This Well Known Effect Breaks the Climate Narrative
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com/jordanyt
Watch the full episode here: Ep. 320 - • Climate "Science" | Dr...
Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: utm.io/ueSFn
// SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL //
Premium Podcast - jordanbpeterson.supercast.com/
Newsletter: linktr.ee/DrJordanBPeterson
Donations: jordanbpeterson.com/donate
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterson.com/personality
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyself.com
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m...
// LINKS //
Website: jordanbpeterson.com
Events: jordanbpeterson.com/events
Blog: jordanbpeterson.com/blog
Podcast: jordanbpeterson.com/podcast
// SOCIAL //
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus #podcast #news #TheJordanBPetersonPodcast
The irony of UA-cam having a UN caption fact-checking this guy is hilarious.
The BBC fact checking the British medical journal...
Shows how biased youtube is.
It is not 'fact checking' Lindzen .
Given the amount of misinformation on climate change on YT, it is merely a statement of what climate change is which appears with all video's on the subject.
Further information is provided by clicking the three vertical dots at the upper right of the context box.
See my comment where I fact check Lindzen's claims and show how misleading they are.
Google's woke bias degrades trust and credibility of an otherwise stellar organization - one of the most important in human history
I dismiss anything youtube shows in this vein of fact-checking, as if they were knowledgeable and expert of the subject at hand. It takes me fraction of a second to ignore it completely. I have trained myself to do things like this.
I graduated from the University of Oklahoma, Norman, School of Meteorology, and I understand every word you said and you have done your homework!!! Weather changes every day. Climates stay about the same due to the earth and it rotation.
See CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: RICHARD LINDZEN.
What are theeffectsofthe movement of the poles?
What wasor is the effe to USA meddling with climate during the Vietnam war?
Effects of gulf stream?
Hard to follow what you're saying. "Weather changes every day"... Captain Obvious. We all know that, those that believe in climate change and those that deny it. "Cimates stay about the same". Yes, "about" the same. Seriously, what's your point?
"I prefer questions I cannot answer to answers I cannot question." - Dr. Phil
What I have always found interesting as a guy who's been here a while; they took a cycle and started with readings at its lowest point and charted the normal upward temps trend of the cycle to scare us about global warming.
The fun part and kicker is that these same people used the first part of that same cycle, as the temps were declining, to tell us we were starting a new ice age.
When I was a child I was told a European folklore story about Chicken Little (also called Henny Penny in Europe) who thought the sky was falling.
As a child I thought that was just a fairy tale, a fabrication, and yet here we are.
No consensus of mainstream scientists ever warned of an imminent Ice Age. Outliers? Yes. Crackpots? Yes. But the mainstream? Absolutely not. The vast majorty of climate scientists writing in the science journals of the 60s and 70s were warning about global warming, not a new Ice Age. The internet's cesspool of myth and misinformation can be thanked for twisting the actual history.
In 2021, Cornell University surveyed the over 88000 climate studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving today's climate change. It's the ELEVENTH study to confirm a scientific consensus. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossils fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree.
By contrast, Richard Lindzen has been roundly debunked in the scientific literature and has admitted taking funding from the fossil fuel industry. He's on record for taking payments from OPEC, Western Fuels and Peabody Energy.
I have been using the Chicken Little scenario right from the start of all this climate emergency hype! I'm 69 years old and I am so fed up with it all. I'd hate to see what my grandchildren will face when they are 69! You are spot on Steve, couldn't agree more!
What I also found interesting was that if you went to NASA website to see the CO2 levels graph, you can see a clear rise from like 1970 if I remember correctly. If you read the graph description below, it says that the capture method changed in 1970. From ice probing to air measurements. So two completely different methods are thrown into one graph and shockingly, the change of method coincides with the most drastic change in values..
@@darkfazer The Keeling Curve, an illustration of the measurement of CO2 from the top of Mauna Loa, shows a steady increase in CO2 from the start of the measurements before 1960. There is no big jump in levels after 1970.
I love your comment, Steve. Quite funny, yet true.
It’s funny his stating to pepper it with errors. It’s true, that works.
I was a graphic artist in the Marine Corps. We created computer aided slides for military and governmental agencies’ presentations and schools.
Whenever we did illustrations, however, we learned, no matter what, they would make changes. The changes often required a total redo.
So, we built in distracting elements that could be easily deleted. For example, we’d give a person in the drawing, hairy hands. The jobs requester would say I love it, but can we get rid of the hairy hands (or whatever the intentionally distracting element was). It worked like a charm.
That's a variation of the old "Commanding Officer's Inspection Cigarette Butt" trick.
The Commanding Officer does a 'surprise inspection' of the barracks. To avoid hours of troops standing to attention while the CO goes through with a fine-toothed comb, five paces inside an entrance, some senior NCO will drop a flattened, dirty, trodden cigarette butt.
The CO will see it, lose his mind, the Major in charge will lose his mind. The senior NCO will pretend to lose his mind, his sergeants will all go apeshit, the men run around like headless chickens, then get the rest of the day off.
Repeat whenever the CO declares an inspection.
You can thank the RAMC Training College (as was) for that one. You're welcome.
@@sarumano884 This is absolutely used in lots of industries as well. I've heard of places that when OSHA or some other inspection agency showed up for inspections, they would just radio to some people to go and take some fire extinguishers off the wall and set them on the floor. Then when the inspector walked around he'd see that freak out, mark it down and write them up for the "violation" then proceed to quickly finish all like a dog with a new chew toy. They "found" their violation and thus proved how they were a best good boy for doing their job. Meanwhile the company just paid the small fine and went on their way because usually what would happen is the inspector would spend forever trying to find the most insignificant and absolutely BS violation they could which would cost thousands to tens of thousands to "fix" when the "issue" was never a problem. But the inspector just HAS to find a problem to justify their job no matter how insignificant or perfect the companies facility is.
And believe me.... this happens A LOT in lots of businesses. Because it's easier to just pay the small fine to satisfy the inspectors "effort" at showing up than it was to have them basically make up a problem.
@killz0ne215 Yes. My last job I had one Hell of a task trying to persuade a colleague not to give in his notice because every year he's had strips torn off him by the department boss.
We had annual appraisals, and I did try to tell him that our boss HAD to find something wrong with everyone, or HE would be in front of HIS boss explaining why he wasn't doing HIS job, by just giving everyone a pass mark.
Everyone else just stood in front of the boss, listened to the tirade, said " Yes,sir!No, sir! Three bags full, sir! Never happen again, sir!", signed there, walked out, and completely forgot about it until next year, (as did the boss...)
Tried to get my colleague to treat it like the stupidity it was, but we still lost a hard worker.
@killz0ne215 - I have been working in the pharmaceutical industry for decades, and this also happens very frequently with FDA inspectors (especially the new ones). They will cite facilities for things completely unrelated to quality in manufacturing.
You know then their focus is to justify their positions and advance their careers.
Likewise we found out that if you asked a question, you would usually get very limited responses. But if you put out false information you would get pages and pages worth of very detailed explanation why you were WRONG.
Really impressed how Jordan wrote down his question for later instead of interrupting. Take notes other debaters and listeners.
I was always toaght to shut up and listen, as you might just learn something. Then not looking to interject.
But JBP has it down to an art from his clinician days. Ty JBP
They're not debating. They both believe the same lie and are simply discussing it. Pretty easy thing to do civilly
@@collin4194 Yes, they are engaged in dialectics, leaving aside the re-cumbrance of their unconscious rampant racial rivalries. It's purpose is to more clearly reveal the question that it might then indicate the better answer; when women everywhere are dying.
@@hazchemel The ****** are you on about? What a word salad.
@@collin4194 They’re still debating. Debating is taking turns to express their opposing opinions. Effective debaters take notes to refer to when it’s their turn.
I saw Richard speak at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. He was measured, thoughtful, extremely rational, and realistic about what he, and we, know and understand about climate and what we do not.
By contrast, many of those in the audience were students in the climate policy program at IIT. They were shrill, accusatory, dismissive and completely closed minded. I realized then that these young people have committed their lives and their parent's treasure to a very specific view of reality - and ANYTHING or anyone that questioned the veracity of that view was an enemy and a threat to them.
This is not science.
The thing is, that saying we don't understand something completely and therefore we shouldn't act on anything is a bit strange. So what if your boat is filling up with water, but you cannot find if there is a leak or something. You will choose to do nothing about the water in the boat until you know exactly what the issue is? The boat might as well have sunk by then lol. First thing you would do is get bucket or a pump and get the water out of the boat, while at the same time you look for the issue. It's not so complicated after all right?
What about you do some research on both sides? Seems to me you are only looking for evidence that climate change is not real. I myself am looking at both perspectives.
Sadly, those students are the very threat to science that society cannot afford. In fact they are not scientists judging by your observations of them.
@@QuidamDePopulo What do you mean 'validated by independent checkers'? Who would qualify for that? Climate models make predictions, they are tested against real measurements. The models do better than any competing theory, unless you know otherwise? It's ironic that Lindzen had a theory that made predictions, but they turned out to be wildly wrong. So on the basis of evidence, we reject his theory and continue with mainstream climate science... that's how science works.
I agree 100%, I'm a young man and used to have my parents exact views on pretty much everything. That's changed now, but it's crazy how much influence a person's upbringing has on them.
I asked in a poll on one of channels what the percentage of CO2 was in the earths atmosphere and by a landslide people thought it was 4%.
If the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was 4%, we’d be in dire straits right now. Not many people, probably 3% or so got the right answer of 0.04% CO2.
Trouble is not many people have the wherewithal to find out for themselves and follow like sheep.
Let’s not forget that in the 70’s we were all going have frozen to death under miles ice by around this time in the 2020’s.
No consensus of mainstream climate scientists in the 1970s ever said we were headed for an imminent new Ice Age. Crackpots? Yes. Outliers? Yes. But the mainstream? Absolutely not. It's internet mythology pumped up by fossil fuel industry propaganda. See MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Sept 2008. The vast majority of scientific papers published in science journals back then were warning of global WARMING. Studies published on COOLING concerned the sun-dimming effect of our coal pollution back then, which we greatly mitigated when we passed the Clean Air Act in 1970.
Keep in mind that the fossil fuel industry funds nearly 100 climate-change-denying front groups, think tanks and websites (source: Drexel University), which work seven days a week to sow seeds of doubt about the science and the scientists. Pushing the "imminent Ice Age" mythology is just one of their many ploys.
Richard Lindzen, by the way, has been profoundy debunked in the scientific literature and by 22 of his own MIT colleagues. See "Climate Misinformtion by Source: Richard Lindzen," at the Skeptical Science website.
