Is the Earth Actually Getting Hotter?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 тра 2024
- ExpressVPN: Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com/jordanyt
Watch the full interview with Dr. Patrick Moore • Climate Lies | Dr. Pat...
Ep. 439
Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: bit.ly/3KrWbS8
// LINKS //
All socials: linktr.ee/drjordanbpeterson
Website: jordanbpeterson.com
Events: jordanbpeterson.com/events
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
Telegram: t.me/DrJordanPeterson
Newsletter: mailchi.mp/jordanbpeterson.co...
// 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...
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus
Once the "climate emergency" became taxable it lost all credibility for me
My litmus test is does the political response hit the poor disproportionately. Then I know it’s nothing more than a tax
Brilliant, David!!! We have yet to see where all this tax money is being spent toward this so-called climate change. Until we see an accounting sheet and REAL data showing how it's reducing the problem, it's nothing more than Trudeau theft.
Everything can be made taxable. That metric doesn't discredit it. EVs have a higher registration than ICE car (a form of tax) in CA and CA promotes the hell out of EV use, yet the state is still going to get a tax out of them. They tax everything
When the people who claim the loudest to believe in the climate hoax are also the ones who produce the most CO2, it becomes obvious that they know the hoax is a hoax.
Better late than never. Its an obvious HOAX from the very beginning. People need to think for themselves. That big yellow ball in the sky controls climate not CO2.
What we can definitely say is the amount of chemicals we dump into the environment and the amount of plastic in the environment is way more concerning to me
But then you touch the action of big pharma, the military industrial complex and energy companies...
@@GTfour01 Not to mention SE Asia. The majority of garbage in the oceans--including those dreaded plastic straws--come from there, not developed Western nations. There are regions of the ocean near the Orient that are so filthy you can't even see the water as you sail through it.
Got it in one. You should be more concerned about it. Pollution is much further up the list of dangers to humanity and the environment than climate change. Climate change as a risk is below world war, pandemic, solar storms, asteroids, pole reversal, famine due to overpopulation and pollution. And probably less harmful.
How many billion tons are dumping into our environment by plants each year?
@@terenceiutzi4003 You mean by decaying plants? A lot. Wich is a good thing.
Nobody ever wants to talk about the possibility that the sun might have something to do with the change in climate. Why? Because you can't tax the sun.
That possibility has been researched, but the data doesn't support the sun being responsible for the climate change.
Or make people buy ridiculously expensive cars, or pay twice as much for energy.
The reason people are not talking about the possibility that the sun has something to do with climate change is that scientists already been researched that and the data doesn't support it, but actually exclude it.
Imagine 98.6% of all the mass in the solar system probably plays a bigger part than a trace gas on one of 8 planets.
Ice cores show several ice ages in the last 500,000 years. They show we are probably in a short warming period of up to 11,000 years. We are in the Quaternary ice age. Humans are not helping, but we can't stop it. Increased co2 promotes plant growth. Warmer means more food.
In 9,800 years we will probably be deep in an ice age. Warmer means we live. yes we will all have to move
About 61% of electricity generation is from fossil fuels-coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases. About 19% was from nuclear energy, and about 20% was from renewable energy sources. Most of that 20% is water, not solar or wind.
Its ok guys.....I hear taxing Canadians reduces global temperatures. We got this.
Likely to cause another ice age.
Germany is trying the same...
Well, the trick to that is to pay the tax with the same currency that was used a million or so years ago. If it worked then, it should work today. Right?
@@TheVolquard Man Germany is looking bleaker and bleaker as the years march on
Hahaaaha@@Inspired2Teach Good one, Agreed
Its nice to hear intelligent people talk honestly about climate without the poison of politics.
The sad truth is that most of them (real scientists), like Dr. Moore, are getting old and will not be around much longer to fight the climate cult.
It is a popular delusion that man’s effects on the Earth’s climate are significant and dangerous. The carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are largely beneficial.
Benefits include greening of the planet with increased agricultural yields (main effect) reduced winter heating costs, fewer deaths from hypothermia and postponement of the next glacial maximum.
The Deep State Pharma Complex has completely corrupted any science in the USA. Doctors are not even curious about where Covid came from, or the long term effects of the vaccines.
Its not "politics", its simply FOLLOW THE MONEY.
@@Rac-fpv It's nice to some see some sanity amongst the stupid.
The language of climate activism is indistinguishable from the language of religious zealots.
Or charasmatic despotic authoritarian politicians…
That's because it's a cult, nothing more, nothing less.
correct. every "science" that needs to defend itself through threats, bullying, silencing, censorship, cancelling, etc ISN"T a science, it is a religion. If you are practicing actual science, then you should be ok with all varying theories and testing of those.
A cult for some, a well paid career for others. A career that does not depend on the scientific method.
Jesus it's getting hot!
Just think how many people we have made filthy rich with this claim.
A tiny percentage of those made filthy rich by fossil fuels. And still you people dance to their tune.
In comparison to how many people have been made rich denying it?
or one's who were already rich to begin with
Al Gore has made well over a quarter of a billion dollars because he owns the Carbon Trading Scheme.
Ask yourselves why Obama bought a beach house when the sea levels are rising???
Over 75% of the Earth's existence has been without ice caps. Saying the ice is melting isn't an argument for man made climate change, so much as it is an argument for the Earth returning to pre ice-age temps.
Well it is bc the ice is melting at an extremely quick rate that has never been seen before naturally, which is linked to the extremely quick rise in temperature that we have seen in the last century due to carbon emissions
@@benlevi12 that is a ridiculous statement. There was no such thing as science the last time an ice age melted. There were no people to "see" anything. To claim that is pure speculation by the observer. Why do people lie about this topic? You do realize you are claiming they observed something that vanished hundreds of million years ago. If the previous ice age melted how are they "seeing" it? Let me guess ice cores. Although the premise is the ice melted faster. How did you test melted ice from two hundred million years ago?
@@benlevi12nonsense
@@johnwilliam6638 lol proof
@@johnwilliam6638proof
BBC predicted a few months ago that this summer would be the warmest. This morning we are told that it will be the wettest. If we cannot predict 5 months....let's not pretend we know anything.
