Climate Change: 'An APPALLING Scam!' w/ Jordan Peterson

Jordan Peterson and Matt Fradd discuss global warming and climate change and dig into how more CO2 in the environment is actually making the planet greener, not more arid.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this video is meant as medical advice



We get a small kick back from affiliate links.

[tyler]

You know it's a good video when YouTube tries to save us with the "Context" box.

[Catholicsquirrel]

So looking forward to this full interview! Huge thanks to Jordan Peterson for being willing to come on!

[valuedCustomer]

This has been a difficult topic to tackle with fellow parishioners. It feels like I'm a bad Cath for not just going along with it but when I'm so familiar with the holes in the argument it I struggle with confusion

[MathAdam]

“The fossil fuel revolution saved the planet.”

[JoseppiAJ]

Come on, guys. I'm a devout Catholic - we should all be able to agree that there are basic measures we should be taking to take care of the earth. How about we start with lessening the immediate harms on our children, like child asthma and microplastics in our food and water.

I struggle to understand why this issue is so contentious among Catholics other than maybe resentment toward bad representatives of the movement like Greta Thunberg.

[ochem]

1:10 Matt Fradd — Humility without confidence is false humility. Be simultaneously humble and confident. I learned that from Our Lady, the Queen of Heaven; she is both humble and confident. ❤

[jeromeyoung]

What Dr. Peterson says is not entirely accurate. CO2 has traditionally been around 280 ppm during recorded human history, although there have been times millions of years ago when it was thousands of ppm. During the last ice age which peaked 20, 000 years ago, it was 190 ppm, and not all plants died then, there were still plenty of plants in places that remained warm enough (although the ice age was not mainly caused by the difference in CO2, it was mainly caused by changes in Earth's tilt and orbit). The historic 280 in modern times started rising in the 1700s, and the first person to suggest it could warm the climate was in the late 1800s. The idea faced competition with claims about global cooling in the 20th century, because some scientists thought that increased air pollution blocking the sun was more important than the increased greenhouse effect from CO2. Since the 1970s, temperatures have risen more, which caused the idea of global warming to take over climate science. CO2 is now at 420 ppm, and is rising by more than 2 per year. Meanwhile, the environmental movement took off in the 60s in response to separate issues. Environmentalism was associated with the left because of being pro-regulation, and became entangled with other issues related to cultural battles. Eventually the movement became focused on the climate. This is why there is a left-right divide on global warming. Although this divide is not innate, and I am concerned about the issue, even though I am mostly a conservative.

[DeGave]

One "Context Box" is worth 100, 000 upvotes in my world. Watching right now.

[MathAdam]

“Green tax” won’t sell as well as “carbon tax”

[markfry]

Love how YT places "context" blurbs under these videos as if to say "don't listen to the video, here's the real truth". lol

[rokoi]

CO2 for plants may be good, but our main food crops are dying from the increased heat & drought. Anyone check olive oil prices the past few years? I'd wager the "20% greener" is just weeds, on land that we can't cultivate anyway. Is he suggesting a dandelion diet for all of us?

[havadatequila]

Plants may be growing more but it isn't counteracting the increased temperature. And Peterson can't point to a single model, not even of the oil producers themselves, that shows increased C02 works out well for civilization. Of course, it would be nice to see some good-faith push back from the host.

[I.pretend.understand]

Even if everything they claimed about the causes and effects where true (it isn't), the answer still would not be to become an authoritarian tyranny that punishes dissent. Everyone has plans, and everyone has failed plans; does it make more sense to trust in current politicians and go all in on their plans, effectively cutting off all other avenues of progress, or does it make more sense to trust in the collective brilliance of citizens and of humanity to identify specific problems and tailor effective solutions as they occur?

Imagine if during the Horse Manure crisis of 1894 we simply went all in on restricting growth and progress for the purpose of minimizing horse manure instead of allowing humanity to continue on to innovations like the automobile which completely eradicated the issue in its entirety?

We need the marketplace of ideas to see which are most effective and successful for the most people and for the longest time. What the government wants is to have a monopoly on this market of ideas where only the ones they approve of get any attention or funding, and everything they disapprove of gets restricted, punished, and eradicated.

[dannysullivan]

Living proof of that ‘conservative intellectual’ is an oxymoron.

[brmadden]

Consider this scenario:

As CO2 increases, and global temperature warms slightly, the planet (on the whole) becomes more suitable to plant life. However, once the global temperature becomes too hot for that additional plant life to survive, it begins to die off en masse. That extra carbon dioxide uptaken by those plants plants during photosynthesis then gets re-emitted into the atmosphere, accentuating the warming trend and killing off additional plant life. Such is the notion of tipping points, AKA the classic "too much of a good thing" scenario. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration isn't the ONLY factor that regulates vegetation patterns, temperature, etc.; it's one of many forcing mechanisms.

The fact there are 8+ billion humans on the planet for the first time ever is a testament to our remarkably stable climate, which we've enjoyed for the last ~11, 000 years. If we push things too far, we risk destabilizing that. Exactly how far is "too far" is where the uncertainty in climate science lies, as the climate system is a tangled web of complex forcing mechanisms & feedback loops. But that level of uncertainty is not our friend.

[EvilUmpire]

This is strange because when I checked online it said the planet was 5 percent greener not 20 percent over the past 20 years and that the majority of the greening was a result of tree-planting projects in China and India not because of increased CO2.

"The last person I talked to was Patrick Moore, he started Greenpeace..." Did he? Greenpeace began as the Don't Make a Wake Committee in 1970 and Moore joined in 1971. He was a member when it changed its name to Greenpeace, but he didn't found the original organization.

[clixels]

Great chip! Can't wait to see the whole Interview!!

[streamscreen]

NASA has been studying global warming for a long time and thinks it’s very real with severe consequences.

[francismcglynn]

Birds singing at 4:00 A.M. help the stromata of plants open and so does some classical music. Some farmers have increased their yields by playing it.

[blitzhacker]

Thanks for the climate change posting on this Youtube. Without it I wouldn't of ever known or heard about this. Keep going, you're killing it