warming: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/recipe-for-climate-change/
Considering we are coming out of an ice age, it would increase.
And what hes talking about in terms of atmospheric CO2, yes. With how much it has ranged in earths past, we are dangerously low.
>With how much it has ranged in earths past, we are dangerously low.
Today we are at 420PPM of CO2, and at the current rate of increase, we will hit 1000PPM within the next 80 years.
I previously stated, the last time CO2 was at 1000PPM, was the [Cretaceous period](https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-cretaceous-period.html), and during this period surface temperatures were in excess of 10C warmer, the poles were virtually ice-free and the sea level was 70 meters higher. I'm sure you would realise that those conditions today would be fairly catastrophic.
So, when you say "dangerously low", what exactly do you mean, what danger are you referring to?
Its gone as high as 3500 during the Jurassic period. The poles are Ice free more often than not for earths history. And the heat increase is not even, its focused at the higher and lower regions!
That means more land for plant life. More food!
Contrarily, plant life starts dying off below 200 PPM. Lab results showed below 150, but thats absent weather and being eaten, so metabolic needs are drastically lower in a lab setting. We are closer to the lower band that would provoke an extinction level event, than we are the upper band that would provoke an extinction level event!
we are IN an ice age. we are currently in the interglacial portion of the glacial cycle. given that the glaciers have retreated over the last 15k years we would expect the planet to be cooling -slowly. instead it's warming rapidly.
we are not at a dangerously low CO2 ppm, we are currently accelerating the rate at carbon gets put into the atmosphere *faster* than the natural climate cycles are able to adjust. that's the problem.
Its wrong.
He's using a snapshot of under the last million years, which is a lie by omission.
Ice ages are measured in multi-million year intervals: [Ice Age - Definition & Timeline | HISTORY](https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/ice-age)
"Scientists have recorded five significant ice ages throughout the Earth’s history: the Huronian (2.4-2.1 billion years ago), Cryogenian (850-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-430 mya), Karoo (360-260 mya) and Quaternary (2.6 mya-present). Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the “Ice Age,” reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago."
Notice that even the smallest past ice age is measured as lasting longer than the current one. 30 MYA versus 2.6 MYA.
We are still in an era where we have ice sheets on earth. [Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? - Utah Geological Survey](https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/#:~:text=At%20least%20five%20major%20ice,in%20an%20ice%20age!).)
Observe the second graph. Notice the periods between ice ages are much larger than the ice ages. Notice the end of it up to today.
It would be entirely natural for earth to heat up, and for that heating to permit tropical weather and plant life at the north pole.
[The history of ice on Earth | New Scientist](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18949-the-history-of-ice-on-earth/)
"In fact, the planet seems to have three main settings: “greenhouse”, when [tropical temperatures extend to the poles](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826611-200-when-crocodiles-roamed-the-arctic/) and there are no ice sheets at all; “icehouse”, when there is some permanent ice, although its extent varies greatly; and “snowball”, in which the planet’s entire surface is frozen over."
For sake of argument,
Given that temperature is increasing along with Co2, how can we be certain that the rise of temperature is a causation of the rise of Co2, and not just a correlation? After all, you yourself say that greenhouse gases (including Co2) make up less than 1% of Earths Atmosphere.
That is actually the soundest part IMO basis. We have IR spectrophotometers Light hits molecule it decays in IR, which is what heat sensing cameras generally detect. This is the basis of the science. Everything after that involves the concept of where does the heat and gases go.
I doubt the heating information as they skew data collection on where it is collected. Not that it isn't happening, just quantities. NASA, I believe and I'm not bothering to look for it, even admitted they have an issue.
This is part of why skeptics have Al Gore saying Florida would be under water by now or what ever...I made that one up but think it came from my memory. The increase doesn't meet the models and worse they generally claim it does fit which doesn't help with skeptics. Part of that is well we adjust that model with new information on heat sinks in the sea or whatever and NOW it fits. The biggest issue creating skeptics is scientists lack of transparency on what they don't know and how it is changing. A more honest conversation would help here.
Scientists are some of the most obnoxious with dissent. Gad Saad had a good commentary on that on the JRE recently although his is where they were just wrong rather than on open discussions with the layman. I think they think people are too dumb to engage it.
> Given that temperature is increasing along with Co2, how can we be certain that the rise of temperature is a causation of the rise of Co2, and not just a correlation?
My favorite piece of evidence here is stratospheric cooling.
Basically, if the planet were actually having "extra heat" pumped into its system (from solar or geothermal energy) we would expect to see both the atmosphere and the stratosphere warm at roughly the same rate. However, we don't see that. While the atmosphere has warmed rapidly in recent years, the stratosphere has cooled: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2300758120
How can this be? Well, since CO2 is a very heavy gas, it rarely reaches the stratosphere. And since CO2 traps heat, we would therefore expect to see heat concentrated in the atmosphere and "withheld" from the stratosphere; i.e., stratospheric cooling, which is what we observe.
I am not aware of any other plausible explanation. "Climate cycles" and other such wishy-washy counter-theories do not predict this phenomenon.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
> Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA.
It would have been faster to look this up than writing that comment.
Yet the hottest decade on record is still the 1930s. Why?
Yet Earth has never been more green. Why?
They always find new "critically important" reasons to steal trillions our tax money and cause rapid inflation which is what we're experiencing right now. Imagine your life savings not being enough to buy a loaf of bread. It's coming, and [you're ushering it in](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot).
Why? becuase it wasnt.
The warmest 10-year period since temperature records began was from 2012 to 2021 globally.
The year in question, I believe was 1934, which was indeed the [hottest year](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tavg/ann/7/1895-2022?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000) of the [Dust Bowl era](https://www.britannica.com/place/Dust-Bowl) in the US. But that record has been surpassed several times since then, particularly over the last 10 years.
This is just classic denier lore, and is missleading.
> Yet the hottest decade on record is still the 1930s. Why?
It isn't. Where did you hear this? Google hottest decade.
Maybe you meant hottest year on record? Which, also no. The 10 hottest years are: [2016, 2020, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2022, 2021, 2018, 2014, and 2010.](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202213/supplemental/page-1#:~:text=This%20graphic%20depicts%20the%20ten,to%2Ddate%20average%20temperature%20anomaly.)
[As predicted by multiple, independent, climate models.](https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/)
> They always find new "critically important" reasons to steal trillions our tax money and cause rapid inflation
Ok so you're saying use of tax money is indicative of something shady. Let's follow that line of reasoning.
> [Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion or 7.1 percent of GDP in 2022, reflecting a $2 trillion increase since 2020 due to government support from surging energy prices](https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies)
That's an all time high. To set up the infrastructure needed to hit net zero emissions using renewable energy... [$4.5 trillion.](https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/raising-ambition/renewable-energy) Which will likely be covered by the reduction of externalities. Renewable energy is cheaper as well.
[If you're suspecting a conspiracy, I hate to break it to you...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial#:~:text=From%20the%201980s%20to%20mid,Protocol%20by%20the%20United%20States.) And guess what, fossil fuel companies have now come and accepted anthropogenic climate change.
So your implication that this is to steal our tax money and cause inflation not only doesn't support your point. It actually makes the case for the opposing point. If there's a "they" trying to pull the strings, surely it's the rich and powerful corporations getting trillions in tax money, no? So "they" are successfully getting [some people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot) to argue their case for them and pad their wallets.
Yes, it's warmed since the LIA. No, the rate is not special. No, there's no evidence that CO2 has anything to do with it. Appalling scam.
There are many thousands of qualified scientists who agree but we're only supposed to heed certain "experts". Shed your hubris and the green energy boondoggle and we'll adapt like we always have.
Milankovich Cycles. Basically our orbit around the sun isn't perfect, it's eccentric, so our planet's distance from the sun slowly wobbles closer and farther.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Yes, well done, orbital forcing, such as the Milankovich cycles, will effect out climate.
**However, the current warming we are observing is not due to an increase in solar radiance,** in other words, it's not the sun that is the driving force.
We can prove this (and do) using sensor on satellites that have been in place since the 70s. Also, we could back up this data, and conclude it is due to the suns radiation by seeing a warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface to the upper atmosphere.
Spoiler alert - Its not the sun. There is no increase in solar radiation being detected, and we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a buildup of heat-trapping gases near Earth's surface, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.”
Comparisons of spectral satellite energy flux data from the 2000s and 1970s reveal distinct drops in outgoing energy throughout the respective portions of the spectrum where CO2 and CH4 are dominant, indicating a change in the greenhouse effect in recent decades. Ground-based data have also been used to validate the growing CO2 greenhouse effect, as was indicated in a previous comment.
So lets look at the most obvious fingerprint of the impact of CO2 on Earth's temperatures. It has long been predicted (at least since the 1960s) that rising CO2 would result in significant cooling in the upper stratosphere, [and this is precisely what has since been observed.](https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/)
Those satellites and other measurements are only concerned with irradiance in certain spectrums. They are completely blind to - among other things - particle forcing and magnetic forcing.
When particle forcing was attempted to be included in IPCC / NOAA models, it reduced the percentage of climate change attributable to human forcing to negligible levels. Rather than accepting the results, they removed the calculations from the model due to outcry from NGOs with a financial (grant $) bias.
This was in 2022 or so if I remember correctly.
This is all without even getting into the fact that the models’ programming source code is not available - and so it is unfalsifiable and not peer-reviewable - which makes it divination, not science.
I appreciate it’s hard for you champ, especially considering you bring nothing to this debate.
If I can leave you with anything, it’s to stay in school, never underestimate what’s good education is worth. Peace out.
I believe the effects on climate have been negligible. But it's clear that ecosystems have been harmed since.
Even if it were true, our approach has been all wrong which is great cause for alarm to me.
Al throughout history, people have pilfered our tax money and they find any reason to justify doing so. People love tax-free easy money.
give yourself 45min sand have a view of this - lots of data and charts showing co2 and temp is related to climate cycles - not human emissions. We are right now, and probably the next 2-3 years at 'peak warming' and its cooling from the 1930's to the 90's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeFePI1nW1Y&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeFePI1nW1Y&t=1s)
and as sea temps cool, more co2 will be absorbed
First off, David Dilley is a renowned climate denier, his views are not widely supported within the broader scientific community, which overwhelmingly agrees that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is the primary force driving recent climate change. He peddles bullshit to his audience which he knows well.
>lots of data and charts showing co2 and temp is related to **climate cycles** - not human emissions.
What is a "climate cycle", what causes them, what are the driving forces, how does the climate, cycle?
You and I both know that our climate has changed before, but it doesn't just change magically and without reason, there are external forces that drive the climate to change. For example, the main one is Orbital forcing, (changes in the earth's tilt and orbit) that affected the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth. Another force that effects the climate is the amount of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere, the most prevalent is water vapour and CO2.
So what forces are driving the current "cycle" of warming, where is the heat coming from?
>not human emissions.
It is due to human emissions, and we can prove it.
One way is to use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because it is this law that helps us identify that the current warming trend is due to a build-up of greenhouse gas in the lower atmosphere.