Let's not pretend Or accept THEY Know Anything
AKA the British Brainwashing Corporation
The tongan undersea vocano that erupted a few years ago is the biggest influencer of our current environment due to the insane amount of water vapour it put into the upper atmosphere and will be impacting global weather for a few years to come. That no one mentions it is the real telltale in all of this.
warm and wet? Water has a high heat capacity -- those who don;'t know science can still be harmed by nature
I'm sure of one thing: not to trust anything said on BBC.
The spine joke was HILARIOUS from JP!
Nobody can prove the anthropogenic climate change theory using one source of data. They have to use different data sources over time, selectively picking and choosing the data sources that fit the narrative. This is the literal definition of “confirmation bias” and should be refuted.
Are you familiar with the work of Max Planck and Karl Schwarzchild on black body radiation or the Stefan Boltzmann equation.Familiarize yourself with these various observations on the relationship between CO2 and warming and you’ll realize the actual physics accurately predicts what effect on warming CO2 has as atmospheric Co2 concentrations rise and fall.
The entire hypothesis regarding catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 mediated “climate “Armageddon depends on a number of hypothetical positive feedback mechanisms that aren’t anywhere as extreme as imagined by catastrophists,but they’re partially correct regarding the existential destruction we can expect.Unfortunately the catastrophe they predict will come from the idiotic interventions governments have imagined to fight this fantasy.
@@lv4077Black bodies matter.
@@lv4077 give me a prediction by the climate alarmists that has come true
@@JimEdmiston That’s tough since there are none.I was really just pointing out the proven physics that describes exactly how the “green house effect “ works and how far from reality these “predictions “ are and why.
@@lv4077 fair enough. I understand the physics, yes. The Sun is the largest driving factor of climate on Earth. We are living in a “mini ice age” according to mainstream theory, so nobody should be surprised by a warming period. In fact, we should welcome it - so long as we don’t continue cutting down rainforests such as the Amazon in Brazil. I think the biggest threat is killing trees and therefore cutting off our oxygen supply. The big scam is “carbon offsetting” which people like Al Gore and John Kerry say excuses them from guilt. Look into it, it’s another deep rabbit hole of corruption.
More CO2 means more fuel for plant life, which in turn creates more O2 as a result of photosynthesis. A warmer planet means a more friendly environment for plant life and therefore a more friendly environment for the life that depends on photosynthesis.
I think environmentalism has been corrupted by people who seek to confuse us. #NikolaTesla
Wow
That is a whole lot of inconvenient truth.
"Academics could learn from that, Patrick, I would say...the importance of a spine, you might say." Love how Jordan interjects with a troll comment in the midst of a serious conversation, hahaha.
The highest temperature registered in Iceland: 30, 5 degrees C, in 1939.
Sweden had the highest in 1933, 38 C
All the proof I need that climate crisis is real and we all need to live in a cave. BAAAAA
It's the temperature trend that matters, not cherry picked highs and lows.
@@pshehan1and it's identifying if there's actually a trend at all and secondly what is the cause. Human caused climate change is not categoric fact currently
@@BryJovi17 There is a statistically significant warming trend and the amount 0f warming matches that predicted by the causal theory of anthropogenic global warming.
In testimony before Congress by skeptic Judith Curry, satellite temperature data was declared the "gold standard" and "best we have" and RSS data was sworn by when skeptics were claiming a temperature pause from 1998 to 2015.
The first IPCC report in 1991 gave the most likely temperature rise with each doubling of CO2 concentration, the equilibrium climate sensitivity or ECS as 3 C.
RSS satellite temperature trend from 1979 to February 2024
Trend: 0.210 °C/decade
The temperature change for the 4.5 decades is 0.95 C
Mauna Loa CO2 concentration rise for that time period is 338 to 422 ppm
So according to the logarithmic relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration, for the period in question
0.95 = k ln(422/338)
Solving the equation gives the proportionality constant, k= 4.26
So the temperature rise with doubling of CO2 concentration (ECS)
4.26 x ln2 = 4.26 x 0.693
= 3.0 C
Data matching the predictions of theory is the best kind of scientific evidence that the theory is correct.
The warming is not due to the sun as solar intensity has been declining for decades toward the Grand Solar Minimum.
Also, if the temperature rise was caused by increasing solar radiation, the troposphere and stratosphere would both warm.
If caused by an increase in greenhouse gases, the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That was predicted in1967, and has been shown to be what is happening by satellite data. Syukuro Manabe, the surviving scientist who made the prediction (his collaborator Richard Wetherald had since died) was awarded the Nobel prize in physics in 2021.
If you check American newspapers all the way back to the 1920s and '30s it becomes quite clear that the world today is no hotter than it was back then...
In fact it's cooler than the dustbowl years.
I live in BC and we are told that last year was warmer than the year before. I gauge how warm it is by AC usage and golf! Never used AC once last year and never sweat once while golfing. Previous year AC ran 2 months and had a dozen games over 25 C. Also noticed something odd with the local weather reports. Usually 5 or more degrees warmer than the actual temperature.🤷♂️
Notice how they were crying climate change with the Fraser river being so low right now? But forgot to mention the site c dam is being filled, by the Fraser.
Live in California and we had a very rainy, cool winter and no spring to speak of. Temps didn't warm up till July and it never did get real warm. Found this article dated March of 2023.
National Weather Service Science Operations Officer John Dumas said "Winter temperatures tied the daily high average of 60 degrees. We've had a lot of systems dropping down out of the Gulf of Alaska area. Instead of moving quickly through our area like a normal cold blow will do - they normally move from west to east pretty rapidly - they've been persistent. They've been hanging out in the area for quite a long time. It's not just a California phenomenon, it's gone on across the country. That's why we've had some long cold snaps, really long extended periods of snow or rain for the country."
Who needs instrumentation when we have anecdotes.
@@MelissaR784North of you so good news for us too. The drought that has been creeping up (from south to north) the Pacific westcoast is perhaps relenting.
Are you kidding? I live in BC too, and it was 🤬ing blistering. We also had record wildfires. There were extremely low snowpack across most of the Province - and this year, its worse already. The higher North you go, the worse the changes are.
Lord Monckton also does a fabulous presentation on the potential costing and on why the figures presented to the public are inaccurate
Two of the best minds in Canada.
Poor Canada.
