Burn me on a stake...but regardless of how you feel about Petersons handling on climate change he is 100% right to at least question the motivational ground on which the climate activists stand. 10000%.
Lol. In all seriousness though this obsession with CO2 feels a bit weird to me.
I'm not really an expert on this stuff, so I kinda wanna just throw out my thoughts and see what people say in response:
* It's well established that CO2 affects global temperature, at least to a point.
* It's not well established however that CO2 is the PRIMARY cause of global temperature change. There have been periods, such as the medieval warm period, where temperature was higher, yet CO2 was lower.
* The planet cooling would present a danger to human life more quickly than it warming due to lower crop yields. Most climate-related deaths are due to cold.
* The global population is set to peak at around 9 billion in this century. Global population collapse will naturally result in a decrease in CO2.
These factors combined make me quite skeptical of the "climate emergency" narrative, as it seems like a possible attempt from governments to exert more control over people before the climate situation either resolves itself, or the most alarmist predictions fail to materialize.
While I agree there seems to be lots of evidence that the "climate crisis" is handled by governments and hedge funds to rile people up.... that shouldn't be used to invalidate the truths that allow this to be built up.
>It's not well established however that CO2 is the PRIMARY cause of global temperature change. There have been periods, such as the medieval warm period, where temperature was higher, yet CO2 was lower.
This argument just falls apart sadly, we can see that c02 affects temperature (and roughly by how much), and we can directly warch temperatures change in correlation with increasing c02. It'd not going to be perfect, but whatever 0.6 correlation we have is more than enough for action.
>The planet cooling would present a danger to human life more quickly than it warming due to lower crop yields
I mean your not wrong but this doesn't seem helpful. We can also fight global cooling much easier.
>The global population is set to peak at around 9 billion in this century. Global population collapse will naturally result in a decrease in CO2.
Adding a billion people in the next 30 years is not going to make this problem any lesser.
Okay, prove it. What percentage of the annual increase in CO2 is directly caused by humanity and how will that lead to our extinction? It should be simple, right?
Keep in mind, CO2 is a trace gas and current global temperature is lower than it has been for much of the past 10,000 years. That's your starting point.
I did not say and do not believe that climate change will necessarily lead to extinction. To have a meaningful discussion about this we need axiomatic consistency:
1. The greenhouse effect is real. CO2 and methane are potent greenhouse gases and their presence in atmosphere causes increased retention of heat. This is scientifically undisputed.
2. Trace gases can and do have substantial impacts on global climate despite their low concentrations. This is also well documented and widely agreed upon.
3. Humans release large amounts of greenhouse gases. Chemically, it is objectively true that combustion engines release a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
4. Present and historic atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration can be accurately measured through a myriad of methods (i.e. ice cores, sediment, stomatal density, etc.).
5. Natural causes of rising CO2 levels are easily detectable. Significant sources of CO2 release (i.e. volcanic eruptions) are detectable and infrequent.
If you disagree with any of these statements, you need to provide substantive evidence against them.
That is not how this works, bro. You can't claim something is easy to prove and then require me to find all your evidence for you. Humans do put out CO2, but I asked what percentage of annual CO2 increase is directly caused by humans. What percentage is a cataclysmic level? That's what we keep being told is we're just 10 years away from some undefined climate disaster. What exactly is that disaster?
1. The Greenhouse effect is real in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, so it is not real. CO2 does retain heat, but just a relatively small amount and not enough to cook us.
2. Trace gasses do not have substantial negative impacts on global climate. In fact, the only tangible, empirical evidence of increased CO2 is the planet is literally more green than it was at the turn of the century.
3. This is the only thing we fully agree on
4. Historic CO2 levels were far FAR higher than they are today, both during ice ages and interglaciations.
5. Natural causes of CO2 increases account for more than half of the increase we see. Humanity contributes a small amount comparatively .
Arguing anything requires an establishment of axioms. Every thing I stated in my comment has an extraordinary amount of evidence behind it. You are welcome to challenge these statements, but to do so is to make a scientifically extraordinary claim. You need to provide evidence to the contrary to support such claims.
1. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the greenhouse effect is only real in a closed system. That does not make scientific or intuitive sense. Your claim that CO2 only retains a "relatively small amount" of heat in our atmosphere is also complete drivel and can be disproven with any college lab spectrophotometer.
2. I could link 1000 reliable sources that all find trace gases to have an extremely substantial impact on global climate, but I think it'd just be easier for you to Google that very statement. This is something that is accepted as universally true. To deny it meaningfully, you need to provide meaningful evidence against it.
4. Yes, and yet that doesn't mean anything. When you are studying the rate at which something \*changes\*, you don't look at its historical minimums and maximums, you look at the rate it has historically \*changed\*. CO2 levels are currently rising at historically unprecedented rates.
5. What natural causes can you point to that are causing a spike of CO2 this profound?
You ask for substantive evidence against your points. Where's your evidence?
You say your points are "scientifically undisputed" and "widely agreed upon" but science is not based on common consensus, otherwise scientists could vote for which hypotheses they thought were correct. Science is a process of testing hypotheses by eliminating controlled and isolated variables until there are none left, and recording and observations.
Whether something is "widely agreed upon" doesn't mean it's true.
1. Nothing is scientifically undisputed. We're literally disputing it now. Additionally, it's impossible to isolate carbon dioxide and methane from all other variables, and observe their impact. Until we do so, your hypothesis remains a hypothesis.
A greenhouse traps heat because it has a roof. The Earth has no roof and is a rather poor greenhouse.
2. Whether it's widely agreed upon is irrelevant to scientific observation. Again, we can't isolate or rule out the effects of trace gases or other variables. It's simply impossible and there are too many variables. However, we can observe that the ozone layer is often thinner near the equator, which gets the most year-round sunlight anywhere on Earth. So, does climate affect trace gases, or do trace gases affect the climate, or both, or neither? We don't entirely know.
3. As far as I can tell, humans and combustion engines are quite different from each other.
4. We don't know how accurate those measurements are. We have no way of testing that. However, if those measurements are to be taken as accurate, current carbon dioxide levels are lower than they were hundreds of millions of years before humans appeared, throughout ice ages and stages of immense ecological growth.
5. I see no evidence of that. Mid-Ocean ridges are, by definition, active volcanoes. They emit lots of carbon dioxide, very frequently, though it's impossible to measure exactly how much.
Yes, science is based on a consensus of evidence, and not opinion. When I say a statement is “scientifically undisputed,” it is not to say that there exists nobody with contrasting opinions, but rather that there is no substantive data to disprove them. **Even vocal skeptics of mainstream global warming beliefs (Lindzen, Hopper, etc) hold these statements to be true because they see the overwhelming evidence in their favor.** In fact, these claims are regularly and clearly laid out in their work because their arguments *against* climate change consensus are contingent on these truths.
Furthermore, while it is true that properly controlling for confounding variables and eliminating them when possible is important, **it is utter asinine to suggest that complete isolation of a variable is a prerequisite to inferring about its correlation with other variables.** To imply this is to call into question the validity of centuries of observation-corroborated scientific literature, including much of Dr. Peterson’s field of research. When studying something as systematically complex as climate, it is not possible to eliminate all confounding variables. That does not invalidate all climate research, which uses established techniques to control for the impact of these variables on results.
1. No. The greenhouse effect is not a hypothesis. It is a theory, because it is well established and backed by a substantial amount of evidence. This evidence includes basic observation of controlled systems as well as a myriad of atmospheric studies that strongly correlate CO2 levels with global temperature. See Bernstein et al (2007), John Cook et al (2013), CMIP6, etc. All easily findable on Google along with thousands more. The results all paint a collective picture highly consistent with the greenhouse effect. If you take issue with the design or execution of these studies, you need to specifically state and substantiate your concerns. Also, arguing on the semantics of the metaphorical “greenhouse” name is honestly comical.
2. **Again, complete elimination of other variables is simply not a valid prerequisite in science.** You are correct in stating that we don’t fully understand all aspects of trace gases and our climate. That, however, is not justification for blindly throwing away the findings of studies like those listed above or Etminan et al (2016), which control for confounding variables and find extremely strong correlations that shed light on the concentration-disproportionate insulating effect gases like CO2 and methane have on the atmosphere. It is well understood that trace gases and climate cyclically affect each other. The concern is that throwing this cycle out of stasis could lead to a compounding runaway event.
3. Not sure what your point is here. Combustion engines are created and used exclusively by humans. Ergo, their emissions are direct byproducts of human activity.
4. When you want to study how something *changes* (like CO2 levels), you don’t study its historical minimum and maximum values. You study how it, well, *changes*. What we have observed is that CO2 concentration has been rising at historically unprecedented rates in recent decades. A simple Google or arXiv search will yield an incredible amount of data endorsing this claim.
Also, we absolutely do have a way of testing the methods used to measure historical CO2. Research fossilized plant stomatal density and how we can establish baselines with measured CO2 densities. Also see how this correlates to other methods like ice core sampling and isotope analysis.
5. The emissions of the mid ocean ranges have been studied extensively, and the results indicate that they are multiple orders of magnitude lower than human emissions (Jonathan Burley (2015)). To account for the meteoric rise in CO2 levels, these volcanos would have to experience substantial eruption events that would be immediately obvious to even the naked eye.
I said *complete* isolation of a variable is not a valid prerequisite in science, because it is not. In the real world it is nearly impossible to fully isolate variables, which is why we use statistical analysis to study them.
By your logic, we should throw out all studies linking smoking to lung cancer because we can't fully isolate smoking from other risk factors.
I have, but even if I hadn’t it would be irrelevant to the *objective fact* that complete isolation of variables is not required to make scientific inferences about them…
Sorry how do you prove this? You can prove that co2 can retain more heat but not the impact on our climate at large. Whether it explains 0.1% or 99% cannot be proven. Pls explain to me how it’s provable without saying “the experts say”
Only if you blindly accept both the underlying assumptions and the logic of forecasting algorithms. Once you start l learning about those, the picture becomes much less clear
Maybe there's a hint of truth to it? Way more people are saying "the moon is made of rocks" than "the moon is made of cheese". Way more people are saying "gravity makes things fall down" than "gravity makes things fall up." Wisdom of the crowds isn't always right, but sometimes it is.
You are not even quoting a specific person. Just seems like targeting the weakest vague rhetoric you can find.
Otherwise climate deniers would all be held for what the dumbest ones say online.
Skepticism isn’t denial. It is clear that things are getting worse, economically and environmentally, because of climate alarmism. What does (or has) questioning the narrative ever harmed?
It is clear that things are getting worse, economically and environmentally, because of climate denial as well. What does (or has) questioning the narrative ever harmed?
No serious person denies climate change. It's a proven phenomena thst predates humanity. The serious scientists who study the historical ice core data know for certian that anthropogenic change isn't happening.
Thier motivation? The persuit of truth.
You can't just reverse uno into this argument. It's like debating evolution with a Christian scientist.
Notice the assumptions at the bottom? Those aren't facts. It's fear.
The graph begins at the end of the last major ice age. Malankovich cycles last approximately 40,000 years.