Yes, so what? You made a poll on one of your channels. How many of those were climate change scientists? How many just "guessed"? Besides, you're lying. Your last claim is always used by climate change deniers and I'm f* tired of it. Different people. No scientific agreement or support. No political polices were put in place to combat it. No decade long validation. How many scientists have supported that theory? Not very many. But, even though you know that, you still use it for your denial. And, did you know "The current global average concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is 421 ppm as of May 2022 (0.04%). This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to the mid-18th century." What's your take on that?
I don't know what to believe unless I see it with my own eyes. At my old job, I had receipts from that year and the prior. The physical records indicated that the current year was exceeding the prior by around 300%, meaning that my leadership was 3x more profitable for the company than the guy they had the prior year. My CEO, who didn't like me, said in our year in review meeting that there was no change in shipping, and yet I had the paperwork indicating that this was a lie. After my exit, the CEO gave a speech at the last year in review meeting that my year was the record year for the entire company's history. You can't trust anyone when money is at stake.
The oil producers make billions per week
@@mrc2384 Great!
_"If you only believe what you see, what are your schools for?"_
@@maxmustermann9587 Schools are now for brainwashing children.
Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable.
I'm an engineer and definitely understand the Coriolis effect and vector math, etc. I think if you really want to simplify it down to the average person, you just need to say "The climate is more complex than they're making it out to be and Earth isn't magically going to turn into Venus."
Yup, I never finished an engineering degree. Mathematically, if you don't factor all the variables (whether you knew x,y, or q are variables or not), your equation/conclusion will be wrong.
Nobody is saying the Earth is going to turn into Venus. The concern is that rising temperatures will lead to a cascade of events that will destroy life, and annihilate our civilization. If it gets too hot, or gets too cold, and the difference between these things increases, you're facing crop shortage for instance. And once that happens, it's game over.
That's why real scientists use complex computer models to calculate the effects of man-made co2 emissions. This guy here is a clown...
I remember when I was hearing that the earth is off its axis, I assume that was the cause. I also believe bible says turn from your wicked ways and I'll heal your land and the climate has never stopped changing.
An engineer is not a scientist. So therefore you don't understand what Peterson is trying to pretend to understand.
If my car breaks down I'm not going to pretend to be a mechanic and try to fix it. Nor am I am going self diagnose myself when I am not a doctor.
Pretending to know things that require years and years of further education leads only more to misleading information spreading around.
Peterson is simply talking nonsense here.
I appreciate Jordan touching these taboo subjects. Rarely do you see two intellectuals talking about a complex subject where one person is honestly seeking to understand.
Big words do not equal an intellectual, that takes big thoughts.
There is more of it than you think but it is suppressed by the propaganda MSM
@@MrGarymola what reason do they have to suppress this narrative? Europeans are only good at extracting oil making handbags and fancy cars.
@@kevinkelly2162 Some people do indeed get offended by the mere use of what they refer to as "big words"
@@kevinkelly2162it is pretty hard to not call people of their academic pedigree „Intellectuals“. They just are. No matter what you may think 😂
I think he actually said "If you tell a big enough lie, long enough the PEOPLE will take it as the truth". It will not BE truth, but the people who want to believe something will accept a big lie more easily than a small one.
This is not about lying. I trust Dr. Lindzen is telling what he honestly believes. And other scientists do the same. They just don't agree. Putting your trust in on person is a bit of a risk, wouldn't you say? Also, calling others "liars" is dishonest, as you should know yourself. Of course, we can all be wrong. But, ask yourself, what has greater risk? Keep polluting as we've done and do nothing or reduce carbon emissions?
Humans are susceptible to mass psychological phenomena such as popular delusions. It is a popular delusion that mans effects on the earth’s climate are significant and dangerous. It is a popular delusion that transitioning to non fossil fuel energy sources will be cheap and easy.
The quibble over semantics. 8 million Jews paid the price for the Nazi "truth". Most Germans still harbor these falsehoods 75 years later. Even this post introduces falsehoods in the narrative about the role of the effects of man releasing billions of years of sequestered carbon in the last century.🤔
Are you referring to CO2 as a pollutant?? If so, you're most ignorant. Besides, CO2 concentration FOLLOWS temperature change@andrezcabara2774
Jordan peterson is full of shit. dont believe his nonsense. i wish i could debate him on climate change.
Indeed! As a past student of geology, this is spot-on, all else is financial scammimg and the subjugation of humanity! 😡GB
See CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: RICHARD LINDZEN, at the Skeptical Science website. Then check out how 22 of his fellow MIT atmospheric scientists publicly rebuked him for his nonsense at CLIMATE CONTRARIAN GETS FACT-CHECKED BY MIT COLLEAGUES. Lindzen has admitted to doing work on behalf of OPEC, Western Fuels and Peabody Energy. Give that some thought.
A past student?
I think the worring thing is that the general public are "educated" on a daily basis by tv presenters and pseudo intellectuals with very simplistic and errornus understanding of the climate system. It is refreshing to hear someone speak on the subject who has a deeper knowledge of how the earths weather systems actually work.
Every scientific organization in the United States agrees that "the planet is getting warmer, that humans have caused it by burning so much fossil fuels, and that humans can do something about it. Whereas Lindzen is financed by the fossil fuel industry. climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
FACTS AND FIGURES THAT BACKUP CONDITIONS PLEASE NO BS.
Colleges and Universities are full educated people/students... they believe what they're lectured and are indoctrinated, blindly! They adopt whatever the populous viewpoint is and defend it - the propaganda.😎
Very few question anything anymore, or even do any alternative research.. or use 'critical thinking'
They are incapable of evaluating the logical or the truth and cannot countenance a different outcome!
Indoctrinated deranged wokism..😊
also severely educated by hollywood movies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Thank you Jordan for finding a way to not interrupt when you had something to say.
His tendency to interrupt almost made me stop watching.
Yes, I think he is really conscious about that tendency and has even joked about how he talks too much lol And yeah, I actually noticed it myself and was glad that he made notes on his sheets to remember his idea so as to then return his focus 100% on what the man was saying.
Because that man was talking about some COMPLICATED stuff lol Frankly, how complicated it is almost tuned me out of the video, but I did my best to try and listen and felt appreciative when Dr. Peterson began to interrupt but checked himself.
I truly do believe he is cognizant about it and perhaps even prays to God about it to help him stay his tongue when he wants to speak because well it could be that what he is listening to may be more important than him making a SUGGESTION of WHAT IT COULD BE, or maybe he feels like he's getting heated up because it's pretty understood that he's had enough of the climate change guff and so he's been dealing with his own personal bias the whole time which is another thing I believe he's cognizant of and doing his best to control.
And I have that bias too, the climate activists can go kick rocks or maybe should be made to eat them when they go about ruining people's day.
Yup, even a man as wise as Dr. Peterson can still be learning even about himself while over half a century old. Which gives me hope and enthusiasm for myself as I age. I'm a Millennial, and some of my generation are reaching early 40s... we ain't getting any younger lol
Dr. Peterson is a hero, and if I have any say in it, there WILL be at least one statue of him on this planet either while he lives or after he tragically goes which hopefully will not be for a good 30+ years and I hope he manages to keep his mind unlike Nietzsche had over a century ago because he'd gotten Syphilis. Even if it's just one statue, either standing or sitting, and it's on my own property (assuming I will ever be able to afford a sculptor to create a statue of Dr. Peterson). And yeah if possible I'd love to have it donated or loaned for public viewings or at a museum or whatever. Even if it ends up getting destroyed... in my opinion, he's had such an unbelievably positive influence on such an unbelievable amount of people ALL OVER THE WORLD to the point that the man has EARNED a statue, even if he'd probably blush and laugh at the mere mention of it.
No, screw you Jordan, if I am able to I will personal endeavor to manifest a statue of you... possibly while wearing that hat from a Western Canadian Native tribe that he had an artist make for him. Meaning the statue will be wearing it, not me while it is being made, although I do find that bit of grammatical ambiguity to be comical. Still, it would have more meaning than being 'for the lulz.' Check out his vid of him wearing the hat/mask and explaining its significant in that Native tribe, which are apparently called something like the Kwa-kwak-uwak.' Undoubtedly spelled different but I'm just sounding it out as best I can because I JUST watched a 2-minute clip.
And he did warn us that something was awry, which I do as well, so I guess I'm a bit of an east coast frog, eh? Just don't call me a damned Quebecer and we'll be fine lol
Loved your comment … good luck with building your homage to JP. I agree he did well to hold his tongue/curb his enthusiasm on this occasion.@@normanmccollum6082
More climate change deniers - Just wait and see if one is younger.
There was obviously some significant latency in whatever they were using to communicate, so it seemed to me that Jordan didn't realize Dr. Lindzen wasn't finished at first and the interruption was unintentional. Once he realized he had more to say, Jordan handed it back over to him. I'm positive he would have done so much quicker if they were communicating live, such as by sitting across from one another.
Thanks Dr's, well said! I prefer sensible, thoughtful people over hysterical, politically or socially driven fools.
I prefer actual science rather the opinion of one PHD that happens to make me feel better. Nothing what this guy said has been substantiated with peer review, study, or models.
So you watch one video of a guy saying something that fits your poor view and you think that's more sesible then raw data?? LMFAO!!!
@@yodaiam1000how do you know? I heard scholars do not agree with climate activism but would get fired if they push back. The machine is silencing the truth. Science is people put out theories and other scientists trying to tear it down. If it remains standing it is considered truth. That isn’t happening. Scientists are being silenced.
@@yodaiam1000 you spoke the truth and lie in the same sentence remarkable. Richard Siegmund Lindzen is the author of more than 200 scientific papers. Lindzen has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, ice ages, and seasonal atmospheric effects.'' ''Nothing that this guy said has been substantiated with peer review, study, or models.'' -The 2023 prediction of climate change was wrong did you know that( based on actual science). One analysis predicted there was a 99 percent chance that 2023 would be the hottest year since records began. But the reality turned out to be much, much worse, triggering historic droughts, floods, storms, and wildfires around the world that many nations were entirely unprepared for. I am saying the models are incomplete, not wrong and models are based on so-called climate experts input data so clearly we are missing something.
@@RoninMoviesNation Please read my post more carefully. I am claiming that nothing this guy said in the video was peer reviewed (i.e. his ideas were not confirmed by peer review). I never said he didn't have any peer reviewed papers. He actually was once well respected. What he is giving in the video is an opinion not based on a peer reviewed consensus.