Behind Trudeau. What, you ask I am thinking? I'm thinking why do so many people vote for him?
if that is the best you can come up with, ouch
I suggest you check out the Wikipedia article on Dr Patrick Moore.
Air, water, and land pollution is a far more important crisis to tackle.
But you can't deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas right.
@@hosnimubarak8869 I don't think anybody ever has denied that.
@@stevehewitt1151
Let's hope not.
@@hosnimubarak8869 But it's only a minor greenhouse gas - water vapour is far more significant.
@@stevehewitt1151
Yes. Water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas From Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not, so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2’s greenhouse effect; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes that water vapor may “approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.”
Nevertheless, within this dynamic, the CO2 remains the main driver (what climatologists call a “forcing”) of the greenhouse effect.
The green devices produce far more emission than the devices they replace.
A petrol car will have to drive 100,000 miles to equal the emissions it takes to produce an ev car. An ev car lasts for 3-8yrs
There are a couple of logical fallacies in your statement. The carbon footprint of manufacturing an electric car is only about 10% more than manufacturing a normal car. The statistic you quote assumes you will scrap your car and replace it with an EV. EV cars last just as long as regular cars, but you have to replace the battery about once a decade.
@@petrhermanadventures9509no.
@@petrhermanadventures9509 Mining, transporting and refining the materials for the batteries is much more damage to the environment and to the people used as slaves to mine those materials. So yes they cut carbon by using slave labor...
It seems you know nothing. You should never speak
@@petrhermanadventures950910% 😳🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I researched extreme temperature events, and my findings showed that the frequency of record high temperatures over the last 100+ yr is indistinguishable from a steady climate. (Even in a steady climate, there will be record extreme temperature events.)
- During this time, there are periods that definitely were hotter because of an excess number of record high temperatures during that time. These periods include the 1930s and 1980s.
- Also during this time, there are periods that definitely were colder because of a deficiency in record high temperatures and an excess in record low temperatures. The period where this was most notable was the '60s - '70s.
- Since the 1980s, there has been a notable drop off in number or frequency of record low temperature events, but not an excess of record high temperature events. This result suggests that any warming that is occurring manifests itself as temperatures not dropping as far at night (things don't cool off) rather than daytime temperatures getting hotter.
I would have more conclusions, but in the middle of the work, the data sets I was using were altered. The temperature records were changed, and those changes were consistently to make older dates colder and more recent dates warmer. Essentially, the records shifted high temperature events closer to the present which creates the impression of warming that wasn't there before.
I stopped the study because I was convinced the data was corrupted, and that corruption was deliberate falsification. The only motive I can think of for it is to align data to a predetermined narrative. The sad part though is that the unaltered data DID show warming--just not the TYPE of warming that was en vouge.
OK, post a picture of one properly placed Stevenson screen, and I will conseed that you aren't full of shit!
I have been watching a couple of data sources for about 25 years now. Over that time they have progressively been watered down or have gone offline. One can speculate as to the motivation or reasons behind this, but unavailability of original data from most sources is indisputable.
@@terenceiutzi4003 when you learn how to spell people might take you more seriously.
@@phaedrus5904 so you haven't been able to find one either
@@terenceiutzi4003 Data is being corrupted and that's something many eponymous scientists have been saying. There's still no explanation as to why they lowered past temperatures (especially during the 40s) , considering the fact that the urban island effect is now more prominent than ever and not so much back then.
It goes in cycles it’s been going on for millions of years
Exactly. It's due in great part to cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere and condensing water vapor. Sun activity disrupts the cosmic rays and creates fewer clouds as a result. In turn ocean heat cycles develop that follow the changes in cloud cover and give off stored up heat in a pulse. The AMO and PDO are well studied and their correlation to GMST is much greater than CO2
Yep, they're called the Milankovitch cycles
Things posited by actual science, are not presnted as irrefutable fact.
Climare change started with a conclusion, and disavows questioning!
How scientific!
Hotter, my ass: I have had my heating system on - 8 months/year - for the last cca 10 years... And I live far from the arctic circle!
Yeah they can always find somewhere that it’s record heat is you look long enough.
You realize this is not an argument, right?
Earth climate change has been in constant flux since it was created.....I am far more concerned with the actual pollution we create...plastics, chemicals, toxins being dumped....
Amen Marc...
JP has some deniers for that too.
Lithium ion batteries are toxic.
What you say is true, but it NEVER fluctuated at this speed. 300 years seems like a long time to us as its 10 generations. It's incredibly fast in terms of the earth'sclimatic variability, only topped by things like massive disasters such as volcanoes and meteor strikes. Please realise, this is really bad. I don't want to believe it either.
@@atrociousliar3314 We don’t know if it has NEVER changed like this. Records only go back about 200 years. Also, there HAVE been many major volcanic events during that time.
BTW, the sun has steadily been increasing in luminosity and will eventually sterilize the Earth in about 500 million years.
The simple truth is that mankind (as a whole) is fearful of losing what we perceive we "have now". The fear is of a deterioration in wealth, living standards and convenience in the western world etc. It is indisputable that the planet changes over time and we humans will need to adapt to change with it or, we too, will become extinct like the 99% or more of all previous species. What we should really be concerned about is the finite nature of the materials we use to support our 21st century way of life. Oil, gas, coal etc are all finite. We live in a world of plastics that are almost exclusively oil based. We will chase ourselves into extinction long before we adapt to a changing planet.
During an interview by French investigative journalist Paul Moreira, which was first broadcast on French television station Canal+, Moore was asked about the safety of the herbicide glyphosate. Moore told Moreira that one "could drink a whole quart of it" without any harm. When Moore was challenged to drink a glass of the weedkiller, he refused, saying "I'm not an idiot" and "I'm not stupid" before ending the interview. Monsanto, the primary producers of glyphosate weedkillers under the Roundup brand, denied claims that Moore is a paid lobbyist for their company.[71][72][73] The interview came shortly after the release of a World Health Organization (WHO) report adding glyphosate to a list of probable carcinogens.[74][75]
Wikipedia is fine if you want to find out what a horse looks like.
Not so much for anything remotely political. 100% Controlled propaganda and completely worthless as a source.
If the globe is getting warmer, then Australia is now into its sixth year of [edit] (MASSIVELY) bucking that trend!