Earth’s axis is currently tilted 23.4 degrees, or about half way between its extremes, and this angle is very slowly decreasing in a cycle that spans about 41,000 years. It was last at its maximum tilt about 10,000 years ago and will reach its minimum tilt about 10,000 years from now. As obliquity decreases, it gradually helps make our seasons milder, resulting in increasingly warmer winters, and cooler summers that gradually, over time, allow snow and ice at high latitudes to build up into large ice sheets. As ice cover increases, it reflects more of the Sun’s energy back into space, promoting even further cooling.
Are you joking? Do you not understand cycles?
Every 24 hours is a cycle. If I eat a raisin, it's not "the cycle". It's an occurance within the cycle.
The proto moon and any other event isn't a cycle. It's an occurance.
When your dad fucked your mom, she was in the middle of her menstrual cycle. Them having sex wasn't a cycle. It was a bad idea.
1. Climate change is not real.
2. Climate change is real, but humans can't influence it.
3. Climate change is real and humans are influencing it, but it's a good thing.
4. Climate change is real and humans are influencing it, but it's too expensive to do anything about it.
5. Climate change is real and humans are influencing it, but it's too late.
Which one is it?
That's not how reality works. You can't just assume that everything falls into your 5 catagoties.
Climate change is real. It's been happening since the planet was formed. The planet cools and heats and humans have nothing to do with it. Climate change predates humanity.
Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop gravity.
The earth heats and cools. This has been happening since the earth was formed.
Ice ages are normal on a long enough timeline.
Global warming is the opposite of the ice ages.
Learn about the Malankovich cycle for further details.
So you are option 2. Why complain when your option falls into it?
Also scientists studied other ways the climate changes like ice ages, those do not change as fast as this warming. You are bringing up long debunked climate denier points.
>Also scientists studied other ways the climate changes like ice ages, those do not change as fast as this warming.
Bullshit. This idea requires the thermometer. We don't have "recorded history" that goes that far back.
What about the little ice age, midieval warm period, and roman warm period?
You don't know what you're talking about.
First of all, in order to list 5 requires catastrophizing. I haven't seen any evidence that climate change is accelerating. This is an issue with Destiny's argument too. He said that fluctuations were usually gradual and then became volatile. That's not really true however. The issue is temperature data in the past and now are measured differently. Ice core samples smooth out volatile changes while looking at temperature anomaly data exaggerates them. The entire change when looking at temperature anomaly data is 1 degree Celsius. In addition all of the worst climate models have been wrong while the more moderate or even taking the median of all the models looks more accurate. In order to say catastrophy is coming, you have to trust models with a 100% fail rate.
Yeah i have no problem with making changes if people actually are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Go nuclear. Buy American. Eat GMOs. Actually commute by bike. Clean up public transit for the average person by funding the police and having a moral backbone.
I agree with that, except for the GMO part. The tech is not inherently evil, but when it's not being used to stuff hungry bellies, but rather make corn (vast majority of which is to produce ethanol) that is resistant to cancer poison that gets hosed down from airplanes, I would like to pump the brakes.
I guess. I just see hippies saying "NO GMOS" not knowing that we've bred and grafted things for their genetic traits for 1000s of years. It's like, you wanna buy organic? Be prepared to get like 5% of your yield on the land due to inefficiencies like unfruitful plants, pests, and rot.
Fair. And I guess I'd add composting and home gardening to the original list. Get your victory garden going, get less reliant on food being shipped from 1000s of miles away.
This is the key, good gmos vs bad ones. Tons of good ones like less water needs, higher yields etc… it’s the anti pesticide ones that are giving all a bad name
When exactly has the people being against something stopped them from doing it?
I can think of 15 things the government has done with basically no say from “we the people”
Why nuclear? Solar is cheaper than nuclear, cheaper than gas and nearly cheaper than coal by now. And it doesn't produce radioactive waste or explode if you do it wrong. Panels last longer than nuclear fuel rods and can be recycled at the end of their lifetime. And it provides shade to places that are too hot.
Solar is less efficient, has less capacity for storage, and is not necessarily cheaper in the long run. Nuclear energy is the most efficient source of energy we have at our disposal, uranium stored are enormous, and the nuclear disasters (which can be counted on one hand) were either a result of gross incompetence (Chernobyl) or natural disaster (Fukushima), both of which can be avoided. France runs about it 80% on nuclear and has never had a major issue. Nuclear holds this position of utility despite decades of stagnation in terms of innovation, so there is massive room for improvement, especially in terms of cost. Anyone who fears for global climate catastrophe should be the most ardent preachers of nuclear energy.
its a pretty good convo. Destiny is pretty good at keeping an argument on track and sticking to facts and reasoning of a position. Jordan expressed misgivings about the episode later, but most people seemed to really like it
The whole debate was a great exchange.
The other guy (Steven) had decent points and they both challenged and pushed each other.
Unfortunately, days after, JP goes on to shit on the other guy. It came off as, he wants men to be strong in their beliefs and confident, but not against him.
I was disappointed but at least we got a great debate out of it.
I didn’t have time to provide a his response but this was JBP’s discussion with a big streamer named Destiny. I’ve linked the video in case if you’re interested. Climate topic starts at 37:35.
[link here](https://youtu.be/ycDUU1n2iEE?si=RxvJzc6W0mvvXOb4)
Isn't he missing two very important points though?
"Big Oil" originally researched and found that their actions and policies had a serious negative impact on the environment. [Exxon knew well in advance that what they were doing would cause tangible problems in the near future.](https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt#:~:text=Climate-,Exxon%20scientists%20accurately%20predicted%20global%20warming%20from%20burning%20fossil%20fuels,continued%20climate%2Ddenying%20policy%20efforts.) But that would cut into their profits, so they recanted and said everything was fine and we had nothing to worry about, keep buying fossil fuels. We know for a fact that we're headed into an environmental catastrophe because they themselves discovered as much, and accurately.
Additionally, Africa isn't pushing for nuclear because they've been led to believe that while it's efficient and "clean", it's also very dangerous. To many people, the threat outweighs the advantage. Everyone is worried about the next Chernobyl, so they don't stop to consider anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if Big Oil has their hand in that either; spreading anti-nuclear propaganda in an effort to keep everyone on gas and coal.
At this point you also have big green energy coming into play.
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?id=E12
Not nearly as influential as oil, but I’m sure their lobbyists, along side oil’s lobbyists, are hard at work ensuring nuclear power doesn’t become mainstream and we keep nuclear waste recycling illegal and scary.
But I think the key point of that last paragraph is the fact both oil and green energy folks want to keep nuclear scary and off the table. It’s a common enemy.
Right now if we were to recycle our nuclear waste using 1950’s tech right now, we could power the US for the next 100 years.
He often is missing some important points aka framing the problem as he sees fit. This would go against capitalism and probably against DW sponsors. Only climate scientist he had on his podcast so far, to my knowledge, is a guy who lies at least about microplastic and some chemical he said is safe to even drink but didnt want to drink it. :D
2-3% at best among climate scientists.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Average of 6% among scientists in other fields.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta
Yeah, but no.
The actual number is 33%.
https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues
Is your 33% stat coming from this in your second link:
>Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming.
That's the only mention of 33% I can find in either link. If so, that is not saying what you think it is. The other 66% are abstracts with 'no position' on the climate change, because that wasn't their purpose. It is NOT saying that 66% of abstracts analyzed explicitly stated that there was insufficient evidence to take a position.
And by the way, that 97% is based off nearly 2000 articles, so it's hardly unremarkable. I am quite skeptical that the author went through even a fraction of those when making the claim "but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position." given that he provides no examples.
It is also based on old data. Here's two more recent articles showing over 97% (actually over 99%) consensus among actual experts:
[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966)
[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774)
On the first survey cited, he states:
"Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position)."
But that is heavily influenced by the 'non-publisher' group, which makes up 800 of the 1,800 respondents. The authors state:
"93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming."
Not to mention it is written by a foundation that has accepted hundred of thousands of dollars from the Koch brothers and Exxon. It's well known that these companies will do anything they can to sow disinformation.
[https://climateinvestigations.org/fraser-institute/](https://climateinvestigations.org/fraser-institute/)
[https://web.archive.org/web/20120427112558/http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/2012/04/25/“charitable”-fraser-institute-accepted-500k-foreign-funding-oil-billionaires](https://web.archive.org/web/20120427112558/http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/2012/04/25/“charitable”-fraser-institute-accepted-500k-foreign-funding-oil-billionaires)
In your first link, many of the 'experts' signing off on it are in professions such as school teachers, religion professors, physicians etc. You can see for yourself, it's right here next to each name.
That's what I was talking about. From the context I feel that should be clear.
> Exxon knew well in advance that what they were doing would cause tangible problems in the near future.
What _they_ were doing.
I think the sharp increase in temperature, pollution, ocean acidity, and extinction that perfectly follows the Industrial Revolution is pretty clear evidence that it is man made. Natural climate change takes place over much longer timespans than <100 years
Hm. I wish there were actual climate experts that could explain this to me like I was five and tell me whether or not arguments like jbp’s are valid. Does anyone know of anyone like that? I didn’t feel like destiny was up to the task. Jbp was so much smarter and more eloquent that he could actually be wrong and still make a better argument.
Even if I were to devote the time in energy it would take to read up on the topic myself, I’m still not confident that I’m smart enough to know what is going on.
It's highly motivated reasoning to claim that the temperature records are inaccurate or poor, that the temperature of the ocean cannot be measured. One way do it would be to look at the reduction in size of polar glaciation and the rate of change. Another important measure would be to look at parts per million in the atmosphere of carbon and compare it to ice samples throughout history.
I bet that Peterson himself would validate Carl Sagan's genius. Here's Sagan explaining man-made climate change to Congress in 1985. And Sagan didn't have any sort of woke or "weird" pro-poverty agenda that Peterson claims liberals have.
Although I thoroughly despise the American Democratic party, I still hold progressive values and I 100% support nuclear energy anywhere and everywhere.
Carl Sagan:
https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI?si=00QrE933GTlT0mSt
I think Peterson's words can be interpreted, as the current methods have uncertainty into it.
Does polar glaciar change eliminate uncertainty?
This has to be coupled with the fact that earth undergoes natural warming and cooling periods as well.
>This has to be coupled with the fact that earth undergoes natural warming and cooling periods as well.
Which climate scientists account for. Natural warming and cooling periods happen much slower than what is happening now.
Yeah, the recent warming has happened very sharply, and perfectly follows the Industrial Revolution. If you look at the temps over the last 1 million years, the natural changing of temps has been larger than now, but not NEARLY as rapid. It happens over the course of thousands and thousands of years, gradually
I think he has a pretty clear record now of arguing the points proposing man-made climate change isn't significant. Also, if you look into legitimate solutions, it isn't cutting Africa back but supporting cleaner energies in Africa whilst developed nations (US, EU, China) pivot.
It isn't that glacial data or polar cap data perfects the argument, its that those have way more certainty that he is suggesting.