Yes, 2023 was really bad. It is kind of the point. The climate sensitivity number in the models may be underestimated which is really bad for us. I agree, we are blowing by the 1.5C limit. RSL is claiming that the climate sensitivity number was overestimated which flies in the face of current evidence. His later papers regarding climate sensitivity were peer reviewed with errors discovered in the papers and his ideas were severely criticized by climate scientists. He retired in 2013 and doesn't appear to be up to date with the current information.
BTW, he was funded by fossil fuel interests. His opinions are not unbiased and have not withstood peer review.
The only greenhouse gas that keeps the heat from the sun, thus keeping us at a livable temp around the clock, is water vapor. CO2 is plant food. Very important plant food. The more we have, the greener the planet gets. There's a reason greenhouses add it to their growing operations. Our food system depends on it.
You also need food to survive, but try eating 20 pounds of food everyday and see what happens? The fact that something is NEEDED does NOT mean that it scales 1:1.
Sure you don’t mean clouds, clouds are not vapor, it’s an aerosol and that makes things different 😉
Name me some green houses that add CO2. Name where they get their CO2.
@@serioustoday Do a short Google research with „Carbon dioxide fertilization greenhouse“. When you search for topic related companies, an example is „DutchGreenhouse“ as supplier. What company’s use this product - nearly every one that is in C3 plants - google „ Calvin plants“ , that are for example wheat, rye, barley, oats, potatoes, soybeans, hemp or rice as well as all tree species worldwide….
@@serioustoday When you search for company’s that deliver CO2 supply for greenhouses an example is „DutchGreenhouses“ - look for „CO2 enrichment“ in combination. Who use this? Every Company that is in „C3-Plants“ or „Calvin-Plants“. What plants fits in this category?
„90 percent of all land plants belong to the C3 plants, especially in the middle and high latitudes. Examples of C3 crops are wheat, rye, barley, oats, potatoes, soybeans, hemp or rice as well as all tree species worldwide, while C4 plants include corn, sugar cane and millet.“ Why did. they do it? Because they reach their maximum Photosynthesis rate buw. Growth rate far beyond 1000ppm CO2. Atmosphäre has now a bit over 400 ppm CO2…Common are 1500ppm in Greenhouses, that increases growth-rate from 40% to over 100% and that means more food and more money…
"Never let a good crisis go to waste" if there's money to be made. If not, create one.
Word salad.
I really enjoy listening to Dr. Lindzen. Please have him back again. Thanks to the crazy greenies we have to become educated on climate!
so why don't you?
im glad someone can actually explain whats going on. im so tired of overly simplified answers!
*distracted by climate
Just ignore the millions of years myth and the info hre presents is good.
So summarise what you've learned from this video
As a Mortarman from the ARMY (smart infantry) we have to use the coreolis effect because of the propulsion aspect of our mortars with such long hang-time. Even smart people are clueless when i start to explain to them what dynamics if the coreolis effect is.
Very good focus on thermodynamics as the drivers of climate with two zones, tropic and above tropic. And the 1.5 degree change comment as the difference between breakfast and lunch is priceless.
Yeah, I was willing to listen to him present his theory, until he dropped the 1.5 degree breakfast bomb. He lost all credibility with that statement.
That was the point. His job is to create doubt about the actual science.
@user666mega or he just showed the hysteria for what it is. Especially blowing up the current models that do not restrain a system back to balance. Equilibrium is a very valid critique of the prevailing model supported by world governments that incidentally want to have bigger budgets and be more intrusive by nature
@@jdmiller24 I'm not sure what you mean. His breakfast bomb is exposing him as a hack, because he is comparing apples to oranges. His claim boils down to "global warning is not something to worry about, because it's only 1.5 degrees, and humans hardly notice 1.5 degrees."
This is a fallacy on multiple levels:
1. Nobody ever claimed people will suffer due to 1.5 degree difference in their home town. The claim is that 1.5 is enough to destabilize the current ecosystem balance.
2. 1.5 __average__ is not 1.5 in your home town. It means your hometown can become 50 degrees warmer while somewhere in China it will get 48.5 degrees colder.
3. The problem is not even the 1.5 degree change, it's that once it gets to 1.5, it's irreversible. So nobody cares about it getting 1.5 degree warmer, people care about not going over the threshold of no return.
As you can see, his statement doesn't even try to refute any of this, he just says something completely unrelated and pointless.
@@jdmiller24 Science is not hysteria. What do you think are the odds of all the thousands of peer reviewed and verified models, data etc being wrong or this one guy is right? He is giving a non-peer reviewed opinion and it just so happens that he has been compensated by the fossil fuel industry.
What would we do without Jordan's positive voice in the world?! So grateful for this man!
He's just not smart enough to understand climate science by the looks of it.
Dude he's a moron, He doesn't even understand the experimental method. He was, after all, only a BA. They don't do the maths bits.
@@Andy-wn6wmNot having enough knowledge about a specialist subject does not mean one is not smart enough to understand that said subject. It seems you’re just another JP detractor. JP is certainly smart enough to understand the presentation of Dr Linzen
@@Andy-wn6wm hes doing the best he can/ scientifically minded psycologists are probably a no
I find authoritarians need someone to be an authority over them. They have to obey or listen to a 'super brain authority' instead of a solid argument@@Andy-wn6wm The solid argument is ignored in favour of the 'expert' that has been labelled as the establishment expert.
Maybe you don't just say the word 'science?" Maybe you say, "the science?" Do you follow the science? Does these sound like cult indoctrination questions? Maybe you have developed a loyalty due to related messaging? Or maybe you just need a super brain authority that will assure you that you can trust their super brain and never have to understand an argument's logic?
Logic is impossible when you switch the meanings of all the words. It creates a world where nothing is true... only power.
The people on the left that say there is no truth are very dogmatic about what we have to believe.. isn't that funny?
The "deep water horizon" oil spill perturbed the system of the Gulf of Mexico. It was predicted that the GoM system was supposed to be ruined for decades. Wrong, the system dealt with the problem for more effectively than man could imagine or understand. We also learned that the oil is really just an organic product of earth.
Oil is organ ic
The last sentence is non sequitur. The organic nature of oil really has nothing to do with its toxicity. Estimates of environmental damage being greater than the actual outcome is not uncommon but more good luck than good design, but ultimately there will be some species still struggling to deal with the PAH left over the long-term
The earh produces oil continuesly...its not a fossil fuel as labelled by Rockafeller.p
@@mattmcdonald7112 You’re simply erasing his point and rationalising environmental ignorance. That historic spill was the largest ever to be closely, even minutely, observed. Because of it, the recognition that natural seepage of oil into the ocean is very large and ongoing, and yet nature manages this into insignificance all the time. And therefore, an environmental disaster is understood to be a blip and a modest matter at worst (eg, bird kill). Our assessment angle is modified by better understood facts.
Just like the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Completely recovered. The Earth will be fine. It's us humans who are on thin ice.
Thanks for the video. Keep up the great work. God bless.
Le Chatelier's principle is a principle of chemistry:
"When external modifications brought to a physico-chemical system in equilibrium cause an evolution towards a new state of equilibrium, the evolution opposes the disturbances that have generated it and moderates their effect."
This principle is only true for the intensive parameters that condition equilibrium. There are counter-examples for extensive parameters.
It is therefore not generally applicable here, since the parameters are so diverse and not necessarily intensive.
I would never use Le Chatelier's principle to describe what he's referring to, and it's sloppy of him to use it here but I try to focus on the point he's making, not semantics.
I have been working in agriculture and habitat restoration for 20 years and I can tell you there is not even a reliable correlation between temperature changes of 1-5 degrees and loss of biodiversity.
The so called "mass extinction" that is occurring now is by all evidence just a continuation of the ending of our current ice-age, which we are still on the tail end of. Had there been an astute observer with access to the data we have today living 500 years ago, they would have said "Oh that took longer than expected" rather than expressing alarm. The small impact humans are having on the overall climate cycle on the planet is well within the bounds of fluctuations which have been occurring for ~50,000 years. We are likely to see accelerated changes in weather patterns and dramatic changes in ocean currents over the coming 100-200 years however mostly due to the change in earths magnetic field which has just begun to accelerate and increased output from our sun. The most likely result is a wetter, warmer earth with extremely elevated plant growth. Assuming we don't poison ourselves or nuke ourselves to death, it will be a time of great abundance.
The single largest contributor to direct harm to biodiversity and agriculture I see from human forces in examples from Ethiopia to New York is human chemical use. Pesticides, Herbicides, and chemicals used in industry, including solar panels and battery systems. Most of these chemicals are also totally optional and the benefits to crop yields shown by the use of industrial pesticides is also bad science, almost exclusively conducted by the industry itself. Forget carbon - carbon is life. Focus on the actual toxic chemicals we freely pump into the planet and ourselves.
Exactly. Well done!
Thank you. Additionally, I would say that the direction most countries are going in with their climate policy agendas are not going to have any positive impact, and will just make poor people less free and more at the mercy of bureaucracy. Which is of course the point.
@@TwoKnowingRavens I’d take it even a step further. The very policies that aim to “save” the environment will actually do more harm than doing nothing at all. Take solar panels, for instance. The manufacturing process sends Nitrogen Trifluoride into the atmosphere, a greenhouse gas 17,000x more potent than CO2. Then solar panels have to be recycled every 15-20 years or so, which is toxic too.
It it also appears many bird species have issues with solar plants. There was a study in California recently that showed, IIRC, 11 of 21 bird species had their populations drop by at least 20% where green energy sources were located.
@@TwoKnowingRavens at this point the deindustrialization of the west is desirable we have gay people we import brown people I don’t want them inheriting anything of value frankly if Florida got flooded in many cities in the south destroyed, I would be happy brown people would inherit less
What I have gathered is that the changing of the tilt of the earth's axis which is a cycle plus several different solar cycles have more to do with climate change than anything....there was a mini ice age around 400 yrs ago which is due again as seen thruout recorded history.
I remember back when i was in school all the talk was of the coming ice age. THEIR study done in the sixties at iron mountain in the usa called the iron mountain study, says that one of the things to keep populations in check is to have climate fears. And constant war was another.
I remember that & another time the population explosion, now it's the opposite the climate age age - that's three in 20 yrs and 20 yrs is a very short time. Seems like they need to have something to focus on, maybe to put the fear in the people....
@@hazelbingle4904 that's exactly right! The worst thing is if you try and tell people this they think your a nutter. Like something is wrong with you.
