Debating a Jordan Peterson Fan on Climate Change
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 апр 2024
- This conversation was prompted after I posted my Jordan Peterson analysis in the JP subreddit. To be honest it's not a great conversation/debate. I was expecting us to stay more on the topic of the video, instead we went in circles a lot.
This is the video in question: • Peterson WILL cause th...
I tried to be as good faith as I possibly could but I probably gave too much leeway. I think this conversation would have been better had we gone through the video point by point and/or had some sort of moderation.
PZH Channel: / @philosophicalzombiehu...
ON Channel: / @on-yt
If you want to connect with me or debate me here are my socials:
Below are my socials if you'd like to follow future videos and updates.
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / dddecarbon
Reddit: / dddecarbonization 
Кино
I wouldn’t normally do this, but there was a lot of misinformation provided by PZH during this video, and I don’t want to spread any misinformation on this channel. So rather than making a response video, I figured it’d be easier to provide the references. Here are the references and timestamps to them.
[21:33] Energy Liberalization in Europe: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_liberalisation&oldid=1218393780
doi.org/10.1007/s42495-018-0009-0
Next weeks video will cover this topic, but his chart actually disproves his point.
[45:00] Transmission projects North America:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects#North_America
cleanenergygrid.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ACEG_Transmission-Projects-Ready-To-Go_September-2023.pdf
[49:00]: Red Seaweed and Cow Burps:
www.food.gov.uk/research/outcome-of-assessment-of-3-nitrooxypropanol-3-nop-assessment
www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/06/feeding-seaweed-to-cows-can-cut-methane-emissions-says-swedish-report
[55:00] Crops:
ruclips.net/video/E2FU4LHZoc8/видео.html
[1:09:00] Solar Projects Africa:
www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/benban-solar-park/
www.power-technology.com/news/totalenergies-construction-hybrid-project/
[1:15:00] What I think he’s talking about when it comes to Africa Failing? Not really the fault of renewables but rather institutions.
toddmoss.substack.com/p/why-isnt-solar-scaling-in-africa
[1:31:00] This chart is pure propaganda nonsense. Here are the costs of climate change:
Original chart: www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/25/fivethirtyeight-misrepresents-climate-change-research
Actual costs done by people with more than 5 brain cells:
ourworldindata.org/grapher/damage-costs-from-natural-disasters (the actual chart he asked for)
www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66275-4
climateinstitute.ca/reports/the-costs-of-climate-change/
www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/09/01/the-rising-costs-of-extreme-weather-events/
www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/climate-loss-and-damage-cost-16-million-per-hour/
I made a mistake here by just saying multiply 60 $/t by the total emissions. That would be factoring in the costs of future damages. He wanted historical damages and cherry picked the one example from a political science guy with no credentials in this field. These examples provide the references he’s looking for that I did not have off hand, since I thought we were debating the video, not going down conspiracy theory rabbit holes.
[2:35:00] Electric Mining Trucks:
www.epiroc.com/en-ca/products/loaders-and-trucks/electric-trucks
www.smsequipment.com/en-ca/news-resources/news/2023/powering-mines-sustainably-with-trolley-assist/
Wikipedia, the guardian, weforum and institutions who exist by this narrative? but none of their actual research?
If this is how you list your 'sources' I have serious suspicions about your ability to evaluate the argument.
I would love to sit here and debunk your guardian article tier source spam which does not tell us anything, using the actual whitepapers they're claiming to interpret, but at this point the effort on my part would be far far greater than you put into this (although this post shows you will never even consider your opponents arguments - 'misinformation' as you see it)
You never even actually address Peterson's argument; instead arguing for 3 hours on tangentially related topics using his name to promote it as if you've presented his argument in any reasonable form. You haven't - that's partly on your debate partner too of course, but it does not help that you're so backhanded that you're 'deboonking' him with a list of unplaced unexplained sourcespam my grade 6 teacher would have ridiculed. No offense
'we know wind and solar are cheaper including batteries' 'that's not true' 'I'm gonna need a reference, and it can't be this one' WOW LOL
Let me know how your solar farm in northern Canada goes 'cheapest' 😂 'oh it's the taxes and tariffs'
You should listen back through and see how many times you put the onus for your claim on your opponent and the number of trust me bros packed into them.