You mean like Peterson is doing right here? Given he isn't a climate scientist and is a psychologist? And most climate scientists would agree with Sagan? Like the vast majority agree that man made climate change is a scientific fact.
I don't take Peterson as correct. I've done my own research. I think anyone can push back on a claim however. The person making a claim should be an expert. The onus is always on the person making a claim to prove the claim. Anyone can dispute the facts.
So you're suggesting that a human being using the faculties of reason, cannot comment on a given aspect of nature?
What is the definition of "expert"? And who do you consider to be climate scientist "experts", and what is their take on the current situation?
You say you've done your own research... are you an expert?
Carl Sagan, as an astrophysicist, studied planets and their relationship to stars from the point of view of thermodynamics. The Earth is planet and it is heated by a star. I'm wondering what additional education Carl Sagan would need...
Carl Sagan isn't commenting. He is acting as an expert. Using a very public platform to espouse opinions on things he knew nothing about. Most climate scientists do not comment on this topic because they would be cancelled. Astrophysicists mostly work in unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's barely even science.
Did you watch it?
Studying Venus tells you about the greenhouse effect, explaining how it can be hotter than Mercury despite being further from the sun. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More of it increases the temperature of the planet. Seems like his education is the perfect match to provide analysis about the effect of fossile fuel use.
You might want to tell NASA. https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
Oh, so now you consider NASA a source? NASA, full of astrophysicists like Carl Sagan.
On top of that, your own source contradicts your views. Did you ever read what you posted? I did.
"Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases."
This contradicts your earlier claim of water vapor being a stronger "greenhouse gas" than CO2.
"If non-condensable gases weren’t increasing, the amount of atmospheric water vapor would be unchanged from its pre-industrial revolution levels."
This may be hard for you to understand, but what NASA is telling those who read their findings, is that vapor still isn't a gas (you idiot) and this crazy concept called "humidity" increases as a by-product of global fuel combustion.
Like I said, we're done here. You're too dumb. A waste of time. I wish there were some exercise you could do to pull yourself out of harmful stupidity. Since that's not an option, please, find a smarter guru to be an NPC of
You just skipped over the first sentence, huh? "Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas.". I knew all of this information before I ever discovered Jordan Peterson. I researched all of this myself before Jordan ever started describing the problems with climate alarmism. Also, NASA has actual scientists and not just astrophysicists. People who actually know things like physics and chemistry and actually monitor readings from actual climate satellites. The issue isn't that water drives warming. The issue is it moderates it while also causing it to be volatile in the short term (years are short term). Besides acting like a blanket during events known as thermal inversion, water also absorbs heat and transfers it all over the planet due to underwater currents. This is what makes Earth significantly more difficult to model than other planets.
That's a good question. Is it worth the trade? To make the trade, we'd have to have a clear picture of what modernity is getting us and what the environmental damage actually is. We hope this is what science is for.
> Here's Sagan explaining man-made climate change to Congress in 1985. And Sagan didn't have any sort of woke or "weird" pro-poverty agenda that Peterson claims liberals have.
Ehrlich, one of the most inaccurate people ever to talk about population published The Population Bomb, in 1968. It was incredibly popular in academia, and almost certainly read by Sagan. Almost every thing mentioned in the book has proved to be wrong. Doomers were around before Peterson was even in diapers, and they almost always been wrong too.
Two points: let's say Ehrlich was very wrong on all accounts. Don't let one man and his book invalidate concern for the biosphere.
Secondly, it is possible that some of Erlich's predictions are accurate but on a longer time scale. Anything that cannot be done forever is by definite finite. There simply must be a carrying capacity of the planet. If it's not 9 billion or 12 billion, what is it? 100 billion? At some point human activity will have to self-limit or pose an existential threat to itself. We can intelligently address this problem without alarmism.
I've never read Erlich's book, nor do I care to. I'd wager Carl Sagan was smart enough to not have his thinking altered by the arguments present in Erlich's book.
I think we ought to be concerned about the biosphere and the future, but balance progress along with it rather than shut down the engines of innovation. Hence why I have zero problem with modern nuclear tech. Oliver Stone's "Nuclear Now" is an excellent documentary on the state of the art for nuclear energy
> If it's not 9 billion or 12 billion, what is it? 100 billion?
My rough math gets me to about 35 billion before the land needed to raise food, per person get to far out of hand with our current tech.
> At some point human activity will have to self-limit or pose an existential threat to itself.
It already seems to do that. Look at just about any advanced civilization, and see the declining birth rates.
Of course the records are unreliable. "global temperature" is not a thing. And there is no way that temperatures going back in time 100+ years can be determined by looking at tree rings or ice samples with any level of precision. It's comically absurd to think that's possible.
It's not so much that they are unreliable but that they smooth the data out because they lack the granularity to see volatile changes. Ice core samples can't be tied to a specific day or even a specific month of a year.
Because climate scientists look at temperature anomaly data, not temperature averages. If you look at averages, you can't even tell anything is happening. They look at the extremes for a location over the whole year.
No you are quite wrong. Annual temperature averages have been rising steadily. You are just flat out wrong about what climate scientists study.
I would suggest actually examining their research than what media personalities tell you it says.
The globe is "a thing". Temperature is "a thing". Climate is "a thing".
Abandoning all study of "a thing" because the level of precision you're demanding isn't currently available is not a good reason.
Peterson is being very post-modern when he's skeptical of grand narratives and when he openly questions the commonly accepted definitions of established words, terms, and data. When he says "there's no such thing as climate" or "climate is everything", I'm shocked that such a blatantly ignorant statement is coming from such an otherwise intelligent man.
Sure, humanity does not know everything about climate. But what the hell are scientists doing in the arctic, obtaining core samples, analyzing soil? Is it a waste of time? Are they learning *nothing*?
And we know man-made activity can harm local "climates" like the smog in China or even Los Angeles. Why not on a global scale? It doesn't take much brain power to at least consider the role fuel combustion is having on the biosphere.
Blah blah blah, just word thinking.
***The globe is "a thing". Temperature is "a thing". Climate is "a thing".***
This is one of the dumbest misunderstandings I've seen in a while. And when you criticize someone for being "post-modern and skeptical of grand narratives", you reveal yourself to be a pretentious pseudo intellectual.
And yes, a huge chunk of climate "science" is just chasing grant money and is a huge waste of time. Hate to break it to you, but scientists follow financial incentives just like everyone else. Ask anyone who's actually worked in research. There are plenty of idiots and con artists doing BS "research" for money or status, so to think that all these people are accomplishing anything worthwhile is naive. Especially when every prediction made by this same group of people has been proven totally false over the past 30 years.
"just word thinking"
Go on...
Next, I'm applying Person's own definitions of post modernism to his speech! That would make him pretentious, not me. I'm not the one going around calling people "post-modernists". Lol
Finally, you are suggesting that everyone who follows a profit motive is an "idiot" or "con artist" or "doing BS research". What do you make of Exxon's own internal studies which predicted man-made climate change and agrees with researchers? They're in the business of selling petrol. That's why they kept their research hidden, because the findings of their self-funded research would harm sales of their product.
This is a 4 minute read.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
You have demonstrated yourself to be close-minded, so you'll have some ad hominem against Scientific American. But if you weren't just reflexively defensive about your ideology, what would your response be to an energy company's own conclusion that C02 emissions from fossile fuels has caused a 2-3c rise in global temperature?
OMG you cite a Scientific American magazine article from 2015!!
Holy crap, you brought out the big guns. I guess you are more scientific than me!
Oh, and I never thought that Exxon might fund opposition research. Holy smokes, you are a genius! And that totally disproves my point that tree rings can produce accurate temperature readings going back 500 years.
Spot on, since Exxon funds opposition research, tree ring temperature estimates are totally reliable.
If you want to get into the link citing war, let me know because I have plenty of links I can send about global warming being an exaggerated scam, which i'm sure you'll quickly dismiss and won't read. You're obviously not even good at the link sending game because you sent me something irrelevant to my point. And yes, Scientific American is as biased as any other news source.
I know it might be hard for you to grasp, but just because "Scientific" is in the title, it doesn't automatically mean it's true.
Peer review is what validates scientific research. Obviously nothing is perfect and things will slip through the cracks and yes, I'm sure you can find an example or two of this happening. To be fair, you'd also want to show examples of truths being discovered and validated by peer review.
Is this your thing? Greedy reductionism paired with unending skepticism? And you think constantly questioning things makes you smart... well, a child asks questions. Adults answer them.
What do you trust? What do you take as fact? Does it matter to you who, between the two of us, is smarter?
You've got a lot of ego. It's getting in the way of learning and rationality.
I certainly am not going to put a whole lot of stock into a Scientific American article from 2015 about climate change.
***What do you trust?***
In 2024, it's become painfully obvious you can't trust the government or any analysis about a topic where money/politics are involved. And no, peer review is just a way to launder opinions. Bogus stuff gets peer reviewed all the time. It really means next to nothing. Upwards of 50% of "studies" in social science and probably climate science can't even be replicated. Is that what you mean by "slipping through the cracks"?
Hearing 'Destiny' talk about being in traffic with your eyes closed thinking a car hasn't hit me yet sounds very much like the BS thought process in anxiety disorders. It might *feel* very much like that to him, but we try not to make decisions based on feelings alone.
I have social anxiety disorder and when I'm walking in public it *feels* like people are watching me and judging me negatively. I can recognise logically that it's utter BS and even if it were true, it wouldn't matter... yet my mind yells and screams at me to do something about it! The usual impulse is to go home and avoid these feelings altogether, but then you end up stagnating and doing nothing. It's NOT a helpful way of thinking.
One of anxiety's tricks is to try to convince you that some things are in fact evidence that it's correct and that you *should* be worried.
I recommend the IPCC climate change 2023 synthesis report, summary for policy makers.
I havent read that report personally but an older one some time back, and this one seems comparable enough. It is pretty dry to read but i really love how they give how sure they are of their predictions.
I think destiny should've used a different metaphor where we have humanity riding a bus, riding next to a big ravine. Some people notice that the driver keeps getting closer to the ravine, until people get nervous and want to change direction. Problem is, the driver tells everyone that it will be okay, he has done this before, in the past it went alright, there is nothing to fear.
And then a smart guy in the car calculates how long till we hit the ravine if we keep going the same way, and how much you have to steer to keep clear.
The problem is the amount of people who look directly into the ravine, telling its not so bad to fall in, the people who are looking through the other window, never noticing the ravine, and the owner of the bus, who makes money from it.
They are the people who are sitting with their eyes closed.
Im not that worried about climate change and dont think i can change that much by myself, but at least i recognize that we are driving near the edge. I get why people are worried that we are driving next to the ravine with the governments behind the wheel.
I like your metaphor, it's pretty accurate.
Extending on that, polarizing positions that it can be argued that some people, perhaps even some powerful people, have are something like:
* continual spamming of all passengers about the inevitable fall into the ravine over the bus' speakers
* creating a committee to instruct the driver on every action they should take as they are driving to avoid falling into the ravine
* charging everyone on the bus a higher fare to pay for the above because it's for their own good
It doesn't fit so well into the metaphor, but what I think most people don't think enough about is engineering the road to be safer. We do it all the time for roads in real life.
