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.
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 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
@@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.
@@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.
@@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 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'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.
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.
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.
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?
@@alibi247some facts in there, some missing facts, some distorted claims, wrong conclusions. How about this: “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. “ Are we sheep because we accept the theory of a scientific global majority?
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.
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..😊
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.
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.
@@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
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?
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.
When did you study? How much time did you devote to understand climate change and climate models? How much time have you devoted to peer review climate change models? How much of your "insight" has been peer reviewed by others?
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
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.
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.
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.
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 😉
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.
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
@@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.
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
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.
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 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....
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@iquetzal6014 we had to know True North, tilt of the Earth for that day, Longitude and Latitude of our local, direction of the shot in Mills (6,400 Mills in 360 degrees making 17.778 Mills in one degree), along with the Water Vapor % so we can adjust for drag... It's called a Plotting Table and isn't easy to learn. Artillery doesn't have to know the Coreolis Effect to much of an extent because their rounds are only in the air for a few seconds. While a 120mm charge 4 round can be in the air for over 70 seconds.
@@willardswelding7243 he's 💯% correct... We always worked with our Battalion Scout Snipers because they also has to use the Coreolis Effect, along with wind, Water Vapor percentage, day of the year, along with Longitude and Latitude. We would get the best tactical ranges together because we had a Special Skill Identification... But your brother will be able to tell you, most 11C platoons are NOT High Speed like that. Most of them are extremely lazy. Light Infantry is a wild beast. 🤘
@@tankeater Maybe so, but my brother would tell you that it is good to play nice with your 11C buddies because they put a lot of iron down range in a short time and can usually get it there long before your team’s TPAC can get it dropped from the sky. God bless a guy that can quickly lay in a mortar and get ordinance on target tout sweet!
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.
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.
@@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.
Did you check to see if Jordan's guest is the one doing the lying? You should. He has taken money from OPEC, Western Fuels and Peabody Energy. Did Jordan share that with you? He did not. 22 atmospheric scientists from Lindzen's own MIT also publicly rebuked him for spreading lies about climate, which you can see at CLIMATE CONTRARIAN GETS FACT-CHECKED BY MIT COLLEAGUES. Lindzen has also been utterly destroyed in the scientific literture, which you can see at CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: RICHARD LINDZEN, at the Skeptical Science website. Whether Jordan was unaware of Lindzen' ZERO credibility rating or he just didn't care, it should give you pause concerning his own credibility in this arena, an arena he is utterly untrained in. Always vet your experts before you believe them. Paid fossil fuel industry propagandists are everywhere.
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.🤔
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 RUclips "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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The hydro-dynamics apply MORE to the poles, where there is less sunlight. The greenhouse effect is much more, because what used to be dry arctic air, has become (relatively) moist arctic air, which is a powerful GHG. The N pole heated by 7'C when the equator saw 1'C (5 years ago). That also leads to the temperature difference between pole and equator becoming less, so there is less energy to drive those Coriolis forces, less energy to drive the polar vortex, which has slowed down, and now meanders over a bigger area. Like a tightened spring, being relaxed, that is a negative feedback, absorbing some of the change, keeping us closer to the middle. Where we live does not feel so hot, because the Arctic air keeps up cool. But that is now another, newer factor to worry about. It is not all plain averages, there will be increased bad days. Extreme cold, extreme heat. The jetstream meander patters, will matter more. When there is less sun, the power of the sun is MORE important, not LESS. Mid-summer has a huge heating effect, which currently is absorbed, by the Arctic ice melting (and refreezing 6 months later). The amount of ice melting and freezing each year, is a bigger swing than the amount of ice left. That means there is a day, when you can go out, and see as much there, as thaws each year. And it wont be a small amount. GOOGLE and plot data for PIOMAS Dismissing GHG and sunlight is fanciful nonsense. The earth receives heat from the sun, as higher-light-frequencies. The warmth of the earth emits IR (lower frequencies, we are not as hot as the sun). A lot of light is reflected, so is never "received", but the totals, in both directions matter. The amount of light the earth emits (and reflects), MUST equal the amount it receives, otherwise there is an energy imbalance. The feedback system, is that a warmer earth, emits more IR, and the same amount gets out to space. That is the new equilibrium temperature. At that time the increase stops, except we are below equilibrium, and we are accumulating heat. The full force of sunlight, must be radiated out to space, or else heating (or cooling) happens. OK you divide Sahara sun levels by 4 because day/night and because face-on-equator, side-on-pole, and you spread over a year, or decade, but heat in and heat out must match, or temperatures will move. Greenhouse gasses, absorb IR, which were headed out for space, and re-emit IR (IR is warmth heat as light, 99% of the heat you feel from sitting close to a fire is IR, unless you are actually in the hot air). That random direction, is 1/6 back down to the ground. 1/6 less up to space (of that which was absorbed and re-emitted, a lot still goes through un-paused. Currently cities are heating up, then thankfully rain happens. That washes the heat down to the oceans, which are SLOWLY heating everything up. But you probably feel that there is not a problem, because the equilibrium temperature has not been reached. Then there is the "it is something like 20'C outside. One or two degrees difference will mean nothing". The ice age was only 4'C colder than 100 years ago, but it came with 2 mile ice. That was not 15'C, compared to 20'C, that was consistently below zero. A completely different local situation (one that accumulates 3km of ice, when you expect it to grow the grass that feeds the cattle, whilst you dont eat the wheat, which will also be absent). We are dozens of thousands of years away from the next ice age, and the point is in the opposite direction. A few extra degrees, wont means the difference between 20 and 25, it will mean only equatorial forests will be habitable, and they sustain 1 person every km2, not the billions who currently enjoy being sustained. It wont be a hot afternoon, it will be a desert bowl, and the worlds most powerful munitions, keeping its population under authoritarianism.
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.
@@HealingLifeKwikly 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.
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.
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.
@@andrezcabara2774are you describing your own brain? Using a crisis for power is a standard tactic. Cloward Piven strategy. Not that I expect you to look that up though.
I am very envious of Jordan the ability to talk to all these brilliant people and the mass of knowledge gathered puts him in a unique position to speak to the real state of our worlds health so much more accurately than any politician
Just the opposite, my friend. Jordan is a clinical psychologist, not a climate scientist, and he knows so little about the field that he is easily hoodwinked by oil industry shills and crackpots. Richard Lindzen is a perfect case in point. 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 has taken payments from OPEC, Western Fuels and Peabody Energy. He has also been robustly debunked in the scientific literature, which you can see at CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: RICHARD LINDZEN, at the Skeptical Science website. Also see how 22 atmospheric scientists from his own MIT publicly rebuked him for his propaganda at CLIMATE CONTRARIAN GETS FACT-CHECKED BY MIT COLLEAGUES. The crime here is that Jordan, out of pure ignorance or bias, never tells his viewers any of this.
Dr. Peterson's biblical series is one of the greatest contributions to modern society. It’s such a blessing that my wife and I aren’t just married, but we’re also each other’s best strategic partner in the gospel and in business. I’m great at what she lacks, she’s great at what I lack and we have an Adviser to work with. Praise God!! And thank you for the awesome content!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
@@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.