'Just slap a powerline across Canada bro, PROBLEM SOLVED your country is too small so it's expensive' 😂😂😂😂 Its over for us
'you don't believe building power lines are possible bro?' Do you not even recognize the most obvious strawman on the planet?
More carbon tax is going to solve the climate 😂 Lets price the poor out of driving so I can get a container ship of shit from amazon every day
GTFO
What a joke. These are the managerial class who have decided how the plebs need to be incentivized into poverty if they disagree.
Attack the poorest people who are responsible for less than 0.00000001% of the already irrelevant carbon emissions of this country, 'to save the planet'
How is that helping anything?
You just make outrageous claims all over and never substantiate them, and then ask your opponent to send you a 'source' to disprove it if he has any qualms.
'that's what the literature shows'
You're out of touch with reality, I would hope you get your way and you can Reap what you're sowing but your ignorance is going to hurt many innocent people too.
'why are they building renewables' Circular argument - and then you couldn't even substantiate it, not to mention how lucrative a contract those garbage sources are to maintain.
Its getting frustrating to you because you're regurgitating your programming to 'educate someone', as opposed to evaluating your own argument in any critical way
@@kerwynpk Did you read, what those references are? Wikipedia - is just regarding the liberalization piece, because it gives a broad overview I don't think a technical paper is required to show that information, but if you do want a paper about liberalization of European markets here you go: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42495-018-0009-0
The guardian is a news source is it not? Mabye read the actual article, it was also extremely hard to even find PZH's source for this since its so old and so bad.
With the WEF is only one of my sources in that area. I imagine by your comment you believe the WEF is some terrifying cabal of world dominating people. When really it's just a conference.
I do address JP's comments in the video that this video is discussing: ruclips.net/video/FmGRUyIEDG8/видео.htmlsi=VKFF4cjfDp039dI1
All the references are linked there.
@@DDDecarbon That's the good faith argument I would expect from you 😂
My turn, did you really get access to that study or just read part of the abstract and link it to me? I notice its hardly been flying off the shelf looking at the archive 🤔
No, news medias headline seeking interpretations should not be taken at face value without looking at the actual data they cite; as a rule.
Its a bad sign that rather than linking whatever (presumably good data) gave the person writing the article the impression, you simply link a headline as if you googled your presumption to 'back up your argument'.
Its also another very common Gish Gallop where you link a bunch of low quality articles that appear to restate your position so that I have to do hours of work just to refute them going through their actual sources; and then you can just back out the same way you have here with more linkspam. 'okay that one sucks but here's a paywalled one you can't read'
I don't think I say anything about that particular argument either, so it almost seems like a cop out to narrow my criticism down to that particular source in a 3 hour 'thing';
Though admittedly my comment got fairly unconstructive with how frustrated I was with your debate tactics and how impossible it would be to respond to this unstructured 3 hour Gish Gallop.
I had to type the ridiculous things you were saying as you said them which made the second half of my commentary almost as unconstructive as the debate.
I'll give you a properly structured argument on the data points in the video you've linked if it ends up being reasonable to respond to, but I think your actual logic needs some work based on this response and others.
@@DDDecarbon "With the WEF is only one of my sources in that area. I imagine by your comment you believe the WEF is some terrifying cabal of world dominating people. When really it's just a conference"
I didn't say anything about the WEF period, in my comment.
I can hardly think of a better example of bad faith than bringing up something I never spoke about and then presuming my position on it is an obvious strawman.
You probably did this to pre-emptively deflect potential criticisms of a source you seem to agree yourself, would be low quality? I don't see you defending from my actual accusations here.
If you agreed to air the debate publicly then I admire your integrity, but coming to the comments to serve some kind of fake 'justice' with your 'disinformation' non-argument now that your opponent cannot defend himself properly is extremely poor conduct.
