"Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence." - 2018 National Climate Assessment.
Dr. Peterson, I heard about UNDRIP today, the bill that has recently passed in Canada, I would very much like to hear you talk about it as I am sure you will have a lot to say on the subject, thank you sir for all of the conversations that you have made available and for all that you do
@Valborg Fossil fuels have served us well in the past, but they are no longer a path to a better future. Expect 15%-25% reduction in global per capita output by 2100 with 2.5-3.0°C of global warming. Source: M.Burke et al. (2018) "Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets"
As a physicist who has retired early and become a farmer I am deeply concerned about this current trend towards the destruction of agricultural productivity. On a 10 acre farm I produce enough food to supply a complete nutritious diet for over 100 people. I grow my own animal feed and grow animals and just 1 acre of green vegetables and with planning and vertical farming this is enough land to feed my family and to sell to purchase the energy I need to run our tractor and heat our home. Enough to eat and enough to trade and now this administration is seeking to shut down the ability of all farmers to be self sufficient. We even produce our own electrical energy on our property and are converting half our tractors to run on electric motors. What they are doing is not JUST suicide, it’s MURDER
It may be of some comfort to you to know that there are many people now getting involved in various community groups to help each other and such as yourself. Included is growing your own food, health, farming, and so on. Bless you, hold on, we will win this.
@@mrlitsta A lot of this revolves around the processing of natural gas being how we get certain fertilizer (I believe ammonia? Not 100%) and the belief that all forms of fossil fuels must end no matter what redeeming qualities they have. They can't just outlaw Liquid Natural Gas, it would literally cause famine. So the next "best" thing is putting the screws to farmers for using the product that makes it impossible to get rid of LNG. I'm sure some of them believe that what they're doing is right. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I have shit to do today and don't have time atm to compile links. But if you reply to this I'll save the notification and try to get some links when I have time
Dr.Peterson imo your dissolution from teaching at the university was 'manifest destiny' ; you're reaching far more people now, and doing an immeasurable service to a countless number of people. Your lectures and forums will continue to aid a world in need. Blessings to you.
I don't have confidence in ANY prognostication of anyone who is in favour (yes I'm Canadian) of the reduction of fossil fuels. Along with that is the demonization of Nuclear FISSION. I worked at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and we kept (Still keep) ALL of the fuel bundles ON SITE since first reactor in 1971 and 7 more reactors followed, the last fully online around 1988-89. 500,000,000 watts each at full power. Match THAT with solar my friend !!
Was this conversation recorded in 2014? How is it possible that there is NO reference to the FACT that today, in 2023 solar when combined with battery storage is THE LEAST EXPENSIVE form of energy production?!?! And that the world more is threatened by DECLINING population than over population? I am totally with the JP on the side of humans, over "the environment" but ffs know the most recent data before having a conversation about it. A little research ahead of attacking an old strawman, would do wonders for credibility.
The most thought provoking answer to the debate came from a 16 yo girl who was interviewed by an environmental reporter with one of the most disgusting questions you could ask a young women. Would she consider not having children to save the planet. Her response was breathtaking. "Yes, she said, I have considered that, but to take that action in isolation would be pointless" "It would have to be done by all women, to be fair, and that would lead to the extinction of the human species". "And if the human species did not exist, does the environment matter?."
Yes. If the human species doesn't exist the world continues to. The human species is not anywhere close to extinction. You sleep at night knowing that there are less than 500 Bengal Tigers in the world, why are you troubled by there being less than 8 BILLION people? People that can travel, and use the Internet, can farm, and ship and fertilize in vitro But less than 300 grey wolves is peachy. You are being intellectually dishonest which is why you like this kind of drivel
So, she is saying relying on personal responsibility won't solve anything. 1 person not having children won't solve the problem (just like many things left to personal responsibility- guns, recycling, etc). She isn't saying "let's go ahead and just keep making unlimited humans endlessly without consequence" either. The practical message is to say "ok, families can only have X amount of children" not "everyone has zero children and the human species dies".
What Alex Epstein is saying in this discussion with Jordan B. Peterson reminds me very much of what Patrick Moore has been saying on several occasions about Greenpeace and the reasons he had for leaving this organisation after seven years. He tells us he found it impossible to remain an active supporter of Greenpeace when it became obvious that fewer and fewer Greenpeace activists had any training in the natural sciences and began to regard human beings as the ones that were destroying the planet.
Well, aren't humans destroying the planet? Because that's fact at this point based on a ton of metrics. Just look at species decline caused by mankind alone. Look at cities in the US before the EPA was created. If it weren't for the environmentalists/ecologists, we would have no redwood forests, no clean water sources, no bald eagles, no forest management, no national parks, and we would all be full of lead and mercury even more than we are.
Maybe the Greempeace people knew the Truth and that the Quitter wanted to live in denial. Really, if by sacrificing 99% of 7 Billion People we could save the World, then we should go for it. JP's argument here is that if we can't save the World than just screw the World because it no longer matters. That doesn't seem like the Enlightened View to me. Yes, Humanity might have to make some Sacrifices. Jesus got Crucified. Maybe this is the Generation where we all get Crucified for the Sins of the World.
@@1lightheaded left green government checks also make anyone sing a song against fossil fuels. Just because someone is paid something doesnt make what they say false
One of the most remarkable events in my public state university education was being assigned Epstein's "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" in an Energy Economics class. For all the general failings of modern academia, I think back very fondly on my university for allowing a professor to present this book as a contrast to everything else we were discussing around climate change and fossil fuels. Been following the author ever since, and it makes me happy to see Jordan getting to know him.