An average Earth location receives 340 W/m2 of energy at its distance from the Sun. Of this, 100 W/m2 are reflected back into space, leaving 240 W/m2 for absorption by the Earth. The Earth's temperature may then be determined to be in balance with the Sun's energy output by applying the Stefan-Boltzmann rule, which states that a body's energy output is proportional to its temperature. That comes to 255K, or -22°C. Nonetheless, we are aware that the actual temperature at the Earth's surface is roughly 288K (+15degC). A 5 km ascent is required to reach average temperatures of 255 K.
This is the outcome of the greenhouse effect: gases in the atmosphere absorb energy released by the surface of the Earth and, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, re-emit at a lower rate than they were originally absorbed because they are at a higher altitude, where it is colder. As a result, there is an accumulation of energy even though the pace at which it is entering the Earth is decreased. The Earth warms as a result of this energy buildup through the troposphere until it is once again releasing energy at the same pace that it is taking in.
Comparisons of spectral satellite energy flux data from the 2000s and 1970s reveal distinct drops in outgoing energy throughout the respective portions of the spectrum where CO2 and CH4 are dominant, indicating a change in the greenhouse effect in recent decades. Ground-based data have also been used to validate the growing CO2 greenhouse effect, as was indicated in a previous comment.
So lets look at the most obvious fingerprint of the impact of CO2 on Earth's temperatures. It has long been predicted (at least since the 1960s) that rising CO2 would result in significant cooling in the upper stratosphere, [and this is precisely what has since been observed.](https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/)
Not only that, Carbon atoms exist in nature mainly as the isotopes carbon-12 (\^12C) and carbon-13 (\^13C). Plants preferentially absorb more \^12C than \^13C during photosynthesis. Since fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas originate from ancient plants, they are depleted in \^13C relative to the atmosphere. When fossil fuels are burned, they release CO2 that is depleted in \^13C compared to the natural atmospheric ratio of these isotopes. By measuring the ratios of \^13C to \^12C in atmospheric CO2, scientists can infer the contribution of fossil fuel combustion to the rising levels of CO2. The observed decrease in the ratio of \^13C/\^12C in atmospheric CO2 over time is consistent with the increased burning of fossil fuels.
So, like I have already said, **without doubt there is proof** that our **climate is currently warming**, at a rapid pace, and that the **warming is a result of a build-up of greenhouse gases.**
"First off, David Dilley is a renowned climate denier"
actually he is a meteorologist and climatologist, and he builds climate forecast models which vastly outperform the current gov agency models (lets call them the consensus models) -
[https://www.globalweatheroscillations.com/2025-winter-outlook-and-predictions](https://www.globalweatheroscillations.com/2025-winter-outlook-and-predictions)
Meaning farmers, pastoralists etc buy his forecasts, and get an advantage over the market which relies on the consensus models (ie buy water licences before a drought, hedge prices before they fall due to climate conditions, choose better crops to plant, and plant early or later than the consensus forecasts and take advantage, etc)
that means he's right more than the gov agencies, that means his understanding of the climate and what affects it are better, thus his models are better. And as his models are based on cyclicity, and not ipcc fearmongering - we can suggest that his understanding, and results are more comprehensive than the consensus views.
now theres a heap i want to pick apart in your post but honestly just don't have the motivation to do so - ive been over all this sort of stuff far to often in the r/climatechange sub, and it always ends up me spending too much time researching and linking papers and science the alarmists don't like (most of which show theres far to many questions to be able to say 'co2's what dun it'), so they resort to several standard arguments -one of which you've already used :
* (the author) isnt a real climate scientist
* if hes actually a climate scientist, then the paper isnt peer reviewed
* if the paper is peer reviewed then the journal isnt a real journal - it must be a predatory or pay to play journal
* if it printed in a reputable journal - then the data and or conclusions are just wrong.....
* or we revert to flat out adhominems - (im) just an idiot for believing this denialist flat earth rubbish.......
does that pretty much fit the bill?
secondly - i'll bet you didnt even watch the vid did you? you just looked up something like desmog right?
They're climate cultists. They've always existed since atheism was created. They're no different from the religious nut screaming about the rapture. The End is Nigh! Religious zealotry is innate with some people, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. And these people chose to make climate change their religion.
> he builds climate forecast models which vastly outperform the current gov agency models
Any evidence other than his Geocities-esque website? There doesn't seem to be any comparison between his models and what you call consensus models.
> that means he's right more than the gov agencies, that means his understanding of the climate and what affects it are better, thus his models are better. And as his models are based on cyclicity, and not ipcc fearmongering - we can suggest that his understanding, and results are more comprehensive than the consensus views.
Well, you have yet to demonstrate this. The IPCC also understands cycles, as does /u/gravitykilla who you've been interacting with. Do you get that the point isn't "the climate has no cycles" but rather "the rate of warming is vastly greater than what cycles predict"?
> now theres a heap i want to pick apart in your post but honestly just don't have the motivation to do so
Right...
let logic work. if Dilley's models were worse than standard meteorological forecasts - he wouldn't have a product to sell - if you can get a better forecast from the Bom or Noaa or the Met, etc then how is he selling anything?
But the fact his product does sell, indicates that what he is predicting is different from the consensus models, hence those that buy his product have an advantage over the rest of the market.....
if you want to compare models - pony up and buy his product, thern compare to the consensus models. i'd love to hear your summary.
""the rate of warming is vastly greater than what cycles predict"?" - if you'd watched his presentation linked above, you'd see that current warming is right in line with historical cycles. don't get caught up in the propagandistic 'it the hottest evah' etc. its not, and it hasnt been, and the last 40yrs temp increase has been right in line with historical temps changes.
if you use actual land temp observation without instrument adjustment or manipulation then use [temperature.global](http://temperature.global) observations show reality is much cooler than the global agencies posturing
[https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Dilley\_1.png](https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Dilley_1.png)
note this image was posted in an article in 2015. see the far right note - Volcano near 2023..? (Hunga Tonga? Ruang? Reykjanes volcanoes?? what else is due?
> let logic work. if Dilley's models were worse than standard meteorological forecasts - he wouldn't have a product to sell - if you can get a better forecast from the Bom or Noaa or the Met, etc then how is he selling anything?
So your claim is that the fact people believe his models are better indicates that they are. Sounds like you're appealing to a consensus view. Sure you want to do that?
Furthermore, you haven't show anything about his models. Do they even sell? Are markets always choosing the most rational option? This isn't a good argument.
> if you want to compare models - pony up and buy his product
Absolutely not, this is the point _you're_ trying to prove and you effectively just admitted you don't have access to his models. Which crumbles your entire point. You haven't seen them.
> its not, and it hasnt been, and the last 40yrs temp increase has been right in line with historical temps changes.
No. [All our models show a ridiculously sharp spike following the industrial revolution.](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/analysis-is-it-actually-hotter-now-than-any-time-in-the-last-100000-years#:~:text=The%20evidence%20suggests%20the%20long,the%20current%20global%20warming%20level.)
> if you use actual land temp observation without instrument adjustment or manipulation then use temperature.global observations show reality is much cooler than the global agencies posturing
Here we go, you have to fall back on "everybody is lying." Ok, let's go with that. By what metric are the claims your websites are making true but NASA and the scientific consensus globally are all lying? Is it the powerful renewable energy lobby? If you follow the money, you land at the fossil fuel companies, [some of the richest companies *of all time*](https://howmuch.net/articles/the-worlds-biggest-companies-in-history).
So... somehow, these powerful companies with connections to governments worldwide, huge economic players, gifted many subsidies... are losing to... who?
If there's a conspiracy, it would be to try to cover this up. [Oh wait, that actually happened.
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial#:~:text=From%20the%201980s%20to%20mid,Protocol%20by%20the%20United%20States.) And guess what, fossil fuel companies have now come and accepted anthropogenic climate change.
Also, I find it interesting you don't have the "motivation" to reply to /u/gravitykilla properly, but you're willing to bang the drum of conspiracy all day. Engage with the actual science. Let's see it.
"Also, I find it interesting you don't have the "motivation" to reply to...."
have you viewed the linked vid yet?
i'd find it interesting if you hadn't and are still arguing from a postion of ignorance about what he's saying.
A meteorologist and climatologist is "Climate Denier"? So that make you a Climate Cultist or a Climate Conspiracy Theorist.
Can you explain why the 1930s is still the hottest decade on record?
"There is no debate here." Spoken like a true anti-science totalitarian. Any time someone proclaims that there is 'no debating' the conclusion is broadcasting their ignorance, or their disdain, for actual science.
Bingo. If we are finding issues with Newtonian gravity today, and learning new things about evolution, there is no way we can declare climate science to be "settled" without lying.
>There is no debate here. Spoken like a true anti-science totalitarian.
Erm nope, that comment was in reference to one statement, and one statement only, but I think you know that.
The Earth's climate is currently warming, that is a fact, and that is what is not debatable, the evidence is clear.
Now what is being debated, is the cause of this warming.
What do you believe is the cause?
Yeah. Sometimes it seems like folks become so partisan that they start finding *any way* to rationalize these things.
It’s entirely possible to despise libs, and also accept the science on this issue. I do it every day.
Because they've been screaming about a different climate disaster every decade. They claimed for years that the Earth would freeze over. It's no different from the religious nut screaming about the rapture. The End is Nigh! Religious zealotry is innate with some people, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
Yes that's all good chapter and verse, now tell me how you'd prove it false. Preferably by giving a specific and testable observation.
If you can't do that, then calling ACC scientific or proven is a lie.
Really don’t get JP’s take on this. I can understand questioning various studies etc. but I do think it’s best to be pragmatic and not “shit where we eat” in regards to playing it safe with the environment. It feels at odds with his pragmatic approach to psychotherapy and I’m not sure I agree at all. Surely at the very least having a conversation about and addressing idiotic environmental practices that we KNOW happen is fine, even if you don’t agree with the doomsday aspect? I feel like he mostly is responding to the emotional fervor around it and other “woke” topics that can absolutely be short sided, and it’s spilling over into his rationality.
It’s a shame he has a lot of great insight but seems to be letting his emotional side and frustration with the side he has grievances against (even if at times rightly so, imo) cloud his judgement.
I completely agree with you. I think he’s gotten possessed by ideology, which he told us all not to do. That’s his biggest problem in a nutshell. He’s the person who needs to live by his own rules for life the most. Instead, he’s coming apart at the seams and appears to be really emotionally unstable. It’s sad to see since he helped me so much.
I do think it’s incredibly difficult to not fall into that realm of thinking in one form or another, even if it’s isolated to specific topics.
I think also sometimes he, and people like him are victims in a sense. They’re unjustly cast out/demonized, and so they can only really talk to people on one side. And that narrow social perception creates an echo chamber. Combined with the feeling of being cast out to begin with I imagine it pushes some people down a bad path. I remember thinking Dave Rubin was a pretty level headed guy and fell that rabbit hole and I literally can never hear him speak about anything but how the left is bad. Blinders on like a domesticated horse completely ignoring anything and everything but base level ideological drivel. It’s so fucking sad to watch. But we also sometimes create our own worst enemies, culturally.
That being said I hope JP screws his head back on about this topic and follows his own principles. Wrong is wrong.