If you wanted to address his actual arguments post hoc it would be fine, but that's not what you did nor would it be possible to do so in a quick comment after 3 hours of tangentially related topics to your 'misinformation correction'
You presume everyone around you unequipped to evaluate, it's baked into your thinking on this subject as well and on display in the 'debate' multiple places.
You need to tell us all what the truth is, and how we're going to be forced to live to fix the problem how you see it, and how you think it needs to be fixed.
We're simply misinformed if we disagree with you on any of these bases, by default.
@@kerwynpk so you haven't been remotely charitable to me. But I will try to answer you best I can.
The data PZH cited was made by a political scientist not an economist or a climate scientist. I found it difficult to find the information he provided, and this article did a good job of showing the investigative reports on how the data was misrepresented. This is detailed in the article, as he uses Munich Re as his reference, here's the real date: www.munichre.com/en/risks/natural-disasters.html, but honestly this wasn't even worth the effort to debunk cause the guy has no credentials and posted his chart on a blog. So, maybe I have should have made that more clear, but I honestly didn't think his chart warranted any extra effort.
Again you're being pedantic, the "low quality" items you're talking about are inconsequential. But he literally said the European energy market isn't liberalized, then I give you a paper talking about liberalization and you still have a problem. Or a list of transmission projects. Seriously how uncharitable can you be?
For the rest of this you are clearly missing a tonne of context. I came into this discussion expecting to talk about the points I brought up in my video on Jordan Peterson. I should have made this more clear at the beginning of the conversation, but I added text and we state it at the very beginning.......
I'm not sure what you mean by debate tactics? I thought I was extremely patient, again I was prepared to talk about the data I presented in my original video, which is why I didn't feel the need to expand on certain topics because I assumed they were covered. Clearly the algorithm sent this out to people who didn't see the orginal.
I look forward to your analysis. Come to my discord to discuss if you're interested.
@DDDecarbon, replying here so comment is not lost in the subcomment reply: Although it was very difficult to listen to the conversation due to the constant interruptions(something remedied by a moderator or common sense on the side of the belligerent party) I think that there are some low hanging fruit wrt points I find problematic in the arguments made.
Wrt to the LCOE argument, wholesale energy prices and their relationship to renewables: There are definitely arguments to be made that PV systems on a $/MW basis are the current cheapest form of electricity generation currently available, you could say that is due to "dumping" practices by China and that they are artificially low, but for the sake of this we assume they are cheapest regardless of IT shenanigans. The issue with PV generation at scale is two/threefold.
Issue 1: economics, while it is true that PV energy is incredibly cheap, at high system penetration the price that those PV assets realize is very low(in the SCED they dispatch at very low prices, so much so that in the markets of highest penetration in NA daytime prices in several months go negative, and a significant portion of the PV output must be curtailed), what this means in effect is that outside of price blowouts and additional "juice" (PTC/ITC), solar will not hit its LCOE.
Issue 2: Transmission, this goes kinda hand in hand with reliability for reasons I can get into, but at high penetration of renewables, because they are so space intensive, the transmission requirements become more complicated. In a simple example if I wanted to build a 100MW solar facility near load that would be damn expensive because land costs, so I go where land is cheaper, at first great, as more solar gets built I start to experience congestion that is COINCIDENT with my generation, because I am generating at the same time as assets near me, and the transmission capacity is necessarily limited. This results in my realized nodal price getting trashed. Transmission is expensive, and who should pay for transmission upgrades is a hot button issue.
Issue 3: Variability and seasonality. When you install 100 MWs of solar, you are really getting 20-50 MWs of equivalent nuclear or even Gas CC, because Capacity Factors matter. First off I am amazed that so much solar is being brought online in Alberta considering that it has pretty poor solar resource relative to lower latitudes, and Alberta has harsh winters. But Alberta solar has lower CFs, which raises LCOE, and it's not even especially coincident with load. Solar to some extent makes sense as a way to supplement a grid in regions that are significantly summer peaking and require a lot of energy for AC, but I would even think then it would be secondary.