Yes it was some high level bullshitting. He elaborates on how the weather dynamics are different for the tropics versus the poles. .... Yes, and ??? .... The really important question is: are the oceans heating up (yes), are the polar regions heating up, both of them (hell, yes) Are we losing ice cover, is the ice corrupted by meltwater - Greenland and Antarctic. And it is also really bad in the Arctic, not to forget the glaciers in the Himmalaya - which feed ALL important rivers in Asia. As for ice cover it is also about thickness, plus of course surface. Yes we lose ice. The poles are important, they are like the canary in the coal mine. Water needs a LOT of enery to heat up (much, much more than the gas in the atmosphere - which he talks about ! ) Land needs more energy to heat up and then it will stor it for a while. But the most important "heat dump" are the oceans. it takes longer to heat them up (the longest) - but water also stores energy very well once it has been heated up. We can now measure the increase of temperature 2000 m down in the ocean. Most of the extra energy of the last 40 years has been absorbed in the oceans, but it is not going to stay there forever. AND warm ocean water means a lot of changes to the climate (the currents - air and ocean water will change. Warm surface water = more violent storms that last longer. Maybe not many more in numbers, but those tend to be really violent and they last longer. So a hurricane circling for 60 hours over Houston dumping huge amount of rain a few years ago. When it used to be that a hurricane lost its power 28 hours (average) after it hit land. The storm is fed by the energy from warm ocean surface water, and if this water is very warm it takes longer until the supply of energy is disrupted. Ice needs MUCH MORE energy to melt - which means ice beats liquid water by far when it comes to absorbing heat (but the heat = energy is still there !) The energy is in the system. Once water is melted it is still a good energy buffer but nothing compared to ice. Ice is a buffer. If you want to melt sweet water ice that is at 0 degrees Celsius (that is freezing point) you have to add a lot of energy. Let's say you add heat until you end up with water with 0 degree Celsius (so not warmer than before, but the water is in another phase). If you add the exact same energy once again the water will have 80 degrees C, that is not yet the boiling point of 100 degrees, but very hot, you could seriously burn yourself. The phase liquid to crystal releases an enormous amount of energy and the same energy must be be absorbed in order to melt the ice. Ice is a buffer in our climate system, and there are industrial uses because it is a good temperature buffer / heat storage medium. It is about AVERAGE GLOBAL temperatures. The planet is around 66 % ocean. The atmoshpere (gas) does not store much energy. He is (also) talking about the atmosphere (which is the field he specializes in). And if the tropics would warm up by 1,5 degree Celsius (does he mean surface temperatures ? I guess he does, so we are talking land temperature now) that is still a huge amount of energy. It is not like the difference between morning and a few hours later. The AVERAGE 1,5 degree are everwhere, everyday, day and night - and in practice that means much higher seasonal extremes (in the tropics that may show up during the rain or the drier season). If the temps go up for 4 degrees during day for a few weeds during the year, that may well doom some plants and animals to extinction, and set up the scene for huge fires. There were rainforest fires a few years ago in South East Asia, looks like the ground was a bit like peat, and they could not extinguish them, the fires kept on smouldering (and messed with airtraffic even in neighbour countries). Either Malaysia or Indonesian forests. Such average higher temps in the tropis (or elsewhere) can mean changed weather patterns. Especially in the tropics that can influence the rain season (or lack thereof) of far away countries.
Unless Lindzen can show that there is a NEW mechanism (in the atmosphere of the tropics or elsewhere) so that more energy is reflected into space his little lecture (mainly about the tropical atmosphere) is meaningless. There have been lots of studies and models done IF there could be different forms of clouds that would either hinder or promote reflection of energy back into space. So cloud formation that would make the problem worse or help. No one can say for sure, it is highly complex and it is not like this hasn't gotten a lot of attention. And brain and computing power. I assume what he stated as facts is all correct (I think atmospheric research is his area of expertise) - but they are not relevant for the argument he makes. And he knows that of course. Lindzen is either on an ego trip (being a contrarian) or he is in it for the money. Also note how the oil industry has not hired him to parade him around. Sure he would not be an academic at a university. But if he has relevant new insights he still could publish while the oil industry would pay him really, really well. If the findings are convincing he will be published and discussed - among his peers that he cannot impress with bullshitting with some academic veneer. Even if we suppose a conspiracy among all the respected ! traditional publications that publish for peer review - nowadays there are online platforms for publishing. The difference: the well respected magazines do not ask for money, if the study holds up and is relevant they will gladly accept it (after vetting it). And all the academic institutions and libraries have subscriptions. That is their biz model. The newer not so well respected platforms that came about with the internet .... Those who want to publish have to pay. But those platforms still claim that the idea is that the best in their field will review what a researcher has published. And that scientists will debate, contradict, add suggestions etc. - like they do with the content of the traditional magazines (which used to be printed, these were expensive journals that were globally distributed, so before the advent of the internet there were no alternatives, now they are all online). As long as the published content is worth that investement of time and brainpower the odd study on the new platforms that has some relevance can get some traction. And now imagine the oil industry would do some marketing around a study that holds up unter academic scrutiny (and is relevant !) Peer review is like the swarm intelligence of the best experts (globally) in a certain academic field. Plenty of bs has been published on the new platforms for peer review but occasionally there could be something mildly interesting, even relevant. If it gets traction the established magazines would accept those studies for publishing. Lindzen could get financed by the oil industry and publish studies that challenge ... whatever. But the oil industry does not do that ..... Russia - before all the political tensions - did not financ scientists like Lindzen. And they do not even need him, they have a proud academic tradition themselves. They certainly could have done plenty of studies. Russia used to be the number 3 oil exporting nation a few years ago (The U.S. Saudia Arabia, then Russia). Oil and gas export is very, very important for Russian state finances. But they did not come up with those studies - in order to prove to Western politicians and their citizens that the claims about Global Warming are not true, and that it would be a good idea to consume carbohydrates in the future - preferably from Russia. No such studies were published.
@@franziskaniThat's a nice text wall you got there, but it failed to dismiss the possibility of this warming being a natural cycle. Many ice core samples have been taken from both poles which have revealed that there have been several periods in Earth's prehistoric history where global temperatures were much hotter than today. What's up with that?
@@franziskani you are making some basic thermodynamic mistakes ... the heat capacity of ice is 38 J/molC, much lower than liquid water 75 J/molC. Ice is a miserable heat sink. And on top of that, most of the light is just reflected into space
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
Hey climate crazies, what is the percentage of CO2 that makes-up the Earth's atmosphere? I'll give you a hint, its less than 1.00 percent. I'll give you another hint, it's less than 0.5 percent. I'll given you another hint, it's less than 0.09 percent. The correct answer is 0.04 percent.
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
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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…
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 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.
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)
I am trying to summarise my understanding of the coriolis effect, most explanations seem confusing because it focuses on the air in relation to the earth, rather that the earth in relation to the air. The land at the equator is moving faster than the land at the poles, this is also true for the air. The warm/high pressure air at the equator gets pushed towards the poles, flowing from hot to cold/high to low. This air is being dragged by the earth the earth at a high velocity, then as it gets closer to the poles, the land isn't traveling as quickly, so the air appears to be moving more quickly. It does not suddenly "vear to the right" as most explanations put it, it just appears that way looking from the ground. We are rotating beneath that air, and we measure wind as the difference between the speed of the air and the speed of land, the difference is lower near the equator and higher near the poles, but the air is actually moving the fastest at the equator.
It causes circular weather patterns Polar storms are more intense and more frequent in polar regions ...it's a complex thing but once you understand it it's simple Watch some animations of computer models to see the effects ..just google it
@@pawelpap9 Many things are taught in highschool that are remembered long enough to take the test and then forgotten. I can't even imagine our nation if adults actually knew everything they were taught.
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.
Thank you very much. I thought that this was the key part of the original interview. It's a really smart idea to do this, to excerpt the best part of a longer interview.
People are easy to control when they are scared, and it seems that certain people have made it their main job to scare people, and making money out of it.
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.
There is no question that we can adapt. But at what cost? Insurance companies are already jumping ship on coverage for climate damage. New York and Louisiana currently have a combined $100 billion in new flood mitigation projects in the works, and were just getting started. This isn't going to be cheap.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 You are correct. Adaptation is not inexpensive. All the way back on time humans have adapted, sometimes having to take drastic solutions like moving large groups, in order to survive. All the way down to single celled organisms, including plants, adapt to survive. Watch a vine plant over time choose more effective routes to climb or spread to avoid limiting its growth.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481going green is costing us all billions and you are worried about insurance premiums 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 You believers literally can’t think for yourself.
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...
"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.
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.
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."
@@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".
At the poles. If its -60 degrees now, and you increase temps by one degree.... Its still -59 degrees and NOTHING MELTS. You gotta hit +33 degrees. People need perspective.
Dr Jordan Peterson is a legend. A gift to humanity who just keeps giving and giving. Beyond Order is one of the best books i have ever read, halfway through Antidote to Chaos and it is just as good. His online content is outstanding, whether it is the interviews with a wide variety of guests, the lectures on psychology from his university days in Canada, the discussions and lectures on the Bible, the informative website, the self-authoring programme, the list goes on. Dr Peterson is transforming peoples' lives around the world. I am looking forward to his next book We Who Wrestle With God. He is a talented at painting and drawing too. A remarkable individual. I hope he is with us for another 30 years at least, he was extremely ill from 2019 to 2021 but is looking so much better these days. Whatever happened to the alleged hole in the ozone layer ? We never hear about that any more.
The hole in the ozone? Are you serious? We banned chloroflorocarbons. You know, those substances that were causing the depletion. We literally identified the problem, identified its source, and then addressed it. And you're using this as an example to promote not addressing climate change?
@@Mistjeager if you expect the right to free and open speech, then you need to accept other people’s right to openly disagree with you and put forward other points of view.