It's been a cool, wet summer.
But I bet it was the hottest on record!
@@alanjm1234 🤣 exactly! 😁
Can you give me some more details please mate?
I'm trying to build a picture up from around the world to fight this bollocks.
I know our summers in the UK are nearly disappearing but they always say that it's getting warmer in other places though.
I think this is BS too.
@@bobuk161 all you have to do is google Australian BOM. Although they generally read higher than actual temperature in the locale they claim to be representing*, they will show quite a drop compared to the previous decade/average.
I know and know of farmers whose families records go back up to 150 years. They show “no discernible change” in average temps. As opposed to the BOM, who “homogenised” data from the past to cooler than recorded, so they could show rising temperatures.
My birth town used to have it’s official temperature taken at the old gaol. It was barely half a mile from my childhood home. My father has 60 years of records at the same spot. They show no average rise. And the recordings from each, though slightly different, were both consistent to each other, give or take a degree. The “old gaol” BOM records changed around the late 90’s, early 2000’s. *The official recording from then on, became taken approximately 20-25km away on the other side of a small mountain and hill range. this has produced discrepancies of up to 11 degrees C. I first noticed this in late winter 2007. I was staying at my parents, where regular overnight frosts of -4c were occurring, but the TV news showing official BOM figures of 7c. They say their “algorithm” for charting the differences, are accurate! They ARE NOT.
@bobuk161 I'm from Victoria, Australia. Last summer not one day over 40c and very few days over 30c. So bloody rare and cold. And very similar weather for summers before last summer, though one 40c day.
The understanding of scale of time, the enourmous periods and phases of our planet evolving is key to have any kind of reflection worthwhile of what is happening at the moment...if anything is happening at all. Thank God for the intelligence of these two gentlemen
Billions of years is nonsense. The sun would be too close to the earth for anything to live. Everything is exactly where it needs to be for there to be life on earth. Billions of years ignores other sciences.
The earth was doing well before we got here and will do just as well when we are gone.
And we will go at some point, its just life.
So you're saying we should just off ourselves now, since it doesn't matter?
@@mickcrovo5238 It does not make a difference what we do. This planet will recover, if we all died there would be nothing left after two hundred years to show we were here. our life span of this planet is like a grain of sand on the beach.
@@jamestaylor6072 You sound nihilistic and suicidal all in one very strange package
I had to write an assignment in favor of this BS. Unis are truly fucked.
A book entitled “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds “ was written in the 19th century.
It is a popular delusion that man’s 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. It is a popular delusion that nuclear power plants are unsafe.
Popular delusions are dangerous and can lead to economic ruin, war and genocide.
No you didn't.
@@mickcrovo5238 He probably did, and so did many others. A teacher flunked a friend of mine because he wrote an exam WITH sources citing the opposite of the mainsteam opinion about the climate just because the teacher didn't believe him....EVEN when he cited the actual research. Shows you how brainwashed academia is.
Spinning rock around a light source that grows in size… rock gets warmer, add atmosphere to retain heat. Got about 1 billion years to get it figured out folks
Way to complex for me BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Astrophysicists opine that in one billion years the sun will become sufficiently luminous to occasion the gradual loss of Earth’s water into space. This process will commence when the mean surface temperature reaches 47 degrees centigrade and will take 30 million years.
Nope these are just the birthing pains you have until 2033 before the first major conjunction of mercury & venus causes the new moon to pull the oceans out & around the planet east to west as in the days of Noah.
Truth is the leaven of the father of lies pharisee/pharaohs.
It's all been about preparing for these the birthing pains of this the millennium of climate change end times due to the earth's orbits passing between the two energies of the Sun's OOrt cloud magnetosphere for the next millennium. Precession of the equinoxes of the Great Year or Mystery of the 7 star crossings Jesus held in his hand.
Love cures a multitude of sins. Let the dead bury the dead. Our battle isn't against flesh & blood.
Come to Jesus if you love humanity & want to have life & life more abundantly for this crossing will be worst than the last.
Sooo do I have to pay the power bill or not?
The fingerprints of an increased greenhouse effect tells us that the Sun is not responsible.
We need much more of these types of conversations to be happening. The loud extreme gloom and doom factions need to be kept at bay by logic scientific facts and real provable research.
I went to the Maldives for my honeymoon because it was somewhere i wanted to visit before it was underwater due to climate change as it only had 10 years left. That was 18 years ago and funny enough its still there and stronger than ever😂
No scientists ever claimed it would be. What they said was the Maldives would be at greater risk floods from storm surges, and increased salinity in ground water. The Maldives do increasingly have to import fresh water in tankers.
@@juvenalsdad4175 no they never said it would be at greater risk they said it would be no more, it would be underwater. Our waiter who was a local even said that when the Maldives is no more he was hoping to go to Australia as he was told of the climate change or as it was called at the time GLOBAL WARMING. It's like the guy who cried wolf.
@@tonyrobson6457 " no they never said it would be at greater risk they said it would be no more, it would be underwater". Who is 'they'? I'm guessing tabloid news stories or similar misrepresenting actual science.
A waiter, with all due respect to that excellent profession, is probably not a reliable source of scientific information.
@@juvenalsdad4175 who are they? They are same people on the news claiming to be experts who are saying the same things today as they we're 18 years ago🤦 I'm afraid your climate god that you worship isn't real and hopefully one day your realize when all the things they telling you today don't happen as well. Wakey wakey
@@tonyrobson6457 Thought so. No actual science then. Just made-up stuff and condescending projections involving religion.
The alarmist position is, "But it's happening too fast!" (Chicken-sound, chicken-sound!) "Evolution can not keep up with the rapid change in CO2 and the temperature spike!"
Never mind that polarbears have doubled in population, and coral is flourishing (it happens to like warm water; what it doesn't like is harsh storm waves).
As to plants, the atmosphere with 2,000 ppm of CO2 will produce lusher plant growth.
In any case, the temperature at the end of the Younger Dryas went up by 10.5° C over a mere ten years.
Couple that with the earth had no ice caps for more than half of the last half billion years...
Someone is cherry-picking scary start dates. Why do sea ice data sets start in 1979? Because if they started in 1969 (yes, there WAS satalite data), what we have now would be perfectly normal. Can't scare up funds with normal...