The energy grid in general has two functions, and two incentive structures (three if you want to get cute), energy price as in I need energy now, which is settled in the energy market, and reliability, which is settled in capacity markets or equivalent structures (as far as I remember, Alberta is kinda the wild West and relies on bidding behavior to ensure system reliability, which is confounded by its market being dominated by a couple huge power producers, but that is the exception not the rule). PVs marginal contribution to reliability approaches 0, and it's contribution to energy, while it lowers wholesale prices during generation hours, increases volatility and hurts the economics of more sustainable technologies like nuclear.
Hey, I'm currently traveling for work and this will be pretty difficult to respond to on my phone (since it's annoying to scroll up and down).
I'll respond back to you on Friday or Saturday when I'm back. But I do have some questions. 1st did you watch the original video? 2nd have you seen my other videos discussing these topics?
@@DDDecarbon I watched Green Energy video, which I enjoyed but disagreed with, which led me to watch the Batteries video, and then the Math one (which I think was your best video on this). Again, good videos, very easy to follow! The 3 hour debate video was next on the block, and that is what convinced me to address via comments. I have specific critiques related to fundamental assumptions and methodology in the math video, but you obviously put genuine thought into it.
Also, watched the original video, well put together video and I appreciate the references placed throughout.
I appreciate the comment. I don't think I fundamentally disagree, we may just be approaching it in different directions. First I can't believe people have listened to this whole conversation to kudos to you. My girlfriend found it painful haha. Second I'm by no means saying this stuff is easy, just that it's relative.
I agree with issue 1, this in part is being remedied by more purchase power agreements (PPAs). For example the solar plant I mentioned in my (majorprojects.alberta.ca/details/Travers-Solar-Project/3656) has 90% of its power purchased by amazon. These contracts are becoming more common and making renewables more profitable (I discuss this topic here, but will be making a follow up cause so of what I said was unclear. ruclips.net/video/ETp6lxjzxNI/видео.htmlsi=N43OzO7UnbGF5NqU). This ties into your comment later about alberta so I'll address it later. I agree on the curtailment front, so I'll move to issue 2
Issue 2: I agree and disagree with the space, though I'd argue that's baked into the cost, you can see that the Alberta example I showed is between Lethbridge and Calgary. I also agree there are certainly best places. But at the same time we're seeing massive solar investment in Texas where the market is largely unregulated, and it's up to those firms to determine the best place for profitability. Let the free market decide in this case, if the negative costs are that detrimental then companies won't build there but rather places with maybe less capacity factor but better overall prices. Also I'd argue that transmission is expensive on a capital basis but not on an operating basis, such that when you look at the economics at worst it's adding 1-2 cents/kWh. I'm going to do a video delving deeper into this but it's not something I'm worried about. In regards to costs, it could be government which then tacks on an upgrade fee, this would keep costs lower since profits are less of a concern. But you could also open it up the free market as it becomes increasing profitable to install transmission from say Manitoba hydro to Alberta to even out the lulls.
Issue 3: In regards to Alberta it's not the best solar but it's certainly not bad, yeah capacity factor is around 20%, but cause solar costs are so low it's making them economic. I'd also argue that we are much more of a wind province than a solar one. And solar/wind have different low seasons which make them much more complementary (wind lull is around August while Solar is January in most places in NA). We have 4400 MW of wind and 1600 MW of solar (www.aeso.ca/grid/grid-planning/forecasting/wind-and-solar-power-forecasting/) and on the higher end of wind CP in NA. This is still why the copper plate discussion is so important. Albertas energy markets are weird we did price caps for a while, I'd argue that PPAs and CRMs are the way to go, and I'd focus on wind and transmission more than anything in Alberta. My argument against nuclear is largely costs and social acceptance, but if I could snap my fingers and change that I would.
I really appreciate the comment, I hope I answered everything, but come to my discord if you want to chat more. Thanks!
@@AnInnocuousSquid813 Appreciate it, like i said in the other comment, I'm going to dive deeper into the transmission side.
The repeated reference to some vague trend in line with general economic development ("prices have gone up") is pretty frustrating. Analysis of the different factors and their individual effects on damage. The recurring referral to coal and non-renewable energy as "cheap" energy is pretty infuriating, and makes me suspect that there is a bias here not entirely based on facts.