Other points of view and debate I'd like to engage with. But most of the time you just get insults and labels thrown at you while being mocked so you'll understand my pessimism towards whether these points would be taken seriously.@@cjexpatuk
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.
@@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.
I dont think any of the actual climate scientists do not believe in uncertainty with their models. The thoughts around what to do about climate change includes both the hypothesis about what is happening and a risk assessment of what should be done based on the probabilities. What I've never heard from anyone who objects to the currently accepted climate change hypothesis is if they feel that we could put an unlimited amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and it would have literally zero effect. If they believe it would have some effect, then explain at what amount of CO2 it would start to have that effect and what that effect would be. I.e. do some actual science rather than just speaking theoretically about what you feel. The fundamental question is if all 8 billion of us are in some way, day after day, week after week, year after year, putting extra CO2 in the air is there an effect we should worry about. That is what must be answered.
We know throughout millions of years of earth's history that every time CO2 exceeded 1000 ppm all the icecaps melted, which inundated the world's shorelines. Meltwater even created a new ocean, the Western Interior Seaway, which crossed down over western Canada and down through the United States. It's why we find the fossils of sea creatures in Kansas. That kind of flooding would not be cool today. We know the last time CO2 reached 1000ppm, global temperature was 12 degrees C higher than today. That would be catastrophic in today's world, making the equatorial regions completely uninhabitable.
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.
@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.
Now this is what you call dialogue. Respectful sharing of information in trying to determine what the truth is. Think Rudyard Kipling's six honest serving men, "Who, when, where, why, what, how". These gentlemen embody the pursuit of these serving truths as best as they can, with very little to no signs of disingenuity.
Here's a couple things that I've not heard generally explored, articulated or repeated, apologies for the novel... 1) There are a number of large climate impacting/controlling feedback loop mechanisms, such as the north Atlantic salinity cycle, that counteracts the potential for positive feedback and accelerating global temperatures, ie addresses tipping points, runaway temperatures. It is referred to somewhat in this interview. In other words if the earth did not have these "temperature regulating or rebalancing mechanisms" there would have been a number of events in history that would have put earth into a runaway temperature condition that would have wiped out all marine and surface life. To our great good fortune the earth seems to have the resiliency and capacity, through a variety of these complex regulating mechanisms, to re-stabilize and self-regulate atmospheric temperatures to "find a new equilibrium" and stay within a set of "bookends", irrespective of whatever external drivers occur (ie volcanic activity, meteor impacts etc). This fact allows for the continuation and support of marine and surface life throughout earths history. I refer to volcanoes as external, in that they take deeply sequestered mass and energy and deliver into the atmospheric/ocean/earth surface environment. 2) What I'm interested in is that, as we continue to take sequestered mass and energy (ie coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, etc), that are not currently part of the existing air/water/land eco/bio-system, and assuming this has a meaningful impact on glaciers, and polar caps melting, ocean temps changing etc (Anthropocene era) , there will be some inherent capacity to "incorporate and rebalance" this newly introduced heat and mass, within the various cycles ie north atlantic salinity cycle, to find a "new equilibrium". My question is, is there sufficient capacity within the rebalancing mechanisms to accommodate all the new energy and mass being added? I believe true sustainability only comes when we harvest and cycle/recycle the mass and energy present within the existing air/water/landmass systems, essentially what's coming from the main external source, the sun, and stop taking deeply sequestered mass and energy and introducing/ reintroducing it into the air/water/landmass environments at the volumes and rates that we are currently doing it.
Reblancing requires millenia. The last time CO2 reached 400ppm, sea level rose 29 feet, according to the University of South Hampton. The only reason we haven't seen 29 feet yet is time, as ice melt greatly lags CO2. The last time CO2 reached 1000ppm, all the icecaps melted and swamped the world's coastal areas. It even created an entirely new ocean, the Western Interior Seaway, which crossed down over Canada into the United States. It's why we find the fossils of sea creatures in Kansas. The last time CO2 went over 2000 ppm was during the Great Dying, when the majority of both land and sea creatures went extinct from the furnace-like, toxic environment. The draw-down of CO2 by rock weathering requires thousands of years, too long a time span to be relevant to our current predicament.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Yes, very good point, the other aspect is the time lag between input and response... an environmental hysteresis if you will....
How does Dr linzden explain the rapid increase of global temperatures over the last 100 years? Temperature on the earth does fluctuate and we aren’t the hottest the earth as ever been, but those changes happen over thousands of years. So what explains the acute increase over the last 100?
Co2's effect as a Greenhouse Gas decays logarithmically. 90% of forcing is achieved by 200ppm, by 400ppm the spectra that Co2 can absorb and re-emit is almost completely saturated and a doubling of Co2 from 400 to 800ppm will not result in a doubling of it's contribution to the Greenhouse effect. In fact, most of the so-called Greenhouse effect is actually an 'Atmospheric Thermal Effect' mainly caused by the pressure exerted downwards by the weight of the atmosphere - adiabatic compression - and this function is completely independent of atmospheric composition. When a gas is compressed it heats up, the same is true for the atmosphere. It doesn't matter if the atmosphere is 99% Co2 or 0.09% Co2, the surface pressure, for the most part is what matters, plus TOA insolation. Of course it's more complex than just those two factors, especially when you start adding in cloudiness, convection etc into a chaotic, non-linear open system, but to even entertain the idea that Co2 is somehow magically responsible for controlling the temperature on Earth is absolutely ridiculous and a complete fallacy!
yea its why Venus is 400C+ and Mars is cold as fuk, Venus has 90 times Earth's pressure and mass while Mars is like 0.1% pressure and less mass...(distant from the Sun plays the other sig part)
So what is pressing on the atmosphere? Heat causes expansion, but there is nothing containing the atmosphere...so a pressure increase can only be achieved by adding MORE atmosphere. Variations in air pressure are the result of "storms"...which produce the extremes.
@@bubbabigmin Is that what's keeping all the hydrogen and helium stuck in the atmosphere? Is gravity increasing? Earth gains about 40,000 tonnes of dust every year, the remnants of the formation of the solar system, which are attracted by our gravity and become part of the matter in our planet. Our planet is actually made from all that starstuff. Earth's core loses energy over time. It's like a giant nuclear reactor that burns fuel. Less energy means less mass. 16 tonnes of that are gone every year. Not much. And here's the big mass loss: about 95,000 tonnes of hydrogen and 1,600 tones of helium escape Earth every year. They are too light for gravity to keep them around, so they get lost. Gone into space. So, summing all these effects mentioned above, you get a mass loss of 57,000 tonnes per year. But this is still much too small to have a measurable effect on gravity (g=GM/r2 ) even after millions of years, because the mass of the earth is M=6⋅1024 kg (i.e. 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes). Keep flailing away...or try looking stuff up first.
Weather is short term atmospheric changes. Climate is long term. Longer than people have been recording weather. As a person, it is so easy to get caught up in thoughts like “When I was a kid, it used to be cooler”, or “This is the hottest summer in the past 50 years”, or “I don’t remember there being so many destructive storms”. People have trouble taking a long view, people are bad at estimating risk, and people have trouble keeping their emotions out of making decisions.
Weather is determined by climate, which is why we're seeing so many more wildfires, floods, hurricanes and other extreme weather events all over the world. The climate has never warmed as quickly in geological time as it has in the last 100 years
@@timothyrussell4445 - You have it backwards. Here’s What the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says - “Weather is what you experience when you step outside on any given day… it is the state of the atmosphere at a particular location over the short-term. Climate is the average of the weather patterns in a location over a longer period of time, usually 30 years or more.” www.noaa.gov/explainers/what-s-difference-between-climate-and-weather#:~:text=Weather%20is%20what%20you%20experience,usually%2030%20years%20or%20more.
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?
When I was in third grade, I read a report about areal photographs around Phoenix. There was a marked increase in plant growth in the desert around Phoenix. It was determined that the additional CO2 made plant growth increase near the city. This was in the 1970s when environmentalists still did some good. Poor land use has caused some deserts to grow, but it has been determined that the increase in CO2 has already shrunk the Earth's deserts by 20% in 60 years. Desert plants draw in CO2 through pores. They get more CO2 now so they need fewer pores. That means they lose less water and grow better in drier areas.
Plants also need water to grow. Warmer planet means more frequent and longer lasting droughts. And when it rains it rains more. Every farmer in my country has already noticed this effect and it starting to affect farm productivity.
@@user-py9cy1sy9u More rain and more droughts? And you wonder why people think it is bullshit with galaxy brain takes like that. Any one with half a brain can tell you a warmer planet would speed up the water cycle.