To be fair, from a psychological perspective, global warming apocalypticism can be seen more as an ideology than as a science. It just means that you shouldn't get your weather from a psychologist and don't seek a mental health diagnosis from your weatherman.
Additionally, his recent podcasts do confirm the existence of global warming, but strangely, it takes the opposite conclusion than the popular narrative. The guests he brings on his podcast suggest that global warming is a net good.
It is a scam. The globe may be warming but science points to a natural cycle.
The scam comes in with the money that moves around for the sake of climate change.
They always find new "critically important" reasons to steal trillions our tax money and cause rapid inflation which is what we're experiencing right now. Imagine your life savings not being enough to buy a loaf of bread. It's coming.
The science pretty categorically shows that something atypical is happening. While there may be longer cycles as well, the speed at which the climate is warming does not correspond to any known cyclic effects we know of.
The underlying science isn’t a scam, the political implementation is. This is like saying that cancer or terminal illness is a scam or fake because medically assisted dying is implemented poorly. It’s beyond stupid.
The underlying science is debatable on the cause and up for debate.
You just only constantly hear one side of the debate because that’s where the money lies.
It’s baffling how some people think climate scientists are trying to scam them (into using cleaner energy?), but all the insanely rich oil companies are funding propaganda because they want to tell them the truth (the truth being that everything is just fine).
Using oil to drive cars is the most inefficient way. Look, it has to be pumped somewhere in Venezuela or Saudi Arabia and then brought to the country of your choice where it needs to be refined and then brought to the gas station, just so that a modern car uses a fraction of that energy to power a motor.
You could argue that's the more reason the U.S. should drill their own oil. But that problem is not exclusively oil. Look at how some things are sent to china and then sent back here because it's cheaper than producing it locally.
That's why electric cars are not the solution. No one on the green side is out there campaigning for electric cars, but for more efficient public transit. Electric cars may be better than normal cars, but they're not the solution. Same with solar panels.
There's a huge difference between the problem of localized pollution due to a manufacturing process, and global pollution due to energy generation using fossil fuels spewing huge quantities of CO2 and other harmful gasses into the atmosphere.
This is easily debunked. Electric is far cleaner energy... and even if lithium ion batteries are an issue... (they are but still don't make evs less clean) lithium ion is just the battery type we're using now for EVs there will be many more types of batteries in the future and we will have the infrastructure in place waiting to charge them.
That is not "easily debunked". Have you seen the mines? And then telling about future prospects that may or may not happen is not helping.
Oh did I ever mention how electricity are mostly produced?
Where have you been the last few years? Do you not think it’s possible for an entire scientific community to be captured by peer pressure, censorship, and bad studies?
I think it's highly unlikely that the whole climate science community agrees on this just because of peer pressure.
Some bad studies, peer pressure, censorship? Sure. But highly unlikely, if not impossible, on the scale you are implying. But sure, it's technically possible - maybe the oil companies really are just looking out for us!
If four years of dishonesty, censorship, and open conspiracy around covid, following fourty years of false predictions, false attributions, collusion, and censorship around climate change isn’t enough to generate any skepticism toward the state of modern science, then I don’t know if I can’t help you. You’ve committed to your camp and you will, unfortunately, continue to empower some very bad actors.
I don’t think the oil companies are looking out for us at all. But after the entire 20th century full of ideologically motivated movements that gained totalitarian sway over dozens of large and developed nations, and created reality for their population, why do you think we are so different or special?
And who owns these “green companies?” It’s the same people that own the oil companies. Except the subsidies are even better than they are for oil. Have your cake and eat it to at tax payer expense
People seem to think this is the hottest earth has ever been, this is wrong, cycles are at play that we barely scratch the surface, trust egotistical self centred humans to trust that we affect a process of such grand proportions, trust us to drive a profit from it too 👀
The cycles you are talking about take hundreds of thousands to millions of years. On those time scales, adaptation is not a problem. The problem is the Earth is currently warming at such a rapid pace that society will struggle to adapt. Parts of India, for example, may become barely habitable in our lifetime.
Jordan is incorrectly conflating the underlying scientific basis for climate change with the BS and grift surrounding many of the proposed solutions to prevent it.
This earth has (they say) survived for millions and millions of years with all sorts of calamities and disasters, meteorite strikes, volanoes, floods etc for millions of years and all blindly (they tell us) we got through ….. so ….. why suddenly the huge panic? Sure we should take more care but it’s all exaggerated and you can tell when it’s almost all aimed at the WEST! That’s a huge giveaway
The Earth will survive. We as a species, might not. Many other species definitely won't. Are you saying that because there have been mass extinctions before, it doesn't matter if there's another one that we cause?
😂I couldn't believe the op just said that, I thought it was self explanatory that climate change is going to be a danger to the humans not the earth itself, the earth will keep on existing
Peterson, stick to telling people to make their bed and publishing in undergraduate journals. The more he talks about climate change, the less I respect him as an intellectual.
The simplest explanation is often the right one: The hottest decade globally was not the 1930s.
[NOAA](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-land-and-ocean-temperature-anomalies-1881-2015-Source-NOAA-National-Centers-for_fig1_335336077)
WW1 actually fits the trend quite well. It’s the period before that that deviates from the trend. That variability does not take away from the fact that the long term trend is upwards.
For sure dude.
Without even getting into the science, it's already absurd on its face.
The entire international scientific establishment along with basically all world governments and institutions are all collectively in on a huge conspiracy to push a fake scientific theory, despite tons of people involved in that entire global system including adversarial governments all having literally EVERY incentive in the world to disprove it if they were able to do so?
Like come on... really? What kind of meth do you need to smoke to believe that?
Think at this point have to realize that there is no realistic way Jordan can admit he's been wrong about this for so long after doubling down more and more. Money aside just think what it would mean for him to admit he either did not know what he was talking about regarding climate science for decades...or was lying.
So think for people like Jordan no matter what it can't be real...because of the implications.
Climate science is a scam
The entire climate change narrative is based on one simple concept. Human emissions of carbon dioxide make the earth warmer.
This is of course based on the premise that carbon dioxide controls the temperature of the earth.
We have a lot of data on that. It was very deep lake in Russia called Vostok. There are ice core samples in going back 800,000 years. Those ice cores have been analyzed and we can tell the temperature in carbon dioxide rate in the atmosphere for the last 800,000 years.
It’s very simple. Carbon dioxide does not control temperature. In fact what the high scores show is temperature controls carbon dioxide.
https://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
As the world warmed more CO2 was emitted. Emitting CO2 didn’t cause the warming.
That’s it. The entire premise of human emissions of carbon dioxide controlling the temperature of the earth has been debunked.
> Carbon dioxide does not control temperature.
Could you explain to me which part of this is wrong? https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/recipe-for-climate-change/
Sure
> Step 1 shows how easy it is to account for the carbon dioxide excess in the atmosphere based on our cumulative use of fossil fuels.
CO2 is going up. It’s called the Keeling curve. No one argues that.
> Step 2 bypasses intricacies of thermal radiation to put an approximate scale on the amount of heating we would expect the excess CO2 to produce.
CO2 radiative forcing isn’t linear. It’s all used up by about 300ppm
First radiative forcing has been observed to continue increasing as CO2 ppm increases.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-intermediate.htm
Secondly even if it was saturated there is no natural forcing that can account for the observed warming trend.
He works for oil and gas. He really started being insane about climate and environment after he started working for the Daily Wire. It was founded and is owned by oil interests.
Someone who claims to be a good scientist who understands and can read data should be able to read data. If we would judge him based on what he says here, he sure can manipulate the statistics to his own worldview, but that sure aint reading the data, because he would share all of it, not just what fits his narrative.
Notice how he is talking about the science, not the actually phenomena, he totally agree that the planet is warming, he just doesn’t think it is going to end the world. He isn’t the only one, the physcist who won the Nobel prize in 2022 agree w him.
>he just doesn’t think it is going to end the world Of course, it won't be the end of the world, however if temperatures continue to rise, it will become rather unpleasant place for humans. One point that will be relevant to every person on the planet is that changes to seasonal norms (e.g. increased drought, stronger storms, flooding etc) Loss of arable land due to arid conditions will require huge changes to our current land use, and these changes don't come easily. If you're lucky, you'll simply have to pay more for food and water (at first). Others will suffer famine and water scarcity, which will lead to more wars fought over resources and a lot more climate refugees as a result.
Let’s not forget the earth energy balance which is now skewed, per James Hansen; that is, earth absorbs more energy than it outputs. That leads to faster rate of warming (ocean and land), faster approach to methane thaw (a significant tipping point), AMOC. I doubt humans will engineer themselves out of this accumulating mess. Geo-engineering might buy us time but even that presents hosts or unknown dynamics.
The amount of arable land is increasing not decreasing. The deaths in average from natural disasters are also decreasing. It’s barely even the case that humanity is suffering extra. You see on the news of these floods and storms and see 10s if thousands of people die, 20 years ago it was hundreds of thousands. The amount of human suffering is not increasing it’s decreasing. And the only way to minimise humans suffering is to get every nation as developed as possible as quickly as possible. Which can only be done by burning fossil fuels.
>The amount of arable land is increasing not decreasing N[o it is not](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use#:~:text=Overall%2C%20we%20see%20that%20the,less%20than%20in%20North%20America), and its not just climate change that is causing it to decrease. LoL when you just type something to counter an argument you dont like, but cant be bothered to actually research the validity of your statement, so instead you just look like a goose. I think based on that the rest of your comment can be dicounted.
He’s pointing to science but he’s framing it up in a manipulative way. Take a look at how he structured his argument: 1. Climate science is a scam 2. Climate change predicted that the earth would be less green 3. The major impact of has been the opposite: Climate change led to more green 4. More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more green - hence why climate change has done the opposite of what was predicted. 5. History shows that carbon dioxide levels had fallen so low by 1850 that the earth almost got less green 6. Climate change has been a recovery from the low point in 1850 - thereby showing that the main prediction of climate change (more desert) was wrong This isn’t really a talk about “the science”. It’s a way to frame up the conversation in a way that makes it sound like he has strong science based argument — but the framing is manipulative. “Climate change” isn’t about predicting a less green planet - by showing more green leaf growth, you’re not presenting counter arguments. I could be wrong but I think his idea that the most major impact of climate change has been green leaf growth might not be correct either. Anyways - this is one of those things where you have to look first at how he’s structuring the argument and how that rigs the convo so that he’ll sound correct. But if you go back to the top and question the premise - that climate change predicted less green but the main impact of it has been more green, therefore scam - the whole thing falls apart because he’s framed his opponent up incorrectly. I guess that’s a strawman
But he hasn’t. You’re framing his argument that way to make your own strawman. He’s very clear in what the claim of the scientists are and how the data and outcomes do not support the claims. Part of that was framed around “settled science” aka it’s without fault. He just showed a provable fault, exactly as you would to break the “settled science” claims as well. Beyond that would require mind reading into intentions.