The Report from Iron Mountain was slapped with the label of "satire" about 4 years after it was leaked by whatever administration was in power at that time. By trying to convince everyone that it wasn't a serious endeavor they gave it an ISBN# and made it for sale to make it look like a fictional "what if" story. It included the scenarios you just mentioned and also advocated highlighting religious extremism fears and fear of alien invasion!!! What was in the news in 2022 and 2023? A big uptick in UFOs being sighted everywhere in different areas of the world! It's amazing, they wait long enough for one generation to forget/die off and assume (rightly so) that the new generation will know nothing about The Report from Iron Mountain. I google searched Iron Mountain every few years and watched the rhetoric go from "we should be worried about this" to "it's been proven to be a hoax" but as decades go by, what they recommended in the 60's has been put into practice, the latest being the focus on UFOs to distract us from what they're trying to do to the masses. Just like my astronomy professor told me (in the early 2000's), everything the climate doomsayers say that human-generated CO2 will cause is actually going to be caused by the Grand Solar Minimum and astronomers have known this for decades. But they're supposed to supress that fact because that is "sun-caused" and not "human-caused", which would go against blaming humans rather than the real culprit...the sun. Do we impact the earth? Of course, we're here, but our impact on climate is very minimal and you can't get money from the sun so our governments (under direction from The World Economic Forum), try to scare us and convince us that we're the problem...not the sun.
@@maximusmeridius6610 That's because something is. It's called lack of education.
@@hazelbingle4904 It's actually four: 1. Population Bomb, 2. Global Cooling, 3. Global Warming, 4. Climate Change.
It's important to point out the rebranding of everything under the vague umbrella of 'climate change'. It was such a brilliant move to avoid being wrong by using the same term as a natural process that it can literally apply to anything (which is what's been done with it).
It's like the most ideal product you could sell on a market - a blank space that's filled in with whatever works at the moment by both the people selling it and the ones buying it.
Here in the UK, the Met office, responsible for weather reporting were caught taking temp readings on the tarmac at one of the London airports. Yesterday, the Buggers Broadcasting Crap reported that last year was the hottest year on record. Kinda hard to take them seriously, yet theyre still respected as a news source.
I challenge you to come up with a respectable source for the claim to take temp readings from tarmac. That is a bullshit claim. Also this is about AVERAGE GLOBAL Temperature rising. Over 30 years or it is weather not climate. so what is with the former years. After all all the measuring stations are known, it is public information. They are not positioned on the street on the tarmac !
Two thirds of the planet are covered by oceans. And water stores heat well, better than land. The ocean temps are rising, even in 2000 m it is warmer now. There is no tarmac that you can blame for those higher temperatures.
Cite your source, James. I'd love to see it. Last year was indeed the hottest on record for the WORLD. For the UK, it was the second-warmest. The BBC is far more accurate and honest than Murdoch newspapers. Murdoch co-owns a fossil fuel company, Genie Energy, and sits on their board. It's why every one of his over 500 media outlets worldwide downplay or outright ridicule climate science and renewable energy.
By the way, James, the Arctic is warming three times faster than the rest of the world, in locations thousands of miles from civilization.
One nightly BBC prediction was that Athens the following day would break its 1977 temperature record of 48C. It reached 43C and they didn't mention it. It was on 23 July 2023. So a lot of people think it did.
@@yasi4877 Meteorologists never say a place WILL break a temeprature record the next day; they always say it COULD or it MAY. And you do know that global warming also existed in 1977, right? This is why we measure temperature around the world over long periods to determine if the entire globe is warming. One location will always have lots of ups and downs. The reality is revealed in the long-term and global statistics. Record hot temperatures, in fact, are now outpacing record cold by a 2 to 1 margin. Ten of the last ten years were the warmest on record, and the previous decade was warmer than the one before that, and that decade was warmer than the one that precded it. What does that tell us?
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 I worked in Kuwait in 52C temperatures in the summer. Birds bred on my windowsill. After the heat of the day an early evening walk or jog along the corniche was a pleasure. I also worked in Arctic conditions to -30C. I will take 52C gladly to -30C. But higher CO2 does not increase temperature. Temperature increases CO2. I also have experience working in greenhouses. Added CO2 increased plant growth but did not heat up the interior of the greenhouse.
Here is a note from the Museum of history in Paris.
"More than 6000 years ago, during the Mesolithic period, the climate became increasingly warmer. Forests spread and animals became more plentiful. Humans living as hunter gatherers set up camps and thrived".
Note that Dr. Lindzen does not not deny that the greenhouse effect is real and is exacerbated by CO2 concentration. He points out mistakes in “the narrative” but does not mention that he has admitted “gross mistakes” in his own articles.
It's honestly sad seeing this subject matter considered taboo by the mainstream media. And what I love about Dr. Jordan Peterson is how he actually seeks out the truth whenever possible, especially when he knows deep down that there's something missing about what he currently understands about reality.
Jordan Peterson is a philosoph...what does he know about climate change or weather...ask someone who is informed about this topic...climate change is real
No evidence of any kind is shown in this video, all the guy did is sprinkle some doubt because everything is far more complex blabla. Plus, Dr. Peterson didn't seem convinced at all about what the guy saying lol.
Yes and as you describe him, that is vanishing rare among the human and sine qua non of that disciple who will find satisfaction and revelation, surely even rarer, the exquisitely refined Doctor is a creature uncommon and a gold star for the culture that birthed and suckled his evidently Transcanadian ass, may Our Sweet Lord have Mercy on his bed-making psychoanalytical soul.
Does he seek the truth, or does he seek out people with credentials who are willing to push fringe view points that he knows his viewer base will eat up? Seeking the truth would mean hearing more conventional views on this issue as well and adding context. While there's nothing wrong with hearing other views, the context you are missing is the 98% of other climate scientists who disagree with this guy, that Peterson won't interview.
Jordan's first foray into climate science was posting a partial graph that showed global temperatures weren't warming. The whole graph showed they were. This half graph had been debunked well over a decade ago.
That suit Jordan is wearing is 10/10
It is fly tho fr fr 🔥
Man's looking sharp
He has a tie that is the logo you see on his website and lecture series. Very cool as well.
Yea, they polished him up a bunch when he joined "Daily Wire"...he's looked like a million bucks ever since...I'll bet he's wearing the "Rolex Presidential" too...lol
Tbf he always looks sharp.
Congratulations on the "Context" box from the purveyors of pure truth.
Yes, it's based on the eleven studies that confirm the scientific consensus on climate change and the latest survey of over 88000 climate studies conducted by Cornell University, which tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving today's climate change. If you didn't know that, then the context box is there for you.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 When you see a figure like 99.9% you have to believe it comes from the Ministry of Truth.
Holy crap! After mangling La Chat's principle, he goes on to deny that there is a vertical component to the circulation of air! (Google Hadley cell, Ferrel cell and Polar Cell) . This person then goes on to claim that for some reason the functioning of the climate then has something to so with how the climate works. This is like claiming that HOW your car works has something to do with WHAT the results will be. This is like claiming that if you run 10 minutes a day that you will lose the same weight as if you run 15 minutes a day because running is the same motion.
What he means is, the *premise*. They slid the premise past while everyone argued about minor errors. Everyone has accepted the *premise*, and now they’re just arguing details. It’s a classic head fake.
Fantastic to see Dr. Lindzen after about 15 years for me. He was in a 2007 documentary that debunked Al Gore's lies.
Not to mention that Al Gore promised we all die in 2013 LOL. WE all need to bring this scammer into the front of the world and ask him why we all still here. Not to mention Noble prize ppl who gave him Nobel prize for something he did not invent, and even made a movie himself, but just paid for nonscientific science fiction lie of the movie. Steven Spielberg might as well get Nobel Prize for his "Artificial Intelligence" movie, at least he made this movie.
@@krasavam1625 I thought Gore was just collecting all those sweet climate credits and reselling them, etc. That is, when he is not collecting royalties for inventing the internet 😉
@@happyzahn8031 yes that's too LOL
Yes, and 20 y/o and younger don't even suspect that they would never get born after 2013 LMAO
Yep - the Great Global Warming Swindle.
I don't see the connection between the Coriolis effect 'breaking' the climate narrative. He spends half of the time talking about the Coriolis effect. Then at around 6:26 he says there is no basis for polar amplification of the greenhouse effect. But that is what we are seeing. We ARE seeing polar amplification especially in the Arctic regions. The physical reasons are due to feedbacks caused by decreasing ice and snow cover being replaced by the darker ocean which causes more warming becaue less sunlight is being reflect off the darker surface. As warm moist air is transported to the Arctic from the mid-latitudes, cloud cover increases as moist air condences, releasing more heat. The cloud cover causes a decrease in outgoing radiation reflecting more heat back towards the earth. With respect to the mere 1.5 degree warming, that is an average over the whole earth, most of which is covered by ocean. Land temperatures are much higher than over the oceans because the oceans have a higher thermal inertia. Just a few days ago Thailand (which is in the tropics) recorded temperatures above 52 degrees resulting in 61 heat-related deaths. 1.5 degrees is a global average. Actual local temperatures on land at a specific time and place vary by much more than that. 2023 was the hottest year globally averaged since over 100,000 years ago. Modern agriculture has only existed over the past 10,000 years when temperatures have been quite stable. Our food systems are set up for the current climate.
We can acknowledge that climate change is a very complicated issue and that it is also occurring very rapidly at the moment (in geographical historical scale). Notwithstanding the extreme complexity and lack of fine-tuned understanding, the available current observational data and rapid change in these measurable variables is frightening.
With all respect.. where, rapidly?
I'm old enough to remember Global warming, and the warning of Flooding,
Thanks for any and all replies
@@AtZero138 Thank you for the respectful question. My understanding of these things is that over the history of the Earth the climate has changed relatively slowly (changes over thousands of years is incredibly quick). These changes are not supposed to be trends that are easily observed over a single human's lifespan. The observed data of retreating ice coverage, increasing acidity of the world's oceans, increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and many other pertinent variables all point to observable trends in the past 100 years -- very rapid change geologically speaking. The only times in scientific estimation that this would have occurred in the past is coincident with extinction level events, such as huge asteroids impacting Earth or mega-volcanoes erupting simultaneously and spewing enough dust into the air for years on end to significantly block out the sun.
@@sweetbizil 1816 so called the Year without a Summer, as for unavoidable events etc,
Can any or all Climate change theory be another unavoidable factor in relation to the Event called Solar Cycle, fascinating how the Sun will, move in a way that causes it to change the part of the Sun we are facing...
More Solar Flares, more Black spots currently facing earth..
Thank you again for the discussion..
@@AtZero138 Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I do believe that there are natural cycles to the climate caused by the sun and other planetary forces, but they do not account for how quickly we observe the climate to be changing right now. They are slower processes from my understanding. I would also be wary of putting to much importance on single years and the weather that transpired. I am much more worried about the fact that a large majority of the hottest years in the last 100 have occurred in the past decade. Overall trends are more informative than single data points.