@@user-py9cy1sy9u warmer planet means more oceanic evaporation and more atmospheric moisture. Warm atmosphere carries more water than cool atmosphere, which is part of why cold fronts trigger rain: as the warm moist air cools down the moisture within condenses out in the form of rain as the air's ability to carry the moisture decreases. don't say dumb politically motivated bullshit like it's fact.
@@jimtrowbridge3465 First its not my prediction. I just repeat what I heard from multiple credible sources. Second it is already happening. As I said people already feeling this and I'm thinking of getting 1000L water storage because the dry periods are getting insane. I dont remember the source but I remember that people put warmer temperatures into weather prediction models. The ones that are used to predict weather a week in advance. Then they put past data to see what would happen if it was warmer. They saw more frequent and longer droughts. Makes sense because hot air can store more water before it starts to rain.
@@miranduri Which Dr. Victor Zammit is this, the vet, mental health doctor, or the diabetes doc, I couldn't find his Wikipedia page. Randi has a pretty long Wikipedia page but I couldn't find "con man" anywhere in it. The doc shouldn't feel bad tho, I once challenged Randi to a sumo match and never answered.
It's a lot like studying the human body. Whatwith hundreds of major interlocked systems. All we can do is pretend that we have any idea of how it works together. In fact, if we were honest, we would admit that we know almost nothing, the complexity is beyond our comprehension. So, you can talk about temperature, earth rotation, cloud motion, but I know you can't fit it all together. It's impossible.
Yeah, we can create a nuclear bomb treat asthma diabetes, create exogenous, chemicals, more potent than testosterone increase somebody’s height with surgery, fight cancer, and predict the muscular picture of an individual based on if they have the xx gene type for androgens. And you are claiming we don’t know how to comprehend the human body when this is just some jack ass, who did steroids once talking about biology and the medical capabilities of humans. And I know more about the human body and a self proclaimed expert.
Normally, the way to resolve a technical difference of opinions is to make predictions, and observe what happens. That's hard to do at this scale, so the only other way is to break it down into regional models, adjust the models, and compare with regional observations. That's what climatologists do, and their results are overwhelmingly in support of a significant climate change, driven by human activity. Globalized (not just regional) results also point in the same direction, so it is very likely this guy is mistaken, and giving (perhaps unwittingly) cover to economic interests that would be harmed by global policies to limit the warming process.
From memory : Fourier postulated the atmosphere as an insulator. Arrhenius calculated CO2 concentrations could impact global. That was a few generations ago.
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.
The Phrases “Climate Change” and “Man Made Climate Change” should never be synonymous. One is clearly categorically less specific than the other. What has happened is a sort of cognitive and linguistic shell game in which the title of the super category “Climate Change” has been substituted for the content of the more specific sub category “Man Made Climate Change” in order to proffer a more robust psychological response to the propositional content.
I have questioned the effect of huge unoccupied forested areas in both Canada and Russia. Trees consume huge amounts of Carbon to grow. Conifers use a bit less than hardwoods by a few percentage points. I haven’t heard much scientific conversation on this countering effect to the CO2 narrative. Loved listening to this scientist. Would love to hear more from him. Thank you Dr. Peterson for your brave love of truth and willingness to counter the huge number of lies being propagated. God Bless and keep you!
Trees die and when they die they decompose releasing all CO2 they absorbed. Planting more trees is just a temporary solution and not enough. Also did you miss all the tree planting initiatives? #teamtrees ?
@@michaelpfaff8280 Spoiler alert. Its not because of trees. Its because we started to dig up huge amounts of carbon and started to burn it releasing huge amount of gasses to the atmosphere.
@@user-py9cy1sy9u ok. Doesn't the part about a system self correcting when purturbed cover that? Makes a lot more sense to me than eating bugs and relying on Quixotic solutions like windmills.
G-d bless Jordan B Peterson. He is fearless in pursuit of truth.He is never shy about delving into controversy, because he believes that to accept a lie is to sell your soul. He is right. Never surrender to evil.
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!
This is too complex for the average person and even the expert has problems explaining it. This is why generally people follow the narritive and go for easy answers, because to really understand it is close to impossible.
The system is complex, but understanding the basics of it is not. What is taking place here is a counter-narrative, not an explanation...and that is in response to the "alarmism" that is driving the "crisis" model... and the impending "doom" of the extremists...so as each "prediction" fails to materialize...this encourages "outliers" to re-assert their already dis-credited claims. We are well into multiple feedback loops...while any actual 'remedial" action is essentially non-existent. This is about "control" and $$$$...and the latter has been "fake" for almost a century.
Then it is DEFINITELY too complex for the average person to claim that the globe definitely is warming, and believe whatever the self-proclaimed "experts" say.
Dr Jordan Peterson’s guest here in this Programme is Dr Richard Lindzen, a Harvard PhD Professor, who’s 50 years plus of accrued experience & distinguished expertise covers the fields of Applied Atmospheric Physics & Applied & Theoretical Mathematics subjects!! Hence, he really knows what he is talking about regarding climate change, the Ozone Layer, the greenhouse effect & the Coriolis effect! He should then be carefully & seriously listened to on what he has to say about these & related issues here!!
web.archive.org/web/20120222121544/www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf He knows what he's talking about, applied mathematics, it can be applied to the atmosphere, his thesis was about it
Maybe instead of just "questioning" the "narrative" you might take the time to actually look at the overwhelming evidence and analyses. I assume you understand statistics and climatology and paleoclimatology. What is the point of questioning something if you don't understand the explainations?
Thank Heaven for the Climate Change experts at RUclips to add context to the comments made by the climate scientist being interviewed by Jordan Peterson.
There are numerous other factors that contribute that people don’t want to talk about including the decrease in the earth’s magnetic field by 10%, the change in the tilt of the earth’s rotation axis, the fact that the north magnetic pole and the south magnetic pole are not 180 degrees apart and are actually moving toward each other.
Air is not ferrous, so the magnetic fields have no significant effect on climate. Earth's axial tilt and precession are also in COOLING phases now, not warming ones, and have nothing to do with today's climate change.
I like people I agree with. I like people that don't challenge me. I like people that confirm my pre-existing biases. Tell me everything is going to be just fine and I'll even call you a genius!
The irony of RUclips 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.
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 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.
We are in an interglacial period of an ice age at present.
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 😂
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.
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?
👏👏👏👏👏👏 facts
@@alibi247some facts in there, some missing facts, some distorted claims, wrong conclusions. How about this: “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. “ Are we sheep because we accept the theory of a scientific global majority?
I had someone try and tell me that yes CO2 is that low but its effect is so great. The lies these people tell themselves.....
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
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.
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?
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?
When did you study? How much time did you devote to understand climate change and climate models? How much time have you devoted to peer review climate change models? How much of your "insight" has been peer reviewed by others?
climate change gets denied because oil giants want it to be
@@andrezcabara2774 Anybody talking denial is not understanding much.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
@@pjaworek6793 do not worry , we will survive without you.
@@pjaworek6793 tp?
It is all about rigging the energy sectors for the powerful.
More climate change deniers - Just wait and see if one is younger.
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.
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.
Whoa. I never even considered that.
@@iquetzal6014 we had to know True North, tilt of the Earth for that day, Longitude and Latitude of our local, direction of the shot in Mills (6,400 Mills in 360 degrees making 17.778 Mills in one degree), along with the Water Vapor % so we can adjust for drag... It's called a Plotting Table and isn't easy to learn. Artillery doesn't have to know the Coreolis Effect to much of an extent because their rounds are only in the air for a few seconds. While a 120mm charge 4 round can be in the air for over 70 seconds.
My brother was 18B and said the same thing you are saying about long distance shots with a rifle.
@@willardswelding7243 he's 💯% correct... We always worked with our Battalion Scout Snipers because they also has to use the Coreolis Effect, along with wind, Water Vapor percentage, day of the year, along with Longitude and Latitude. We would get the best tactical ranges together because we had a Special Skill Identification... But your brother will be able to tell you, most 11C platoons are NOT High Speed like that. Most of them are extremely lazy. Light Infantry is a wild beast. 🤘
@@tankeater Maybe so, but my brother would tell you that it is good to play nice with your 11C buddies because they put a lot of iron down range in a short time and can usually get it there long before your team’s TPAC can get it dropped from the sky.
God bless a guy that can quickly lay in a mortar and get ordinance on target tout sweet!
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.
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.
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?
So tired of the lies and fear agenda! It's refreshing to hear this perspective.