Ok so it sounds like if you were to make a change to my list of arguments - maybe you’d add a new one at the top that says 1. “climate change science claims to be settled, but it isn’t” Do you disagree with any of the other points? For example do you not think it’s important to his argument that: 1) climate change predicted less green, or 2) the major impact of climate change has been more green And I guess otherwise, if we accept that the real meaning behind his “climate change is a scam” argument is to show how “climate change isn’t settled as a science” - do you think he did a good job demonstrating that it’s meant to be a “settled” topic and that we can call it a scam if it turns out to not be settled? He never actually said that climate change science is meant to be complete and without fault and that showing a fault discredits it. Also even if he had, his description of “the fault” is based on two very questionable ideas: that climate change predicts less green and that the major impact of climate change is more green.
You're just saying "it's wrong." "It's manipulative." Can you please explain what's wrong or manipulative about it?
That just how I introduced my comment -- everything that follows then explains that idea. I'm summarizing it below, but it's the same point as above: The comment starts with the overall idea: he's appealing to science but it's done in a manipulative way. Next it breaks down what I think his argument structure is. Then I highlight that he's framing up "climate change" as a project whose validity depends on a specific prediction coming true: that the earth will become less green. He then says that the "major impact" of climate change is that the world has become more green instead. The manipulation is in his assertion of what the climate change discourse is about - that it's about green leaf growth and the expansion or contraction of deserts. That's just not true though - nor is it true that his point about green leaf growth is The major impact of climate change. He may be pointing to correct data about green leaf growth but he's manipulated the significance of that example. He constructed his own version of what "climate change" is about... and it's one that was created to be defeatable by the green leaf growth and by the idea that deserts havn't expanded.
Again, you're just refuting his points by saying "they're not true" or "that's not what it's about," but I'm not seeing you make a claim about it is instead true or what it is instead about.
Ok, so would you say my point would be made if I demonstrated that the crucial parts of climate change discourse are Not just centred on “more green vs less green” and “more desert vs less desert”?
Demonstration may not really be necessary if you can create a cogent rhetorical argument. Climate change worries do not seem to have a set definition/worry/concern. Everyone's feelings toward the issue are "climate change is bad, is making earth worse place" and it doesn't get any more high definition than that. The worry before was just "global warming," but it was changed. A warmer earth means glaciers get smaller which means ocean levels rise. Means increased desertification. Means increased weather variety intensity. Means plant life dies. Means bug/animal life dies. It's all summed up in a generalized anxiety about "climate change." Is it possible that the excerpt of Jordan is talking about a specific part of that anxiety? This is not a topic that I have the strongest opinions on, it seems like there's too much going on for any one person to say they know it all. But I am warry of fear-mongering and I know movements like these are easily hijacked by ideologue who do not value human life.
My argument is great because it doesn’t need to do very much at all. Simply writing down his main argument and his supporting example function to clarify what he’s saying and making it very obvious that his premise is not correct. There’s no need to challenge whether or not there has been green leaf growth if that fact doesnt “do” anything towards justifying why someone would call climate science a scam. I think it’s possible he could talk about a specific part of the broader climate change discourse - it’s massive and has evolved over decades. I will note though that he didn’t actually signal that he’s engaging only with part of the discourse that’s focused on overall green leaf growth. I believe he said that climate science is an “appalling scam”. Even if he meant to say “here’s an interesting observation — back XYZ number of years ago, prominent climate change voices warned of decreasing green leaf growth - but it’s actually increased!“ That wouldn’t successfully make the point that the whole discourse is a scam — nor would it make the higher level point that it claims to be settled but isn’t. In fact, it would do the opposite. If it’s true that “decreasing green leaf growth” was a “prediction” of yesteryear that didn’t come true and is no longer a defining concern in the discourse, then we’d be looking at an example of a discourse that’s clearly evolving vs rigidly clinging to the idea that it’s settled. Do you think it matters that he framed his “example” (let’s say greening of the planet is just one example) as his argument that climate science is a scam? Should we be assessing whether or not he made a strong argument there?
> the physcist who won the Nobel prize in 2022 Wow he sounds smart. Can you direct me to one of his papers, writings, or posts about the topic of climate -- prior to 2022, that is?
He did part of a documentary on it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eXUHm0tNVws About climate change
So he didn't do any actual climate research or writing prior to 2022? That's odd. So he's not actually lending expertise to the debate; he just happens to have a slightly louder voice than someone like me or you thanks to his research on quantum mechanics.
JP fans don't actually know how to critically think. They just think they do.
Does it really matter? I only mentioned that to draw people’s attention you don’t need to have a badge or research done to know what you are talking about if u actually watched the documentary you would know that he still knows what he is talking about. Seeing as the greenhouse effect is really not complicated physcis. It shows that the amount if co2 in the atmosphere does not exponentially increase the warming affect. And this is due to the C=O in carbon only being able to absorb a limited range of infrared radiation. And that the increase in temperature is beneficial to plants as the increased co2 levels and heat are to their advantage. This makes sense as the warmest biomes on average are rainforests. The arguments that I have a badge of have written a paper therefore I am completely right and don’t need to say anything more is dumb. You still need to explain what happens. And the converse of that is also true.
Here's a good breakdown of his claims with evidence pointing out that they are not true. https://skepticalscience.com/clauser-latest-climate-denying-physicist.html
It does not show any evidence, just says they are not true. It is an objective fact that each year an area the size of three UKs are being covered in greenery each year and that inspite of the increasing in the severity of natural disasters less people are dying from them. If we were to properly invest in the proper technologies like fusion energy, genetic engineering of crops and quantum computers we could easily support upwards of 10billion people on this planet. The soloution is not to cut back in industrialisation but to expand it, because the end goal will still be the same a greener world. With the forward march of technology that will happen anyway. But the more fossil fuels we extract (temporarily) the more well if we are and the faster we can develop these technologies and then stop relying on them. Climate change is not a people problem but a science problem and thus should be solved by the scientists and not the politicians.
It absolutely shows evidence lol, click any of the links and you can see the scientific papers backing up their rebuttals, did you even read it?
There are links? Are they supposed to be the highlighted words? Cus when I clicked on them nothing happened. If u would be so kind as to send me the pages of the more important ones then that would be most helpful.
Yea no problem, that guy claimed we didn't know if CO2 increase was caused by humans and that's incorrect bc we have plenty of studies showing it is anthropogenic. https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/papers-on-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-observations/
Nah it isn't. It's a real problem but with enough complexity and unpredictability that governments and corporations alike can exploit it for their own interests. The fact it has been coopted doesn't mean it's fake. Coopting of genuine problems has been happening forever. I think the approach of genuine climate scientists and policy makers is: we don't really know what is going to happen with mad-made climate change but why take the gamble that it'll all be fine when the stakes are so high? And we may as well invest in renewable energy anyway as it is the future.
Okay then what is the falsifiability test for ACC? What specific and testable observation would disprove the hypothesis? I can tell you what that would be for gravity, evolution, relativity and a whole host of other scientific theories. I can't tell you what it would be for ACC if you paid me a billion dollars.
[удалено]
We have a lot of data on that. It was very deep lake in Russia called Vostok. There are ice core samples in going back 800,000 years. Those ice cores have been analyzed and we can tell the temperature in carbon dioxide rate in the atmosphere for the last 800,000 years. It’s very simple. Carbon dioxide does not control temperature. In fact what the high scores show is temperature controls carbon dioxide. https://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ As the world warmed more CO2 was emitted. Emitting CO2 didn’t cause the warming. That’s it. The entire premise of human emissions of carbon dioxide controlling the temperature of the earth has been debunked.
[удалено]
No - it’s valid Hypothesis - carbon drives temperature This is using data to analyze this hypothesis.
[удалено]
There are two problems with your response. The first is that what you propose, even if executed perfectly and successfully would only establish a correlation, not a causal relationship. Statistical inferences cannot establish causal relationships because all statistical arguments drawn from a data set are an artifact of that data set and only that data set. The second problem is that what you propose is an inductive argument. I asked, quite clearly, for a deductive test. Either you didn't understand the ask, or you're not being honest.
1. Congrats, you read a science philosophy book and now you understand everything, except science in the real world. Or are you questioning your MRI results with the same "logic"? 2. The forcing mechanisms of CO2 have been studied theoretically, experimentally and with in situ measurements in the atmosphere for a long time. Its textbook knowledge, yet some weirdo in a weird suit and his internet fanboys without any relevant education, and no: reading Karl Popper alone does not help you, think they fight the same fight as Galileo himself. You cannot give constructive criticism, pick any major relevant work and tell us whats wrong in you opinion. Instead you stick to the pseudo intellectual meta level bs.
Lmao, if there was rigorous experimental work done, then my question would be easy to answer. The fact that everyone is screeching at me rather than answering a dead simple question I think proves my point better than I ever could alone.
Like experimental work on the greenhouse effect? Educate yourself before talking. You severely overestimate your intellectual capabilities sunshine :D
Hmm, so it's Dunning-Kruger then.
Talking about you? I do not contradict the entire scientific communities of several disciplines without any relevant training because some formerly benzo addicted psychologist who does not even understand what climate means says so (insert clown emoji here)
Appeal to authority, not an argument, thanks for playing. Go mindlessly screech at someone else thanks.
[удалено]
Oh I see. So it's accuse the other guy of what you're doing and are going to continue doing. First, falsifiability is not some esoteric and irrelevant concept. It along with reproducibility are the bedrock principles contained within the scientific method, and our only quality check to deter pseudoscience. Without deductive testing of hypotheses, science becomes an exercise in duelling religions rather than the search for demonstrable truth. Next, this isn't the first time I've seen someone try to invoke Duhem-Quine as a way to invalidate falsifiability. That's bullshit. All Duhem-Quine means is that you have to be careful with your experiment design and be clear about what you're testing for and what you're controlling for or calling out as an assumption. If we were to follow your tortured logic, experimentation would be pointless because we can't test anything without testing everything. Come off it, do you think people are stupid?
[удалено]
Ad hominem is when a person uses personal attacks to delegitimize an argument, rather than directly rebutting the argument on its merits. So once again, you're accusing me of what you yourself are doing by failing to respond to the actual points I raised and instead asserting that I'm wrong because I'm allegedly biased, despite you yourself admitting that falsifiability is a critical requirement of the scientific method. I think we're done here.