When I was a child I asked my father what we should do in preparation for the recent forecast of gloom and doom. His response was that the disaster never comes true and there is always a new threat imagined every 10 or 12 years because the old threat never happens. My children can’t believe that politicians would be so corrupt and use fear to distract and to control people. In my 76 years I have observed the failure of every prediction of gloom and doom so proving my father’s observations to be correct. One day, my children will no doubt reach the same conclusion and warn their children to fear only the politicians wanting to create nuclear war.
I had a neighbor that was having a nervous breakdown in 2012 ..he believed the world would end Dec of that year ...I told him to go borrow some money ....I bet him there would be someone around to collect it in 2013
A neo-Malthusian might say that your father is correct-so far-but just wait, it’s coming. That may be why they’re forever finding a new pig to dress up and apply lipstick and rouge to every generation or so. The kids grow up, though, and recognize how ridiculous it is walking a pig in makeup and a tutu. I do wonder about the current generation of kids. The internet and social media seem to be giving them an avenue to perpetual infancy and shield them somewhat from the harshness of reality.
I came to a similar realization going down the rabbit hole of effectiveness of recycling in the 90s. It's a large scale multibillion dollar obfuscation industry that sadly can never be acted upon to fix the problem it claims to address.
*Frank Pocius:* I hate to sound so pessimistic, but your children, and their entire generation, wIll come to that realization only to discover it’s too late to escape the authoritarian grasp they’ve unwittingly put themselves into.
No one is calling for a cull of the human population, they are simply pointing out the obvious that endless population growth with increasing resource needs can't continue indefinitely. Alex here incorrectly frames that as anti-human. It costs less to prepare and switch energy and food production to a sustainable model instead of whatever corporate interests guide us to.
No one has ever suggested a human population cull except for those who don't understand environmentalism or climate science. Ruin the planet and that will cause a population collapse, not a cull.
@@laurelpickens3364 abortion is someone's individual choice to not have a child, it's not part of some environmentalists scheme to cull the population. Besides Russia, no one is advocating cutting of supply of fuel or food to the point where people die.
01:20:10 As someone with a keen interest in natural forests I learned this lesson on my MSc course when we visited Tunisia and I met real poverty for the first time. The best way to use my talents as a Geoscientist was to work in the oil industry, to discover more fossil fuel, and thereby help to reduce the pressure on woodland destruction for basic fuel needs.
I guess you could make that argument 20 years ago, but you are ignoring the declining cost curves of the low-carbon tech. Today wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy in most parts of the planet and LFP batteries are now so cheap that grid storage with wind and solar is now competitive with electricity from fossil fuels. With future sodium ion batteries, wind/solar + grid storage is going to be far cheaper. Electric vehicles are already cheaper per mile than ICE vehicles, soon the selling price of EVs are going to be cheaper than ICE vehicles (and it already is in China). In other words, the best way to help the world's poor achieve a better standard of living is to transition to renewable energy and electric vehicles. There is other low-carbon tech like heat pumps which is still more expensive, but the more that the developed world invests in that tech, the cheaper that it will become and the more that the developing world will be able to afford it.
I am interested in forrests and animal population management. Since 1964 I've studied this carefully. In every instance I've been able to personally witness and make my own observations. I have yet to see environmentalists and anti hunting groups get one thing right. They have thoroughly caused much more damage than improvement. Not because they don't have good intentions. But have idealistic ideas about how they wish things were. They typically believe that nature is static and left untouched will thrive. That's never been the case and never will be. This is nearly 60 years of study and observations and the only definitive fact is we are extremely inept at understanding complex systems and controlling nature. I'm not a climate scientist and don't presume to understand the complexity of that massive complex system. But when I hear people discuss climate change it becomes obvious that no one really understands enough about climate to even remotely predict or take any action that will turn out well.
@@amosbatto3051 Your comment is truly astonishing. All of the material assets you cite are mined, refined, fabricated and constructed by the prolific consumption of fossil fuels.
@@Bullittbl "we are extremely inept at understanding complex systems and controlling nature." I totally agree. I have been studying geoscience for 50 years and am only now just able to start to make some small corrections to the egregious nonsense of "Climate Change". Google "The Dust Planet Clarified" and also "The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth's Semi-Opaque Troposphere"
Precisely. If you want to overthrow a society, make that society's vices into your virtues and vice versa. Not a surprise what the modern left actively celebrates is almost verbatim the Seven Deadly Sins.
@Roger Jamespaul BS. In 200 years the temperature of earth has fluctuated 2 degrees. So, if you’re on board with the global warming crap, are you willing to eliminate YOUR carbon footprint ? You’re anti fossil fuels, of course not for yourself, you’ll continue to use your computer, your cellphone, your electricity, but are suggesting if not outright advocating “other” people do without. Who shall those other people be according to you? Who are the “undeserving “? Please do tell us.
It is not what Klaus Schwab desires. Funny how this platform even tried to change the last name I typed above. The censorship will continue until just a few inhabit and control this planet!...
No kidding my generation, millennials, were trained to believe that humans are a cancer. But it doesn't take much imagination to see that the trend of technological innovation and even the smallest amount of caring about the environment will eventually lead to humans preserving and saving life on a mass scale in the distant future when natural (not anthropomorphic) conditions lead to lesser habitability on this rock. To put it simply, we will do things the dinosaurs could not. Global Warming is a Doomsday Cult, and like all of these cults in history it is used as a tool to subjugate people and take away their rights and their wealth, to keep people poor, and to push them towards depopulation.