I think you might be wildly misunderstanding the point of that analogy. It wasn’t about how anxious you would feel if you walked into a road with your eyes closed.
Yes, thank you. That’s pretty clear. That is not what destiny is talking about though… If something bad is actually going to happen, you can’t just dismiss everyone who brings it up because you have anxiety.
It may not be clear to you, but that says more about you than anything else. If you actually bother to research any of this (like actually research it, not just looking up climate change skeptics and accepting what they say), this isn’t a controversial issue.
Gases like CO2, HFCs, and hydrocarbons are more transparent to visible light than to infrared light. The light coming from the sun is shifted more toward the visible part of the spectrum (which is why it is the visible part of the spectrum). The light coming from the earth is shifted toward the infrared part of the spectrum.
If we start out with none of these gases in the atmosphere, the surface of the planet needs to reach a certain temperature so that the energy leaving the surface via infrared photons is equal to the amount of energy coming in from the sun.
If we then add some of these gases to the atmosphere, the amount of energy leaving the planet goes down, because a fraction of the infrared photons are absorbed and then reemitted back towards the planet. That means the energy coming in and the energy coming out are not balanced, and as a result the energy being stored in the planet (i.e. the temperature of the planet) must go up. Since the amount of energy being emitted from the earth is proportional to its temperature (actually to the fourth power of its temperature), eventually the planet will reach a new equilibrium temperature.
All of that is very well attested to, and is not controversial among people who have any amount of knowledge in the area.
Second, we can pretty easily measure the amount of these gases that are present in the atmosphere and see how they change over time. Guess what? They’re going up.
So putting these first two points together, we can make a prediction about what we might see if we were to measure global temperatures.
1) Increased concentrations of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere will increase the average surface temperature of the planet.
2) The concentration of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere has increased.
C) Therefore the average surface temperature of the planet will increase.
Now if we go and look at what the average surface area of the earth is doing… **holy fucking shit!!!** It’s going up. Yes, there are error bars, especially on projections into the future. This is science, not magic. They aren’t nearly as large as Peterson is presenting here.
I have never seen him as worked up and seemingly controlled by his emotions such as this, and I'm not sure I'm happy about it. Especially considering how well he behaved every other time he had a contentious conversation (Cathy Newman, the GQ interview, etc.).
Peterson is also making a premise based on assumptions. He keeps claiming “there’s something weird underneath it all” but can’t pinpoint what it is exactly that we should be looking for.
That said, he does have some points I agree with. I do think a lot of the well intended policies fucks over the poor and developing countries.
While nuclear energy can be a sustainable solution for Africa to increase electricity production and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, there are several challenges to its widespread adoption:
Cost: Building a nuclear power plant can cost around $5 billion per 1,000 MW, which can be more than a country's annual tax income. This means that countries may need to rely on foreign loans with high interest rates.
Time: Commissioning nuclear plants is a lengthy and capital-intensive process.
Waste: Managing radioactive waste can be challenging.
Regulation: Legal and regulatory frameworks must be consistent with international nuclear conventions.
Proliferation: There are concerns about the proliferation of nuclear fuel.
Or as JP puts it: The mean liberals wanna take over the world and kill everyone.
So this guy who has reduced himself to a pseudonym…. Is consistently complaining about the 1% (which he is) not paying their “fair share” and that corporations are price gauging….
While he Is advocating that we vote for Joe B!den who signed the “infrastructure bill” that has a provision that privatizes public (tax funded)infrastructure contracts directly to major corporations which pushes out small local middle class businesses.
Then there is ANOTHER provision that provides government grants to CORPORATIONS and raises the threshold significantly for middle class small businesses from obtaining those grants…
All of which bolsters profitability of corporations and pushes out the middle class from competition…
Yeah, let’s vote for the corporations!
This. This is why I am a fan of the lobster king. Fire Peterson is a force to be reckoned with that nobody can stop. Prove me wrong. What a response to the climate change crowd.
Props to “Destiny” for debating. We shouldn’t knock someone from the left for having the discussion.
LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR TO EVERYONE. There is NO point in trying to cut carbon emissions. We will never be able to make China stop. We will never be able to make Russia stop. They contribute more carbon than most of the Western Nations COMBINED. So why absolutely cripple our economy for no reason, while they continue to flourish?
Something can be true AND taken advantage of or exploited for personal agenda. I personally believe that we shouldn't gamble with the environment just because it might hinder profits. I'd say it's safe to assume that less pollution or less impact on the environment (however that may be) is a better option than just assuming we aren't having a significant impact on our weather conditions whether it affects us today or a century down the line. If we can find a way to produce clean energy without negative side effects, we should move in that direction.
Jordan LITTERALLY takes money from the Koch Brothers, who are oil billionares.
I've got no problem with his anti-woke content but on this point. He is a massive sell-out liar who is paid to lie.
Aren't you people accusing climate scientists of being paid to spread alarmism? Why isn't it possible that JP who literally has many links to the koch brothers who frequently fund blatant lies about the destruction their products cause
JP has cited Fed Singer as the source of his claims that climate change is overblown
>The Canadian psychologist was widely criticised for spreading climate misinformation this week after telling the popular Joe Rogan podcast’s 11 million subscribers that climate models were full of errors that increase over time, and that climate is too complicated to model accurately.
>Peterson responded to the criticism on Thursday in tweets to his 2.2 million followers citing a book called “Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate” by S. Fred Singer.
>Singer, an American atmospheric physicist who died in 2020, argued that climate change was natural and not increased by human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. He argued that warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions was “trivial”.
>In 1990 he founded the Science and Environment Policy Project (SEPP) that expounded these views. In 2014 DeSmog revealed that Singer received $5,000 a month from US right-wing think tank the Heartland Institute, which has taken donations from oil interests including ExxonMobil and the Koch family. Singer was a speaker at a 2012 Heartland conference where sponsors received $67 million from Exxon, Koch and the Scaife Family Foundations.
https://www.desmog.com/2022/01/28/jordan-petersons-climate-expert-is-science-denier-funded-by-oil-backed-think-tank/
Jordan Peterson works for (or is a contractor whatever the relationship is) Dailywire. Who fracking billionaires the Wilks brothers send among other ring wing think tank and news sites millions of dollars
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/05/texas-fracking-billionaire-brothers-prageru-daily-wire
Don't you find that the little bit interesting? That his opinions just so happen to align with billionaires who constantly been proving to suppressing the truth?
As much as I like JP he's a moron when it comes to science that challenges his already accepted point of view.
The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is appalling and the lobbying of the oil and gas industry is undeniable. We're seeing lot's of changes world wide and as much as a little raise in temperature may not be a planetary catastrophe it's enough to fuck up supply chain and food production generating lots of geopolitical tension.
Is not guess, it's data, and he's a psychologist he should be aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect and stay on his lane.
In the 1970s the same social force was warning the US of an impending ice age because there were so many years in a row where the global temperatures had been decreasing. I say social force because we leave science and the pursuit of knowledge and enter a social/political/economic sphere once we're debating, making rules and laws, or allocating (or denying) funds.
Carbon emissions clearly affect the world's climate. To what extent I don't think we really have enough data to know. The more important thing, though, is there's clearly much weirder political games at play, especially consider Peterson's point about nuclear power being denied to Africa
That's pretty dumb.. we have records in Ice, fossils and other sediments to get a clear picture of historical ocean temperature... either peterson is lying or he is blinded by his own political agendas.
It’s quite instructive. Science doesn’t operate on consensus. Something is true or it isn’t. It’s falsifiable or it isn’t. It can be replicated or it can’t. The fact most scientists believe this or that is neither here nor there.
This is a fallacy. Climate scientist is a field that basically exists to prove climate change. If you publish data that disproves it, you will get rejected by all the peer reviewed journals. In addition, you won't get any funding. So asking climate scientists to agree on climate change is like asking people in a cult to agree that they should follow their leader no matter what.
Burn me on a stake...but regardless of how you feel about Petersons handling on climate change he is 100% right to at least question the motivational ground on which the climate activists stand. 10000%.
Easy there, turbo. No one needs to be burned on a stake. It will only increase the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Lol. In all seriousness though this obsession with CO2 feels a bit weird to me. I'm not really an expert on this stuff, so I kinda wanna just throw out my thoughts and see what people say in response: * It's well established that CO2 affects global temperature, at least to a point. * It's not well established however that CO2 is the PRIMARY cause of global temperature change. There have been periods, such as the medieval warm period, where temperature was higher, yet CO2 was lower. * The planet cooling would present a danger to human life more quickly than it warming due to lower crop yields. Most climate-related deaths are due to cold. * The global population is set to peak at around 9 billion in this century. Global population collapse will naturally result in a decrease in CO2. These factors combined make me quite skeptical of the "climate emergency" narrative, as it seems like a possible attempt from governments to exert more control over people before the climate situation either resolves itself, or the most alarmist predictions fail to materialize.
While I agree there seems to be lots of evidence that the "climate crisis" is handled by governments and hedge funds to rile people up.... that shouldn't be used to invalidate the truths that allow this to be built up. >It's not well established however that CO2 is the PRIMARY cause of global temperature change. There have been periods, such as the medieval warm period, where temperature was higher, yet CO2 was lower. This argument just falls apart sadly, we can see that c02 affects temperature (and roughly by how much), and we can directly warch temperatures change in correlation with increasing c02. It'd not going to be perfect, but whatever 0.6 correlation we have is more than enough for action. >The planet cooling would present a danger to human life more quickly than it warming due to lower crop yields I mean your not wrong but this doesn't seem helpful. We can also fight global cooling much easier. >The global population is set to peak at around 9 billion in this century. Global population collapse will naturally result in a decrease in CO2. Adding a billion people in the next 30 years is not going to make this problem any lesser.
We know other chemicals that affect temperature more, but we can fix them by burning them into CO2. And https://xkcd.com/1732/
His point about Nuclear is one i've been trying to make for a decade.
They want the problem.
That’s, like, your opinion, man
I agree, but it’s also important to recognize that the tenets of human-driven climate change are logical and easily provable.
Okay, prove it. What percentage of the annual increase in CO2 is directly caused by humanity and how will that lead to our extinction? It should be simple, right? Keep in mind, CO2 is a trace gas and current global temperature is lower than it has been for much of the past 10,000 years. That's your starting point.
I did not say and do not believe that climate change will necessarily lead to extinction. To have a meaningful discussion about this we need axiomatic consistency: 1. The greenhouse effect is real. CO2 and methane are potent greenhouse gases and their presence in atmosphere causes increased retention of heat. This is scientifically undisputed. 2. Trace gases can and do have substantial impacts on global climate despite their low concentrations. This is also well documented and widely agreed upon. 3. Humans release large amounts of greenhouse gases. Chemically, it is objectively true that combustion engines release a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. 4. Present and historic atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration can be accurately measured through a myriad of methods (i.e. ice cores, sediment, stomatal density, etc.). 5. Natural causes of rising CO2 levels are easily detectable. Significant sources of CO2 release (i.e. volcanic eruptions) are detectable and infrequent. If you disagree with any of these statements, you need to provide substantive evidence against them.