Did you check to see if Jordan's guest is the one doing the lying? You should. He has taken money from OPEC, Western Fuels and Peabody Energy. Did Jordan share that with you? He did not. 22 atmospheric scientists from Lindzen's own MIT also publicly rebuked him for spreading lies about climate, which you can see at CLIMATE CONTRARIAN GETS FACT-CHECKED BY MIT COLLEAGUES. Lindzen has also been utterly destroyed in the scientific literture, which you can see at CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: RICHARD LINDZEN, at the Skeptical Science website.
Whether Jordan was unaware of Lindzen' ZERO credibility rating or he just didn't care, it should give you pause concerning his own credibility in this arena, an arena he is utterly untrained in. Always vet your experts before you believe them. Paid fossil fuel industry propagandists are everywhere.
Or maybe you are part of the lies & fear agenda ? ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 RUclips "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.
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.
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
The hydro-dynamics apply MORE to the poles, where there is less sunlight. The greenhouse effect is much more, because what used to be dry arctic air, has become (relatively) moist arctic air, which is a powerful GHG. The N pole heated by 7'C when the equator saw 1'C (5 years ago).
That also leads to the temperature difference between pole and equator becoming less, so there is less energy to drive those Coriolis forces, less energy to drive the polar vortex, which has slowed down, and now meanders over a bigger area. Like a tightened spring, being relaxed, that is a negative feedback, absorbing some of the change, keeping us closer to the middle. Where we live does not feel so hot, because the Arctic air keeps up cool. But that is now another, newer factor to worry about. It is not all plain averages, there will be increased bad days. Extreme cold, extreme heat. The jetstream meander patters, will matter more.
When there is less sun, the power of the sun is MORE important, not LESS. Mid-summer has a huge heating effect, which currently is absorbed, by the Arctic ice melting (and refreezing 6 months later). The amount of ice melting and freezing each year, is a bigger swing than the amount of ice left. That means there is a day, when you can go out, and see as much there, as thaws each year. And it wont be a small amount. GOOGLE and plot data for PIOMAS
Dismissing GHG and sunlight is fanciful nonsense. The earth receives heat from the sun, as higher-light-frequencies. The warmth of the earth emits IR (lower frequencies, we are not as hot as the sun). A lot of light is reflected, so is never "received", but the totals, in both directions matter. The amount of light the earth emits (and reflects), MUST equal the amount it receives, otherwise there is an energy imbalance. The feedback system, is that a warmer earth, emits more IR, and the same amount gets out to space. That is the new equilibrium temperature. At that time the increase stops, except we are below equilibrium, and we are accumulating heat. The full force of sunlight, must be radiated out to space, or else heating (or cooling) happens.
OK you divide Sahara sun levels by 4 because day/night and because face-on-equator, side-on-pole, and you spread over a year, or decade, but heat in and heat out must match, or temperatures will move. Greenhouse gasses, absorb IR, which were headed out for space, and re-emit IR (IR is warmth heat as light, 99% of the heat you feel from sitting close to a fire is IR, unless you are actually in the hot air). That random direction, is 1/6 back down to the ground. 1/6 less up to space (of that which was absorbed and re-emitted, a lot still goes through un-paused.
Currently cities are heating up, then thankfully rain happens. That washes the heat down to the oceans, which are SLOWLY heating everything up. But you probably feel that there is not a problem, because the equilibrium temperature has not been reached.
Then there is the "it is something like 20'C outside. One or two degrees difference will mean nothing". The ice age was only 4'C colder than 100 years ago, but it came with 2 mile ice. That was not 15'C, compared to 20'C, that was consistently below zero. A completely different local situation (one that accumulates 3km of ice, when you expect it to grow the grass that feeds the cattle, whilst you dont eat the wheat, which will also be absent). We are dozens of thousands of years away from the next ice age, and the point is in the opposite direction. A few extra degrees, wont means the difference between 20 and 25, it will mean only equatorial forests will be habitable, and they sustain 1 person every km2, not the billions who currently enjoy being sustained. It wont be a hot afternoon, it will be a desert bowl, and the worlds most powerful munitions, keeping its population under authoritarianism.
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
@@HealingLifeKwikly 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.
@@HealingLifeKwiklySources, please.
Did you tell wee Greta?
She'll be delighted, no?
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.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste" if there's money to be made. If not, create one.
Word salad.
@@andrezcabara2774are you describing your own brain? Using a crisis for power is a standard tactic. Cloward Piven strategy. Not that I expect you to look that up though.
I am very envious of Jordan the ability to talk to all these brilliant people and the mass of knowledge gathered puts him in a unique position to speak to the real state of our worlds health so much more accurately than any politician
Just the opposite, my friend. Jordan is a clinical psychologist, not a climate scientist, and he knows so little about the field that he is easily hoodwinked by oil industry shills and crackpots. Richard Lindzen is a perfect case in point. 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 has taken payments from OPEC, Western Fuels and Peabody Energy. He has also been robustly debunked in the scientific literature, which you can see at CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: RICHARD LINDZEN, at the Skeptical Science website. Also see how 22 atmospheric scientists from his own MIT publicly rebuked him for his propaganda at CLIMATE CONTRARIAN GETS FACT-CHECKED BY MIT COLLEAGUES.
The crime here is that Jordan, out of pure ignorance or bias, never tells his viewers any of this.
Dr. Peterson's biblical series is one of the greatest contributions to modern society. It’s such a blessing that my wife and I aren’t just married, but we’re also each other’s best strategic partner in the gospel and in business. I’m great at what she lacks, she’s great at what I lack and we have an Adviser to work with. Praise God!! And thank you for the awesome content!
Great job with your wife! I bet you’re living your best life right now.
May I ask which investments are good? I've been looking at a few different ones but want others' opinions as well
Your story is inspiring. I’m 38 trying to achieve this goal you achieved. Share some tips please so others can actually learn.
oh!! on that, ROCHELLE DUNGCA-SCHREIBER, That's whom i work with
What I think everyone need is a Financial Adviser, who can help you get in and out of any investment at any time and you'd sure be in Profit
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.
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 for the video. Keep up the great work. God bless.
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
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.
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...
@@AnotherSpaceCowBoy 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.
The temperature rise at the poles is actually measured as greater than the tropics. It isn't just hypothesized.
What a breath of fresh air with knowledge not political polemics.
Guest was speaking on a scale which most people cannot comprehend. Refreshing, and thank you.
Yes it was some high level bullshitting. He elaborates on how the weather dynamics are different for the tropics versus the poles. .... Yes, and ??? .... The really important question is: are the oceans heating up (yes), are the polar regions heating up, both of them (hell, yes) Are we losing ice cover, is the ice corrupted by meltwater - Greenland and Antarctic. And it is also really bad in the Arctic, not to forget the glaciers in the Himmalaya - which feed ALL important rivers in Asia. As for ice cover it is also about thickness, plus of course surface. Yes we lose ice.
The poles are important, they are like the canary in the coal mine.
Water needs a LOT of enery to heat up (much, much more than the gas in the atmosphere - which he talks about ! ) Land needs more energy to heat up and then it will stor it for a while. But the most important "heat dump" are the oceans. it takes longer to heat them up (the longest) - but water also stores energy very well once it has been heated up.
We can now measure the increase of temperature 2000 m down in the ocean. Most of the extra energy of the last 40 years has been absorbed in the oceans, but it is not going to stay there forever. AND warm ocean water means a lot of changes to the climate (the currents - air and ocean water will change. Warm surface water = more violent storms that last longer. Maybe not many more in numbers, but those tend to be really violent and they last longer. So a hurricane circling for 60 hours over Houston dumping huge amount of rain a few years ago.
When it used to be that a hurricane lost its power 28 hours (average) after it hit land. The storm is fed by the energy from warm ocean surface water, and if this water is very warm it takes longer until the supply of energy is disrupted.
Ice needs MUCH MORE energy to melt - which means ice beats liquid water by far when it comes to absorbing heat (but the heat = energy is still there !)
The energy is in the system.
Once water is melted it is still a good energy buffer but nothing compared to ice.
Ice is a buffer. If you want to melt sweet water ice that is at 0 degrees Celsius (that is freezing point) you have to add a lot of energy. Let's say you add heat until you end up with water with 0 degree Celsius (so not warmer than before, but the water is in another phase). If you add the exact same energy once again the water will have 80 degrees C, that is not yet the boiling point of 100 degrees, but very hot, you could seriously burn yourself.
The phase liquid to crystal releases an enormous amount of energy and the same energy must be be absorbed in order to melt the ice.
Ice is a buffer in our climate system, and there are industrial uses because it is a good temperature buffer / heat storage medium.