@@sweetbizil you are misinformed there is no evidence off the climate been hotter than previous years. Look Dr Christy up his job is to gather the facts and figures on climate
Thank you, Jordan and Richard. The world needs to hear the truth once in awhile.
That's true -- but you're not getting it here.
Yes, especially after all the lies we've had from the FF industry over the last 40 years
We won't be hearing it from them
Ya. If it agrees with you it must be the truth.
@@RobertCampsall Where do you get the truth?
The co2 levels shown in ice core samples directly contradict the current narrative regarding co2. Gregg Braden (geologist) has some great stuff on it.
Is that the one about CO2 levels rising after the rise in temperature? Not before as they have consistently stated.
It's all rubbish anyway as CO2 levels have been many times higher than now, in prehistoric times when there were no people around.
AND if levels did fall to half what they are now then life in this planet would start to disappear as it's all dependent ultimately on CO2. And water. And sunlight. Plant respiration /carbohydrate and O2 production cycle.
How so ?
Do the research ..
not to mention that carbon increases in core samples increased AFTER the rising of average temp. It wasnt a driver, it was a result.
Yeah, the ice core data was read backwards for political reasons. Increase ocean surface temperature releases CO2 into the atmosphere from the ocean. About a 500 year lag. Take your beer out of the fridge and see what happens two hours later.
Thanks!
Keep up the good work Mr Jordan and may God give you wisdom
Thanks for posting this. People are so quick to shame others when they don't agree with the current belief. From the late 50's to the early 80's almost all of the climate experts were predicting an ice age within the decade. You couldn't debate that either.
Thanx for the red herring..
Thanks for posting the absolute truth.
@@williamfriar6295this is not true.
@@MrakSI'm 71 and the " ice age is upon us" story is absolutely what all news magazines, newspapers, schools, etc. preached for 15 or 20 years. Just like Lying Al Gore said we'd all be under water in 10 years. That was 25 years ago and I'm still dry.😅
@@johnchandler1687 I saw it in a newspaper once and nowhere else. Maybe you have bad schooling wherever you are. The fact remains that climate change is real and affecting your life now. Just because people don't want to admit it doesn't mean it ain't true. I get the impression they think it's a political issue. "Lefties" say it's true so we must say it's false.
Climate Science always looks for positive feedback mechanisms while ignoring negative feedback mechanisms. This leads to a world view of an inherently super unstable ready-to-collapse climate.
But we have an embarrassing data point. We exist. If climate was so inherently unstable we wouldn't exist.
There's plenty of evidence that cataclysmic events have happened in the past. We aren't concerned with the earth destroying itself. We're concerned with the climates effect on society.
The ice age clearly happened and we exist. Yet if it were to happen today, I imagine we wouldn't fare too well. Similarly, the younger dryas impact likely happened and likely too down many societies with it.
@@deelowe3so true. And one thing that triggers me (yeah I have issues) is people saying their experience tells there everything is fine. As if we live long enough and in many places to take note of global climate change. A friend once told me she didn't believe in the covid pandemic because she didn't see people dying on the streets. While literally every doctor friend of mine were telling me about the people in the hospitals. The issue is the media make things sound like a disaster is about to kill us all, and people get tired and desensitised.
truth
This is despite the acceptance that more Co2 help plants survive on less water, and the earth is a lot greener than twenty years ago. If the deserts shrink with more Co2 in the atmosphere and irrigating the land helps plants and trees in particular create a cooling effect then why the F**K are we not demanding that our governments build desalination plants to irrigate the land? eg - Israel has built an enormous irrigation project using the the largest water desalination plant in the world and from what was a scrubby patch of dust on the eastern Mediterranean, they now have fertile land and a surplus of water. They are exporting this water technology to their friendlier neighbours. Surely we should be offering to build plants like this in parched areas of the world to allow people to grow their own crops? and wouldn’t this encourage them to stay to help build their own economies rather than risk their lives to congregate in ever smaller areas of the planet? One other thing - if the Eco alarmists are telling that we can’t rear farm animals we wont have animal manure to fertilise and improve the soil - (but they also preach we can’t use fossil fuels to produce alternative fertilisers) how are we going to feed 7 billion people at present - let alone a predicted 9 billion?
No. With regard to the temperature rise caused by the increase in CO2 concentration, the primary negative feedback is increased cloud cover caused by a warmer atmosphere holding more moisture. That is taken into account.
Thx
Thank you for this
For their misinformation, you mean?
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 aah a brainwashed Cancel Culture nut, eh?
Great content! It’s like a breath of fresh air to hear reasonable and honest people speak.
Jordan Peterson Honest? tucker Carlson can help you with the rest of the truths you're seeking as well
JP is neither, just an apologist for the FF industry
Fresh air that smells like BS
You're watching the wrong video for that
You think people who believe in climate change are not reasonable and honest? If so, that's your first problem and probably why you're siding with possibly the lunatic fringe.
I love that Jordan lets the scientist fully explain his views without interrupting, even when some interruption may have been beneficial in clarifying what he was saying.
No kidding. I'm not sure Jordan was wanting to listen to a filibuster. I got lost about halfway through it.
@@theycallmehoipilloi5495 The benefit of video is we can go back and listen again when we are dealing with a dense packet of information like this.
'dense' also means 'stupid' so I guess I agree@@dallassukerkin6878
Thx Dr J. Peterson!, I am sure U know, how important you R even due they won’t allow U to teach but now U have millions of students that actually want to know and not for a grads!!🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️👌👍🤞✌️
Key to understand the difference between positive and negative feedback before watching.
We are not being told the truth about climate changing claims. More functional explanations with an objective outlook , such as this, are needed for better understanding.
Keep dreaming
We cannot say a thing against the accepted truth.
Its tax credits for everything solar, EV, ERechargers, etc. Govs Print money and play with it without any kind of concern. Perfect excuse its the end of the world.
For someone who wants just to live a simple life gets harder & harder. I cant afford a home but my taxes are great to support the transition of others.
@@bolsadavalores2069tissue?
@@pjaworek6793 do not worry , we will survive without you.
@@pjaworek6793 tp?
Thank you for this clip. I remember this full interview and it's one of my favorites. I've written on Reddit discussions several times citing his experience with the climate narrative. Sharing this clip is going to be a lot easier than the full episode.
don't look at narratives, look at data. The world is warming up.
One fantastic resource for data is Tony Heller, a scientist who left his job out of alarm at the narrative to work full time to dispel the lies and deception, and he's done a great job. His video "My Gift to Climate Alarmists" is illuminating. He also took the public record of NOAA's temperature readings and adjustments for the last 100 years and graphed the adjustments against CO2 levels at the time of the reading. What becomes immediately apparent and is very disturbing is that the more the CO2 level is above 380ppm, the greater the adjustment upward, and the more more the C)2 level is below 380ppm, the greater the adjustment downward. Now we know that CO2 at any percentage will not press down or ease up on the mercury inside a thermometer, and even if it could, would not do so in opposite directions! So what NOAA are doing is manipulating the temperature record to follow CO2 levels, which is criminal.
@@greatbriton8425 ?? then what is responsible for global warming & climate change, methane release?
Pollution is really nasty and bad and causes cancer, heart disease and medical problems. It doesn't matter whether humans are causing "global warming"; humans are causing pollution and it must be stopped immediately.
@@douglasfrazier2856It isn't, though. I'm not sure whether you're lying or gullible, but it is NOT approaching any critical, new/abnormally problematic, permanent, "crisis" (to use the new alarmist term that they'll milk for a while before inventing a new one) level or any of that crap. Not even by the alarmist "scientists'" own data, let alone the honest data.
FYI, the UA-cam "fact check" is a debunked lie. There's no ACTUAL science proving humans are the "main" cause of warning and never was, even if we buy the rest of the narrative. The amount of supposed greenhouse stuff (by their own theories) released by, say, a single volcanic eruption dwarfs ALL human activity combined.
Very interesting, but Im not convinced the coriolis effect is as strong as you suggest, how would that explain the El Niño current and temperature reversals?
Dr Peterson does a great job interviewing. I would like to see more
He does a terrible job of interviewing. He never asks Lindzen about the money he has received from OPEC, Western Fuels or Peabody Energy. He never asks why 22 atmospheric scientists from his own MIT publicly rebuked him for spreading propaganda. He never asks why he is so profoundly debunked in the scientific literature. Not a single hardball question.
This explains why we can't let them close down the open debate which teases out the truth.
You don't need to tease it out, it's all around you - from every drought to every flood to every heatwave to every crop failure. You just need to open your eyes.
@@timothyrussell4445 Sorry for you
Save your pity for those more deserving of it - like African children dying from hunger because there's no rain to grow their crops@@asanulsterman1025
Thank you for one of the best explanations I've heard for why the UN and the Climate Alarmists have a 50 yr track record of failed climate predictions.
"Thank you for one of the best explanations I've heard for why the UN and the Climate Alarmists have a 50 yr track record of failed climate predictions." Uhhh, 17 different climate models have quite accurately predicted how much our emissions would warm the planet for the last 20-40 years. If anything, IPCC reports tend to understate how bad things are.
And the earth is flat and vaccines are wildly dangerous and evolution doesn't exist. /s
@@karlwheatley1244 In 1988, the artic ocean was supposed to be ice free, Florida, Louisiana, the Maldives and Holland were supposed to be underwater. Didn't happen. Then it was 1999. Didn't happen. Then it was 207. Didn't happen. Then it was 2013. Didn't happen. Then 2017. Didn't happen. The glaciers in Glacier National Park were supposed to be gone by 2020. Their still there. Last year it was predicted that the Honga Tonga eruption would cause substantial warming in the southern hemisphere. There was substantial cooling. The earth is going through natural cooling and warming cycles due to the sun. It should be noted that Mars is warming up along with Earth. And Paleoclimatoligists have found not correlation between global mean temperature and global Co2 levels occurring in the past 400 million years. They both do what they want. That's my answer to your point.
@@karlwheatley1244Sources, please.
Did you tell wee Greta?
She'll be delighted, no?
Good content
Lindzen has been totally debunked in the scientific literature and by his peers at MIT. Jordan Peterson is not a climate scientist.
Nice calming voice to fall asleep
I think the worst part about this ordeal is that there are parts of the world that do have environmental crises caused by humans distinct from the idea of climate change and the fact that there's an industry peddling bs is only distracting from the areas that really need our attention and diminishing the volume and credibility of the voices trying to help.
That 'industry' is the fourth Reich, headed by a German lunatic
Good point. I don’t believe in the climate crisis but there is still a vehicle pollution problem that can cause negative health effects when people breathe in all those fumes.