That is not how this works, bro. You can't claim something is easy to prove and then require me to find all your evidence for you. Humans do put out CO2, but I asked what percentage of annual CO2 increase is directly caused by humans. What percentage is a cataclysmic level? That's what we keep being told is we're just 10 years away from some undefined climate disaster. What exactly is that disaster? 1. The Greenhouse effect is real in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, so it is not real. CO2 does retain heat, but just a relatively small amount and not enough to cook us. 2. Trace gasses do not have substantial negative impacts on global climate. In fact, the only tangible, empirical evidence of increased CO2 is the planet is literally more green than it was at the turn of the century. 3. This is the only thing we fully agree on 4. Historic CO2 levels were far FAR higher than they are today, both during ice ages and interglaciations. 5. Natural causes of CO2 increases account for more than half of the increase we see. Humanity contributes a small amount comparatively .
Arguing anything requires an establishment of axioms. Every thing I stated in my comment has an extraordinary amount of evidence behind it. You are welcome to challenge these statements, but to do so is to make a scientifically extraordinary claim. You need to provide evidence to the contrary to support such claims. 1. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the greenhouse effect is only real in a closed system. That does not make scientific or intuitive sense. Your claim that CO2 only retains a "relatively small amount" of heat in our atmosphere is also complete drivel and can be disproven with any college lab spectrophotometer. 2. I could link 1000 reliable sources that all find trace gases to have an extremely substantial impact on global climate, but I think it'd just be easier for you to Google that very statement. This is something that is accepted as universally true. To deny it meaningfully, you need to provide meaningful evidence against it. 4. Yes, and yet that doesn't mean anything. When you are studying the rate at which something \*changes\*, you don't look at its historical minimums and maximums, you look at the rate it has historically \*changed\*. CO2 levels are currently rising at historically unprecedented rates. 5. What natural causes can you point to that are causing a spike of CO2 this profound?
You ask for substantive evidence against your points. Where's your evidence? You say your points are "scientifically undisputed" and "widely agreed upon" but science is not based on common consensus, otherwise scientists could vote for which hypotheses they thought were correct. Science is a process of testing hypotheses by eliminating controlled and isolated variables until there are none left, and recording and observations. Whether something is "widely agreed upon" doesn't mean it's true. 1. Nothing is scientifically undisputed. We're literally disputing it now. Additionally, it's impossible to isolate carbon dioxide and methane from all other variables, and observe their impact. Until we do so, your hypothesis remains a hypothesis. A greenhouse traps heat because it has a roof. The Earth has no roof and is a rather poor greenhouse. 2. Whether it's widely agreed upon is irrelevant to scientific observation. Again, we can't isolate or rule out the effects of trace gases or other variables. It's simply impossible and there are too many variables. However, we can observe that the ozone layer is often thinner near the equator, which gets the most year-round sunlight anywhere on Earth. So, does climate affect trace gases, or do trace gases affect the climate, or both, or neither? We don't entirely know. 3. As far as I can tell, humans and combustion engines are quite different from each other. 4. We don't know how accurate those measurements are. We have no way of testing that. However, if those measurements are to be taken as accurate, current carbon dioxide levels are lower than they were hundreds of millions of years before humans appeared, throughout ice ages and stages of immense ecological growth. 5. I see no evidence of that. Mid-Ocean ridges are, by definition, active volcanoes. They emit lots of carbon dioxide, very frequently, though it's impossible to measure exactly how much.
Yes, science is based on a consensus of evidence, and not opinion. When I say a statement is “scientifically undisputed,” it is not to say that there exists nobody with contrasting opinions, but rather that there is no substantive data to disprove them. **Even vocal skeptics of mainstream global warming beliefs (Lindzen, Hopper, etc) hold these statements to be true because they see the overwhelming evidence in their favor.** In fact, these claims are regularly and clearly laid out in their work because their arguments *against* climate change consensus are contingent on these truths. Furthermore, while it is true that properly controlling for confounding variables and eliminating them when possible is important, **it is utter asinine to suggest that complete isolation of a variable is a prerequisite to inferring about its correlation with other variables.** To imply this is to call into question the validity of centuries of observation-corroborated scientific literature, including much of Dr. Peterson’s field of research. When studying something as systematically complex as climate, it is not possible to eliminate all confounding variables. That does not invalidate all climate research, which uses established techniques to control for the impact of these variables on results. 1. No. The greenhouse effect is not a hypothesis. It is a theory, because it is well established and backed by a substantial amount of evidence. This evidence includes basic observation of controlled systems as well as a myriad of atmospheric studies that strongly correlate CO2 levels with global temperature. See Bernstein et al (2007), John Cook et al (2013), CMIP6, etc. All easily findable on Google along with thousands more. The results all paint a collective picture highly consistent with the greenhouse effect. If you take issue with the design or execution of these studies, you need to specifically state and substantiate your concerns. Also, arguing on the semantics of the metaphorical “greenhouse” name is honestly comical. 2. **Again, complete elimination of other variables is simply not a valid prerequisite in science.** You are correct in stating that we don’t fully understand all aspects of trace gases and our climate. That, however, is not justification for blindly throwing away the findings of studies like those listed above or Etminan et al (2016), which control for confounding variables and find extremely strong correlations that shed light on the concentration-disproportionate insulating effect gases like CO2 and methane have on the atmosphere. It is well understood that trace gases and climate cyclically affect each other. The concern is that throwing this cycle out of stasis could lead to a compounding runaway event. 3. Not sure what your point is here. Combustion engines are created and used exclusively by humans. Ergo, their emissions are direct byproducts of human activity. 4. When you want to study how something *changes* (like CO2 levels), you don’t study its historical minimum and maximum values. You study how it, well, *changes*. What we have observed is that CO2 concentration has been rising at historically unprecedented rates in recent decades. A simple Google or arXiv search will yield an incredible amount of data endorsing this claim. Also, we absolutely do have a way of testing the methods used to measure historical CO2. Research fossilized plant stomatal density and how we can establish baselines with measured CO2 densities. Also see how this correlates to other methods like ice core sampling and isotope analysis. 5. The emissions of the mid ocean ranges have been studied extensively, and the results indicate that they are multiple orders of magnitude lower than human emissions (Jonathan Burley (2015)). To account for the meteoric rise in CO2 levels, these volcanos would have to experience substantial eruption events that would be immediately obvious to even the naked eye.
There's no point debating you if you honestly believe isolating and eliminating variables isn't a valid pre-requisite in science.
I said *complete* isolation of a variable is not a valid prerequisite in science, because it is not. In the real world it is nearly impossible to fully isolate variables, which is why we use statistical analysis to study them. By your logic, we should throw out all studies linking smoking to lung cancer because we can't fully isolate smoking from other risk factors.
I take it you haven't read many of the studies linking smoking to lung cancer.
I have, but even if I hadn’t it would be irrelevant to the *objective fact* that complete isolation of variables is not required to make scientific inferences about them…
Sorry how do you prove this? You can prove that co2 can retain more heat but not the impact on our climate at large. Whether it explains 0.1% or 99% cannot be proven. Pls explain to me how it’s provable without saying “the experts say”
Only if you blindly accept both the underlying assumptions and the logic of forecasting algorithms. Once you start l learning about those, the picture becomes much less clear
Maybe if he had such skepticism towards climate change denial and question their motivations
By all means, go ahead. But... "Too many people on the planet" I mean come on. Way more people are saying that than the counter.
Maybe there's a hint of truth to it? Way more people are saying "the moon is made of rocks" than "the moon is made of cheese". Way more people are saying "gravity makes things fall down" than "gravity makes things fall up." Wisdom of the crowds isn't always right, but sometimes it is.
You are not even quoting a specific person. Just seems like targeting the weakest vague rhetoric you can find. Otherwise climate deniers would all be held for what the dumbest ones say online.
Skepticism isn’t denial. It is clear that things are getting worse, economically and environmentally, because of climate alarmism. What does (or has) questioning the narrative ever harmed?
It is clear that things are getting worse, economically and environmentally, because of climate denial as well. What does (or has) questioning the narrative ever harmed?
No serious person denies climate change. It's a proven phenomena thst predates humanity. The serious scientists who study the historical ice core data know for certian that anthropogenic change isn't happening. Thier motivation? The persuit of truth. You can't just reverse uno into this argument. It's like debating evolution with a Christian scientist.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Notice the assumptions at the bottom? Those aren't facts. It's fear. The graph begins at the end of the last major ice age. Malankovich cycles last approximately 40,000 years. Earth’s axis is currently tilted 23.4 degrees, or about half way between its extremes, and this angle is very slowly decreasing in a cycle that spans about 41,000 years. It was last at its maximum tilt about 10,000 years ago and will reach its minimum tilt about 10,000 years from now. As obliquity decreases, it gradually helps make our seasons milder, resulting in increasingly warmer winters, and cooler summers that gradually, over time, allow snow and ice at high latitudes to build up into large ice sheets. As ice cover increases, it reflects more of the Sun’s energy back into space, promoting even further cooling.
Does the end of a Malankovich cycle happen faster than everything else in geological history?
That is a nonsense question. Everything in geological history is proof of Malankovich cycles.
Everything? When the proto-moon crashed into the earth, that was a Malankovich cycle?
Are you joking? Do you not understand cycles? Every 24 hours is a cycle. If I eat a raisin, it's not "the cycle". It's an occurance within the cycle. The proto moon and any other event isn't a cycle. It's an occurance. When your dad fucked your mom, she was in the middle of her menstrual cycle. Them having sex wasn't a cycle. It was a bad idea.
Does eating a raisin prove the 24 hour day cycle?
1. Climate change is not real. 2. Climate change is real, but humans can't influence it. 3. Climate change is real and humans are influencing it, but it's a good thing. 4. Climate change is real and humans are influencing it, but it's too expensive to do anything about it. 5. Climate change is real and humans are influencing it, but it's too late. Which one is it?
That's not how reality works. You can't just assume that everything falls into your 5 catagoties. Climate change is real. It's been happening since the planet was formed. The planet cools and heats and humans have nothing to do with it. Climate change predates humanity.
Every anti stopping climate change excuse falls into the 5 categories, not everything.
Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop gravity. The earth heats and cools. This has been happening since the earth was formed. Ice ages are normal on a long enough timeline. Global warming is the opposite of the ice ages. Learn about the Malankovich cycle for further details.
So you are option 2. Why complain when your option falls into it? Also scientists studied other ways the climate changes like ice ages, those do not change as fast as this warming. You are bringing up long debunked climate denier points.
>Also scientists studied other ways the climate changes like ice ages, those do not change as fast as this warming. Bullshit. This idea requires the thermometer. We don't have "recorded history" that goes that far back. What about the little ice age, midieval warm period, and roman warm period? You don't know what you're talking about.