Yes, absolutely! "Life" in this home biosphere includes humanity, any argument of a "pre human" earth is absurd - on several levels. Does humanity need to crawl back under rocks? Do we need a 'Bill Gates' styled Purge of 90%? Or do we need to talk sense; honor the Creator for ALL of Life, that we are engaged with, and in. This discussion is the cutting edge of truthful investigation!
I remember making this case to some 18 year old back in 2014. She thought I was a lunatic, told me to "educate myself", accused me of being an oil company shill. I asked her if the world is so ready to be destroyed what was she going to do about it? She looked at me with shocked, wide eyes. Would she give up all of her power consumption? The phone she was holding? Lights? Cars? Her only solution was to not change her ways but wonder why we can't use solar or some such other thing. Somebody else was supposed to do something while she pretended to be worried. It was PURELY about trying to sound/feel morally superior with ZERO actual effort to change something herself.
Sounds like a close call you masterfully drove away by seeing and saying (Red Flags). Not wanting to address idiots' "ideas" is why humanity has landed where we are now.
@@paullambert6485 We pay for her and now for the immigrants = Pelosi servants as she fled to Italy and then voters to be groomed by puppet joe from Obama 3 and other.... So Sad.
I have listened to Alex Epstein’s videos before and I love his clarity of thought and the non-partisan approach to the energy conversation. He has provided a ton of data in his presentations and comes across as a well balanced thinker . I am glad that Dr.Peterson has invited him to his platform and given him wider exposure. Kudos to you Dr.JBP 😊
@@amazingbollweevilit doesn't change the fact that there is NOT crisis except in the minds of dullards like yourself. Even the IPCC isn't declaring a crisis just politicians, those hoping to profit from the panic andthose loo,ing to control us while they themselves will sacrifice nothing.
@@amazingbollweevil The reason I made that statement was because Alex doesn’t deny that renewable energy options such as wind and solar can be part of the energy mix. He is only saying that this radical, lopsided, ideology driven approach to phasing out fossil fuels completely is doomed to fail and will unleash catastrophic energy crisis across the world. This is because the green lobby completely ignores the benefits of fossil fuels to human flourishing and prosperity. Our ability to modernize agriculture and feed billions of people, build better and safer homes, deliver healthcare, build a growing economy and provide employment to people, the technologies we rely on for work and life and the myriad other benefits we consume without even batting an eyelid are all enabled by fossil fuel. It is preposterous to not look at the positives and only exaggerate the negatives. Critical thinking 101 demands that you evaluate the positives and the negatives of an issue/solution under consideration, evaluate the positives and negatives of alternatives and then arrive at an informed decision. The green lobby, unfortunately is not doing that and instead bullying the world to bow down to their nihilistic demands. The current energy crisis is largely due to this ideological approach to climate change.
@@vigsbond I've always believed in wind and solar I just don't think we've sophisticated it enough to switch the world to it. I feel they push too fast. The only person I've seen successfully start implementing these this was Musk. Whom I gained alot of respect for when he stood for using our fossil fuels right now given the state of the world. He makes half his living developing electric powered things. But thought it was dumb to push for the end of fossil fuels this fast.
@@destinymayberry6217 if belief is what you use as a yardstick, then you won't get very far. Learn about energy and power density before making any silly statements like "believing" that wind and solar can have a role in supplying ENERGY for our society. ENERGY, and not just electricity. Do you even know the difference? Read "Fossil Future" and learn, it will be very much enlightening for you, I am sure.
My old buddy who's now in the green energy industry constantly talks about humans as parasites. Alex is absolutely right about the anti-human green philosophy and it's disturbing to see in person.
Sounds like it falls inline with UN agenda21/2030. Rewilding and the restoration of keystone predators etc. All of which we have been working on. Moving humans to cities is in there somewhere. Looks like the Netherlands has the jump on that one by taking out farmers. The agenda's are available for download.
I have an easy response for those people. Save the planet and end yourself. They always have the same excuse. "I'm working towards making things better"
Since I discovered Alex last year, I honestly believe he’s one of the most important thinkers in the world right now. He’s fighting a hard battle to prevent the starvation and death of literally billions of people.
"Prevent the starvation and death of literally billions of people." You're talking about the guy who's advocating for the use of fossil fuels which kills millions of people each year!
You can tell Alex is loving this... in his mind he's going ahhhh someone that realllllyyyy can digest this and actually really contribute to my ideas here"
I am a student of energy engineering and this talk has really opened up my eyes to another perspective of the energy sector that is almost never spoken about in the academic circles. Thank you Dr Peterson and Alex.
Climate change is irrelevant. AI is the only real threat we face. We need to get ahead on it now and we need humanists like Dr. Peterson to realize this and get ahead of this. AI will give us the power to deep freeze the planet within the timescale that climate change activists are worried that the planet will get too hot.
So as an engineer they teach you there is only one way to solve a problem? Theres only one way to engineering a solution? This means they are training the worst engineers in history if they are training them to think like this.
Maybe your professors know what they are talking about, whereas Alex Epstein is just spewing misinformation and strawman arguments. Wind/solar + grid storage with LFP is now cheaper per kWh than electricity from gas or coal. EVs now cost less per mile than ICE vehicles. 80% of new power generation worldwide was renewable in 2022. The best way to help the environment and the world's poor to to transition to renewable energy and EVs as fast as possible, not to use fossil fuels, which are changing the climate.