Yeah, most species are not that temperature dependent, and actually prefer warmer weather, and those capable of moving.. can move...
Thankyou gentlemen!
I have lived for 60 years near this same beach. And it hasn’t risen an inch. The weather is just the same. Some years a little warmer some years a little colder. Some winters more snow some winters more rain, on and on.
Loved this!
This planet is a living, breathing structure. It has a cycle of it's own. The greatest oxymoron ever, was mankind thinking it was in charge of this Planet.
Science proves it goes through extended periods of warming then through extended periods of cooling. Then repeats of that scenario time and time again.
The concern isn't just "the planet is warming." The concern is that Earth is warming at a rate roughly 10x that of the gradual warming that ended the last glacial period.
Glad I saw this, have heard others in Science talk different also about the temperature.
If you look at the entire time frame from the origin of multicellular life (the last 650,000,000 years), you see that the current climate is an anomaly. The Earth's normal temperature (80% of that time) is 23°C. Fortunately, as long as Panama stays right where it is, we will continue to enjoy our current frozen climate for millions more years. UNfortunately, within the next 20,000 years, there WILL be a two-mile-thick sheet of ice covering all of Canada, most of the northern US, most of northern Europe, half of Siberia and every mountain range on the planet. Barring some celestial event, it's a 100% absolute certainty.
Ngl this is the most intellectual discussion I've ever seen in a UA-cam comment section.
Brilliant Men and Carrier experts with Honourable Mentorship in their Sciences.
Big fan dr Jordan Peterson sir😇🌈
The core of the climate alarmism lies in the fact that people have the primordial fear of change and the fear of lack of agency. The latter would explain the need for e.g. a rain dance and an omnipotent god so that we could somehow change the outcome of an event that we have absolutely no control over.
One of the main prime drivers of climate is carbon dioxide concentrations. Something we do have control over, as we have increased the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere by 50% since the industrial revolution.
Thanks!
The heat energy entering the atmosphere is going to melt the icecaps - once they're gone, temperatures will rise a lot faster
Somehow it seems like 'computer modelling' (simulations) just isn't very accurate. They're still useful tools, however,
.............if you want to get people to believe something.
What I understand is that trees absorb carbon to grow. I also understand that volcanic activity like that in Iceland create hundreds of square kilometers of heat sinks that produce severe high temperatures that heat the atmosphere. And that sub-surface volcanoes in the Arctic and in Ant-Arctic warm the oceans with their huge sub-surface heat productions. To say that humanity can control the temperature on a global scale is LUDICROUS! We can always irrigate the arid zones but we cannot grown crops on an ice shelf.
"We've never been in a period this cold...." Who are you referring to by "we".
This is about my eighth time through the whole "the earth is ending so give us all your money" routine so pardon my salt.
Most cities have air quality affecting everyone that Governments, media and Corporations ignore.
The US many years ago lowered highesy speeds and it saved fuel. And less exhaust.
Ontario Canada they are raising speed on highwsys.
But the Premier was airlifted in by special interests and it shows.
In oz they speak of carbon capture,pretty sure that's been solved. it's called trees
Then they cut down thousands of trees for a solar farm.
Also, cows and other ruminants
A few years back we were big on planting trees but I never see much of this anymore
Did they give up
A few years back we were big on planting trees but I never see much of this anymore
Did they give up
@@davidbarnsley8486 No, but the tree cutters are running way ahead of the tree planters, and the difference in biomass is staggering. One mature tree can weigh over 20K pounds. Planting one, ten, or a hundred one pound saplings doesn't even begin to make up the difference.
In scientific experiments the data collected is subjected to a confidence interval. The confidence interval gives you "confidence" that the observations and estimates collected in your experiment is of a certain level of precision such that any observed deviations from that core data can be deemed significant. I have maintained for years that a confidence interval applied to the collected climate data would not allow you to deem the observed deviations in climate as significant, but apparently this is the one experiment in scientific history where we throw out the fundamental rules of science to prove our point.
But, there's no money and control in the truth ! They "need" the Scare stories !
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
Correlate the rise in CO2 levels with the increase in the global currency supply. Monetary inflation causes economic waste
You are partially right but only in that excessive over consumption of resources to satisfy human greed has driven global warming.
Yes, as the climate crisis advocates know - correlation DOES equal causation.
In the words of Winston Churchill "never let a good crisis go to waste".
When I was a child in Denmark. We use to have icebreakers that would sail out and carve routes for ships to sail. Some winters the sea between Denmark and Sweden use to ice over so you could walk to Sweden. No we dont even have one icebreaker and there´s never any ice between Denmark and Sweden. We´re lucky to even get a bit of snow now. 40 years ago we would get snow every winter for weeks. The temperature is most certain rising. It´s the same in the French alps. You use to be able to ski at a much lower altitude. These days you have to go to the top of the mountains to find snow. Winter season is shorter too.
It's amusing to see that no one has upvoted your experience of the climate in your area over the last few decades. Everyone commenting on this yt refuses to accept climate change in any form!
Googled "when was the last ice age" - 115000 to 117000 years ago. Been getting warmer ever since. Highly doubtful humans ended that ice age or caused the warming since.
You mean the last full glaciation (as we are in an ice age). That ended due to the Milankovitch Cycles and the associated increasing GHG concentrations. The planet is currently warming at a rate of 30x what is would when naturally coming out of a full glaciation. According to Milankovitch theory, the planet should be cooling very slowly towards the next full glaciation, not rapidly warming.
Fred Flintstone had a car around that time. He was always leaving it ticking over outside his cave. I blame him
@@Richard482 Milankovich theory is incomplete. There are lots of cycles we still don't know about. It's only been a couple of months since we discovered an atmospheric cycle linked to the orbit of Mars and it's gravitational effect on Earth.
Meanwhile your claim that Earth is warming at 30x the natural rate is based not on incomplete data, but on falsified and debunked data. Simon Heller's youtube channel has many videos showing how the agencies tasked with gathering this temperature data routinely either gerrymand it into showing a warming effect (for instance by moving all their weather stations onto airports or switching between reporting ground and air temperature, whichever is higher), or simply making it up. While there is some viable evidence of a period of a small amount of warming from about 1989 - 2001. There is zero viable evidence that the planet has had any warming since. In fact, it's almost certain that the HungaTonga eruption is leading to a bit of global cooling and will do so for many years to come.