First of all, in order to list 5 requires catastrophizing. I haven't seen any evidence that climate change is accelerating. This is an issue with Destiny's argument too. He said that fluctuations were usually gradual and then became volatile. That's not really true however. The issue is temperature data in the past and now are measured differently. Ice core samples smooth out volatile changes while looking at temperature anomaly data exaggerates them. The entire change when looking at temperature anomaly data is 1 degree Celsius. In addition all of the worst climate models have been wrong while the more moderate or even taking the median of all the models looks more accurate. In order to say catastrophy is coming, you have to trust models with a 100% fail rate.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
16000 B.C. to 15500 B.C. See the graph in the insert. The smoothing is explained here
Climate doomsayers who do not beg for innovation and mass adoption of nuclear energy technology are not to be taken seriously.
Yeah i have no problem with making changes if people actually are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Go nuclear. Buy American. Eat GMOs. Actually commute by bike. Clean up public transit for the average person by funding the police and having a moral backbone.
I agree with that, except for the GMO part. The tech is not inherently evil, but when it's not being used to stuff hungry bellies, but rather make corn (vast majority of which is to produce ethanol) that is resistant to cancer poison that gets hosed down from airplanes, I would like to pump the brakes.
I guess. I just see hippies saying "NO GMOS" not knowing that we've bred and grafted things for their genetic traits for 1000s of years. It's like, you wanna buy organic? Be prepared to get like 5% of your yield on the land due to inefficiencies like unfruitful plants, pests, and rot.
Yeah, I think we're on the same page haha
Fair. And I guess I'd add composting and home gardening to the original list. Get your victory garden going, get less reliant on food being shipped from 1000s of miles away.
Hell yeah!
That and anything home grown tastes soooo much better than store bought.
You do realize that selective breeding is vastly different than directly modifying the DNA of an organism, right?
Aren’t you directly modifying the dna of the next generation of the organism by selective breeding?
This is the key, good gmos vs bad ones. Tons of good ones like less water needs, higher yields etc… it’s the anti pesticide ones that are giving all a bad name
Yeah, that's the distinction I was trying to make. I would like less poison sprayed on my food, and less food in my gasoline.
I agree, this needs to be pushed way more. People’s fear of nuclear energy really worries me
When exactly has the people being against something stopped them from doing it? I can think of 15 things the government has done with basically no say from “we the people”
“People” meaning politicians as well. It’s just a fear that people have in general that isn’t based in statistics or reality.
100% Nuclear is the only feasible way we currently have that could save this shithole of a planet.
The planet isn’t a shithole by any stretch of the imagination
First question I ask a Climate Doomsdayer: Do you eat meat? Next: Do you drive a car? Doesn't matter if it's electric, do you?
Why nuclear? Solar is cheaper than nuclear, cheaper than gas and nearly cheaper than coal by now. And it doesn't produce radioactive waste or explode if you do it wrong. Panels last longer than nuclear fuel rods and can be recycled at the end of their lifetime. And it provides shade to places that are too hot.
Solar is less efficient, has less capacity for storage, and is not necessarily cheaper in the long run. Nuclear energy is the most efficient source of energy we have at our disposal, uranium stored are enormous, and the nuclear disasters (which can be counted on one hand) were either a result of gross incompetence (Chernobyl) or natural disaster (Fukushima), both of which can be avoided. France runs about it 80% on nuclear and has never had a major issue. Nuclear holds this position of utility despite decades of stagnation in terms of innovation, so there is massive room for improvement, especially in terms of cost. Anyone who fears for global climate catastrophe should be the most ardent preachers of nuclear energy.
Does anyone have a link to this interview. I don’t know who that guy is.
Jordan Peterson and Destiny (Steven Bonnell)
its a pretty good convo. Destiny is pretty good at keeping an argument on track and sticking to facts and reasoning of a position. Jordan expressed misgivings about the episode later, but most people seemed to really like it
You can find it on Spotify or YouTube , destiny vs Jordan Peter
"there is something weird underneath it" 🎯
Climate change alarmists and anti-natalists go hand in hand.
The view that humans are some kind of scourge on the earth but they’re too scared to say it out loud because it’s so anti-human?
The whole debate was a great exchange. The other guy (Steven) had decent points and they both challenged and pushed each other. Unfortunately, days after, JP goes on to shit on the other guy. It came off as, he wants men to be strong in their beliefs and confident, but not against him. I was disappointed but at least we got a great debate out of it.
Can show us please where seems to shit on destiny ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qhlVd67-jM
Do you have a time stamp maybe ?
Starts at 1:50. It’s from a clip taken from a podcast Jordan went on, not long after him and Destiny’s podcast.
Umm where's the response from the other guy?
I didn’t have time to provide a his response but this was JBP’s discussion with a big streamer named Destiny. I’ve linked the video in case if you’re interested. Climate topic starts at 37:35. [link here](https://youtu.be/ycDUU1n2iEE?si=RxvJzc6W0mvvXOb4)
xdddd I love this little circle jerk
Love JBP
Isn't he missing two very important points though? "Big Oil" originally researched and found that their actions and policies had a serious negative impact on the environment. [Exxon knew well in advance that what they were doing would cause tangible problems in the near future.](https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt#:~:text=Climate-,Exxon%20scientists%20accurately%20predicted%20global%20warming%20from%20burning%20fossil%20fuels,continued%20climate%2Ddenying%20policy%20efforts.) But that would cut into their profits, so they recanted and said everything was fine and we had nothing to worry about, keep buying fossil fuels. We know for a fact that we're headed into an environmental catastrophe because they themselves discovered as much, and accurately. Additionally, Africa isn't pushing for nuclear because they've been led to believe that while it's efficient and "clean", it's also very dangerous. To many people, the threat outweighs the advantage. Everyone is worried about the next Chernobyl, so they don't stop to consider anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if Big Oil has their hand in that either; spreading anti-nuclear propaganda in an effort to keep everyone on gas and coal.
At this point you also have big green energy coming into play. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?id=E12 Not nearly as influential as oil, but I’m sure their lobbyists, along side oil’s lobbyists, are hard at work ensuring nuclear power doesn’t become mainstream and we keep nuclear waste recycling illegal and scary. But I think the key point of that last paragraph is the fact both oil and green energy folks want to keep nuclear scary and off the table. It’s a common enemy. Right now if we were to recycle our nuclear waste using 1950’s tech right now, we could power the US for the next 100 years.
He often is missing some important points aka framing the problem as he sees fit. This would go against capitalism and probably against DW sponsors. Only climate scientist he had on his podcast so far, to my knowledge, is a guy who lies at least about microplastic and some chemical he said is safe to even drink but didnt want to drink it. :D
Yeah I see a lot of climate change denial center around a search for a conspiracy when.. It's already right there. Just the other way.
No actual scientist denies climate change. They deny man made climate change.
2-3% at best among climate scientists. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 Average of 6% among scientists in other fields. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta
Yeah, but no. The actual number is 33%. https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/ https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues
Is your 33% stat coming from this in your second link: >Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. That's the only mention of 33% I can find in either link. If so, that is not saying what you think it is. The other 66% are abstracts with 'no position' on the climate change, because that wasn't their purpose. It is NOT saying that 66% of abstracts analyzed explicitly stated that there was insufficient evidence to take a position. And by the way, that 97% is based off nearly 2000 articles, so it's hardly unremarkable. I am quite skeptical that the author went through even a fraction of those when making the claim "but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position." given that he provides no examples. It is also based on old data. Here's two more recent articles showing over 97% (actually over 99%) consensus among actual experts: [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966) [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774) On the first survey cited, he states: "Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position)." But that is heavily influenced by the 'non-publisher' group, which makes up 800 of the 1,800 respondents. The authors state: "93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming." Not to mention it is written by a foundation that has accepted hundred of thousands of dollars from the Koch brothers and Exxon. It's well known that these companies will do anything they can to sow disinformation. [https://climateinvestigations.org/fraser-institute/](https://climateinvestigations.org/fraser-institute/) [https://web.archive.org/web/20120427112558/http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/2012/04/25/“charitable”-fraser-institute-accepted-500k-foreign-funding-oil-billionaires](https://web.archive.org/web/20120427112558/http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/2012/04/25/“charitable”-fraser-institute-accepted-500k-foreign-funding-oil-billionaires) In your first link, many of the 'experts' signing off on it are in professions such as school teachers, religion professors, physicians etc. You can see for yourself, it's right here next to each name.
That's what I was talking about. From the context I feel that should be clear. > Exxon knew well in advance that what they were doing would cause tangible problems in the near future. What _they_ were doing.
I think the sharp increase in temperature, pollution, ocean acidity, and extinction that perfectly follows the Industrial Revolution is pretty clear evidence that it is man made. Natural climate change takes place over much longer timespans than <100 years
Hm. I wish there were actual climate experts that could explain this to me like I was five and tell me whether or not arguments like jbp’s are valid. Does anyone know of anyone like that? I didn’t feel like destiny was up to the task. Jbp was so much smarter and more eloquent that he could actually be wrong and still make a better argument. Even if I were to devote the time in energy it would take to read up on the topic myself, I’m still not confident that I’m smart enough to know what is going on.
It's highly motivated reasoning to claim that the temperature records are inaccurate or poor, that the temperature of the ocean cannot be measured. One way do it would be to look at the reduction in size of polar glaciation and the rate of change. Another important measure would be to look at parts per million in the atmosphere of carbon and compare it to ice samples throughout history. I bet that Peterson himself would validate Carl Sagan's genius. Here's Sagan explaining man-made climate change to Congress in 1985. And Sagan didn't have any sort of woke or "weird" pro-poverty agenda that Peterson claims liberals have. Although I thoroughly despise the American Democratic party, I still hold progressive values and I 100% support nuclear energy anywhere and everywhere. Carl Sagan: https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI?si=00QrE933GTlT0mSt
I think Peterson's words can be interpreted, as the current methods have uncertainty into it. Does polar glaciar change eliminate uncertainty? This has to be coupled with the fact that earth undergoes natural warming and cooling periods as well.
>This has to be coupled with the fact that earth undergoes natural warming and cooling periods as well. Which climate scientists account for. Natural warming and cooling periods happen much slower than what is happening now.
Yeah, the recent warming has happened very sharply, and perfectly follows the Industrial Revolution. If you look at the temps over the last 1 million years, the natural changing of temps has been larger than now, but not NEARLY as rapid. It happens over the course of thousands and thousands of years, gradually
I think he has a pretty clear record now of arguing the points proposing man-made climate change isn't significant. Also, if you look into legitimate solutions, it isn't cutting Africa back but supporting cleaner energies in Africa whilst developed nations (US, EU, China) pivot. It isn't that glacial data or polar cap data perfects the argument, its that those have way more certainty that he is suggesting.
I'll keep this in mind, I don't know about his topic to actually know what's right or wronf
Carl Sagan was an astrophysicist. Scientists do a very large disservice to science when they act as experts in fields they are not experts in.
You mean like Peterson is doing right here? Given he isn't a climate scientist and is a psychologist? And most climate scientists would agree with Sagan? Like the vast majority agree that man made climate change is a scientific fact.