Thank you for having Alex on. He's been unwaivering in his Crusade to protect fossil fuels and speak truth to power about the 'climate' situation, for over a decade now. It's good to see him in the the light again and his statements previously about the environmentalists more or less being anti-human, rather than pro -Earth, is very apt and telling.
@@suhaasvemuri7980 there is no problem. The world is adjusting back to a more tropical climate as it was before the ice age. We know this by the animals found frozen in the poles with green grass in their mouth. Which is now covered in ice and co.plete Forestes are buried under the ice.
What about all the Climate related disasters? What about the rising sea level. What will happen when the Gulf Stream quits flowing? The Arctic Vortex Wobbles are now permanent. The Temperate Zone is now characterized as either being in state of Drought or state of Flood. WE CAN SEE IT HAPPENING BEFORE OUR OWN EYES, but you believe this IDEOLOGICAL CLAP TRAP, from a Psychologist who discovered that Talking Right Winger Trash was the Better Business Model for him to follow. You are what they call a 'Rube', a 'Sucker'.
There's no lies, Perterson is so keen to offer facts and data when talking about social science yet shuns the scientific consensus on climate change.. Wonder why that is?
This video was hard to watch. Not because I didn’t believe the facts that were laid out, but because it made me realize that I am part of the problem despite the fact that I was lead (or allowed myself be lead) to believe my blind moral stance was the solution, and that my political ‘side’ wouldn’t present false information... Jesus, that is such an ignorant to think now that I say it out loud 😣. How is this information not more readily available? I am so thankful for this video so I can reevaluate my thoughts. This video makes me question what other core believes I hold that are based on deceit and lies…😢 watching was a wake up call for sure. Just one more positive change in my life thanks to Jordan Peterson.
It's not that you where lied to its that you where indoctrinated into the green movement. Most of us have been. We have come a long way from the pollution ways of the past, it's just now gone to far.
Truly appreciate your post. The section of the discussion that specifically deals with morality is intellectually priceless and relevant to most progressive issues our world currently face
I absolutely loved this discussion! I believe that humans are capable of solving any problem environmental or otherwise that we are faced with. I recently toured an 18,000 square foot vertical agricultural facility that can produce on an annual basis the same amount of fodder (cattle feed) as one section (640 acres) of irrigated land using 90% less water!
@@thefoalingchannel6623 It was (past tense) a company called Groviv located on a large dairy farm in Elberta Utah. It has since gone broke. However, there are many new companies out there. Just do a search of youtube for indoor fodder systems or hydroponic fodder production. You will find dozens of them.
I've followed Alex for years, read both of his books, listened to his podcasts and interviews with others. Very happy to see him on the Jordan Peterson Podcast. I hope that his message resonates with more and more people.
Did he give any indication in anything that you read that he thinks there might be a level of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations that we should avoid going beyond? We are 50% above what it was two centuries ago. At the rate we are going, we will be at a level double the pre-industrial level of CO₂ within a very few decades. The number of naked protons zipping around in the oceans is about 25% higher now than it was before we started dumping fossil carbon into the air. Did you see any hint from Epstein as to what level of acidity in the oceans might motivate concern about possible adverse effects?
@@rc5466 A person who writes on the topic of fossil fuels might make a point to study the potential impact of their emissions, even outside of a formal academic degree program. A philosopher or a citizen with no advanced degree can understand the Precautionary Principle. A person who makes a name for himself by emphasizing the importance of honesty might occasionally say what he thinks would be a good policy for taking account of economic externalities, so prices will more honestly represent costs of production, including costs in terms of environmental degradation and lost opportunities for future generations.
I hate how the right-wing arguments against climate change always focus on the economics. At least Shellenberger acknowledges that climate change is a serious problem. Then he does the analysis of how the environmental movement affects the developing world. But aside from him, there's way too much backwards logic going on. "Fossil fuels have lifted billions of people out of poverty, therefore climate change isn't bad" is just a stupid argument.
@@DstnyCln I think, when we see those economic analyses, we should ask: Did the economic case in favor of some warming calculate an economic cost to increased rates of species extinction caused by climate instability? How is that done? Did they factor in the consequence of 25%, 50% or 100% more naked protons zipping around in the oceans? (We've already reach about a 25% increase. I think this equals any variability in ocean pH that has occurred any time in the past tens of millions of years, but it is a more rapid change, and the change is continuing and can be expected to accelerate. When carbon dioxide and water get together, they make a baby called 'carbonic acid'.) Peterson has said on numerous occasions that environmentalists who say that humans are like a cancer on the Earth show themselves to be genocidal, "because what do you do with a cancer? You destroy it". His comment could be a textbook example of over-extending a metaphor. Peterson's vile comment shows that he has, for some reason, not considered the possibility that people who have likened humans to a cancer on the Earth may want a change in the rules we live by (analogous to a correction of the defect in the cancer cells that make them dysfunctional). IF we make prices honest, by charging substantial fees to industries when they pollute, extract resources or destroy wildlife habitat, then profits of industry will align with sustainable business practices. If we share proceeds from environmental impact fees to all people equally, no one will live in abject poverty. The policy will provide a net benefit to those who buy relatively little, particularly those who by little in the way of the most environmentally-damaging goods and services. For someone who has become famous as a person who gives voice to the idea that honesty is important, Peterson has remarkably little to say about the harm done by dishonest prices. He has even less to say about what efficient and fair policy could help to make the system operate more honestly.