@@benedictcumberbatch4275 vehicle? you should look into the pollution chemical plants put out, any factory really. its insane what they allow into the water and air. i think they need to fix the toxic chemicals thy put into everything before they start trying to change the weather. theres too much to weather for us to be able to control it, but we can definitely control the toxic chemicals that are pumped out
Yeah the private jets the yachts the industry sector. The drilling for oil On & on but hay hit the population with ULEZ restrict movement & freedom of the little people. While the establishment do fuck all xx
@@benedictcumberbatch4275 Agree, keeping toxins out of our environment is a no brainer.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the global weather, but the less pollution, the better to a point.
I must say , for a man that said it's complicated to explain he sure does it with grace and common sense !
Lindzen's theory of QBO, what he is know for, is rubbish and it's actually just lunar tidal forces.
when this man says something obvious and what is already modeled into climate models and people are so ignorant that thinks that its going to cap global warming XD .
@@patryknowak6470 Except that no climate model yet devised has been remotely accurate. My problems with this global warming situation are:
1. If Global Warming Catastrophe predictions was a mistake, however honest originally, Governments and International Organizations are so invested in them, that even if it was glaringly obvious that the whole thing was a mistake, it could never see the light of day. People would be so outraged that their standard of living and lived had been so degraded over a lie, chaos would ensue. Rather like the USA Russia Hoax, far better to keep it going than to admit it was all a mistake. The Democratic Party in the USA would pretty much have to disband for example.
2. There have been too many smaller mistakes. The whole idea of NET Zero or even 15% Net Zero, is mathematically impossible, there isn't enough copper or Lithium in the world and the cost of mining it is such that it gets more power intensive to convert to renewables and sustain them, than to stick with oil. Similarly oil doesn't just produce power, we rely on plastics and synthetic rubber, the cost of replacing them needs to be factored in. We haven't taken into account the beneficial effects of more Carbon and more water vapor in the atmosphere, and so on. There are no retractions on these "mistakes" in climate models and remedial actions.
3. There is too much lying on data points that are easily fact checked. If people are openly lying and proven to be lying, on things like historic catastrophic weather effects, hurricane frequency and intensity, and the impact of climate change, then how can we trust that they are not lying on the whole premise of climate catastrophe itself. The same goes for the models and predictions. They keep getting them wrong, without any real explanation of why they were wrong. The whole debate isn't open and honest, and that does not promote confidence and trust, in fact the opposite.
4. The people promoting the whole climate catastrophe argument are all the sort of people that you wouldn't trust to look after your cat for the day, let alone the sort of people you can have a rational conversation with about the weather. These people insulate the people who seem to think they know what is going on, and argue with pure emotion and almost entirely in logical fallacies, terminating their comments with insults and things like LOL and XD. The fact that the people in charge feel that this is best for them, is very worrying.
5. We have seen from other scientific issues, like the COVID pandemic, and transgender medicine, that the people in charge do lie, and pretend that science supports their case when it doesn't; and they are prepared to manipulate statistics and data to prove what they want to prove. The people in charge of us _are_ liars, and they do deceive. They are also quite able to pay for scientists to say whatever they want them to say. So why trust them on climate change?
Simple explanations of things that are complicated can often be misleading
Just because it is complex does not mean we can just fuck up the planet. Pollute oceans, kill whales, erode coral reefs, deforest entire swath of land, pollute the air beyond what is breathable, kill animals and disbalance entire ecosystems. I could go on but I hope you get the idea.
I grew up in ontario where it could be 40C in the summer and -40 in the winter. If all of our native creatures can successfully adapt to those conditions, do we really believe that a net average shift of +1.5C is suddenly going to doom them? That's absurd... obviously!
Small changes can make a big difference. Because ticks are surviving through more and more winters, moose are ending up covered from head to toe with them. Wardens sometimes find dead moose with as many as 70,000 ticks on them. The calves can't survive the blood loss and die. See WINTER TICKS WIPED OUT NEARLY 90% OF MOOSE CALVES.
A marine heatwave last year off Alaska killed 10 billion snow crabs. Because of warming waters, the shrimp fishery off Maine has completely collapsed. More than a billion marine animals perished in the marine heatwave off Washington state last year.
Hot and dry conditions can actually damage the DNA of young birds in their nests, causing shorter lifespans, less mating and fewer offspring.
The number of polar bears living in the areas of melting ice are experiencing dwindling numbers. In recent years, polar bears in the Beaufort Sea have had to travel far outside of their traditional Arctic hunting grounds which has contributed to an almost 30% decrease in their population," according to a study by Washington State University, as reported in Science Daily, Dec 14, 2021. The bears have been forced to move further and further north as the southern ice continues to melt away. Hudson Bay had over 1200 bears in the 1980s but just 800 today, according to the most recent counts. (Source: Phys.org, Sep 29, 2022)
I lived in Kuwait where summer temps regularly exceed 52C in the shade. Native doves still nested on windowsills and raised young successfully. In construction we made preparation during the day and poured concrete at night using chilled water. I also worked in Arctic conditions and I would prefer 52C to -30C any day.
Nature is very adaptive!
nature doesn't adapt, they migrate. We only have to turn on our ACs.
The truth is that the average animal, us included, or average plant on the average day won't be effected by a small increase in temperature. But the most vulnerable at the most extreme end would be effected, massively. The amount of people who can't get access to clean water would increase by millions, same with access to food. Wildfire would increase so would drought and all the other things we hear about. Everyone saying global warming is not a problem are saying so from a privileged position knowing, maybe naively, that they will be OK.
All of this is fantastic, but he never explains how come that the rate at which the temperature is increasing nowadays is so rapid that has been never observed before in the history of earth.
the temperature is not rising but by fractions of a degree
Most of the global temp increase of the past 100 years occurred before 1940. There is actually a movement to "adjust" the high temps of the 1930's downward. Same for past warming periods in the Middle Ages and in Roman Times, because they don't fit the narrative.
What a breath of fresh air with knowledge not political polemics.
I liked his point about pock marking a theory with errors. It has the effect of getting people engaged in debate. As long as their is debate it lends credibility to the overall hypothesis. Most people will then assume the truth lies between the two extremes. Disinterest is a killer.
The trans movement has utilized this technique by debating whether it is 'right' to transition children thereby surrendering the truth that it is impossible to surgically change a man into a woman or vice versa.
Look what happened to a code rain - disinterest may have killed that problem as much as cleaning up emissions- but it was supposed to be the problem of the future.
Its very close to a method of propaganda called 60-40.
So what does affect the increase or decrease of the temperature difference between the poles and tropics other than greenhouse gasses?
This was interesting. This knowledge arms many to counter the climate crazies.
Lindzen has been roundly debunked by his colleagues.
Are there really so few honest men that actually understand this?
I'm not a genius nor a climate scientist and didn't have the words to communicate this, but I already knew this as do many others.
There has to be others like this guy that have the words.
There are, but remember that we live in a cancel culture world.
The truth gets cancelled or suppressed
Well at least one point you got right.
@@sciencefliestothemoon2305 I left myself open on that one!
We must promote scholars who are real specimens like champion Orc-Maw DrJP the Analyst. We must stand, and consider the annihilation of these minions of nescience, witch doctors, gangsters, whores, pimps, beggar lords of misrule, and Font of Plague. These are our CokeBankArchbishops of unknown Values, silent gaping grid load. She and her diary enjoy the hormonal melody of fantasy Harvard+ Slavery Cloaca as cute babies.
The constitution must be reformed inclusively to disenfranchise teens and women.
the entire word knows. companies continue to build oceanfront real estate and OIL is a GROWTH industry
Lindzen has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, ice ages and seasonal atmospheric effects. His main contribution to the academic literature on anthropogenic climate change is his proposal of the iris hypothesis in 2001, with co-authors Ming-Dah Chou and Arthur Y. Hou..wiki
Disgusting.
Yeah, whatever, but what do the experts in climate-related sciences like economics and behavioural psychology have to say? 😂
@otterspocket2826 probably that you can educated yourself and have an opinion based on facts, no matter what your profession is, instead of eating and swallowing what media yells at you. Of course depends on your IQ probably, but still.
@@SunnyDeeer/woosh
@@otterspocket2826 or... You might wonder what his peers at MIT had to say. (spoiler - they've distanced themselves from him)
Good stuff.
And completely debunked.
A green house is a closed system. I don't understand why we use that term relative to the climate on our planet, which is not a closed system.
What puzzles me is that there is a simple thing most people could agree on, let’s stop unnessesary polution and waste. Concentrate on those two topics and you have a challenge that gives energy and focus and will 100% sure be benefical to all people to come. Climate is to complex for anyone to understand. Fact is that since the start of life there has been a temperature between 0 and 100 degrese, wich is necessary for most of the living beings we know. And our earth has gone through a lot and always managed to keep between these boundaries and support life.
It's not puzzling when you understand the whole climate change agenda is not about saving the earth. It is about enslaving the world.
The fact is we do! I heard carbon emissions are lower for USA, GB, etc than say 50 years ago. We have improved car efficiency and many other things. But we have done it in a calm sensible way. The problem is they do not want us to agree, climate change global warming is in fact a political weapon.
Yeah good luck with that.nobody knows how to fix it..and they wouldn't if they could..
Sure let's stop pollution and waste but do it reasonably, we can't just out of nowhere stop using plastics and burning coal, and we can't force people to switch to electric cars, especially when they account for less than half a percent of the world's pollution
Agreed. I think the biggest mistake the environmental movement has made was to focus the whole narrative around climate change. There are far more tangible things happening to the environment all around us that we could respond to in a mir meaningful way and that are far harder to dismiss away as fake.
is richard lindzen really in his 80's as per wikipedia? he looks outstanding for being in his 80s. i would have guessed he is in his mid 60s.
If he is 80, he doesn't seem it, I'll give you that!
Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source. That’s his age but Wikipedia used to say that Obama was the United States’ best president ever was obama
I thought he was like 60 lmao
He must be a carnivore...
SEARCH FOR: "Semantic Scholar Glacier and lake-level variations in west-central Europe over the last 3500 years".
During Roman times, there were virtually no glaciers in the Alps for about four centuries, while in 1859/60 they reached their maximum size of the past 3,500 years thanks to the Little Ice Age.
Gotta love that context...
The one based on the ELEVEN studies that confirm the scientific consensus, you mean? It's designed specifically for people who have no idea that eleven studies have confirmed the consensus. The consensus of THOUSANDS of PHD-level climate scientists. Would that be you, by chance?