Thank you Jordan. Blessings
Why would we think now would be different that no lies are intermixed for an objective that's outside of a centered one? Who thinks like that?
Interesting. Nice video. Thanks.
Anyone who seriously looks into CC will discover that the earth's climate is such an incredibly complex systems involving hundreds of different variables (which is why the models are so wrong so often) that this idea that temperature completely depends on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is absurd, when we know from historical data that the 400ppm of CO2 is very small compared to past times when there was over 3000ppm and yet it was much colder than now even with 5x the amount of CO2.
Yes, very complex. It's almost as if it was created by an intelligent designer 😉
Are you referring to the late Ordovician ice age?
The hottest period historically coincided with a spike in oxygen levels, from what I remember.
@@anonygent The PETM?
@@Richard482 Apparently that coincided with a drop in O2. I was thinking of the early Carboniferous, when high O2 levels and high temperatures led to vast rainforests and huge insects. Later in the same period, O2 levels dropped and the world froze, wiping out the rainforests.
Moore + Peterson ....... I can wait to see full interview
I wouldn't listen to a word Moore says. He says it's safe to drink weed killer.
@@christophersnedekerReally? Where does he say that?
@@GTfour01 ua-cam.com/video/AjJCHQ_Igq4/v-deo.html
Excellent, thanks
Nothing about it is excellent. Neither Jordan nor Patrick are climate scientists and they're debunked by those who are.
The 400K, 200K 100K 10K and 1K geologic record shows that just on the verge of an ice age the temperatures rise to a point of 3d. over average and then cascade by nine d., hence the coming of an ice age,.
It’s June the third today, it’s cold and pissing down.
AHH, that's not climate, that's weather. 😊
David Hilterman: "The more fossil fuels we use the better for humanity." The earth has grown more than 25% greener and better with 50% more CO2 since 1820. CO2 is food for plants which are absorbing more, at least half of the extra CO2 from fossil fuels and producing more oxygen.
Plant growth, food production, biodiversity and petroleum byproducts have grown tremendously to meet the growing population surge.
With the onset in 1820 of fossil fuels use in the world, extreme poverty was 95%. It shrunk to 47% in 1960 (3 billion people). Today only 10% of the world (8.1 billion people) is in extreme poverty.
Plants are taking in increased CO2 and yielding, more beneficial oxygen also.
Commercal plant growers use 3X more CO2 in their in greenhouses at 1200 ppm.
That’s all irrelevant and used as a strawman argument by prominent denier sites. The land and ocean cannot absorb all the extra CO2 we are emitting. About 40% of the additional CO2 we are emitting is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, consequently, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in millions of years. (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of has taken just 120 years). CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the simple truth is greenhouse gases allow short wavelength solar radiation to pass through the atmosphere unimpeded. As the Sun warms up Earth’s surface, longer wavelength thermal radiation is reflected back into the atmosphere. Some of this thermal radiation passes into space, some of the radiation is absorbed and some is reflected back to Earth. More CO2 means more thermal radiation is reflected back to Earth and this causes the temperature on Earth to rise. It is all explained through science.
@@hosnimubarak8869 "Science" seems to show me that the atmosphere was FAR hotter millions of years ago than it is today. Further, I seem to see there are dramatic variations in earths CO2 and temperature over the course of millions of years and that recent changes seem to fit very nicely in with the millions of years of recorded history. People are easily fooled when shown small data sets (recent 100 years for example) out of the context of hundreds of millions of years. The temperature on earth, as best we know, was about the same 1,000,000 years ago as it is today. The temperature on earth, as best we know, has fluctuated significantly higher and lower over millions of years. Further, why would anyone believe that a warmer earth is less desirable than a cooler one? It seems pretty clear to me that an earth which is a few degrees warmer would support more life, produce more food, and sustain a higher population of large animals (like humans) than a cooler earth. Even further, if one were to believe that humans are causing the change (which is unproven), and that the change is bad for humanity (which is probably false), you still need to believe that the "solution" being offered us is genuine rather than related to the power structure alarming people in order to gain themselves more money and control. All three of these beliefs seem sketchy, at best, to me. I am just looking at the data sets and not automatically assuming a narrative that I know is making the rich and powerful much more rich and powerful, at our expense.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1018
earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/
@@slhenorth7002
Sigh. Don't you see? The concern isn't just "the planet is warming." The concern is that Earth is warming at a rate roughly 10x that of the gradual warming that ended the last glacial period.
@@hosnimubarak8869 I don't believe this is true. If it were true, a warmer earth would benefit our grandchildren anyway. And perhaps most key for you to understand is that, the "solution" the rich and powerful are selling you, is not only untrue, it contributes further to the "problem".
@@slhenorth7002
Do a search for "Wet bulb temperature effects on human health". And keep in mind, more than 3.3 billion people live in the tropics, representing about 40% of the world’s population. Despite some areas of affluence, such as Singapore, the tropics are also home to about 85% of the world’s poorest people and are therefore particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change.
It's not about if earth was once hotter than now, it's about the rate of increase in temperature.
Yes the earth have been hotter than now, but that took thousands of years. Life had time to adapt.
Right now it's going so fast, life doesn't have time to adapt. Therefore the danger of another mass extinction event.
If we don't act now, it's quite possible even mankind doesn't survive in the next hundreds of years, but if we act now, mankind Will still have a chance.
So stop having discutions about it and use your brainpower for solutions!!
If you study how the seasons evolve and how the sun is responsible, you're looking at spans of thousands of years.
I believe the sun is getting hotter. This may not be scientific, but, to me, it feels hotter on my skin when I am in direct sunlight. Even when the air temperature is in the upper 70's-low 80's I feel "the burn" that I used to feel 400 miles further south from where I live. Could that be what's really happening and they are hiding it from us?
It is very gradually becoming hotter. In one billion years it will be 10% more luminous. At this time it will occasion the gradual loss of Earth’s water into space. This will commence when the mean surface temperature reaches 47 degrees centigrade and will take 30 million years.
When kids used to paint a picture years ago, they painted the sun yellow. And we all saw / assumed a yellow sun. Look outside now and the sun, to my eyes, is definitely whiter. And whiter means hotter. Is it just me?