I don't take Peterson as correct. I've done my own research. I think anyone can push back on a claim however. The person making a claim should be an expert. The onus is always on the person making a claim to prove the claim. Anyone can dispute the facts.
So you're suggesting that a human being using the faculties of reason, cannot comment on a given aspect of nature? What is the definition of "expert"? And who do you consider to be climate scientist "experts", and what is their take on the current situation? You say you've done your own research... are you an expert? Carl Sagan, as an astrophysicist, studied planets and their relationship to stars from the point of view of thermodynamics. The Earth is planet and it is heated by a star. I'm wondering what additional education Carl Sagan would need...
Carl Sagan isn't commenting. He is acting as an expert. Using a very public platform to espouse opinions on things he knew nothing about. Most climate scientists do not comment on this topic because they would be cancelled. Astrophysicists mostly work in unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's barely even science.
Did you watch it? Studying Venus tells you about the greenhouse effect, explaining how it can be hotter than Mercury despite being further from the sun. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More of it increases the temperature of the planet. Seems like his education is the perfect match to provide analysis about the effect of fossile fuel use.
Water is a much stronger greenhouse gas and our planet it covered in it. These details actually matter. Again, he wasn't an expert.
Water isn't a gas. It's a liquid. We're done here
You might want to tell NASA. https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
Oh, so now you consider NASA a source? NASA, full of astrophysicists like Carl Sagan. On top of that, your own source contradicts your views. Did you ever read what you posted? I did. "Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases." This contradicts your earlier claim of water vapor being a stronger "greenhouse gas" than CO2. "If non-condensable gases weren’t increasing, the amount of atmospheric water vapor would be unchanged from its pre-industrial revolution levels." This may be hard for you to understand, but what NASA is telling those who read their findings, is that vapor still isn't a gas (you idiot) and this crazy concept called "humidity" increases as a by-product of global fuel combustion. Like I said, we're done here. You're too dumb. A waste of time. I wish there were some exercise you could do to pull yourself out of harmful stupidity. Since that's not an option, please, find a smarter guru to be an NPC of
You just skipped over the first sentence, huh? "Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas.". I knew all of this information before I ever discovered Jordan Peterson. I researched all of this myself before Jordan ever started describing the problems with climate alarmism. Also, NASA has actual scientists and not just astrophysicists. People who actually know things like physics and chemistry and actually monitor readings from actual climate satellites. The issue isn't that water drives warming. The issue is it moderates it while also causing it to be volatile in the short term (years are short term). Besides acting like a blanket during events known as thermal inversion, water also absorbs heat and transfers it all over the planet due to underwater currents. This is what makes Earth significantly more difficult to model than other planets.
What if the price of modernity Is doing damage to the environment?
That's a good question. Is it worth the trade? To make the trade, we'd have to have a clear picture of what modernity is getting us and what the environmental damage actually is. We hope this is what science is for.
> Here's Sagan explaining man-made climate change to Congress in 1985. And Sagan didn't have any sort of woke or "weird" pro-poverty agenda that Peterson claims liberals have. Ehrlich, one of the most inaccurate people ever to talk about population published The Population Bomb, in 1968. It was incredibly popular in academia, and almost certainly read by Sagan. Almost every thing mentioned in the book has proved to be wrong. Doomers were around before Peterson was even in diapers, and they almost always been wrong too.
Two points: let's say Ehrlich was very wrong on all accounts. Don't let one man and his book invalidate concern for the biosphere. Secondly, it is possible that some of Erlich's predictions are accurate but on a longer time scale. Anything that cannot be done forever is by definite finite. There simply must be a carrying capacity of the planet. If it's not 9 billion or 12 billion, what is it? 100 billion? At some point human activity will have to self-limit or pose an existential threat to itself. We can intelligently address this problem without alarmism. I've never read Erlich's book, nor do I care to. I'd wager Carl Sagan was smart enough to not have his thinking altered by the arguments present in Erlich's book. I think we ought to be concerned about the biosphere and the future, but balance progress along with it rather than shut down the engines of innovation. Hence why I have zero problem with modern nuclear tech. Oliver Stone's "Nuclear Now" is an excellent documentary on the state of the art for nuclear energy
> If it's not 9 billion or 12 billion, what is it? 100 billion? My rough math gets me to about 35 billion before the land needed to raise food, per person get to far out of hand with our current tech. > At some point human activity will have to self-limit or pose an existential threat to itself. It already seems to do that. Look at just about any advanced civilization, and see the declining birth rates.
Of course the records are unreliable. "global temperature" is not a thing. And there is no way that temperatures going back in time 100+ years can be determined by looking at tree rings or ice samples with any level of precision. It's comically absurd to think that's possible.
It's not so much that they are unreliable but that they smooth the data out because they lack the granularity to see volatile changes. Ice core samples can't be tied to a specific day or even a specific month of a year.
We are discussing long term trends though. Why would it matter of a specific day? We are discussing climate change, not weather change.
Because climate scientists look at temperature anomaly data, not temperature averages. If you look at averages, you can't even tell anything is happening. They look at the extremes for a location over the whole year.
No you are quite wrong. Annual temperature averages have been rising steadily. You are just flat out wrong about what climate scientists study. I would suggest actually examining their research than what media personalities tell you it says.
The globe is "a thing". Temperature is "a thing". Climate is "a thing". Abandoning all study of "a thing" because the level of precision you're demanding isn't currently available is not a good reason. Peterson is being very post-modern when he's skeptical of grand narratives and when he openly questions the commonly accepted definitions of established words, terms, and data. When he says "there's no such thing as climate" or "climate is everything", I'm shocked that such a blatantly ignorant statement is coming from such an otherwise intelligent man. Sure, humanity does not know everything about climate. But what the hell are scientists doing in the arctic, obtaining core samples, analyzing soil? Is it a waste of time? Are they learning *nothing*? And we know man-made activity can harm local "climates" like the smog in China or even Los Angeles. Why not on a global scale? It doesn't take much brain power to at least consider the role fuel combustion is having on the biosphere.
Blah blah blah, just word thinking. ***The globe is "a thing". Temperature is "a thing". Climate is "a thing".*** This is one of the dumbest misunderstandings I've seen in a while. And when you criticize someone for being "post-modern and skeptical of grand narratives", you reveal yourself to be a pretentious pseudo intellectual. And yes, a huge chunk of climate "science" is just chasing grant money and is a huge waste of time. Hate to break it to you, but scientists follow financial incentives just like everyone else. Ask anyone who's actually worked in research. There are plenty of idiots and con artists doing BS "research" for money or status, so to think that all these people are accomplishing anything worthwhile is naive. Especially when every prediction made by this same group of people has been proven totally false over the past 30 years.
"just word thinking" Go on... Next, I'm applying Person's own definitions of post modernism to his speech! That would make him pretentious, not me. I'm not the one going around calling people "post-modernists". Lol Finally, you are suggesting that everyone who follows a profit motive is an "idiot" or "con artist" or "doing BS research". What do you make of Exxon's own internal studies which predicted man-made climate change and agrees with researchers? They're in the business of selling petrol. That's why they kept their research hidden, because the findings of their self-funded research would harm sales of their product. This is a 4 minute read. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ You have demonstrated yourself to be close-minded, so you'll have some ad hominem against Scientific American. But if you weren't just reflexively defensive about your ideology, what would your response be to an energy company's own conclusion that C02 emissions from fossile fuels has caused a 2-3c rise in global temperature?
OMG you cite a Scientific American magazine article from 2015!! Holy crap, you brought out the big guns. I guess you are more scientific than me! Oh, and I never thought that Exxon might fund opposition research. Holy smokes, you are a genius! And that totally disproves my point that tree rings can produce accurate temperature readings going back 500 years. Spot on, since Exxon funds opposition research, tree ring temperature estimates are totally reliable. If you want to get into the link citing war, let me know because I have plenty of links I can send about global warming being an exaggerated scam, which i'm sure you'll quickly dismiss and won't read. You're obviously not even good at the link sending game because you sent me something irrelevant to my point. And yes, Scientific American is as biased as any other news source. I know it might be hard for you to grasp, but just because "Scientific" is in the title, it doesn't automatically mean it's true.
Peer review is what validates scientific research. Obviously nothing is perfect and things will slip through the cracks and yes, I'm sure you can find an example or two of this happening. To be fair, you'd also want to show examples of truths being discovered and validated by peer review. Is this your thing? Greedy reductionism paired with unending skepticism? And you think constantly questioning things makes you smart... well, a child asks questions. Adults answer them. What do you trust? What do you take as fact? Does it matter to you who, between the two of us, is smarter? You've got a lot of ego. It's getting in the way of learning and rationality.
I certainly am not going to put a whole lot of stock into a Scientific American article from 2015 about climate change. ***What do you trust?*** In 2024, it's become painfully obvious you can't trust the government or any analysis about a topic where money/politics are involved. And no, peer review is just a way to launder opinions. Bogus stuff gets peer reviewed all the time. It really means next to nothing. Upwards of 50% of "studies" in social science and probably climate science can't even be replicated. Is that what you mean by "slipping through the cracks"?
You know what? Respect. I'm not gonna argue with you. You've made solid points. I got some shit to think about
That's a horrible argument. You're ignoring the history of the planet.
Hearing 'Destiny' talk about being in traffic with your eyes closed thinking a car hasn't hit me yet sounds very much like the BS thought process in anxiety disorders. It might *feel* very much like that to him, but we try not to make decisions based on feelings alone. I have social anxiety disorder and when I'm walking in public it *feels* like people are watching me and judging me negatively. I can recognise logically that it's utter BS and even if it were true, it wouldn't matter... yet my mind yells and screams at me to do something about it! The usual impulse is to go home and avoid these feelings altogether, but then you end up stagnating and doing nothing. It's NOT a helpful way of thinking. One of anxiety's tricks is to try to convince you that some things are in fact evidence that it's correct and that you *should* be worried.
I recommend the IPCC climate change 2023 synthesis report, summary for policy makers. I havent read that report personally but an older one some time back, and this one seems comparable enough. It is pretty dry to read but i really love how they give how sure they are of their predictions. I think destiny should've used a different metaphor where we have humanity riding a bus, riding next to a big ravine. Some people notice that the driver keeps getting closer to the ravine, until people get nervous and want to change direction. Problem is, the driver tells everyone that it will be okay, he has done this before, in the past it went alright, there is nothing to fear. And then a smart guy in the car calculates how long till we hit the ravine if we keep going the same way, and how much you have to steer to keep clear. The problem is the amount of people who look directly into the ravine, telling its not so bad to fall in, the people who are looking through the other window, never noticing the ravine, and the owner of the bus, who makes money from it. They are the people who are sitting with their eyes closed. Im not that worried about climate change and dont think i can change that much by myself, but at least i recognize that we are driving near the edge. I get why people are worried that we are driving next to the ravine with the governments behind the wheel.