The overall death rate for natural disasters is down 95% since the 1920's, this includes meteorological and geological climate events, drought, storms, flooding and wild fires. The average life expectancy has doubled around the world in the last century. With the slight rise in Co2 corn yields are up 500% over the last century and wheat yields have tripled. Malnutrition has dropped sharply from 3/4ths of the world’s population living in poverty 100 years ago to 10% today. The same holds true for the illiteracy rate from 80% 100 years ago to 10% now. Satellite imagery from NASA shows the planet is greener now than it was 50 years ago.-Tony Heller
The fact that YT have a "Fact Check" window that is just the right size to stop you seeing the "like" button is not lost on me !
Once the blinkers are off, much is to be seen!
Be handy to link to the full episode in the description or at least give the guest's name so I can look it up. Anyone know which one this is from?
The thing is I don't need scientists when it comes to my own observations, what I need from scientists are to explain what my observations are telling me.
For example, I'm 40 years old. I have lived in SW lower Michigan USA my entire life. Michigan is one of the best states in the US because we have a very heavy dose of all 4 seasons - our winters are VERY cold, our summers are VERY hot, our springs are VERY rainy and temperature is temperament, and so are our falls. Imo it's part of what makes Michigan so amazing is our amazing variation in our seasons. Now, I know that I am just but one man, I am just a blink of an eye in the lifetime of the earth, and that my observations are short, but what my observations are telling me is that there is a pattern, and it's a pattern that is happening one way, and one way only. And that is that our winters are becoming shorter, less cold, less violent, and our summers are becoming increasingly hotter.
Here is how I remember this. As a child, I had a best friend growing up, and during NCAA college basketball March madness, every year, his parents would throw a big party. The adults would get together and watch games and play poker, and the kids would ride snowmobiles and "party" outside. I must have done this every year from age 8 to age 18. Every single year. Every single year there would be snow in March. Enough snow you could ride a snowmobile on. They had many snowmobiles, trails, and even a dirtbike track you could hit jumps on. I remember it vividly because it was so much fun, and something we looked forward to every single year. That was from 1990ish-2003ish.
Now, there is never snow in Michigan in March. There is often times not even snow in Michigan in February. In fact, they have been cancelling snow related events all the way up in the Michigan Upper Peninsula due to their being lack of snow there. This is facts that I can cite. Snowmobile and snow based events that went on for decades being cancelled now because there isn't snow.
Now, I know, again lack of sample size, and we're just talking about one small geographical area of the entire globe. And I don't know that it won't cycle back, but I do know it has been trending one way, and one way only for over 20 years, with no sign of it stopping. I don't debate what's causing it, or who's causing it, but I don't believe for one second that it's not happening, and I don't have any reason to believe it will reverse trend. So I look to these scientists to tell me the truth. And, I'm sorry, but anyone that tells me my observations are foolish or wrong I simply disregard. So what's going on?
The world seems to be full of negative feedback systems that nobody ever talks about. All positive feedback loops would’ve made life on earth completely uninhabitable almost immediately.
Absolutely. It's entirely possible that life appeared several times on earth only to be immediately snuffed out. What made its eventual propagation inevitable is evolution through random genetic mutation and survival-of-the-fittest selection.
Sadly, no such evolution is possible for our atmosphere.
Absolutely, but we are an added variable. And the earth operates on a massive timeline, it may take 10 thousand years for things to correct themselves and we will be long dead and gone.
Omg just google "ice age"🤦
This guy is brilliant. He really nailed it. Everybody spends so much time arguing about temperature records and sea ice they simply ignore the basic fact that people who think they can control the weather belong in a mental institution.
Yes, yes they do. It's their new religion.
No, he didn’t dismantle a single study. He missed quoted Goebbels and can’t even pronounce his name correctly. And he did not offer anyone any studies that would show to the contrary. What has he done?
Greens aren’t claiming they can control the weather. They’re claiming mankind can lessen the harm from smoke by burning less.
what? Is that what he says? Then is is even crazier than I thought.
People who think farting in their greenhouse or under their duvet won't cause a stink are no less delusional.
I would like to see a complete list of who owns all the green stocks & any companies involved in climate change. That would explain a lot.
And did you ask who has funded Richard Lindzen? He admitted in a Harper's Magazine interview years ago that he took money from the fossil fuel industry. It's fully documented how he has taken payments from OPEC, Western Fuels and Peabody Energy. Fossil fuel industry CEOs, by the way, make over 100 times the salaries that climate scientists do.
Amazing 🤙
Yes, it is indeed amazing that someone as intelligent as Jordan would never bother to vet Lindzen's background before believing him. Lindzen admitted in a Harper's Magazine interview years ago that he took money from the fossil fuel industry. It's a matter of public record that he taken money from OPEC, Western Fuels and Peabody Energy. He has also been profoundly debunked in the scientific literature, which you can see at "Climate Misinformation by Source: Richard Lindzen," at the Skeptical Science website. 22 atmospheric scientists from his own MIT also publicly rebuked him for his propaganda, which you can see at CLIMATE CONTRARIAN GETS FACT-CHECKED BY MIT COLLEAGUES. This is the same man, by the way, who defended the tobacco industry against claims that smoking causes cancer. Jordan should give that some thought before hitching his wagon to his "expertise."
If anyone on the team happens to read this, just a quick note to say that the photo of Dr. Peterson in the thumbnail is an old one, taken when he was ill, and a better choice for a publicity photo like this one might be a more recent photo, in which he is healthy and has bright eyes and color in his face. This photo in the thumbnail shows sick and despairing JBP and he isn’t in that dark place any longer, thank God again and again.
They want views I'm afraid. They use the most outrageous thing.
This is a great contribution to a real debate on this subject.
Not only it hints at the hidden complexities, it also makes apparent the fact that there are a lot of assumptions here and there, not to mention the stochastic effects.
They want to sell us the final product, without any information on what’s inside. As a mathematician and a researcher, I have no problem following the development of a model end to end much better than your average Joe Climatologist. Unfortunately, whenever I ask about data collection and data quality, assumptions, equations, model fitting strategies, confidence intervals for parameters, model validation, stochastic modeling for extrapolations, Joe usually calls me a negationist.
I am only someone who works with data and creates mathematical models for a living, and I would really like to see the real thing and judge with my mind.
Problem is when do you start acting, if evidence points towards a problem? And what action do you take? I hope one day our models will be precise enough to help us answer these questions without doubt
@@costascostas1760 you are right. That’s why the young clowns that pester our existence with their nonsensical hysterical behavior should be in universities studying mathematics and physics in order to help us understand what’s really going on.
But, you see, studying maths and physics is hard: you have to be humble, committed, hard-working and disciplined. Not for them.
You know Climate modeling has everything you just mentioned right? Those are like basic things in order to have good computer models.
The real question is how reliable is the modeling … and given the fact that even the climate models from 60’s and 70’s have made accurate prediction in system changes that have now been empirically confirmed.. Id say they’re reliable.
Unless you have evidence of the contrary ?
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp I was there in the 70’s and many models were predicting a temperature decrease, and that the ozone layer over the southern.pole had been compromised beyond repair, so I really hope they have improved.
Any forecast over a timespan of just 5 years is so full of stochastic elements that the variance over time becomes too high.
I believe that we are observing a trend, but I am also sure that the tragic perspectives they are trying to impose as proven and obvious are not obvious at all. We need to do sensible things, we cannot follow the agenda of capitalists trying to make us pay for their investment.
In any case, it’s the model that should convince me of its robustness, it doesn’t work the other way around.
If you have a model that you trust and want my professional opinion I will be glad to have a look. It would be a first: each time I ask to see the equations on paper and all the rest, the conversation is usually over and I find out that I was talking with someone who was totally clueless about the maths and the physics and was only parroting what they had been instructed to say. Hopefully it will be different this time.
@@DaveJ6515 For some reason it’s not letting me post my full response with citations and sources. Frustrating.
But the general point is you’re absolutely wrong on everything you’ve said and it’s empirically demonstrable.
You know you are on to something when UA-cam puts a disclaimer under your video..
The problem with this is that it predicts that the temps at the tropics and at the poles according to this effect shouldn't change much. It is the latitudes in between the tropics and the poles that should have the most change; certainly throughout a seasonal year and perhaps decades. Yet, what I have read, is that the temps at the northern latitudes are clearly warming which is demonstrated by increasing loss of the seasonal ice pack from decade to decade. Until one explains that, one hasn't addressed a key question. The tropics and the poles should remain the most stable pertaining to temperature from year to year, and decade to decade. Obviously, that is not true for the northern polar area; the higher northern latitudes. I grew up in Minnesota/North Dakota and live in North Dakota now. The climate is far less harsh (extreme cold) as compared to fifty years ago. (I also note that spring is much shorter, while fall can last much longer on average.) (We also get much shorter periods of nineties plus heat in the summer than we used to.) The extreme lows of twenty-five to thirty below are much rarer now. Why is that important? Because when you spend time outside in 20-30 below temperatures, you remember. It is not something one easily forgets.
However, again... the catastrophizers and their predictions of doom have not held up since the sixties and onward. There is much hyperbole in that area. In general my sense of hearing and reading the news through five plus decades is that catastrophizing all news has reached a nearly unanimous levels. Editorializing instead of actual news reporting is overwhelmingly the norm. Again, if you want to influence people; manipulate people, merely increase their fear and anxiety. This works each and every time. Why? When people don't feel safe, they look to someone to feel safe. In our country that is now the Federal government. Some, reject that and personally prepare for tumultuous events to feel safe.
Have to put my 2 cents worth as to climate change its all bull shit and I dont give a shit one way or the other.
I’m from Australia and recently the weather maps we’re being shown of Australia are coloured red and orange and black, which very obviously are the colours of fire, to make us believe Australia is significantly heating up. However, the temperatures we actually see each day are normal for Australia. Sometimes really, really hot and we have fires. Other times drenching downpours and they can lead to floods. Sure that happens, but it’s always happened in Australia, it’s called the land of flood and fire for a reason. Initially I came from the UK and migrated here in 1988. A few years on Australia was in a drought which lasted a decade. Last year NSW was covered by floodwaters, people’s homes and lives were devastated, and that’s terrible - but it’s not new! All the high temperatures they show us are often followed by a 10 degree drop in a day or two. It really is propaganda. If it’s seems extra hot this year, chances are next year it’s going to be colder. It’s wise to remember that. In the Bible God tells us that the earth will endure forever. For all the talk about nuclear war, aliens, climate change, the only thing that’s ever really changed is the fiscal position many of us now face where the costs of daily essentials like food, electricity & gas, and a roof over our heads are becoming astronomical! As for the weather, it comes, it goes, it’s cyclical, nothing has really changed despite the orange weather maps I see every day in my news feed. I trust in God, I don’t believe he will ever allow a nuclear war to kill the earth, or allow the earth to heat up so much that we cannot survive it, God made everything, so he won’t let it die or kill us. Ignore the climate change doomsayers, their agenda is to promote electric cars and new “planet-saving” technology. Not terrible things in themselves, but I doubt the earth will did if we don’t have them.