"I believe the sun is getting hotter. This may not be scientific, but, to me, it feels hotter on my skin when I am in direct sunlight".
And let me guess , you also believe monkeys will fly out of your butt.
@@hosnimubarak8869 No. Just you.
@@maxcordell1There has been a change in the ratio of Hydrogen to Helium production in the Sun over recent years that support your observations.
my grandparents lived through the world wars and great depressions.... therefore world wars and great depressions is not something to worry about.
Do you gross in dumb remarks?
The tide rises and falls. Measuring *only* the rising tide and proclaiming an imminent flood of the world is not scientific, even if you use the tools of science.
I take it that you are poking some with cynicism, nice try. It is not that we should not worry about “wars and great depressions”, it is that we should not be insanely afraid thinking about them. Your grandparents proved they are survivable. Same most likely applies to the climate change scare.
@@hrbeta let him cower in terror.
Still have a ways to go to catch up with temps from the medieval warm period.
absolute proof
Is there any video of Peterson talking with a leading climatologist that disagrees with him? I can only find conversations with people that basically agrees with him. It would be interesting to see what he would say if someone challanged him. I hope he has had the courage to test his position at some point but I can't find it.
Exactly. Why not put all that openness he has to Patrick Moore's or Richard Lindzen's viewpoints to articulate climate scientists that represent the conclusions of mainstream science: that there is strong evidence that CO2 is the cause of the current warming, that the current warming is extremely rapid in comparison to any time humans have existed, that computer models have actually done quite a good job of predicting warming, that warming will have consequences that will cause increasing damage to things people care about. Let them discuss why they believe these things.
There are several exammples I can think of off the top of my head that convince me of Patrick Moore's less than honest presentation (presentation because I do not believe he produces climate science. He talks to people friendly to him, like Dr. Peterson, with wide reach and large viewership. As just one example: in Moore's PragerU video he lists various things that influece climate and mentions orbital cycles, going into some detail, and noting orbital forcing is not included in general circulation climate models that incorporate the physics and chemsitry involved in greehouse gas forced temperature rise. These orbital forcings are important on timescales of many thousands of years - these changes are not important in the timeframe that humans have influencing climate into the the later part of this century, which is the period of concern and modeled. This give the impressinon a critical component is excluded from the models. What excuse is there for Moore to give this impression. That's just one example, briefly explained. There are more. It's depressing. Please Dr. Peterson, invite a mainstream, preferably publishing scientist on and ask them to explain why they believe what they believe. Maybe Jim Hansen a longtime climate researcher, former Director of NASA's Goddard Institue for Space Studies, for example. He's a proponent of nuclear energy like you are. Or one of the many other capable scientists that could address your concerns with respect to the research.
I have seen him debate with climate alarmists. You just have to search it out.
@@jlpaints I have seen that too, but they were not experts in the field. I'm talking about the level of professors.
I don't think those scientists are allowed on the Daily Wire. Also many of them feel that discussions with the climate 'sceptics' are like talking to religious fundamentalists. They have a litany of scripted responses, and even when confronted with evidence dismiss it as the work of Satan and change the subject. Not worth the time of busy men and women doing more important stuff.
A lot of alarmist refuse to debate anyone who disagrees with them, and just label them a 'climate change denier'. It's a lot easier than utilising the usual scientific methods to arrive at truth.
Look up the thunderstorm generator!!!
what is goin on in your prof pic my guy lol is that a gun he's holding?
Yeah seen that, interesting to see where the development goes and how long it takes to become available if ever. Glad he didn’t make the mistake of greed
Perhaps this hack should stick to psychology.
It's not just Mother Nature who controls the weather.
Nothing is just anything.
True! It's your ev use and tax contribution too! Blessed observation comrade.
Exactly. We've had ionospheric heaters and other exotic technology for more than 3 decades now.
True, our sun and moon too.
@@solrubrum and geo engineering.
This is what I know the Roman warming era which lasted for 500 years what's 2° C warmer than it is today and somehow the polar bears and the penguins are all just fine
Some people will try to say that was only in the Mediterranean I'm sorry you don't know what to have in your talking about you cannot have a geographic area that large be 2° warmer and it not be a global event it would have definite impacts on the globe FACT
Why does it get cold in the desert at night. Because water vapor is by far the dominant green house gas in our atmosphere. This is easily explained by the large permanent dipole moment that water has and CO2 does not.
For me, the question has always been, when the intra-day variability is 10-15 times the average increase they say will destroy the earth, small changes in variability could be causing the 1-1.5 degree increase.
Thanks perfesser.
@@hosnimubarak8869 you are very welcome sonny.
4.5 billion years ago the Earth evolved. 62 years ago Jordan Peterson emerged.
So why have the greenies let the Amazon be cleared. So called the lungs of the earth
Gotta have that cheap palm oil
"Let"? Like they have the power to stop it? Your reality testing is extremely poor. For how long have you been having delusions?
I say it’s not only getting hotter - but the days are getting longer where I live! 😂
Well they are getting shorter where I live. And wider. In fact yesterday was a very wide day.
"We" were not around 250m years ago.
Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[58] Moore's work as a lobbyist has prompted criticism from environmental activists, who have accused him of acting as an advocate for many of the industries that Greenpeace was founded to counter.[39][9] His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[39] Monte Hummel, president of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, has claimed that Moore's book Pacific Spirit is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions".
So in 500 million years life went from single cell to incredibly complex life (and an insane number of complex life). Not even close to enough time for that to happen by natural processes alone
You did it yourself in 9 months
And nobody has yet explained how single cell organisms came about by apparently random uncontrolled chance
@@hughfawcett4333 The old "So God did it" argument ! ... Please explain how an all-powerful being ' came about' ? ... You can't believe life can evolve so postulate an infinitely more complicated being was responsible without explaining how that exists... a truly absurd piece of reasoning !
It is self replicating molecules and genetic code at work.
It would be really interesting to discover another planet with life.
Are DNA and RNA the only self replicating molecules which could form the basis of life? Must the same amino acids be used?
I strongly suspect that planets with simple unicellular level life are much more numerous than those with complex multicellular level life.
It is too soon to bring ID in. They are not ready for that kind of thinking.