It is about AVERAGE GLOBAL temperatures. The planet is around 66 % ocean. The atmoshpere (gas) does not store much energy. He is (also) talking about the atmosphere (which is the field he specializes in).
And if the tropics would warm up by 1,5 degree Celsius (does he mean surface temperatures ? I guess he does, so we are talking land temperature now) that is still a huge amount of energy. It is not like the difference between morning and a few hours later. The AVERAGE 1,5 degree are everwhere, everyday, day and night - and in practice that means much higher seasonal extremes (in the tropics that may show up during the rain or the drier season). If the temps go up for 4 degrees during day for a few weeds during the year, that may well doom some plants and animals to extinction, and set up the scene for huge fires. There were rainforest fires a few years ago in South East Asia, looks like the ground was a bit like peat, and they could not extinguish them, the fires kept on smouldering (and messed with airtraffic even in neighbour countries). Either Malaysia or Indonesian forests.
Such average higher temps in the tropis (or elsewhere) can mean changed weather patterns. Especially in the tropics that can influence the rain season (or lack thereof) of far away countries.
Unless Lindzen can show that there is a NEW mechanism (in the atmosphere of the tropics or elsewhere) so that more energy is reflected into space his little lecture (mainly about the tropical atmosphere) is meaningless. There have been lots of studies and models done IF there could be different forms of clouds that would either hinder or promote reflection of energy back into space. So cloud formation that would make the problem worse or help.
No one can say for sure, it is highly complex and it is not like this hasn't gotten a lot of attention. And brain and computing power.
I assume what he stated as facts is all correct (I think atmospheric research is his area of expertise) - but they are not relevant for the argument he makes. And he knows that of course.
Lindzen is either on an ego trip (being a contrarian) or he is in it for the money.
Also note how the oil industry has not hired him to parade him around. Sure he would not be an academic at a university. But if he has relevant new insights he still could publish while the oil industry would pay him really, really well. If the findings are convincing he will be published and discussed - among his peers that he cannot impress with bullshitting with some academic veneer.
Even if we suppose a conspiracy among all the respected ! traditional publications that publish for peer review - nowadays there are online platforms for publishing. The difference: the well respected magazines do not ask for money, if the study holds up and is relevant they will gladly accept it (after vetting it). And all the academic institutions and libraries have subscriptions. That is their biz model.
The newer not so well respected platforms that came about with the internet .... Those who want to publish have to pay. But those platforms still claim that the idea is that the best in their field will review what a researcher has published. And that scientists will debate, contradict, add suggestions etc. - like they do with the content of the traditional magazines (which used to be printed, these were expensive journals that were globally distributed, so before the advent of the internet there were no alternatives, now they are all online).
As long as the published content is worth that investement of time and brainpower the odd study on the new platforms that has some relevance can get some traction. And now imagine the oil industry would do some marketing around a study that holds up unter academic scrutiny (and is relevant !)
Peer review is like the swarm intelligence of the best experts (globally) in a certain academic field.
Plenty of bs has been published on the new platforms for peer review but occasionally there could be something mildly interesting, even relevant. If it gets traction the established magazines would accept those studies for publishing.
Lindzen could get financed by the oil industry and publish studies that challenge ... whatever.
But the oil industry does not do that .....
Russia - before all the political tensions - did not financ scientists like Lindzen. And they do not even need him, they have a proud academic tradition themselves. They certainly could have done plenty of studies. Russia used to be the number 3 oil exporting nation a few years ago (The U.S. Saudia Arabia, then Russia). Oil and gas export is very, very important for Russian state finances. But they did not come up with those studies - in order to prove to Western politicians and their citizens that the claims about Global Warming are not true, and that it would be a good idea to consume carbohydrates in the future - preferably from Russia.
No such studies were published.
@@franziskaniThat's a nice text wall you got there, but it failed to dismiss the possibility of this warming being a natural cycle. Many ice core samples have been taken from both poles which have revealed that there have been several periods in Earth's prehistoric history where global temperatures were much hotter than today. What's up with that?
@@franziskani I don't see how that explains global cooling.
@@franziskani you are making some basic thermodynamic mistakes ... the heat capacity of ice is 38 J/molC, much lower than liquid water 75 J/molC. Ice is a miserable heat sink. And on top of that, most of the light is just reflected into space
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
Hey climate crazies, what is the percentage of CO2 that makes-up the Earth's atmosphere? I'll give you a hint, its less than 1.00 percent. I'll give you another hint, it's less than 0.5 percent. I'll given you another hint, it's less than 0.09 percent. The correct answer is 0.04 percent.
Now drink water that has 0.03% Cyanide.
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)
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.
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.
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…
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.
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
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...
I am trying to summarise my understanding of the coriolis effect, most explanations seem confusing because it focuses on the air in relation to the earth, rather that the earth in relation to the air. The land at the equator is moving faster than the land at the poles, this is also true for the air. The warm/high pressure air at the equator gets pushed towards the poles, flowing from hot to cold/high to low. This air is being dragged by the earth the earth at a high velocity, then as it gets closer to the poles, the land isn't traveling as quickly, so the air appears to be moving more quickly. It does not suddenly "vear to the right" as most explanations put it, it just appears that way looking from the ground. We are rotating beneath that air, and we measure wind as the difference between the speed of the air and the speed of land, the difference is lower near the equator and higher near the poles, but the air is actually moving the fastest at the equator.
It's just like the differences between centripetal and centrifugal force. I agree with you
It causes circular weather patterns
Polar storms are more intense and more frequent in polar regions ...it's a complex thing but once you understand it it's simple
Watch some animations of computer models to see the effects ..just google it
Isn’t Coriolis force taught at high school?
@@pawelpap9 Many things are taught in highschool that are remembered long enough to take the test and then forgotten. I can't even imagine our nation if adults actually knew everything they were taught.
just look up a diagram of the global atmosphere, that ought to explain it.
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...
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"🤦
Thank you very much. I thought that this was the key part of the original interview. It's a really smart idea to do this, to excerpt the best part of a longer interview.
People are easy to control when they are scared, and it seems that certain people have made it their main job to scare people, and making money out of it.
@seantomo
Yes you're correct it's about big money and controlling people.👍
The definition of the present era!
The FF industry makes BIG money out of allaying people's fears. Can't you get your head round that???
Yep, and we all know who has the big money - the oil industry.@@seantomo
@@timothyrussell4445 Wow - all those question marks, one is sufficient. Simply cannot get my head around you...
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.' ruclips.net/video/i4YUnZIKneY/видео.html
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.
Mature humans adapt. Immature humans panic.
There is no question that we can adapt. But at what cost? Insurance companies are already jumping ship on coverage for climate damage. New York and Louisiana currently have a combined $100 billion in new flood mitigation projects in the works, and were just getting started. This isn't going to be cheap.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 You are correct. Adaptation is not inexpensive. All the way back on time humans have adapted, sometimes having to take drastic solutions like moving large groups, in order to survive. All the way down to single celled organisms, including plants, adapt to survive. Watch a vine plant over time choose more effective routes to climb or spread to avoid limiting its growth.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481going green is costing us all billions and you are worried about insurance premiums 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You believers literally can’t think for yourself.
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.
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.
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.
At the poles. If its -60 degrees now, and you increase temps by one degree.... Its still -59 degrees and NOTHING MELTS. You gotta hit +33 degrees. People need perspective.
Dr Jordan Peterson is a legend. A gift to humanity who just keeps giving and giving. Beyond Order is one of the best books i have ever read, halfway through Antidote to Chaos and it is just as good. His online content is outstanding, whether it is the interviews with a wide variety of guests, the lectures on psychology from his university days in Canada, the discussions and lectures on the Bible, the informative website, the self-authoring programme, the list goes on. Dr Peterson is transforming peoples' lives around the world. I am looking forward to his next book We Who Wrestle With God. He is a talented at painting and drawing too. A remarkable individual. I hope he is with us for another 30 years at least, he was extremely ill from 2019 to 2021 but is looking so much better these days. Whatever happened to the alleged hole in the ozone layer ? We never hear about that any more.
The hole in the ozone? Are you serious? We banned chloroflorocarbons. You know, those substances that were causing the depletion. We literally identified the problem, identified its source, and then addressed it.
And you're using this as an example to promote not addressing climate change?
@jonahkaun891 Climate is always changing. It is not nearly as hot as 1913 which is the hottest record ever recorded. Climate change is a hoax.
The largest hole closed itself up in 2017 I believe lol that's why they shut up.
@@jonahkaun891and it has nothing to do 2other the banning of CFCs.