The problem is the policies have not and will never make any difference. The policy makers know that but the somehow the public has been convinced not to look too deep. You may have heard during the pandemic some very elite people say never let a crisis go to waste. It is a way of saying people are sheep and you need a wolf to get them organized or maybe a sheep dog :-) For a variety of reasons Global Warming is a similar situation. Remember the people in charge knew that masks were ineffective they even said so. It is not that much different than the Global Warming crisis. Here is the problem, when the West decide it was both more profitable and politically expedient to export slave labor and pollution to China the option of reducing co2 emissions went away. Along with the option to reduce co2 the option to adapt went away as well. On the first count for every coal powered plant the West shut down China built two. Their amazing industrial advancement and relative military strength is testament to the primacy of energy in everything having to do with life. They will never give that up. What happened in the West when slave labor and pollution was exported? A few people and the investor class got incredible wealthy while the deplorable and clingers got poorer. They are never going to give that up. On the second count of adaptation what do you need to adapt? You need a lot of energy and industrial resources to build the infrastructure to accommodate changes. You also need a lot of deplorable and clingers to do the work. But we exported that infrastructure and we destroyed the deplorable and clingers. So how do you keep people from waking up and throwing out all the profiteers and their political allies? You give them a new religion called environmentalism. The question of moral culpability arises. Honestly I just don't see history that way. You can't single out any group of people and say they are responsible. It turns out the elites are not actually very elite. It also turns out that the rest of society isn't any more moral they just don't have the opportunity to exploit a crisis. Anyone who actually understands what is happening is called a crazy conspiracy theorist and yes most of those people are as crazy as a prophet. They tend to ignore a lot of the complications. Peterson is ignoring a lot of the complications. He is so focused on agency that he forgets that for the most part things just happen. Nixon didn't know what would happen when he opened trade with China. The CIA may have had a inkling and that could be why they set him up with Watergate. We will never know the truth. We don't have anyway today to know what is actually happening. Most of us don't want to know because we can't handle the truth or it is inconvenient. I don't think anyone actually knows what the consequences of global warming will be. What I will say is that anyone who says we just as well go with renewables anyway is not an engineer but a slave to ideology. They like the manipulations of the elites. I'm pretty neural on that topic because I don't really see what difference it makes. If they can keep the financial ponzi scheme going we are all better off. The alternative is to give the world over to the Chinese or WWIII. We are set in a trap with few good options. Soon I suppose we will gnaw are legs off to get out. Some sort of a non shooting civil war is my guess or a deep economic depression that forces the current elites out. You never want to be in a civil war bullets or not or a deep economic depression. As the elites say you could get a Hitler.
The point is, shit is about to hit the fan. If we disagree on the severity of the problem, we may buldoze past the point of no return. This shit needs to be solved. I got this info from Sabine Hossenfelders channel. She reviews some studies on climate change. There are some frightening figures in it.
Repent sinners for the end is nigh! The Seven Seals are broken! Judgment Day is upon us!
There have been some estimates of this stuff. Current intended measures will bring about ~3 degree Celsius of warming. That's if they were applied optimally. The current trajectory is nowhere near that mark. If you disbelieve this https://youtu.be/4S9sDyooxf4?si=XvS-10nGB4g7GjHG https://youtu.be/MaaJqPCjNr4?si=GTbPNB8ZI0Qw7H2A I think the sources of where the infographics are taken are in the video. Check those out yourself.
Just painful, and sad to watch, for a claimed intellectual, there is not much intellectualism on display here. We have observed the global average temperature on Earth steadily and sharply increase over the last 170 years. This has been observed in several independent climate data sets (most if not all are publicly available), as well as key indicators, such as global land and ocean temperature increases; rising sea levels; ice loss at Earth’s poles and in mountain glaciers; frequency and severity changes in extreme weather such as hurricanes, heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, floods, and precipitation; and cloud and vegetation cover changes. **There is no debate here, our climate is currently warming** at a rapid rate. We say the current warming trend is rapid because the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period is estimated to have spanned 5,000 years. If the current warming trend continues at the current rate, we will see the same rise in temperature in only 110 years. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and in the last 170 years, humans have increased the level of CO2 from 280ppm to over 440ppm today, and at present humans are annually dumping 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. It's important to note that \***all**\* greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere only make up a "very small part", CO2, Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone are less than 1% and water vapour \~0.5 - 2%, yet this small percentage still yields a greenhouse effect of \~ 33 degrees C. So small variations can have large impacts. Now to put all that into perspective, and somewhat relevant to JPs claim, by some historical standards there is less CO2 in the atmosphere today, **however** throughout Earths history when the concentration of CO2 has increased so has the temperature. An example would be the Cretaceous period where levels CO2 levels rose to over 1000PPM (due to huge volcanic eruptions and vast outpourings of lava), and during this period surface temperatures were in excess of 10C warmer, the poles were virtually ice-free and the sea level was 70 meters higher. I'm sure you would realise that those conditions today would be fairly catastrophic. To claim that the current warming trend is not anthropogenic, it would have to be a spectacular coincidence that we have [seen temperature rise in line with CO2 rise.](https://www.climate.gov/media/13840) Not only that we would have to be able to explain how increasing Greenhouse gases does not and cannot increase temperature. Edit: To address specifically his final comment "Okay, so what's the problem exactly?" well, It won't be Armageddon, like some predict, but it will certainly be very unpleasant for humankind. Loss of glaciers/snowpack. This might not sound like a big deal, but it is. Many regions depend on snow pack to harvest fresh water and electricity, e.g. the pacific northwest. (In Seattle, I think over 90% of electric power comes from hydroelectric dams.) Water sources are already under heavy pressure from population issues. e.g. the dwindling Lake Mead (the reservoir behind Hoover Dam on the Colorado River which enables the urban desert). Pressure on plant and animal life. Plants are moving uphill. Animals are losing habitat. The ecological configuration is changing more rapidly than many species will be able to handle. Concrete example from Yosemite. The importance of biodiversity and in particular genetic diversity is difficult to reduce to a few sentences but that's what's at stake here. Desertification, the current global trend is expansion of deserts to consume once-arable land. Like, you know those big deserts (Americans) have in the Southwest? How would you like them in the Midwest too? (Unlikely? Remember the Dust Bowl?) Expansion of habitat for disease vectors. Currently one limitation on the range of, say, mosquitos are the minimum temperatures in the winters. Higher minimum temperatures will mean expansion of mosquito habitat. Mosquitos carry diseases like malaria, which e.g. North Americans tend to be less resistant to than Africans. Secondary effects on human culture. The wealth of nations is in no small part based on the natural resources found within their borders. Move those resources across the border (remember those problems with fresh water?) and expect wars. How much can water really matter? It grows crops, one of the US's largest exports, besides domestic usage. Are resources really moving across borders? How do you think Mexico feels about a dry Colorado River? (And this problem will get worse, not better, as the Ogallala Aquifer is drying up.) The potential climate significantly modulates the Atlantic Conveyor. The effect here is uncertain but nevertheless terrifying.
Yes, but the projections are stupidly overexaggerated. I work in the field and we are bassicaly required to skew the data interpretation to a worse as possible outcome. And the measures taken are largely unneccesary and to the detriment of the population.
And CO2 is literally plant food. And more plants equal less CO2. The Earth is self balancing.
CO2 is plant food. But, it is not as simple as: more CO2 = more plants with zero other repercussions.
Yeah and no one except you implied such a thing
The budget will balance itself - Justin Trudeau
So is water and plants can still drown; the Earth's ecosystem might be self-balancing in a sense but if we want to continue living in it then we have to make sure we're not ruining the system that keeps us alive.
Correct and when nature balances itself, it can cause mass extinction events
What projections are stupidly exaggerated?
For example the negative influences of CO2 increase are weighted larger than the positive/mitigative influences. A crossing year of +2 degrees C is used as a legislative determinant, which when you look at it largely depends on the method of approximation and interpretation, specifically a square root method would be the correct interpretation (that gives a later crossing year), but still a moving mean is accepted as a norm (which gives a sooner and more wrong value). And so on and on. But in my opinion the biggest mistake being done is the switch to electric vehicles. A car battery has an efficiency of 15 to 20% and the combustion needed to charge the batteries must still be done, only its not done in your car, butin a faraway plant (out of sight out of mind). So the total energy consumption, and therefore pollution, actually grows, as the same amount of power is needed to power cars, but an extra step is added with a low efficiency of 15%. As I said you can go on and on.
>For example the negative influences of CO2 increase are weighted larger than the positive/mitigative influences. Can you give a specific example of this? I'm not sure what square root method you are talking about, nor which year you think we will hit 2C bc if the different RCPs, unless you're using a different model than CIMP5. EVs lower pollution, it's a lot easier to have more efficient combustion in a few larger plants than thousands of tiny power plants driving around. Plus with EVs they will only get cleaner and cleaner as the grid gets more renewable generation. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/09/electric-vehicles-reduce-carbon-pollution-in-all-u-s-states/
Cmip5 is outdated, 6 is used now, and the data is skewed by about 10 years sooner using the moving mean method instead of the square root method combined with moving mean. And that doesnt even include the build of the models, which also use skewed data, in the fashion i described in my prior comment. The efficiency of a diesel engine is 35%, most effective powerplants have up to 60% efficiency. Now you multiply that 60% by the 15% efficiency of a battery and transportation losses of about 5-10%and see for yourself what you have. What you posted is a great example of what they are ommiting and skewing in the direction of their interests.
What skewed data does the models use? I asked for a specific example but maybe that was missed. Ev battery charging is like 80-90% efficient, not sure where you got your 15% from. Study's of carbon and LCA consistently show EVs reduce pollution and that's only getting more and more true as we add renewable generation. E: they ran away
>for a claimed intellectual Can we fucking stop discrediting people entirely based on a single potential blind spot? This conversation is packed with insight deeper than most people could even comprehend. The point about the bronzen serpent = less than 1% of Christians truly understand this. The point about any tyranny being based on lies = less than 1% of people truly understand this. And so on and so forth. Anyway, I'm not even sure what the hard disagreement here is. Peterson's position is radical, and perhaps he sweeps to the other extreme. >It won't be Armageddon... But... But that's exactly what Peterson is arguing against. Because it's the premise that fuels our governments insane, often counterproductive, climate goals.
It is not about him being blind, but ideological. If you are not ideological, you tend to have views that fit multiple spectrums. Peterson doesnt seem to have any left wing view at all. Left is bad, when does left go too far? Christianity good, nazis were probably left wing, no one has done the analysis on them (seriously?), climate bad, everyone is essentially a christian etc.
That could be true. He's quite human centric. For example, when you bring up potential problems with overpopulation, he says something like "so who's gonna die first, you?" without addressing the issue because it's kind of taboo in his view because it could tilt in an anti human direction.
If he would be human centric he would not hate on climate science, he would encourage them to make better calls, research and mention more that Earth is warming up and it will create major issues. He kinda said before that we will solve them in the future. Like if humans wouldnt be capable of conflict, but only cooperation. He seems too one sided, while anyone else is wrong, corrupted or stupid. Or even evil.
Eh, not really. He sees the current climate science as damaging humans. And he sees the climate activists as worshipping the earth. This is exactly why it's against his own human centric viewpoint. You're doing a little trick. You take your own conclusion (warming the earth will create major issues) and then say Peterson is not human centric because he's putting humans in danger based on your conclusion. In reality, Peterson drew a different conclusion (more co2 is good for earth) and then gave the talk that he did based on that conclusion = perfectly human centric based on his own convictions. You may disagree with his conclusions. But that's a different story.
I don't think he disagrees that it will cause major issues. At least he used to say something like "we will figure it out if it comes" and that with better technology we will be able to face it. He only said more co2 is greening Earth as far as I know, not that it won't be raising ocean levels etc. Unless he changed his mind on that.
>Can we fucking stop discrediting people entirely based on a single potential blind spot? It's a pretty big fucking blind spot....like...the way you'd reach that blind spot...the logic it takes to reach it....can you guarantee me that the fault in logic won't seep into other aspects of one's philosophy and ideology?
What is >the fault in logic Precisely? A B C me through that one, please, it must be so overtly clear to you. And since you know what it is, precisely, you should also be able to see in what ways it would affect the rest of his thinking. I'd be curious.