No true leader would ever pander fear to their followers. Fear is the greatest impediment to progress that leadership seeks to achieve.
Of course she does it naturally from time to time. Has done for 4.5 Billion years or so....
The earth is getting hotter. What's more it is getting hotter at the rate predicted by the models and theory of anthropogenic global warming due to increasing CO2 concentration. The first IPCC report in 1991 gave the most likely temperature rise with each doubling of CO2 concentration, the equilibrium climate sensitivity or ECS as 3 C.
RSS satellite temperature trend from 1979 to February 2024
Trend: 0.210 °C/decade
The temperature change for the 4.5 decades is 0.95 C..
Mauna Loa CO2 concentration rise 338 to 422 ppm.
According to the logarithmic relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration, for the period in question
0.95 = k ln(422/338)
Solving the equation gives the proportionality constant, k= 4.26
So the temperature rise with doubling of CO2 concentration (ECS) and including the 24% error is
4.26 x ln2 = 4.26 x 0.693 = 3.0 C
Data matching the prediction of causal theory is the best evidence there is that the theory is correct.
The warming is not due to the sun as solar intensity has been declining for decades toward the Grand Solar Minimum.
Also, if the temperature rise was caused by increasing solar radiation, the troposphere and stratosphere would both warm.
If caused by an increase in greenhouse gases, the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That was predicted in1967, and has been shown to be what is happening by satellite data. Syukuro Manabe, the surviving scientist who made the prediction (his collaborator Richard Wetherald had since died) was awarded the Nobel prize in physics in 2021.
Concisely put. It baffles me that some people will do the most elaborate tap-dancing to try and get round observable data which conform to the predictions made by hypotheses from the 19th century onwards.
Ehm no, the models run too *hot* - except the Russian one, which has CO2 influence dialed down . None of other models have been right - all at 25-50 % too hot And yes, we can tell since this BS have been happening for 40 years now.
@@Michael-jx9bh In testimony before Congress by skeptic Judith Curry, satellite temperature data was declared the "gold standard" and "best we have" and RSS data was sworn by when skeptics were claiming a temperature pause from 1998 to 2015.
The satellite data agrees with surface temperature data.
RSS satellite temperature trend from 1979 to February 2024
Trend: 0.210 °C/decade
So the temperature change for the 4.5 decades is 0.95 C
Mauna Loa CO2 concentration rise 338 to 422 ppm.
So according to the logarithmic relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration, for the period in question
0.95 = k ln(422/338)
Solving the equation gives the proportionality constant, k= 4.26
So the temperature rise with doubling of CO2 concentration (ECS) and including the 24% error is
4.26 x ln2 = 4.26 x 0.693
= 3.0 C
The warming is not due to the sun as solar intensity has been declining for decades toward the Grand Solar Minimum.
Also, if the temperature rise was caused by increasing solar radiation, the troposphere and stratosphere would both warm.
If caused by an increase in greenhouse gases, the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That was predicted in1967, and has been shown to be what is happening by satellite data. Syukuro Manabe, the surviving scientist who made the prediction (his collaborator Richard Wetherald had since died) was awarded the Nobel prize in physics in 2021.
So the data agrees with the earlier IPCC models and paleodata putting the most likely value of the ECS at 3 C.
In 1981, at a time when global temperatures had not risen since a peak in the 1940s due to solar cycles, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation all being at a maximum then, Hansen et al published a paper in Science that predicted that the CO2 warming signal would become evident above the background 'natural' forcings later that decade. That prediction was correct. It also correctly predicted the global temperature today.
Predictions of ice mass loss, sea level rise, ocean pH fall and many other climate markers have been shown to be correct.
@@Michael-jx9bh Have you actually looked at those projections published in the last 40-50 years? Or is this just something you saw on a sceptic blog?
And if you instead stop at 2022 you get 0.6C of warming, or about 0.14C / decade, for about the same CO2 concentration.
Cherry picking is fun!
edit: a more reasonable way would be to look at the 10 year average starting from 1979 and the 10 year average starting from 2014, which works out to something like 0.5C over 35 years (taking the mid point years of the average ranges), or about 0.142C / decade
Mr. Peterson, I will still respect you as a psychologist and a role model, but at this point you are wrong. Not even great minds are immune against confirmation byass, obviously.
Today’s climate debate has little to do with changes in the past. Climate has always fluctuated. Rather it is about how FAST it is changing now, whether or not the current rate of change is influenced or caused by humanity, and whether or not it poses significant problems for people and other living things.
WOW! JP knows about EVERYTHING
Yes, just like that conman, Donald Trump.
I wouldn't believe a word this guy says. He's such a corporate simp he said it was safe to drink weed killer.
Until they called him on it and he refused to drink it!
It does disappoint me that Peterson, who has a lot of very intelligent insights into humanity, gets caught up in this climate change minimization nonsense.
Maybe you should stop and ask why honest and intelligent people who have a habit of calling out dishonest and unintelligent actions are trying to warn you about being conned?
@@classicalextremism I think the problem is that JP (who I agree seems honest and is intelligent) is straying too far from his knowledge base and is being swept up by charlatans and aging egomanics who have been unable to accept that they were wrong as scientific understanding of climate change came more clearly into focus. I would also agree that (many) climate activists have been disingenuous in their claims. But underlying all this is a very robust body of research that conclusively shows that continuing on our current GH gas pollution path will be disastrous for human civilization.
@@MJ-gv6pwseems like a truth unfortunately…
WOW, and I can't even tell you accurately what I did yesterday.
Me too. I love these crime films where the cop asks someone "what were you doing at 2.30pm on Tuesday, 5 weeks ago?"
Dr Peterson. Just saw you with my 15 year old son in Phoenix. The prospective you provide to both parents and children is priceless and a gift. We thank you. You keep talking about Carbon dioxide, but isn’t the concern carbon monoxide?
Hey Jordan, why don't you interview some real climate scientists to explain the science to you? They can also explain the many ways in which Patrick Moore is wrong. But then truth isn't the objective though, is it. Peterson really blows the credibility of his claims to be any kind of scientist when he talks sh1t about subjects like this and interviews jokes. Peterson has claimed to have some kind of knowledge about the subject by hyping what was really a job finding propaganda for a politician.
Such scientists would not pass the Daily Wire attitude inspection.