@@JohnChampagne In my own reply to this podcast, I pointed out how AGW deniers always love to point out the flaws in the official IPCC models for being inadequately predictive. And yet they always seem entirely confident that there won't be any bad consequences that we weren't able to predict. Since we can't model the climate perfectly, the only sensible thing to do is to follow the precautionary principle and don't mess with things we don't fully understand. Unfortunately, taxing pollution has proven difficult because the world has so many different jurisdictions. But we'd certainly stand a better chance without all these charlatans spreading misinformation.
Another Great Program. Canadians need to hear more about this, especially those under the Climate delusion. You will not get these types of discussions on Canada's Legacy Media.
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky. Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
Mr. Peterson. I truly enjoy listening to your discussions. The precision of evidence and genuine back and forth debate give me a sense of optmism. there might be more like you out there One can see the passion in your conviction. Thank you.
Even a 4-year-old can see what they're up to, but our pundits, "wise men" and leaders will debate and theorize forever over the mystery of the Lefts & Elites real motivations. Because being blunt and straightforward about it, and how obvious it is, just doesn't seem as authoritative and intellectually astute. No, we must persistently demonstrate our eternal eagerness to assign good, honest motives to those who demonstrate daily that honesty and our better interests are all simply out of the question. I'm already growing sour on "conservatism". It seems what we most want to conserve is a "good guy" image, in spite of how much the Left already hates us, because heaven forbid the Left should think we don't like them, or that we don't respect their constant onslaught of ever-increasingly ridiculous & destructive logic, along with the obvious agenda behind it.
@@micchaelsanders6286 I certainly hope so. The majority of people - particularly in the developed/Western world - have enjoyed the privilege of comparatively easy lives and never known struggle or suffering for basic necessitates. Complacency is as effective a killer as corrupt leaders who would give us bread and circuses to make us unable to see the evil they sow.
I have been noticing the dogma and religiosity inherent in climate activism and messaging for some time, and so I have been sceptical of this messaging. This interview is really illuminating those concerns and presenting them with credence. Thank you for having this conversation.
@@kaivogel253 Bruh, you really calling centrists, cultists? Sad. And thanks for letting me know about the Wilks brothers. Will need to keep that fact in mind.
@@kaivogel253 Looks to me like you are stuck in a bubble. Peterson isn't a neonazzzi. He's clearly against it. All he talks about is improving your own life and psychology. Secondly, Cultural Marxism isn't a conspiracy theory, there is too much proof for it. Search for "subversion of a culture" and you'll find several people talking about their real life stories. It was used by Russia in many countries. If you can see proof of Marxism, and even people nowadays proudly supporting communism and socialism, how can it be a conspiracy? Look, the most important thing is to be factual and be a skeptic. Not label things as conspiracies. Look at both sides of the argument, and come to your own conclusion. Right now, given the amount of information on Marxism, one cannot deny it is happening. Whether it is on-purpose or intentional is unknown.
Aagh Dr JP - you did it again - I am reading Bjorn Lomborg thanks to you- now thank you Alex - I will read your works. You both give me hope - what a refreshing world view...
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky. Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
Bjorn Lomborg is not who you should be reading if you want an honest appraisal. it is proven that he cherry picks data to support his positions. He is quite dishonest.
Count me in if the club is inclusive and not exclusive but has degrees of dimensions in dynamics of harmonics and not just tape recordings of the village idiots HERALDING that which anti American Wealth promotes .
@@Name.......... I'm sorry but I don't agree. I'm not thinking about myself as I won't be around for much longer. But I'm afraid for the generations coming up that have to live with this BS! And yes I do believe there is climate change but this craziness is beyond the pale. I think you need to do more research instead of letting the government decide for!
I heard you on the podcast version. Thank you for inviting Alex Epstein. I sent it to my two children (they are hesitant to bring children to ‚this world‘ 😢). I am grateful for your hard work. If I may bring some critic : it would have been optimal to let Alex talk more about his views.
1:04:45 I really appreciate Alex's point about one side getting the "stamp of 'science'" and his efforts to combat that with his own evidence. The ability of one side to swoop in with a moral claim of "Science!" to win every argument has been a hallmark of current politics, and it needs to stop if we're ever to get to the bottom of issues and decide what actions are best for our future. I grew up loving biology, chemistry, meteorology, and other sciences, but now my views on things put me in the camp of the "deniers" on several issues.
Science is fact based. Anything that keep you from asking for all the evidence is definitionally not science. Also when exploring science beware of repeatable loaded experiments. Those can lead you to very bad conclusions.
When popular opinion can be so swayed by a media controlled by interests with their own agenda, voices like your own (those of reason) are SO refreshing to hear.
Wow, I sincerely appreciate both of you fellows. I really gravitate towards Alex’s simple explanations and perspectives, particularly his thoughts about life being an incredible opportunity. I grew very tired of constantly being accused of guilt by convoluted intellectual reasoning many years ago, guilt implied simply because of fact that I was alive and had ears to hear. Sometimes a short parable is far easier to grasp then a long lecture, and if it has punch line so much the better. Thank you Mr. Peterson and Mr. Epstein you do us a great service!
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky. Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
I am amused that so many people think "watching this" will change minds or, more important, policy. Policy is still being dictated by government employees and consultants in the pocket of the energy industry which is of course a huge source of tax income. Giving up carbon means government moving to a non-fossil future where different approaches to taxation prevail.
This time last year I was dying for Jordan Peterson to talk about the depopulation agenda. No pun intended. I wondered if he ever would. We all wake up at different points. He’s not disappointing these days. Thanks JP.