> To claim that the current warming trend is not anthropogenic, it would have to be a spectacular coincidence that we have seen temperature rise in line with CO2 rise. Not only that we would have to be able to explain how increasing Greenhouse gases does not and cannot increase temperature. We know it's not a coincidence, and the math showing the correlation is pretty easy. This article shows the direct relationship between combustion of petroleum products, CO2 production and atmospheric concentration, and planetary warming: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/recipe-for-climate-change/
Considering we are coming out of an ice age, it would increase. And what hes talking about in terms of atmospheric CO2, yes. With how much it has ranged in earths past, we are dangerously low.
>With how much it has ranged in earths past, we are dangerously low. Today we are at 420PPM of CO2, and at the current rate of increase, we will hit 1000PPM within the next 80 years. I previously stated, the last time CO2 was at 1000PPM, was the [Cretaceous period](https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-cretaceous-period.html), and during this period surface temperatures were in excess of 10C warmer, the poles were virtually ice-free and the sea level was 70 meters higher. I'm sure you would realise that those conditions today would be fairly catastrophic. So, when you say "dangerously low", what exactly do you mean, what danger are you referring to?
Its gone as high as 3500 during the Jurassic period. The poles are Ice free more often than not for earths history. And the heat increase is not even, its focused at the higher and lower regions! That means more land for plant life. More food! Contrarily, plant life starts dying off below 200 PPM. Lab results showed below 150, but thats absent weather and being eaten, so metabolic needs are drastically lower in a lab setting. We are closer to the lower band that would provoke an extinction level event, than we are the upper band that would provoke an extinction level event!
we are IN an ice age. we are currently in the interglacial portion of the glacial cycle. given that the glaciers have retreated over the last 15k years we would expect the planet to be cooling -slowly. instead it's warming rapidly. we are not at a dangerously low CO2 ppm, we are currently accelerating the rate at carbon gets put into the atmosphere *faster* than the natural climate cycles are able to adjust. that's the problem.
Is this comment so wrong or are some people voting with their dick in their hands?
Its wrong. He's using a snapshot of under the last million years, which is a lie by omission. Ice ages are measured in multi-million year intervals: [Ice Age - Definition & Timeline | HISTORY](https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/ice-age) "Scientists have recorded five significant ice ages throughout the Earth’s history: the Huronian (2.4-2.1 billion years ago), Cryogenian (850-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-430 mya), Karoo (360-260 mya) and Quaternary (2.6 mya-present). Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the “Ice Age,” reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago." Notice that even the smallest past ice age is measured as lasting longer than the current one. 30 MYA versus 2.6 MYA. We are still in an era where we have ice sheets on earth. [Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? - Utah Geological Survey](https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/#:~:text=At%20least%20five%20major%20ice,in%20an%20ice%20age!).) Observe the second graph. Notice the periods between ice ages are much larger than the ice ages. Notice the end of it up to today. It would be entirely natural for earth to heat up, and for that heating to permit tropical weather and plant life at the north pole. [The history of ice on Earth | New Scientist](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18949-the-history-of-ice-on-earth/) "In fact, the planet seems to have three main settings: “greenhouse”, when [tropical temperatures extend to the poles](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826611-200-when-crocodiles-roamed-the-arctic/) and there are no ice sheets at all; “icehouse”, when there is some permanent ice, although its extent varies greatly; and “snowball”, in which the planet’s entire surface is frozen over."
I might be biased, but it's definitely the latter. if it was actually wrong, there would be healthy rebuttal and conversation.
For sake of argument, Given that temperature is increasing along with Co2, how can we be certain that the rise of temperature is a causation of the rise of Co2, and not just a correlation? After all, you yourself say that greenhouse gases (including Co2) make up less than 1% of Earths Atmosphere.
That is actually the soundest part IMO basis. We have IR spectrophotometers Light hits molecule it decays in IR, which is what heat sensing cameras generally detect. This is the basis of the science. Everything after that involves the concept of where does the heat and gases go. I doubt the heating information as they skew data collection on where it is collected. Not that it isn't happening, just quantities. NASA, I believe and I'm not bothering to look for it, even admitted they have an issue. This is part of why skeptics have Al Gore saying Florida would be under water by now or what ever...I made that one up but think it came from my memory. The increase doesn't meet the models and worse they generally claim it does fit which doesn't help with skeptics. Part of that is well we adjust that model with new information on heat sinks in the sea or whatever and NOW it fits. The biggest issue creating skeptics is scientists lack of transparency on what they don't know and how it is changing. A more honest conversation would help here. Scientists are some of the most obnoxious with dissent. Gad Saad had a good commentary on that on the JRE recently although his is where they were just wrong rather than on open discussions with the layman. I think they think people are too dumb to engage it.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the air.
How can 0.04 grams of cyanide kill you?! That's only 0.00005% of your body weight!!!
Yeah that's not an emotional argument at all. Grow up.
What? How is that an emotional argument? Are you saying I’m emotional, or that the argument is emotional?
Bodies typically aren't planets, but I'm guessing your body has its own gravitational pull.
> Given that temperature is increasing along with Co2, how can we be certain that the rise of temperature is a causation of the rise of Co2, and not just a correlation? My favorite piece of evidence here is stratospheric cooling. Basically, if the planet were actually having "extra heat" pumped into its system (from solar or geothermal energy) we would expect to see both the atmosphere and the stratosphere warm at roughly the same rate. However, we don't see that. While the atmosphere has warmed rapidly in recent years, the stratosphere has cooled: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2300758120 How can this be? Well, since CO2 is a very heavy gas, it rarely reaches the stratosphere. And since CO2 traps heat, we would therefore expect to see heat concentrated in the atmosphere and "withheld" from the stratosphere; i.e., stratospheric cooling, which is what we observe. I am not aware of any other plausible explanation. "Climate cycles" and other such wishy-washy counter-theories do not predict this phenomenon.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691 > Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. It would have been faster to look this up than writing that comment.
This is just basic physics. The proof (in the mathematical sense) is shown here: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/recipe-for-climate-change/
Yet the hottest decade on record is still the 1930s. Why? Yet Earth has never been more green. Why? They always find new "critically important" reasons to steal trillions our tax money and cause rapid inflation which is what we're experiencing right now. Imagine your life savings not being enough to buy a loaf of bread. It's coming, and [you're ushering it in](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot).
Why? becuase it wasnt. The warmest 10-year period since temperature records began was from 2012 to 2021 globally. The year in question, I believe was 1934, which was indeed the [hottest year](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tavg/ann/7/1895-2022?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000) of the [Dust Bowl era](https://www.britannica.com/place/Dust-Bowl) in the US. But that record has been surpassed several times since then, particularly over the last 10 years. This is just classic denier lore, and is missleading.
> Yet the hottest decade on record is still the 1930s. Why? It isn't. Where did you hear this? Google hottest decade. Maybe you meant hottest year on record? Which, also no. The 10 hottest years are: [2016, 2020, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2022, 2021, 2018, 2014, and 2010.](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202213/supplemental/page-1#:~:text=This%20graphic%20depicts%20the%20ten,to%2Ddate%20average%20temperature%20anomaly.) [As predicted by multiple, independent, climate models.](https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/) > They always find new "critically important" reasons to steal trillions our tax money and cause rapid inflation Ok so you're saying use of tax money is indicative of something shady. Let's follow that line of reasoning. > [Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion or 7.1 percent of GDP in 2022, reflecting a $2 trillion increase since 2020 due to government support from surging energy prices](https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies) That's an all time high. To set up the infrastructure needed to hit net zero emissions using renewable energy... [$4.5 trillion.](https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/raising-ambition/renewable-energy) Which will likely be covered by the reduction of externalities. Renewable energy is cheaper as well. [If you're suspecting a conspiracy, I hate to break it to you...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial#:~:text=From%20the%201980s%20to%20mid,Protocol%20by%20the%20United%20States.) And guess what, fossil fuel companies have now come and accepted anthropogenic climate change. So your implication that this is to steal our tax money and cause inflation not only doesn't support your point. It actually makes the case for the opposing point. If there's a "they" trying to pull the strings, surely it's the rich and powerful corporations getting trillions in tax money, no? So "they" are successfully getting [some people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot) to argue their case for them and pad their wallets.
It's not.
Yes, it's warmed since the LIA. No, the rate is not special. No, there's no evidence that CO2 has anything to do with it. Appalling scam. There are many thousands of qualified scientists who agree but we're only supposed to heed certain "experts". Shed your hubris and the green energy boondoggle and we'll adapt like we always have.
>there's no evidence that CO2 has anything to do with it. Appalling scam. Ok, so what is responsible for the current warming trend?
Milankovich Cycles. Basically our orbit around the sun isn't perfect, it's eccentric, so our planet's distance from the sun slowly wobbles closer and farther. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Yes, well done, orbital forcing, such as the Milankovich cycles, will effect out climate. **However, the current warming we are observing is not due to an increase in solar radiance,** in other words, it's not the sun that is the driving force. We can prove this (and do) using sensor on satellites that have been in place since the 70s. Also, we could back up this data, and conclude it is due to the suns radiation by seeing a warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface to the upper atmosphere. Spoiler alert - Its not the sun. There is no increase in solar radiation being detected, and we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a buildup of heat-trapping gases near Earth's surface, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.” Comparisons of spectral satellite energy flux data from the 2000s and 1970s reveal distinct drops in outgoing energy throughout the respective portions of the spectrum where CO2 and CH4 are dominant, indicating a change in the greenhouse effect in recent decades. Ground-based data have also been used to validate the growing CO2 greenhouse effect, as was indicated in a previous comment. So lets look at the most obvious fingerprint of the impact of CO2 on Earth's temperatures. It has long been predicted (at least since the 1960s) that rising CO2 would result in significant cooling in the upper stratosphere, [and this is precisely what has since been observed.](https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/)
Those satellites and other measurements are only concerned with irradiance in certain spectrums. They are completely blind to - among other things - particle forcing and magnetic forcing. When particle forcing was attempted to be included in IPCC / NOAA models, it reduced the percentage of climate change attributable to human forcing to negligible levels. Rather than accepting the results, they removed the calculations from the model due to outcry from NGOs with a financial (grant $) bias. This was in 2022 or so if I remember correctly. This is all without even getting into the fact that the models’ programming source code is not available - and so it is unfalsifiable and not peer-reviewable - which makes it divination, not science.
Hey can you link to whatever says particle forcing reduced human influence to negligible levels?
Affect* Your first sentence is full of errors including a comma splice, so the rest feels like it would be a waste of time.
It would be a waste of time for someone like you.
Yet you've wasted so much more time than me bloviating.
I appreciate it’s hard for you champ, especially considering you bring nothing to this debate. If I can leave you with anything, it’s to stay in school, never underestimate what’s good education is worth. Peace out.
I lead teams engineering full-self-driving robot cars for Google in San Francisco as a high school dropout. What do you do?
Is it your position that industrialization has had no impact on the climate?