Your patience is amazing, and I love that you're actually refering to specific data points and not vague general trends - when you don't know something you admit it. I love the intellectual honesty here.
Yeah, it was definitely a good learning experience for me. Like I wrote, a moderator or more railroaded conversation would have been a bit more productive.
But I appreciate the kind words 😊
Well the problem with a discussion on climate change is that the two sides don't want to have the same discussion. Essentially, it is an apples and oranges, type argument.
1. Both sides seem to believe that they can lie, as long as the other side cant categorically prove they are lying. This is a very bad basis for an practical discussion. It also makes any hope for Green success (because they are the ones trying to make a change) on my part negligible.
2. Both sides, seem to be dishonest in their predictions. On the one hand the Green movement expect the world to end long before any effect from carbon reduction will take effect. On the other side, it would seem that the drive to net zero, will kill billions more than it will save.
As a Project Manager for 25 years this seems like a lot of kick-off meetings I attended over the years, full of salesmen, sponsors, vendors, consultants, business heads, and interested parties. You would hear all their wants, needs, dreams, sales pitches and nice to haves, and objections. And then you would hear the budget, and the timeline, and if you could get 5% of it done in the time allowed, in budget, you would need a gift from God!
I'm just saying, you need to start making a lot more practical sense. For instance, the USA owes $34Trillion, where is the money going to come from? You really think it can borrow another $34Trillion without any ill effects?
@@TheToledoTrumpton did you listen to the conversation? I'm not saying doom and gloom.
@@DDDecarbon But presumably you believe that the effects are sufficiently serious enough to reduce Carbon emissions and take on significant economic risk?
The internal combustion engine significantly improved our QoL and life expectancy. Suggesting we abandon it, requires a "Doom and Gloom" situation.
QoL changes between 1920 and 1970 were almost entirely due to carbon fuels. Don't dismiss it as insignificant.
@@TheToledoTrumpton you're commenting on a video you didn't watch. The evidence we have suggests that's it's cheaper to mitigate rather than adapt. It's not two sides of the coin. It's one side with 0 evidence and our side with all the evidence. I have lots of videos on the topic and if you're do inclined you can come to my discord and debate/ discuss with me.
Hey Dungeon Deadlift . I like your content and u should have more followers!
Awe thanks! It's definitely not the sexiest content for growth. But I have no plans on slowing down!
Favourite part was the section where he posts the Guterres quote about the fuel embargo in Gaza and thinks that's countering the point about multi-decade energy transition towards clean energy
I was definitely too lenient in this conversation. I only had the energy to fight so many battles
Patients of a Saint! I assume you were pulling your hair out silently during this
Jordan Peterson ignorant ? What? How the hell did you end up in my suggestions?
JP is consistently wrong about things outside of his field of expertise. You can watch my original video debunking him. This video is a follow up to that one.
ruclips.net/video/FmGRUyIEDG8/видео.htmlsi=703zLubQb-fioin7
@@DDDecarbonuhu yeah sure, you keep believing that. His analysis of the policies regarding climate change is spot on. But yeah, I am gonna pay attention to some random youtuber who thinks that he outsmarts a man who's probably the greatest intellectual of this time, alongside Thomas Sowell. But you keep bathing in your renewable delusion, that's gonna end well.
@@nickschwaller3154what policy? JP is not an intellectual. He's pretty dumb when it comes to anything outside his field of expertise. PZH admits that at the beginning that JP doesn't understand this info. So he shouldn't speak on it.
I don't disagree bad policies exist. That doesn't mean that renewables aren't cheap. He showed no evidence to support. If fact the evidence he does use is debunked. Since I use the same references but updated. So please be specific cause you're just vaguely stating things. Feel free to come to my discord if you feel so strongly.
I'm honestly curious: how did you arrive at the Impression of His intellectual and academic credibility?