Depopulation agenda is made up. The effort has been mischaracterized by JP and his guest. Environmentalists are simply pointing out that an unimpeded human population growth with rapidly increasing resource needs cannot be sustained. We are hitting a wall and need to address this as a reality of a finite earth with finite resources. Sustainable practices need to be incorporated, which may include limiting human behavior in some respects.
@@kaivogel253 no, the grifters are the bureaucrats with an eye on more control and tax $$ that are feeding the Climate Alarm Beast (who have become grifters themselves as grant-seeking whores who feed the grantors whatever they want.)
@@yahyahboy2 Where is one on TH-cam? And one where the comments are not turned off! We also need AOC to come on and debate climate too! Bankers, politicians and paid scientists! What could go wrong?
@@yahyahboy2 once again the “argument from authority”; you do not need to be a fireman to know that burning house is likely to claim a life or two, you need a real argument, not an expert opinion, and you do need to trust your own eyes!!
@@yahyahboy2 you mean the scientists, who academic career and funding is dependant upon towing the party line of catastrophic climate change.... or do you mean the scientists that have been ostracized as being climate deniers for following independent lines of inquiry and reaching different conclusions.
@@derp8575 how is that balanced, I would describe this space as an echo chamber. if anything, 3% of his guests should be supportive of his views but so far it's 100% - it's blatant bias
I love every second of hearing Dr. Jordan formulate his thoughts on a topic and the added bonus of the guests that come on to discuss the topics. I think one of the fundamental issues of this topic is the issue of how the people who have obtained the moral high ground continue to use it to there advantage. It's a problem of what is politically profitable. It's hard to get elected or re elected on something that your opponent has deemed or label immoral. So how do we regain the moral high ground and make it less politically profitable for the opposing side/ arguments ??
@@yahyahboy2 Why? 97% of those 'scientists' have been proven wrong - over the last 20 years - haven't they! Of course fossil fuel positivity deniers still want those 97% 'scientists' to stay, because they fit their evil agenda. You didn't actually watch very much of this - did you? ;-)
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky. Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
Al gore in his Oscar winning documentary said the Arctic would be gone by 2013 and polar bears would be extinct. Polar bears are thriving right now and not even on endangered list. Media was also fearmongering about 10 years ago, citing "experts" that were predicting Florida would be underwater in 7 years. Australia even warned in 1999, that in 20 years, there would be no more snow. They just had historic record snowfall. Climate has always been changing. That's why ice age is cyclical and Sahara desert was lush 10,000 years ago.
Some of us- many of us, in fact - do not feel any need whatsoever to "justify the crime of our existence," nor do we buy into any version or form of the confused and sick thinking that tries to make us feel that way!
Read Ayn Rand. She conveys this benevolent universe premise about the potential for mans happiness and achievement, contrasted to Jordan Peterson's view that life is suffering.
As always Jordan, I have fully enjoyed your thoughtful engagement with your enlightened followers. I have four sons and myself that find your conversations riveting and thoughtfully truthful. Hope to attend your lecture as budget allows.
Brilliant! I'm so greatful to Jordan Peterson for spreading clarity on this issue, and promoting brilliant people like Alex Epstein and Richard Lindzen to his millions of followers.
Sadly he didn't argue or failed to recognize the extremely dumb idea of "a rise in temperature would mean a more tropical and lush world with more life", someone needs to explain to him the basics of farming. We'd lose so many different important food plants, trees and fauna that's crucial to our world. Many plants can't survive harsh weather and would end up with shorter growth cycles or just drying up or shrinking. Sorry but you completely lost the entire argument there. "Oh but you just need greenhouses then" well yeah, why not build more wind water and solar power plants too while you're at it? Spending a huge bunch of money in inefficient tech just to prove a stupid point. Yes, the climate obsessed morons are worse, hinting towards decimating the human population just to live more in peace, it really shows they've never been to rural areas and they're just stuck in their cities, so much space for everyone away from the mega cities they live in, so much peace and contact with nature in simple towns. I don't like the fact that you're just basically saying "let the world go to shit OUR WAY, because WE are right and you are wrong. You are both wrong in different ways. We do need to find a way to manipulate weather before it's too late, since our sun is an unstable giant ball of gas, which fluctuates between hotter and colder temps, messing with our climate even further.
Not really. It is two ignoramuses attacking strawmen and confirming each other's biases. I posted my critique of their arguments in a different comment, but nobody will read it, and the right-wing echo chamber will continue. Get an actual expert to debate Peterson and Epstein and you will see how quickly their arguments fall apart, but Peterson isn't interested in debating actual experts.
@@amosbatto3051 Thank you for your opinion. Where is your critique? I would very much like to read/listen to it. Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to reply.
It's of real concern to me, when in the UK the climate crisis narrative is so pervasive on both mainstream news outlets, social media, and TV ads that unless you educate yourself against it, you could quite easily believe that we (the general populace) are the harbingers of our own doom!
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky. Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
BBC shot themselves down in flames, when they couldn't explain the cold snap. Even reeled out a meteorologist, who couldn't make a climate change reason.
We ARE the harbinger of our own doom, but not because we burn fossil fuels. It is because we continue to believe the fear-porn being produced by those who openly hate us, and insist that we need to die for our own good. The only existential threat we face is from a small number of humans creating imaginary problems and then selling us imaginary solutions at a very high cost! The only power and wealth they have is that which we surrender to them. Just say NO!