@@keiharris332 oh, just a random coincidence, then . . .
I appreciate this intel about climate change. I am praying the truth will soon be allowed to be widely known.
I agree!❤
What do you mean “allowed to be widely known”? Here it is publicly available on RUclips .
@cjexpatuk allowed without industries, media and people shunning or attempting to debunk it.
@@Mistjeager if you expect the right to free and open speech, then you need to accept other people’s right to openly disagree with you and put forward other points of view.
Other points of view and debate I'd like to engage with. But most of the time you just get insults and labels thrown at you while being mocked so you'll understand my pessimism towards whether these points would be taken seriously.@@cjexpatuk
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.
I dont think any of the actual climate scientists do not believe in uncertainty with their models. The thoughts around what to do about climate change includes both the hypothesis about what is happening and a risk assessment of what should be done based on the probabilities. What I've never heard from anyone who objects to the currently accepted climate change hypothesis is if they feel that we could put an unlimited amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and it would have literally zero effect. If they believe it would have some effect, then explain at what amount of CO2 it would start to have that effect and what that effect would be. I.e. do some actual science rather than just speaking theoretically about what you feel. The fundamental question is if all 8 billion of us are in some way, day after day, week after week, year after year, putting extra CO2 in the air is there an effect we should worry about. That is what must be answered.
We know throughout millions of years of earth's history that every time CO2 exceeded 1000 ppm all the icecaps melted, which inundated the world's shorelines. Meltwater even created a new ocean, the Western Interior Seaway, which crossed down over western Canada and down through the United States. It's why we find the fossils of sea creatures in Kansas. That kind of flooding would not be cool today.
We know the last time CO2 reached 1000ppm, global temperature was 12 degrees C higher than today. That would be catastrophic in today's world, making the equatorial regions completely uninhabitable.
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.
Thank you again for asking the questions MSM won’t, keep fighting the good fights Jordan, you are a true saint 👌
Yeah, we should all start worshipping him.
In the same way Satan was an angel
Now this is what you call dialogue. Respectful sharing of information in trying to determine what the truth is.
Think Rudyard Kipling's six honest serving men, "Who, when, where, why, what, how".
These gentlemen embody the pursuit of these serving truths as best as they can, with very little to no signs of disingenuity.
Here's a couple things that I've not heard generally explored, articulated or repeated, apologies for the novel...
1) There are a number of large climate impacting/controlling feedback loop mechanisms, such as the north Atlantic salinity cycle, that counteracts the potential for positive feedback and accelerating global temperatures, ie addresses tipping points, runaway temperatures. It is referred to somewhat in this interview. In other words if the earth did not have these "temperature regulating or rebalancing mechanisms" there would have been a number of events in history that would have put earth into a runaway temperature condition that would have wiped out all marine and surface life. To our great good fortune the earth seems to have the resiliency and capacity, through a variety of these complex regulating mechanisms, to re-stabilize and self-regulate atmospheric temperatures to "find a new equilibrium" and stay within a set of "bookends", irrespective of whatever external drivers occur (ie volcanic activity, meteor impacts etc). This fact allows for the continuation and support of marine and surface life throughout earths history. I refer to volcanoes as external, in that they take deeply sequestered mass and energy and deliver into the atmospheric/ocean/earth surface environment.
2) What I'm interested in is that, as we continue to take sequestered mass and energy (ie coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, etc), that are not currently part of the existing air/water/land eco/bio-system, and assuming this has a meaningful impact on glaciers, and polar caps melting, ocean temps changing etc (Anthropocene era) , there will be some inherent capacity to "incorporate and rebalance" this newly introduced heat and mass, within the various cycles ie north atlantic salinity cycle, to find a "new equilibrium".
My question is, is there sufficient capacity within the rebalancing mechanisms to accommodate all the new energy and mass being added? I believe true sustainability only comes when we harvest and cycle/recycle the mass and energy present within the existing air/water/landmass systems, essentially what's coming from the main external source, the sun, and stop taking deeply sequestered mass and energy and introducing/ reintroducing it into the air/water/landmass environments at the volumes and rates that we are currently doing it.
Reblancing requires millenia. The last time CO2 reached 400ppm, sea level rose 29 feet, according to the University of South Hampton. The only reason we haven't seen 29 feet yet is time, as ice melt greatly lags CO2.
The last time CO2 reached 1000ppm, all the icecaps melted and swamped the world's coastal areas. It even created an entirely new ocean, the Western Interior Seaway, which crossed down over Canada into the United States. It's why we find the fossils of sea creatures in Kansas.
The last time CO2 went over 2000 ppm was during the Great Dying, when the majority of both land and sea creatures went extinct from the furnace-like, toxic environment.
The draw-down of CO2 by rock weathering requires thousands of years, too long a time span to be relevant to our current predicament.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Yes, very good point, the other aspect is the time lag between input and response... an environmental hysteresis if you will....
How does Dr linzden explain the rapid increase of global temperatures over the last 100 years? Temperature on the earth does fluctuate and we aren’t the hottest the earth as ever been, but those changes happen over thousands of years. So what explains the acute increase over the last 100?
The same logic as to the acute temperature decrease prior to that.
Co2's effect as a Greenhouse Gas decays logarithmically. 90% of forcing is achieved by 200ppm, by 400ppm the spectra that Co2 can absorb and re-emit is almost completely saturated and a doubling of Co2 from 400 to 800ppm will not result in a doubling of it's contribution to the Greenhouse effect.
In fact, most of the so-called Greenhouse effect is actually an 'Atmospheric Thermal Effect' mainly caused by the pressure exerted downwards by the weight of the atmosphere - adiabatic compression - and this function is completely independent of atmospheric composition.
When a gas is compressed it heats up, the same is true for the atmosphere. It doesn't matter if the atmosphere is 99% Co2 or 0.09% Co2, the surface pressure, for the most part is what matters, plus TOA insolation.
Of course it's more complex than just those two factors, especially when you start adding in cloudiness, convection etc into a chaotic, non-linear open system, but to even entertain the idea that Co2 is somehow magically responsible for controlling the temperature on Earth is absolutely ridiculous and a complete fallacy!
yea its why Venus is 400C+ and Mars is cold as fuk, Venus has 90 times Earth's pressure and mass while Mars is like 0.1% pressure and less mass...(distant from the Sun plays the other sig part)
So what is pressing on the atmosphere? Heat causes expansion, but there is nothing containing
the atmosphere...so a pressure increase can only be achieved by adding MORE atmosphere.
Variations in air pressure are the result of "storms"...which produce the extremes.
@@jgalt308 have you heard of gravity?
@@bubbabigmin Is that what's keeping all the hydrogen
and helium stuck in the atmosphere?
Is gravity increasing?
Earth gains about 40,000 tonnes of dust every year, the remnants of the formation of the solar system, which are attracted by our gravity and become part of the matter in our planet. Our planet is actually made from all that starstuff.
Earth's core loses energy over time. It's like a giant nuclear reactor that burns fuel. Less energy means less mass. 16 tonnes of that are gone every year. Not much.
And here's the big mass loss: about 95,000 tonnes of hydrogen and 1,600 tones of helium escape Earth every year. They are too light for gravity to keep them around, so they get lost. Gone into space.
So, summing all these effects mentioned above, you get a mass loss of 57,000 tonnes per year.
But this is still much too small to have a measurable effect on gravity (g=GM/r2
) even after millions of years, because the mass of the earth is M=6⋅1024 kg
(i.e. 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes).
Keep flailing away...or try looking stuff up first.
Weather is short term atmospheric changes. Climate is long term. Longer than people have been recording weather. As a person, it is so easy to get caught up in thoughts like “When I was a kid, it used to be cooler”, or “This is the hottest summer in the past 50 years”, or “I don’t remember there being so many destructive storms”. People have trouble taking a long view, people are bad at estimating risk, and people have trouble keeping their emotions out of making decisions.
Lindzen's theory of QBO, what he is know for, is rubbish and it's actually just lunar tidal forces.
Weather is determined by climate, which is why we're seeing so many more wildfires, floods, hurricanes and other extreme weather events all over the world. The climate has never warmed as quickly in geological time as it has in the last 100 years
@@timothyrussell4445 - You have it backwards. Here’s What the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says - “Weather is what you experience when you step outside on any given day… it is the state of the atmosphere at a particular location over the short-term. Climate is the average of the weather patterns in a location over a longer period of time, usually 30 years or more.” www.noaa.gov/explainers/what-s-difference-between-climate-and-weather#:~:text=Weather%20is%20what%20you%20experience,usually%2030%20years%20or%20more.