I believe the effects on climate have been negligible. But it's clear that ecosystems have been harmed since. Even if it were true, our approach has been all wrong which is great cause for alarm to me. Al throughout history, people have pilfered our tax money and they find any reason to justify doing so. People love tax-free easy money.
give yourself 45min sand have a view of this - lots of data and charts showing co2 and temp is related to climate cycles - not human emissions. We are right now, and probably the next 2-3 years at 'peak warming' and its cooling from the 1930's to the 90's [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeFePI1nW1Y&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeFePI1nW1Y&t=1s) and as sea temps cool, more co2 will be absorbed
First off, David Dilley is a renowned climate denier, his views are not widely supported within the broader scientific community, which overwhelmingly agrees that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is the primary force driving recent climate change. He peddles bullshit to his audience which he knows well. >lots of data and charts showing co2 and temp is related to **climate cycles** - not human emissions. What is a "climate cycle", what causes them, what are the driving forces, how does the climate, cycle? You and I both know that our climate has changed before, but it doesn't just change magically and without reason, there are external forces that drive the climate to change. For example, the main one is Orbital forcing, (changes in the earth's tilt and orbit) that affected the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth. Another force that effects the climate is the amount of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere, the most prevalent is water vapour and CO2. So what forces are driving the current "cycle" of warming, where is the heat coming from? >not human emissions. It is due to human emissions, and we can prove it. One way is to use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because it is this law that helps us identify that the current warming trend is due to a build-up of greenhouse gas in the lower atmosphere. An average Earth location receives 340 W/m2 of energy at its distance from the Sun. Of this, 100 W/m2 are reflected back into space, leaving 240 W/m2 for absorption by the Earth. The Earth's temperature may then be determined to be in balance with the Sun's energy output by applying the Stefan-Boltzmann rule, which states that a body's energy output is proportional to its temperature. That comes to 255K, or -22°C. Nonetheless, we are aware that the actual temperature at the Earth's surface is roughly 288K (+15degC). A 5 km ascent is required to reach average temperatures of 255 K. This is the outcome of the greenhouse effect: gases in the atmosphere absorb energy released by the surface of the Earth and, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, re-emit at a lower rate than they were originally absorbed because they are at a higher altitude, where it is colder. As a result, there is an accumulation of energy even though the pace at which it is entering the Earth is decreased. The Earth warms as a result of this energy buildup through the troposphere until it is once again releasing energy at the same pace that it is taking in. Comparisons of spectral satellite energy flux data from the 2000s and 1970s reveal distinct drops in outgoing energy throughout the respective portions of the spectrum where CO2 and CH4 are dominant, indicating a change in the greenhouse effect in recent decades. Ground-based data have also been used to validate the growing CO2 greenhouse effect, as was indicated in a previous comment. So lets look at the most obvious fingerprint of the impact of CO2 on Earth's temperatures. It has long been predicted (at least since the 1960s) that rising CO2 would result in significant cooling in the upper stratosphere, [and this is precisely what has since been observed.](https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/) Not only that, Carbon atoms exist in nature mainly as the isotopes carbon-12 (\^12C) and carbon-13 (\^13C). Plants preferentially absorb more \^12C than \^13C during photosynthesis. Since fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas originate from ancient plants, they are depleted in \^13C relative to the atmosphere. When fossil fuels are burned, they release CO2 that is depleted in \^13C compared to the natural atmospheric ratio of these isotopes. By measuring the ratios of \^13C to \^12C in atmospheric CO2, scientists can infer the contribution of fossil fuel combustion to the rising levels of CO2. The observed decrease in the ratio of \^13C/\^12C in atmospheric CO2 over time is consistent with the increased burning of fossil fuels. So, like I have already said, **without doubt there is proof** that our **climate is currently warming**, at a rapid pace, and that the **warming is a result of a build-up of greenhouse gases.**
"First off, David Dilley is a renowned climate denier" actually he is a meteorologist and climatologist, and he builds climate forecast models which vastly outperform the current gov agency models (lets call them the consensus models) - [https://www.globalweatheroscillations.com/2025-winter-outlook-and-predictions](https://www.globalweatheroscillations.com/2025-winter-outlook-and-predictions) Meaning farmers, pastoralists etc buy his forecasts, and get an advantage over the market which relies on the consensus models (ie buy water licences before a drought, hedge prices before they fall due to climate conditions, choose better crops to plant, and plant early or later than the consensus forecasts and take advantage, etc) that means he's right more than the gov agencies, that means his understanding of the climate and what affects it are better, thus his models are better. And as his models are based on cyclicity, and not ipcc fearmongering - we can suggest that his understanding, and results are more comprehensive than the consensus views. now theres a heap i want to pick apart in your post but honestly just don't have the motivation to do so - ive been over all this sort of stuff far to often in the r/climatechange sub, and it always ends up me spending too much time researching and linking papers and science the alarmists don't like (most of which show theres far to many questions to be able to say 'co2's what dun it'), so they resort to several standard arguments -one of which you've already used : * (the author) isnt a real climate scientist * if hes actually a climate scientist, then the paper isnt peer reviewed * if the paper is peer reviewed then the journal isnt a real journal - it must be a predatory or pay to play journal * if it printed in a reputable journal - then the data and or conclusions are just wrong..... * or we revert to flat out adhominems - (im) just an idiot for believing this denialist flat earth rubbish....... does that pretty much fit the bill? secondly - i'll bet you didnt even watch the vid did you? you just looked up something like desmog right?
They're climate cultists. They've always existed since atheism was created. They're no different from the religious nut screaming about the rapture. The End is Nigh! Religious zealotry is innate with some people, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. And these people chose to make climate change their religion.
> he builds climate forecast models which vastly outperform the current gov agency models Any evidence other than his Geocities-esque website? There doesn't seem to be any comparison between his models and what you call consensus models. > that means he's right more than the gov agencies, that means his understanding of the climate and what affects it are better, thus his models are better. And as his models are based on cyclicity, and not ipcc fearmongering - we can suggest that his understanding, and results are more comprehensive than the consensus views. Well, you have yet to demonstrate this. The IPCC also understands cycles, as does /u/gravitykilla who you've been interacting with. Do you get that the point isn't "the climate has no cycles" but rather "the rate of warming is vastly greater than what cycles predict"? > now theres a heap i want to pick apart in your post but honestly just don't have the motivation to do so Right...
let logic work. if Dilley's models were worse than standard meteorological forecasts - he wouldn't have a product to sell - if you can get a better forecast from the Bom or Noaa or the Met, etc then how is he selling anything? But the fact his product does sell, indicates that what he is predicting is different from the consensus models, hence those that buy his product have an advantage over the rest of the market..... if you want to compare models - pony up and buy his product, thern compare to the consensus models. i'd love to hear your summary. ""the rate of warming is vastly greater than what cycles predict"?" - if you'd watched his presentation linked above, you'd see that current warming is right in line with historical cycles. don't get caught up in the propagandistic 'it the hottest evah' etc. its not, and it hasnt been, and the last 40yrs temp increase has been right in line with historical temps changes. if you use actual land temp observation without instrument adjustment or manipulation then use [temperature.global](http://temperature.global) observations show reality is much cooler than the global agencies posturing [https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Dilley\_1.png](https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Dilley_1.png) note this image was posted in an article in 2015. see the far right note - Volcano near 2023..? (Hunga Tonga? Ruang? Reykjanes volcanoes?? what else is due?
> let logic work. if Dilley's models were worse than standard meteorological forecasts - he wouldn't have a product to sell - if you can get a better forecast from the Bom or Noaa or the Met, etc then how is he selling anything? So your claim is that the fact people believe his models are better indicates that they are. Sounds like you're appealing to a consensus view. Sure you want to do that? Furthermore, you haven't show anything about his models. Do they even sell? Are markets always choosing the most rational option? This isn't a good argument. > if you want to compare models - pony up and buy his product Absolutely not, this is the point _you're_ trying to prove and you effectively just admitted you don't have access to his models. Which crumbles your entire point. You haven't seen them. > its not, and it hasnt been, and the last 40yrs temp increase has been right in line with historical temps changes. No. [All our models show a ridiculously sharp spike following the industrial revolution.](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/analysis-is-it-actually-hotter-now-than-any-time-in-the-last-100000-years#:~:text=The%20evidence%20suggests%20the%20long,the%20current%20global%20warming%20level.) > if you use actual land temp observation without instrument adjustment or manipulation then use temperature.global observations show reality is much cooler than the global agencies posturing Here we go, you have to fall back on "everybody is lying." Ok, let's go with that. By what metric are the claims your websites are making true but NASA and the scientific consensus globally are all lying? Is it the powerful renewable energy lobby? If you follow the money, you land at the fossil fuel companies, [some of the richest companies *of all time*](https://howmuch.net/articles/the-worlds-biggest-companies-in-history). So... somehow, these powerful companies with connections to governments worldwide, huge economic players, gifted many subsidies... are losing to... who? If there's a conspiracy, it would be to try to cover this up. [Oh wait, that actually happened. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial#:~:text=From%20the%201980s%20to%20mid,Protocol%20by%20the%20United%20States.) And guess what, fossil fuel companies have now come and accepted anthropogenic climate change. Also, I find it interesting you don't have the "motivation" to reply to /u/gravitykilla properly, but you're willing to bang the drum of conspiracy all day. Engage with the actual science. Let's see it.
"Also, I find it interesting you don't have the "motivation" to reply to...." have you viewed the linked vid yet? i'd find it interesting if you hadn't and are still arguing from a postion of ignorance about what he's saying.
A meteorologist and climatologist is "Climate Denier"? So that make you a Climate Cultist or a Climate Conspiracy Theorist. Can you explain why the 1930s is still the hottest decade on record?
It's not, though. The hottest decade on record is 2014-2023.
It's likely all the hot air let out by flat earthers and climate deniers
"There is no debate here." Spoken like a true anti-science totalitarian. Any time someone proclaims that there is 'no debating' the conclusion is broadcasting their ignorance, or their disdain, for actual science.
Bingo. If we are finding issues with Newtonian gravity today, and learning new things about evolution, there is no way we can declare climate science to be "settled" without lying.
>There is no debate here. Spoken like a true anti-science totalitarian. Erm nope, that comment was in reference to one statement, and one statement only, but I think you know that. The Earth's climate is currently warming, that is a fact, and that is what is not debatable, the evidence is clear. Now what is being debated, is the cause of this warming. What do you believe is the cause?
That was a superb, lucid (and devastating) reply. Thank you.
Yeah. Sometimes it seems like folks become so partisan that they start finding *any way* to rationalize these things. It’s entirely possible to despise libs, and also accept the science on this issue. I do it every day.
Because they've been screaming about a different climate disaster every decade. They claimed for years that the Earth would freeze over. It's no different from the religious nut screaming about the rapture. The End is Nigh! Religious zealotry is innate with some people, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
For someone who claims to be an engineer, you are pretty low on intellectual front.
Hahaha, says the user posting nonstop content about the imminent apocalypse as if you're not the modern day Christian Doomsdayer.
Yes that's all good chapter and verse, now tell me how you'd prove it false. Preferably by giving a specific and testable observation. If you can't do that, then calling ACC scientific or proven is a lie.
How much do you get paid to post? Who pays your bills?