The idea carbon dioxide (CO2) was responsible for global warming was an artifact of the environmental awakening of the early 1980s. Yes, there was a lot we humans were doing that needed to stop but it became an over-reaction when they took aim at CO2 emissions. CO2 is one of the foundations of life on this planet and without it everything dies. Does it cause atmospheric warming? Yes, but only to a limited degree. Above 300 parts per million saturation occurs and additional CO2 has little effect. Twice there have been ice ages during the Cryogenic with the entire planet covered in ice with CO2 levels in excess of 40,000 ppm. Those who push the idea that increasing amounts of CO2 will cause the planet to overheat are mistaken. Overall temperatures are actually controlled by the oceans which cover 70% of the Earth's surface. When temperatures climb there is additional evaporation which forms clouds which reflect sunlight. Evaporation also moves the heat up into the upper atmosphere where the thermal energy is lost into space. The real reason temperatures appear to be rising is because most temperature sensors are n the USA and in cities which are urban heat islands. As they grow larger so does the heat island effect I believe the real reason CO2 was declared a pollutant was so the wealthy could grow even wealthier trading carbon credits and politicians could grow wealthy by taxing it and using the money to reward their donors. In the end it's money out of the pockets of those who can least afford it and it won't 'save the planet'. It will only doom western civilization. For those interested search for Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis to find a more realistic alternative of how climate on our planet really works.
I've read both the books discussed in this interview by Alex Epstein. As a person who regularly finds myself discussing climate change in online forums, I can say they have both been instrumental in arming myself with the best approach to this issue: Highlighting the positives that fossil fuels have brought to our lives. When you start discussing this, you will find 9 times out of 10 the opposition you'll encounter has rarely even considered the issue in these terms. He, and I'll credit Lomborg for this as well, do an excellent job of specifically identifying all of the modern wonders we have and enjoy because of fossil fuels. Even simple stuff like refrigeration, or air conditioning, and the incredible life saving measures these technologies have produced. Access to energy is the number one determining factor in quality of life, and I encourage everyone to read Alex's work on the subject. The future of the species might just depend on it!
how is that remotely relevant to climate sustainability. like yes obviously fossil fuels made our lives cushy. tf does that have to do with if their destroying the planet or not
@@jda1627 Climate sustainability is directly linked to our ability to master climate. Mastering climate is impossible without fossil fuels. It's pretty simple. What do you mean by 'destroying the planet'? The earth is more habitable, greener, and safer today than at any point in human history. Please, explain.
@@evbbjones7 "Mastering climate is impossible without fossil fuels." Simply untrue. Or if true, we're fucked as fossil fuels are not an infinite resource. Guess we'll no longer be able to master the climate in another hundred years... "The earth is more habitable, greener, and safer today than at any point in human history." By what metric? How do you define habitability, safety and greenness?
@@1kwerty7 ' "Simply untrue." Afraid not. Can you name a single piece of heavy equipment that can be run on renewables? "Or if true, we're fucked as fossil fuels are not an infinite resource." Wait, in your very last sentence you declared it was 'simply untrue', now you're unclear whether or not it is? "Guess we'll no longer be able to master the climate in another hundred years...' Why would you think that? History certainly suggests otherwise. 'By what metric? How do you define habitability, safety and greenness?' Access to housing and climate control(Air conditioning, modern construction methods) , life expectancy (Increased by 15+ years on average worldwide), access to food(2/3rds of people use to have to be farmers on four times as much land), the amount of people who are no longer dying to climate( down by 95%+!), the average GDP(Records never before seen in human history), the number of people who fall below the immense poverty line(Decreased by billions over the last hundred years), by comparing our records from the past to our records from the present(There's a plot of land worldwide the size of the US that is now green that did not use to be). Fossil Fuels are responsible for all of it, because access to energy is the number one determining factor in quality of life.
@@evbbjones7 Heavy equipment powered by renewables already exists. Anything that can be powered with electricity can be powered with renewables. My point with the ,"Or if true, we're fucked, as fossil fuels are not an infinite resource" was that we will run out now them eventually, and so if fossil fuels are necessary for human existence then human existence will be over in a century or two. The last part of your comment is true, due to all the countries that have developed over that time period. Modern technology, science, and the spread of these ideas to new places have absolutely improved peoples lives. And yes, almost all of our technology was and is fueled with fossil fuels. However, there's no reason renewables can't replace fossil fuels, at least in part (and they NEED to be able to, as fossil fuels are a finite resource and cause environmental problems.) Uruguay uses 95% renewables, with low energy prices as well. Many European countries get about half their energy from renewables. Obviously it's going to be a big shift and it would be disastrous to instantly stop using all fossil fuels. However, as we are already seeing the affects of climate change, we do need to start switching more sooner than later...
Dr. Peterson - I know you cannot see all comments posted to your videos, but I wanted to tell you that my father is having a transplant surgery today. Watching your videos about standing up solidly for your family and being a man that can be relied upon in difficult situations has prepared me for this moment. Thank you, and God Bless
Yeah, I called this an anti-human movement from day one, and it goes hand-in-hand with ZPG. I have even heard of people getting vasectomies to save the planet. This is an excellent conversation.
i met smart lovely lady. very sad she said she wasn't having kids because would be irresponsible to the planet. at the time i thought if anyone should have kids its her, her kids would be scientists and engineers. which is what we need more of to solve all the little problems.