@@WeltinventarAcademic credibility? You do know that he was a professor emeritus at Harvard at a time when competence mattered right? His first book, maps of meaning, might as well be a doctoral dissertation. It still gives me headaches. He's also a social scientist, a brilliant one, and is beyond well versed in History and theology, the latter being one of his expertise. He also worked at a UN panel with multiple Nobel prize winners about climate change policies. In short, contrary to most so-called intellectual babbling about nonsense, he actually does know what he's talking about. I've also noticed that he's not shy of saying 'I don't know' when he's out of his depth, especially when he talks with STEM scientists, he is genuinely curious and obsessed with knowledge . And intellectual credibility? Really? Have you watched any of his discussions with the likes of Lomborg or Lennox? I am fairly well read and have quite a few diplomas hanging on my office wall, but that guy puts me and anyone I know to shame, and I am surrounded by engineers and scientists. And I mean real scientists, not gender theorists and the likes.
Hilarious you're going all in on what a psychologist says about climate change. Clout chasing Jordan Peterson for views?
This guy asked me for the conversation and asked it be posted. But I don't expect you to be charitable to me. You're vitriol for me is showing 🤣🤣
You are just regurgitating government propaganda without any understanding of what you are talking about. This is nonsense.
Can you be specific? This was a discussion, but I can provide you any references for my positions.
Just because the government says something it doesn't make it untrue you have to show evidence that what's being said is untrue.
@@DDDecarbon It is possible that the government is right about something... although unlikely. I am old enough to realize that every single thing the government says is a lie, except perhaps that seatbelts save lives.
Although it was very difficult to listen to the conversation due to the constant interruptions(something remedied by a moderator or common sense on the side of the belligerent party) I think that there are some low hanging fruit wrt points I find problematic in the arguments made.
Wrt to the LCOE argument, wholesale energy prices and their relationship to renewables: There are definitely arguments to be made that PV systems on a $/MW basis are the current cheapest form of electricity generation currently available, you could say that is due to "dumping" practices by China and that they are artificially low, but for the sake of this we assume they are cheapest regardless of IT shenanigans. The issue with PV generation at scale is two/threefold.
Issue 1: economics, while it is true that PV energy is incredibly cheap, at high system penetration the price that those PV assets realize is very low(in the SCED they dispatch at very low prices, so much so that in the markets of highest penetration in NA daytime prices in several months go negative, and a significant portion of the PV output must be curtailed), what this means in effect is that outside of price blowouts and additional "juice" (PTC/ITC), solar will not hit its LCOE.
Issue 2: Transmission, this goes kinda hand in hand with reliability for reasons I can get into, but at high penetration of renewables, because they are so space intensive, the transmission requirements become more complicated. In a simple example if I wanted to build a 100MW solar facility near load that would be damn expensive because land costs, so I go where land is cheaper, at first great, as more solar gets built I start to experience congestion that is COINCIDENT with my generation, because I am generating at the same time as assets near me, and the transmission capacity is necessarily limited. This results in my realized nodal price getting trashed. Transmission is expensive, and who should pay for transmission upgrades is a hot button issue.
Issue 3: Variability and seasonality. When you install 100 MWs of solar, you are really getting 20-50 MWs of equivalent nuclear or even Gas CC, because Capacity Factors matter. First off I am amazed that so much solar is being brought online in Alberta considering that it has pretty poor solar resource relative to lower latitudes, and Alberta has harsh winters. But Alberta solar has lower CFs, which raises LCOE, and it's not even especially coincident with load. Solar to some extent makes sense as a way to supplement a grid in regions that are significantly summer peaking and require a lot of energy for AC, but I would even think then it would be secondary.
The energy grid in general has two functions, and two incentive structures (three if you want to get cute), energy price as in I need energy now, which is settled in the energy market, and reliability, which is settled in capacity markets or equivalent structures (as far as I remember, Alberta is kinda the wild West and relies on bidding behavior to ensure system reliability, which is confounded by its market being dominated by a couple huge power producers, but that is the exception not the rule). PVs marginal contribution to reliability approaches 0, and it's contribution to energy, while it lowers wholesale prices during generation hours, increases volatility and hurts the economics of more sustainable technologies like nuclear.