Well said. When a person ignores the evidence of a creator and begins to treat the environment as a god they deceive themselves. They do not want there to be a judge so they believe that nothing created everything. Once they have accepted this they are on a slippery slop of deception.Good is evil and evil is good. Killing unborn humans is good and defending them is bad. Being heterosexual is bad and being gay or trans gender is good and heroic. Humans can save the world and so on.
In Britrain they are making up fake storms and pushing a huge media wave calling them deadly... the WEF openly speak of the "great climate narrative", kinda proving their all lies...
@@Nothanksjustlooking130 Considering there are so many university calibre lectures given freely on the internet, that seems like an odd thing to say.
@@griffinharvey3910not really, man is flawed, there for science is as well , no leg to stand on! Nice! 😁🇨🇦
"In the Bible God tells us that the earth will endure forever." Yes, but that's the Earth, not the human race.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth." Yes, they'll be the ones left behind all right. They might not like what is left to inherit.
Jordan Peterson is a voice of reason which isn't that rare during normalcy, but during these times of insanity that surround us his voice is a rock.
he is a crackpot grifter and it does not take much education to see that
Maybe for some social topics. Not for climate change he's completely wrong. This is annoying...
@@Morphinem he doesn't talk about anything without sources to back it up.
Ya a Peterson is benzo addict who almost died from his addiction. What a smart guy.
@@happyjnia if that's all that's wrong with him he's doing pretty good. For all we know you might be a Crack head, just because someone says it or assume it doesn't make it true I judge people by actions and he started a very influential group that is offering alternatives to this one world government of control and that means a lot when you have money but think of others. Justin Trudeau doesn't like him and that's enough for me alone. I've battled with alcohol and pills most of my life but I'm a productive citizen married for 30 years and raised good successful children and most my friends are true and loyal friends. Not putting him on a pedestal but not gonna judge him in a bad way just because you do. Why don't you try something constructive and positive there's enough hate going around.
*True that* _(I live in the tropics)._
Anything on the predicted and then measured cooling of the stratosphere?
Many years ago, I had a conversation with a man who thought of his self as being a staunch environmentalist. He said that HE would not accept advertising flyers in his mailbox, because they were unnecessary, and contributed to pollution.
When I asked him if he cared that there were people depending on us for their financial incomes accepting those flyers in the mail, he said that he didn't care, and that they could find other jobs that would give them their sources of financial income.
The bottom line is, we are all self-indulged polluters, and I suggest that that word "environmentalist" leaves everything to be "desired."
He's not wrong though? Print advertising is a landfill industry.
@@o00nemesis00o If it was his job that was going to be lost ... would he have the same attitude though?
That is my point.
We are all polluters of the planet, but we don't want to give up our own comforts that in turn cause pollution ... such as having more babies, whose disposable diapers clutter up the landfills every day.
It's more fun to point at others as being the polluters and the trouble-makers and the guilty ones.
We all know that ... but we don't like the fingers pointing at US "personally."
If we don't have some major wars ... or ... some major epidemics, to in turn curb the population ... we will soon be buried in our own pollution.
"THAT is a given."
No amount of finger-pointing can change that course of what is certain to become "history."
@@o00nemesis00o If that man lived in a house with electricity, rode public transportation or used a car, bought clothes and other items made by factories, and etc, then he's nothing but a hypocrite grandstanding on his one, little hill of superiority.
Just like the rest of the "tolerant left".
That's the shittiest argument ever, wow did you really hold on to something like that for so long.
@@junevandermark952 Lindzen's theory of QBO, what he is know for, is rubbish and it's actually just lunar tidal forces.
It's encouraging to see more and more credible people debunking the global warming scam. 👍
Look up Judith Curry, she has some enlightening views on 'global warming.' ua-cam.com/video/i4YUnZIKneY/v-deo.html
Phenomenal analysis in discussing the Coriolis effect in addition to the variations between the Tropics, the Poles and in the middle, which is where most of us live. I would have loved to have heard the professor’s remarks in discussing on whether or not carbon dioxide even is a greenhouse gas. It seems to me that if there is a spike of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, then that carbon dioxide gets sucked in by botanist trees, grass, etc. When trees take in carbon dioxide, they grow, retain more water which actually cools the atmosphere due to water’s higher heat capacity. Meanwhile, the antithesis to that is if there is an inadequate supply of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, then plants and trees cannot grow, which reduces our food supply on the planet. This will ultimately lead to much starvation and less oxygen for us to breathe. I also would have liked to hear what the professor would say about the ice core samples and my theory being that huge volcano eruptions caused so much ash to be sent into the atmosphere along with carbon dioxide that it spiked the carbon dioxide and lowered the global temperatures for a little while until the ash began to fall. As the ash fell and the sun’s rays penetrated, a sharp increase in temperatures is the scam these global warming supporters use to distort the data in addition to the cause and effect of carbon dioxide, and whether or not it truly is a greenhouse effect.
Someone needs to make an animation of that explanation
It is all but impossible to increase temperatures in the tropics with the current ocean configuration. Open ocean acts as a thermostat, as the sea surface temperature increases, evaporation leads to the formation of thunder storms. These clouds of warm water vapour rise to the top of the troposphere, displacing cool dry air that cools the surrounding area. The thunder storm also acts much the dame as a refrigerator, pumping heat from the surface to the top of the troposphere where it is radiated out to space. The thunder clouds also shade vast areas, as they form in the afternoon and the angle of the sun means they shade far more ocean surface than their vertical area would suggest. They are also highly reflective of diffuse sunlight (they are white).
This is only one of the myriad of natural systems with negative feedbacks that helps to keep Earth's climate remarkably stable.
If positive feedback runaway were possible, we would be in an end state.
yea the negative feedbacks, are never discussed its why the Earth's climate never really strays too far either way, also more hotter temps more clouds(and then inverse), ice melts then cools the oceans then cools the planet so then more ice forms and repeat, the atmosphere can also expand when too hot and contract when too cold going then going the other way again.
Of coarse there is never any mention of the Sun or it dismissed as "stable or non-issue" which is so wrong its not funny, then there is the weakening magnetic filed currently down 25% and 5% per decade which causes the most extinctions when the filed eventually flips(if only for a short time)
@@bencoad8492 You should look back abour 50 million years ago, extrem temp rise and very fast.
@@franziskani they also fall just as fast...
Professor Richard Lindzen is probably the greatest Meteorologist alive today followed very closely by Professor Will Happer. Thank heaven for somebody who speaks the truth on Climate Change.
All his models turned out wrong you fool stop lying google it
Richard Lindzen is a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, the largest coal company in the U.S. Peabody got caught with their pants down funding a couple of dozen organizations that were producing bunk climate reports for them. Whatever truth Lindzen had him in at one point is long gone. He sold his soul for money.
He's not speaking the truth. It's not a religion. You need to try and use reason instead of religious mummery. He's postulating theories for which there is both evidence and counter evidence. And he's fixating on the evidence for this theory and ignoring the counter evidence as much as he claims the "mainstream" scientists are doing in the opposite direction.
Nah - both ol geezers are AGW Deniers.
They're too old now to admit that they got it wrong.
How do you know he speaks the truth or knows it? You read all he wrote on the subject and understand it? I think the same is true for the other side. People just believe what they are told repeatedly. My instinct tells me this climate change thing had something idiological and religious about it. Though do I know for sure? No I'm afraid.
Creation is a comlex thing, of that we all agree. Some of us have a more 'educated' way of mapping and desibing that fact. There is an Intelligencia way of saying none of us have a freaking clue.
The money mongers base their decisions on whatever angle is most profitable for them.
Telling the truth
It is true that the ecosystem disruption events occuring are significant. It is also true that there are people who will use that fact to gain tyrannical power.
💯
No - there are no ecosystem disruptions beyond a hoax and falsified reporting of falsified records by false scientists.
It is a money-making and power grabbing sham run by an increasingly all-powerful and very dark elite.
Climate change is happening, but also the great replacement is happening. I’m just spiteful enough to want the minorities to not have a country to inherit.
Exactly. That things are shifting is an observable fact. The causes aren't within human control, but there is a lot of power in lying to people about that.
Ecosystem disruptions are as old as life itself. Nothing is static on earth. We just adapt as much ad we can.That's how we evolved.
Excellent talk. Not going to lie, though, I smiled when Dr. Lindzen said "Let me finish..."
He's used to saying that because people often challenge BS when they hear it.
If the automatic amplificatic positive feedback is true, the Earth would have had a runaway greenhouse the first time there was a greater than average number off volcanoes.
Also, weather runs as a heat engine. Heat engines don't run on absolute temperature but on temperature differences.
To characterize a rise in the AVERAGE temperature of 1.5 degrees as „less than the difference between breakfast and lunch“ makes no sense at all. What does the daily interval say about a change of the annual average? The change of the average by 1.5° already has massive impacts on vegetation, agriculture etc.
Make a 0.3mm pencil dot on a sheet of A4 paper. The A4 paper represents the atmosphere. The dot represents how much CO2 we emit to the atmosphere in a year at current levels. It's insignificant is it not? Take 10 dots, still insignificant.
"Man-made CO2 is nothing but a fart in the wind" - Dan Pena.
@@yasi4877 CO2 level is 0.04%. You say that this is so low it is insignificant. But
1. That level in your body of many drugs would kill you easily.
2 There may be little, but, in a 10cm line in the air there are 1 million CO2 molecules. (~6x10^19 per litre)
@@oakbellUK I appreciate what you say but comparing CO2 to a drug is not on. CO2 represents life not death. Take a look at William Happer's presentations. We are OK with CO2 at 400ppm and climate is not something we can change by fiddling the CO2 knob.
@@yasi4877even so, the co2 levels are currently higher than they've been for over 100000 years, and rising faster than we've seen in that time. It's effect may be unpredictable, but it's naive to say human emission has nothing to do with it, when the drastic rise started almost exactly at the industrial revolution.
@@imaboostedanimal2774 CO2 varies across the planet and 10kms up into the troposphere and above. Inside your house its as much as 1800ppm, outside in the morning 500ppm and at other times 350ppm or less. The theory that they have yet to prove and quantify, is that CO2 traps outbound IR and radiates it back warming the planet. 350ppm is considered a safe level but 420ppm is bad because the extra 70ppm (a miniscule .007%) causes the planet to heat up. It is a ridiculous argument.