@@timothyrussell4445
Climate is weathers 30 years average.
@@ollirantala How about this September being the hottest on record by a long way? Wake ip
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?
When I was in third grade, I read a report about areal photographs around Phoenix. There was a marked increase in plant growth in the desert around Phoenix. It was determined that the additional CO2 made plant growth increase near the city. This was in the 1970s when environmentalists still did some good.
Poor land use has caused some deserts to grow, but it has been determined that the increase in CO2 has already shrunk the Earth's deserts by 20% in 60 years. Desert plants draw in CO2 through pores. They get more CO2 now so they need fewer pores. That means they lose less water and grow better in drier areas.
Plants also need water to grow. Warmer planet means more frequent and longer lasting droughts. And when it rains it rains more. Every farmer in my country has already noticed this effect and it starting to affect farm productivity.
@@user-py9cy1sy9u More rain and more droughts? And you wonder why people think it is bullshit with galaxy brain takes like that. Any one with half a brain can tell you a warmer planet would speed up the water cycle.
@@user-py9cy1sy9u warmer planet means more oceanic evaporation and more atmospheric moisture. Warm atmosphere carries more water than cool atmosphere, which is part of why cold fronts trigger rain: as the warm moist air cools down the moisture within condenses out in the form of rain as the air's ability to carry the moisture decreases.
don't say dumb politically motivated bullshit like it's fact.
@@user-py9cy1sy9u What climate model(s) do you use to predict this? Climate models have a dismal record.
@@jimtrowbridge3465 First its not my prediction. I just repeat what I heard from multiple credible sources.
Second it is already happening. As I said people already feeling this and I'm thinking of getting 1000L water storage because the dry periods are getting insane.
I dont remember the source but I remember that people put warmer temperatures into weather prediction models. The ones that are used to predict weather a week in advance. Then they put past data to see what would happen if it was warmer. They saw more frequent and longer droughts. Makes sense because hot air can store more water before it starts to rain.
As James Randi put it: "People argue about how many angels fit on the head of a pin when they should be discussing whether angels exist."
James Randi was a con man who never answered Dr. Victor Zammit’s challenges.
@@miranduri Which Dr. Victor Zammit is this, the vet, mental health doctor, or the diabetes doc, I couldn't find his Wikipedia page. Randi has a pretty long Wikipedia page but I couldn't find "con man" anywhere in it.
The doc shouldn't feel bad tho, I once challenged Randi to a sumo match and never answered.
@@melainewhite6409Wikipedia as a reputable source on anything political is laughable.
It's a lot like studying the human body. Whatwith hundreds of major interlocked systems. All we can do is pretend that we have any idea of how it works together. In fact, if we were honest, we would admit that we know almost nothing, the complexity is beyond our comprehension. So, you can talk about temperature, earth rotation, cloud motion, but I know you can't fit it all together. It's impossible.
wow sounds like we've got a primary school drop out here.
Yeah, we can create a nuclear bomb treat asthma diabetes, create exogenous, chemicals, more potent than testosterone increase somebody’s height with surgery, fight cancer, and predict the muscular picture of an individual based on if they have the xx gene type for androgens. And you are claiming we don’t know how to comprehend the human body when this is just some jack ass, who did steroids once talking about biology and the medical capabilities of humans. And I know more about the human body and a self proclaimed expert.
Not sure what you mean.
Original sin has nothing to do with an apple… it’s literally thinking you understand what you do not.
@@zimonslot Said the person who offered no rebuttal or insight whatsoever and only a petty insult.. Ironic.
Normally, the way to resolve a technical difference of opinions is to make predictions, and observe what happens. That's hard to do at this scale, so the only other way is to break it down into regional models, adjust the models, and compare with regional observations. That's what climatologists do, and their results are overwhelmingly in support of a significant climate change, driven by human activity. Globalized (not just regional) results also point in the same direction, so it is very likely this guy is mistaken, and giving (perhaps unwittingly) cover to economic interests that would be harmed by global policies to limit the warming process.
From memory : Fourier postulated the atmosphere as an insulator. Arrhenius calculated CO2 concentrations could impact global. That was a few generations ago.
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.
The Phrases “Climate Change” and “Man Made Climate Change” should never be synonymous. One is clearly categorically less specific than the other. What has happened is a sort of cognitive and linguistic shell game in which the title of the super category “Climate Change” has been substituted for the content of the more specific sub category “Man Made Climate Change” in order to proffer a more robust psychological response to the propositional content.
No, seriously, this is definitely man-made:
ruclips.net/video/GGtAilkWTtI/видео.html
I have questioned the effect of huge unoccupied forested areas in both Canada and Russia. Trees consume huge amounts of Carbon to grow. Conifers use a bit less than hardwoods by a few percentage points. I haven’t heard much scientific conversation on this countering effect to the CO2 narrative.
Loved listening to this scientist. Would love to hear more from him. Thank you Dr. Peterson for your brave love of truth and willingness to counter the huge number of lies being propagated. God Bless and keep you!
Plus one volcano eruption negates all the “good work” to combat climate change.
Trees die and when they die they decompose releasing all CO2 they absorbed. Planting more trees is just a temporary solution and not enough. Also did you miss all the tree planting initiatives? #teamtrees ?
And that's been going on since there were trees. A long time. Why is it suddenly a crisis?
@@michaelpfaff8280 Spoiler alert. Its not because of trees. Its because we started to dig up huge amounts of carbon and started to burn it releasing huge amount of gasses to the atmosphere.
@@user-py9cy1sy9u ok. Doesn't the part about a system self correcting when purturbed cover that? Makes a lot more sense to me than eating bugs and relying on Quixotic solutions like windmills.
G-d bless Jordan B Peterson. He is fearless in pursuit of truth.He is never shy about delving into controversy, because he believes that to accept a lie is to sell your soul. He is right. Never surrender to evil.
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!
This is too complex for the average person and even the expert has problems explaining it. This is why generally people follow the narritive and go for easy answers, because to really understand it is close to impossible.
The system is complex, but understanding the basics of it is not.
What is taking place here is a counter-narrative, not an explanation...and
that is in response to the "alarmism" that is driving the "crisis" model...
and the impending "doom" of the extremists...so as each "prediction" fails
to materialize...this encourages "outliers" to re-assert their already dis-credited
claims.
We are well into multiple feedback loops...while any actual 'remedial" action
is essentially non-existent.
This is about "control" and $$$$...and the latter has been "fake" for almost a century.
The average person should follow science and climate experts, not a deranged phsicologist playing God and trying to debate all subjects
Then it is DEFINITELY too complex for the average person to claim that the globe definitely is warming, and believe whatever the self-proclaimed "experts" say.
Thanks, Dr. Peterson. Very much appreciated!
More climate change deniers - Just wait and see if one is younger.
Dr Jordan Peterson’s guest here in this Programme is Dr Richard Lindzen, a Harvard PhD Professor, who’s 50 years plus of accrued experience & distinguished expertise covers the fields of Applied Atmospheric Physics & Applied & Theoretical Mathematics subjects!! Hence, he really knows what he is talking about regarding climate change, the Ozone Layer, the greenhouse effect & the Coriolis effect! He should then be carefully & seriously listened to on what he has to say about these & related issues here!!
web.archive.org/web/20120222121544/www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf
He knows what he's talking about, applied mathematics, it can be applied to the atmosphere, his thesis was about it
That was extremely informative and I am grateful for being a bit wiser now.
I follow your informations for some years now Mr. Peterson. Salutations ❤
I'm so glad RUclips directed me to valuable information about Climate Change! Otherwise, I might have started to question the narrative!
Maybe instead of just "questioning" the "narrative" you might take the time to actually look at the overwhelming evidence and analyses. I assume you understand statistics and climatology and paleoclimatology. What is the point of questioning something if you don't understand the explainations?
Thank Heaven for the Climate Change experts at RUclips to add context to the comments made by the climate scientist being interviewed by Jordan Peterson.
There are numerous other factors that contribute that people don’t want to talk about including the decrease in the earth’s magnetic field by 10%, the change in the tilt of the earth’s rotation axis, the fact that the north magnetic pole and the south magnetic pole are not 180 degrees apart and are actually moving toward each other.
Air is not ferrous, so the magnetic fields have no significant effect on climate. Earth's axial tilt and precession are also in COOLING phases now, not warming ones, and have nothing to do with today's climate change.
I like people I agree with. I like people that don't challenge me. I like people that confirm my pre-existing biases. Tell me everything is going to be just fine and I'll even call you a genius!
It won't be if we don't act decisively now