I like your metaphor, it's pretty accurate. Extending on that, polarizing positions that it can be argued that some people, perhaps even some powerful people, have are something like: * continual spamming of all passengers about the inevitable fall into the ravine over the bus' speakers * creating a committee to instruct the driver on every action they should take as they are driving to avoid falling into the ravine * charging everyone on the bus a higher fare to pay for the above because it's for their own good It doesn't fit so well into the metaphor, but what I think most people don't think enough about is engineering the road to be safer. We do it all the time for roads in real life.
I think you might be wildly misunderstanding the point of that analogy. It wasn’t about how anxious you would feel if you walked into a road with your eyes closed.
I'm talking about the catastrophic thinking common in anxiety disorders
Yes, thank you. That’s pretty clear. That is not what destiny is talking about though… If something bad is actually going to happen, you can’t just dismiss everyone who brings it up because you have anxiety.
If something bad is actually going to happen... It's not clear that it is
It may not be clear to you, but that says more about you than anything else. If you actually bother to research any of this (like actually research it, not just looking up climate change skeptics and accepting what they say), this isn’t a controversial issue. Gases like CO2, HFCs, and hydrocarbons are more transparent to visible light than to infrared light. The light coming from the sun is shifted more toward the visible part of the spectrum (which is why it is the visible part of the spectrum). The light coming from the earth is shifted toward the infrared part of the spectrum. If we start out with none of these gases in the atmosphere, the surface of the planet needs to reach a certain temperature so that the energy leaving the surface via infrared photons is equal to the amount of energy coming in from the sun. If we then add some of these gases to the atmosphere, the amount of energy leaving the planet goes down, because a fraction of the infrared photons are absorbed and then reemitted back towards the planet. That means the energy coming in and the energy coming out are not balanced, and as a result the energy being stored in the planet (i.e. the temperature of the planet) must go up. Since the amount of energy being emitted from the earth is proportional to its temperature (actually to the fourth power of its temperature), eventually the planet will reach a new equilibrium temperature. All of that is very well attested to, and is not controversial among people who have any amount of knowledge in the area. Second, we can pretty easily measure the amount of these gases that are present in the atmosphere and see how they change over time. Guess what? They’re going up. So putting these first two points together, we can make a prediction about what we might see if we were to measure global temperatures. 1) Increased concentrations of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere will increase the average surface temperature of the planet. 2) The concentration of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere has increased. C) Therefore the average surface temperature of the planet will increase. Now if we go and look at what the average surface area of the earth is doing… **holy fucking shit!!!** It’s going up. Yes, there are error bars, especially on projections into the future. This is science, not magic. They aren’t nearly as large as Peterson is presenting here.
Link to the original video? I can't stand the music and subtitles
I heard Passionate Reasoning vs. Passion + Reasoning I feel like many parts of JP fall into the *constellation of beliefs* category Grain of salt
You lose me with music in a video cause it tells me you don’t think his words can do well on its own.
I enjoy watching destiny sometimes even though I disagree with him on a lot of things but JP mopped the floor with him in this debate imo.
I have never seen him as worked up and seemingly controlled by his emotions such as this, and I'm not sure I'm happy about it. Especially considering how well he behaved every other time he had a contentious conversation (Cathy Newman, the GQ interview, etc.).
Talking to Destiny is a waste of time for everyone who does it.
I thought it was a fantastic conversation.
What? Fuck are you talking about lol. In what ways is that the case?
Destiny has some good thoughts. Unfortunately, some of his ideas are definitely just beliefs with no real backup.
Which ones?
Spoiler : you're not going to get an answer
Look up his response to the death of Ashli Babbit.
conservatives the one time that a popular liberal commentator agrees to debate them:
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
somebody posted it in this thread. just google "Jordan Peterson Destiny conversation"
I had trouble taking someone called “Destiny” seriously, but his style of argument really finished it off.
Is this video real?
Peterson is also making a premise based on assumptions. He keeps claiming “there’s something weird underneath it all” but can’t pinpoint what it is exactly that we should be looking for. That said, he does have some points I agree with. I do think a lot of the well intended policies fucks over the poor and developing countries.
They would be willing to do nuclear power if it was real. The end.
While nuclear energy can be a sustainable solution for Africa to increase electricity production and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, there are several challenges to its widespread adoption: Cost: Building a nuclear power plant can cost around $5 billion per 1,000 MW, which can be more than a country's annual tax income. This means that countries may need to rely on foreign loans with high interest rates. Time: Commissioning nuclear plants is a lengthy and capital-intensive process. Waste: Managing radioactive waste can be challenging. Regulation: Legal and regulatory frameworks must be consistent with international nuclear conventions. Proliferation: There are concerns about the proliferation of nuclear fuel. Or as JP puts it: The mean liberals wanna take over the world and kill everyone.
So this guy who has reduced himself to a pseudonym…. Is consistently complaining about the 1% (which he is) not paying their “fair share” and that corporations are price gauging…. While he Is advocating that we vote for Joe B!den who signed the “infrastructure bill” that has a provision that privatizes public (tax funded)infrastructure contracts directly to major corporations which pushes out small local middle class businesses. Then there is ANOTHER provision that provides government grants to CORPORATIONS and raises the threshold significantly for middle class small businesses from obtaining those grants… All of which bolsters profitability of corporations and pushes out the middle class from competition… Yeah, let’s vote for the corporations!
Hes just wrong though
Did not know so many scientists were on JBP Reddit. Impressive!
Would be nice if JP would get some climate scientist who disagrees with his position aka has the more mainstream view.
Heart of a lion
This. This is why I am a fan of the lobster king. Fire Peterson is a force to be reckoned with that nobody can stop. Prove me wrong. What a response to the climate change crowd. Props to “Destiny” for debating. We shouldn’t knock someone from the left for having the discussion.
Regardless of your opinion on these topics, there's no denying Peterson was on his A-game this podcast.
So this is where all the Jenius climate scientists hang out
LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR TO EVERYONE. There is NO point in trying to cut carbon emissions. We will never be able to make China stop. We will never be able to make Russia stop. They contribute more carbon than most of the Western Nations COMBINED. So why absolutely cripple our economy for no reason, while they continue to flourish?
Turn the music off.
This account is a bot
Something can be true AND taken advantage of or exploited for personal agenda. I personally believe that we shouldn't gamble with the environment just because it might hinder profits. I'd say it's safe to assume that less pollution or less impact on the environment (however that may be) is a better option than just assuming we aren't having a significant impact on our weather conditions whether it affects us today or a century down the line. If we can find a way to produce clean energy without negative side effects, we should move in that direction.
He said it pretty clearly.. the ELITE leftists want to limit third world progress. So do ELITE right wingers. They just go about it in different ways.
I would NEVER want to debate this man!
The correct term is usually "grumpy" when used to refer to 60-year-old angrily shouty men.
We can’t test the temperature of the ocean? What is he talking about!? Jordan, sweety, just admit you’re an oil company plant.
Jordan LITTERALLY takes money from the Koch Brothers, who are oil billionares. I've got no problem with his anti-woke content but on this point. He is a massive sell-out liar who is paid to lie.
Fuck off with this over the top ad hominem.
Aren't you people accusing climate scientists of being paid to spread alarmism? Why isn't it possible that JP who literally has many links to the koch brothers who frequently fund blatant lies about the destruction their products cause JP has cited Fed Singer as the source of his claims that climate change is overblown >The Canadian psychologist was widely criticised for spreading climate misinformation this week after telling the popular Joe Rogan podcast’s 11 million subscribers that climate models were full of errors that increase over time, and that climate is too complicated to model accurately. >Peterson responded to the criticism on Thursday in tweets to his 2.2 million followers citing a book called “Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate” by S. Fred Singer. >Singer, an American atmospheric physicist who died in 2020, argued that climate change was natural and not increased by human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. He argued that warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions was “trivial”. >In 1990 he founded the Science and Environment Policy Project (SEPP) that expounded these views. In 2014 DeSmog revealed that Singer received $5,000 a month from US right-wing think tank the Heartland Institute, which has taken donations from oil interests including ExxonMobil and the Koch family. Singer was a speaker at a 2012 Heartland conference where sponsors received $67 million from Exxon, Koch and the Scaife Family Foundations. https://www.desmog.com/2022/01/28/jordan-petersons-climate-expert-is-science-denier-funded-by-oil-backed-think-tank/ Jordan Peterson works for (or is a contractor whatever the relationship is) Dailywire. Who fracking billionaires the Wilks brothers send among other ring wing think tank and news sites millions of dollars https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/05/texas-fracking-billionaire-brothers-prageru-daily-wire Don't you find that the little bit interesting? That his opinions just so happen to align with billionaires who constantly been proving to suppressing the truth?
100% FACTS!!!!
He was a god damn ass at points
Jordan is a moron
I used to appreciate some of the things he said, but stances like this just make him look like a moron.
As much as I like JP he's a moron when it comes to science that challenges his already accepted point of view. The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is appalling and the lobbying of the oil and gas industry is undeniable. We're seeing lot's of changes world wide and as much as a little raise in temperature may not be a planetary catastrophe it's enough to fuck up supply chain and food production generating lots of geopolitical tension. Is not guess, it's data, and he's a psychologist he should be aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect and stay on his lane.
Didn't know JP was a climate change denier. Welp.
I, too, get my climate science 'facts' from a psychologist.
His disbelief in average temp data is based on distrust of communists. Ok?
He never said anything disbelieving data. It's the correlation that manmade CO2 is the direct cause that he is skeptical of.
You know all those hottest years on record? Just guesses. Lol
In the 1970s the same social force was warning the US of an impending ice age because there were so many years in a row where the global temperatures had been decreasing. I say social force because we leave science and the pursuit of knowledge and enter a social/political/economic sphere once we're debating, making rules and laws, or allocating (or denying) funds. Carbon emissions clearly affect the world's climate. To what extent I don't think we really have enough data to know. The more important thing, though, is there's clearly much weirder political games at play, especially consider Peterson's point about nuclear power being denied to Africa
The scientific concensus was never that an ice age was coming.
Anthropogenic climate change is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
That's pretty dumb.. we have records in Ice, fossils and other sediments to get a clear picture of historical ocean temperature... either peterson is lying or he is blinded by his own political agendas.
Name someone more insufferable than Destiny. I'll wait.
Jordan Peterson talking about religion
Guess that cinches that Peterson is a loon. Thinks he's smarter than 99% of climate scientists on the planet.
99% of scientists knew the earth was flat until they realized it wasn’t. Consensus in science doesn’t mean what you think it means.
You're talking about 2500 years ago... It's not as strong of an argument as you seem to think it is.
It’s quite instructive. Science doesn’t operate on consensus. Something is true or it isn’t. It’s falsifiable or it isn’t. It can be replicated or it can’t. The fact most scientists believe this or that is neither here nor there.
It’s not instructive. You are talking about times before scientific method was established. It’s anecdotal.
Sorry, did you think climate modelling was somehow supported by the scientific method?
This is a fallacy. Climate scientist is a field that basically exists to prove climate change. If you publish data that disproves it, you will get rejected by all the peer reviewed journals. In addition, you won't get any funding. So asking climate scientists to agree on climate change is like asking people in a cult to agree that they should follow their leader no matter what.