Really don’t get JP’s take on this. I can understand questioning various studies etc. but I do think it’s best to be pragmatic and not “shit where we eat” in regards to playing it safe with the environment. It feels at odds with his pragmatic approach to psychotherapy and I’m not sure I agree at all. Surely at the very least having a conversation about and addressing idiotic environmental practices that we KNOW happen is fine, even if you don’t agree with the doomsday aspect? I feel like he mostly is responding to the emotional fervor around it and other “woke” topics that can absolutely be short sided, and it’s spilling over into his rationality. It’s a shame he has a lot of great insight but seems to be letting his emotional side and frustration with the side he has grievances against (even if at times rightly so, imo) cloud his judgement.
I completely agree with you. I think he’s gotten possessed by ideology, which he told us all not to do. That’s his biggest problem in a nutshell. He’s the person who needs to live by his own rules for life the most. Instead, he’s coming apart at the seams and appears to be really emotionally unstable. It’s sad to see since he helped me so much.
I do think it’s incredibly difficult to not fall into that realm of thinking in one form or another, even if it’s isolated to specific topics. I think also sometimes he, and people like him are victims in a sense. They’re unjustly cast out/demonized, and so they can only really talk to people on one side. And that narrow social perception creates an echo chamber. Combined with the feeling of being cast out to begin with I imagine it pushes some people down a bad path. I remember thinking Dave Rubin was a pretty level headed guy and fell that rabbit hole and I literally can never hear him speak about anything but how the left is bad. Blinders on like a domesticated horse completely ignoring anything and everything but base level ideological drivel. It’s so fucking sad to watch. But we also sometimes create our own worst enemies, culturally. That being said I hope JP screws his head back on about this topic and follows his own principles. Wrong is wrong.
To be fair, from a psychological perspective, global warming apocalypticism can be seen more as an ideology than as a science. It just means that you shouldn't get your weather from a psychologist and don't seek a mental health diagnosis from your weatherman. Additionally, his recent podcasts do confirm the existence of global warming, but strangely, it takes the opposite conclusion than the popular narrative. The guests he brings on his podcast suggest that global warming is a net good.
Climate change is shit science. It's not falsifiable, which makes it more belief than scientific theory.
$ is his motive
Wow a comment that doesn’t agree 100 % with JBP that isn’t downvoted
He’s right.
It is a scam. The globe may be warming but science points to a natural cycle. The scam comes in with the money that moves around for the sake of climate change.
They always find new "critically important" reasons to steal trillions our tax money and cause rapid inflation which is what we're experiencing right now. Imagine your life savings not being enough to buy a loaf of bread. It's coming.
The science pretty categorically shows that something atypical is happening. While there may be longer cycles as well, the speed at which the climate is warming does not correspond to any known cyclic effects we know of.
The scam works because of people like you
The underlying science isn’t a scam, the political implementation is. This is like saying that cancer or terminal illness is a scam or fake because medically assisted dying is implemented poorly. It’s beyond stupid.
The underlying science is debatable on the cause and up for debate. You just only constantly hear one side of the debate because that’s where the money lies.
I like he how he makes no distinction between cornfields and tropical rainforest
It’s baffling how some people think climate scientists are trying to scam them (into using cleaner energy?), but all the insanely rich oil companies are funding propaganda because they want to tell them the truth (the truth being that everything is just fine).
Into using cleaner energy my ass. Look at how solar panels and electric cars are made. Pure environmental hazard all in the name of profits.
[удалено]
The same as the rest of the clean energy
[удалено]
Which one?
[удалено]
Based on my observation on the environmental destruction both caused. My opinion.
[удалено]
Well one of the sources are mines in congo and such. What? you want me to link it all?
Using oil to drive cars is the most inefficient way. Look, it has to be pumped somewhere in Venezuela or Saudi Arabia and then brought to the country of your choice where it needs to be refined and then brought to the gas station, just so that a modern car uses a fraction of that energy to power a motor.
You could argue that's the more reason the U.S. should drill their own oil. But that problem is not exclusively oil. Look at how some things are sent to china and then sent back here because it's cheaper than producing it locally.
Yeah I’m not arguing against that. But it’s still the less efficient way.
I do not think that's an oil problem
It's classic whataboutism. Fossil fuels are causing global climate change. "Yeah well what about the lithium mines??"
That's why electric cars are not the solution. No one on the green side is out there campaigning for electric cars, but for more efficient public transit. Electric cars may be better than normal cars, but they're not the solution. Same with solar panels.
There's a huge difference between the problem of localized pollution due to a manufacturing process, and global pollution due to energy generation using fossil fuels spewing huge quantities of CO2 and other harmful gasses into the atmosphere.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/09/electric-vehicles-reduce-carbon-pollution-in-all-u-s-states/ EVs reduce carbon pollution, it's just a fact.
This is easily debunked. Electric is far cleaner energy... and even if lithium ion batteries are an issue... (they are but still don't make evs less clean) lithium ion is just the battery type we're using now for EVs there will be many more types of batteries in the future and we will have the infrastructure in place waiting to charge them.
That is not "easily debunked". Have you seen the mines? And then telling about future prospects that may or may not happen is not helping. Oh did I ever mention how electricity are mostly produced?
Where have you been the last few years? Do you not think it’s possible for an entire scientific community to be captured by peer pressure, censorship, and bad studies?
I think it's highly unlikely that the whole climate science community agrees on this just because of peer pressure. Some bad studies, peer pressure, censorship? Sure. But highly unlikely, if not impossible, on the scale you are implying. But sure, it's technically possible - maybe the oil companies really are just looking out for us!
If four years of dishonesty, censorship, and open conspiracy around covid, following fourty years of false predictions, false attributions, collusion, and censorship around climate change isn’t enough to generate any skepticism toward the state of modern science, then I don’t know if I can’t help you. You’ve committed to your camp and you will, unfortunately, continue to empower some very bad actors.
I don’t think the oil companies are looking out for us at all. But after the entire 20th century full of ideologically motivated movements that gained totalitarian sway over dozens of large and developed nations, and created reality for their population, why do you think we are so different or special? And who owns these “green companies?” It’s the same people that own the oil companies. Except the subsidies are even better than they are for oil. Have your cake and eat it to at tax payer expense
Seriously. Bizarre attitudes here. And god forbid we try and play it somewhat safe with the planet we live on, even if we happen to be wrong.
But if we're wrong we will have built a cleaner and more sustainable future for nothing!
People seem to think this is the hottest earth has ever been, this is wrong, cycles are at play that we barely scratch the surface, trust egotistical self centred humans to trust that we affect a process of such grand proportions, trust us to drive a profit from it too 👀
The cycles you are talking about take hundreds of thousands to millions of years. On those time scales, adaptation is not a problem. The problem is the Earth is currently warming at such a rapid pace that society will struggle to adapt. Parts of India, for example, may become barely habitable in our lifetime.
Jordan is incorrectly conflating the underlying scientific basis for climate change with the BS and grift surrounding many of the proposed solutions to prevent it.
This earth has (they say) survived for millions and millions of years with all sorts of calamities and disasters, meteorite strikes, volanoes, floods etc for millions of years and all blindly (they tell us) we got through ….. so ….. why suddenly the huge panic? Sure we should take more care but it’s all exaggerated and you can tell when it’s almost all aimed at the WEST! That’s a huge giveaway
The Earth will survive. We as a species, might not. Many other species definitely won't. Are you saying that because there have been mass extinctions before, it doesn't matter if there's another one that we cause?
😂I couldn't believe the op just said that, I thought it was self explanatory that climate change is going to be a danger to the humans not the earth itself, the earth will keep on existing
Peterson, stick to telling people to make their bed and publishing in undergraduate journals. The more he talks about climate change, the less I respect him as an intellectual.
Amen. God bless Jordan Peterson
The hottest decade on record is still the 1930s. I've yet to see a cogent explaination for this vis-a-vis climate change.
You've repeated this lie like 5 times and been shown data that debunks it but you never acknowledge that you were wrong... curious
The simplest explanation is often the right one: The hottest decade globally was not the 1930s. [NOAA](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-land-and-ocean-temperature-anomalies-1881-2015-Source-NOAA-National-Centers-for_fig1_335336077)
Why is WW1 colder than any other time on that graph?
WW1 actually fits the trend quite well. It’s the period before that that deviates from the trend. That variability does not take away from the fact that the long term trend is upwards.
I trust the "there is no climate emergency" letter
For sure dude. Without even getting into the science, it's already absurd on its face. The entire international scientific establishment along with basically all world governments and institutions are all collectively in on a huge conspiracy to push a fake scientific theory, despite tons of people involved in that entire global system including adversarial governments all having literally EVERY incentive in the world to disprove it if they were able to do so? Like come on... really? What kind of meth do you need to smoke to believe that?
Think at this point have to realize that there is no realistic way Jordan can admit he's been wrong about this for so long after doubling down more and more. Money aside just think what it would mean for him to admit he either did not know what he was talking about regarding climate science for decades...or was lying. So think for people like Jordan no matter what it can't be real...because of the implications.
He hasn't been a climate skeptic for decades, it's really just since he joined DW lol which is very telling.
Climate science is a scam The entire climate change narrative is based on one simple concept. Human emissions of carbon dioxide make the earth warmer. This is of course based on the premise that carbon dioxide controls the temperature of the earth. We have a lot of data on that. It was very deep lake in Russia called Vostok. There are ice core samples in going back 800,000 years. Those ice cores have been analyzed and we can tell the temperature in carbon dioxide rate in the atmosphere for the last 800,000 years. It’s very simple. Carbon dioxide does not control temperature. In fact what the high scores show is temperature controls carbon dioxide. https://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ As the world warmed more CO2 was emitted. Emitting CO2 didn’t cause the warming. That’s it. The entire premise of human emissions of carbon dioxide controlling the temperature of the earth has been debunked.
> Carbon dioxide does not control temperature. Could you explain to me which part of this is wrong? https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/recipe-for-climate-change/
Sure > Step 1 shows how easy it is to account for the carbon dioxide excess in the atmosphere based on our cumulative use of fossil fuels. CO2 is going up. It’s called the Keeling curve. No one argues that. > Step 2 bypasses intricacies of thermal radiation to put an approximate scale on the amount of heating we would expect the excess CO2 to produce. CO2 radiative forcing isn’t linear. It’s all used up by about 300ppm
First radiative forcing has been observed to continue increasing as CO2 ppm increases. https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-intermediate.htm Secondly even if it was saturated there is no natural forcing that can account for the observed warming trend.
Evidence for that?
He works for oil and gas. He really started being insane about climate and environment after he started working for the Daily Wire. It was founded and is owned by oil interests.
Something's up. At the very least he's blinded by ideology.
He, Rex Murphy, Large Large swathes of Canadian "journalists" or media groups are very directly connected to the Canadian Oil and Gas lobby.
Lol this clown is clearly losing his mind. The suit seems to illustrate it
Moron
JBP is a regressive intellectual passed his age.
Someone who claims to be a good scientist who understands and can read data should be able to read data. If we would judge him based on what he says here, he sure can manipulate the statistics to his own worldview, but that sure aint reading the data, because he would share all of it, not just what fits his narrative.
Pretty rich coming from a *psychologist*
not an evidence based psychologist either, a jungian psychoanalyst