@@nikitaw1982 I agree: if anyone should have children, it's people like them. Meanwhile, people in lower social classes who are unable to provide a decent future for their children, who are not well educated and whose kids will grow up in a home environment that shuns any form of mental achievement, and consequently will never enjoy higher education nor be able to contribute to bettering the planet, are the ones utterly unconcerned with having fewer kids to unburden the planet. So we're letting the people who contribute to the problem contribute more, while the people who could contribute to the solution are too afraid to do so because they don't want to make things worse.
If you want to live in your deluged right-wing information bubble, that is your choice, but Peterson and Epstein are totally misrepresenting the position of climate scientists and climate activists by calling it "anti-human". They have no interest in debating the actual positions of their opponents and are just spreading misinformation about climate change and constructing strawman arguments that are easy to knock down. It is sad how many ignoramuses fall for their BS.
"Merely feeling sorry for the planet, does not make you a good person...[but rather] a shallow narcissist who's using the EASY identification with a genocidal ideology to elevate yourself in the moral hierarchy." I give that a full blown Batman "POW!" I love the way Peterson assembles words like this. He truly shows he's a true professor.
It's important to recognize that there is a broad scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that it is largely caused by human activity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the United Nations body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change, has concluded that "there is high confidence that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." In addition, the vast majority of scientific organizations around the world, including the United States National Academy of Sciences and the American Meteorological Society, have issued statements acknowledging the reality of climate change and the role that human activity plays in it. While it is important to consider a range of viewpoints and to engage in respectful dialogue, it is important to base our understanding of climate change on the best available scientific evidence. Rejecting the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and instead promoting misinformation or disinformation can have serious consequences, as it can delay or prevent the actions that are needed to address this important global challenge.
@@tedzards509 Your comment is focusing on the cause of climate change, not the risk it poses. That is where most of the debate is. The severe warming predictions are based on models that have shown to be inaccurate, because of how complex climate is. Further, nearly all catastrophic predictions have been completely wrong since about the 1970s. The cause isn't the issue, it's the fact that a dangerous energy policy is being pushed forward based on the assumption that we're all going to starve and die in 12-50 years, and many, legitimately, think that is absolutely not the case.
@@briangorman1079 I gotta point out that when JP/Alex say "the earth is 15% greener today", it is not an accurate description of the situation. It's not greener naturally due to CO2 levels as they hint, it's only ~5% more green in the last 20 years due to huge human forest planting and rejuvenation initiatives in China and India - aka the kind of stuff they oppose with their rhetoric.
@@Krytos13 Promoting and expanding the efficient production of fossil fuels by fracking and other innovative methods of fossil fuel exploration and extraction. This increased supply will lower energy costs substantially and make more energy and fertilizer economically available to the developing world, lifting millions of people out of poverty. How's that for a desirable solution?
@@bearowen5480 so the proposal is do more of what's hurting the climate? The USSR lifted millions out of poverty too. But I don't agree with their methods. Ends don't always justify the means.
@@dbio305 It's better if the US is a role model that can help second and third-world countries not take the same environmentally harmful path we took a hundred years ago. If the richest nation in the world doesn't do anything about climate change, that sets a precedent for other countries to do the same in the future. Although our impact on the climate is little compared to other countries, our impact on the world is huge, and we need to take advantage of that.
Absolutely correct: the energy sustaining the climate catastrophe faithful is the HATRED of human progress and flourishing. Cheap energy that allows common people to live lives with less pain and agony run against their ideology and hatred AGAINST the common person.
You got it , they said we are the last humans to live on this planet , they want us extinct but they will make some into cyborgs to live forever supposedly but they won’t live forever the way they think lol
@@SueMyChin please check the satellite date for the last 10 years. The avg temp is not increasing, in fact has cooled. How is this possible if CO2 is controlling the temp?
I was once a member of the Greens and Greenpeace, and I left them both because I realised I had become profoundly anti-human. I avoided having children because I thought that was the best thing for the planet. I regret it so much now, but it's too late for me. I think the light bulb moment was reading Ishmael by Daniel Quinn and realising that we ARE nature. We're not above it or apart from it, we are nature. And it made no sense then to classify humans as bad for the planet or some fundamentally evil species. Yes, we have made and are making mistakes, but we have as much right to be on this planet as any other species and we have had a far more positive effect on the planet than negative. We have the potential to be a truly amazing and wonderful species, but instead we are becoming the most stupid and brainwashed.
It is understandable that you may have had concerns about climate change and the impact of human activity on the environment, and that you may have changed your perspective after reading "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. It is important to carefully consider and evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by any individual or group on any topic, including climate change. It is true that humans are a part of nature and that we have the capacity to have both positive and negative impacts on the environment. However, the scientific consensus is that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are contributing to significant and potentially dangerous changes in the Earth's climate. This view is supported by a large body of evidence that has been carefully gathered and analyzed by scientists over many years. The overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change, including those affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other reputable scientific organizations, agree that climate change is real and that it is largely caused by human activities. These scientists base their conclusions on a thorough review of the available evidence, and their views are supported by the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed research in the field. While it is important to recognize the potential for humans to have a positive impact on the environment and to be mindful of our actions, it is also important to take the scientific consensus on climate change seriously and to consider the potential consequences of ignoring this issue.
@@tedzards509 Thanks for the lecture and the assumptions that I am too stupid to evaluate the existing evidence on both 'sides' (not that science has sides). Consensus is neither here nor there. If a million scientists, all with Nobel prizes, believe a hypothesis and a high school dropout produces evidence the hypothesis is wrong, it's wrong. That's how science works. There is an equally large body of evidence carefully gathered and analysed by scientists over many years that the sun is the main driver of climate change and that rising CO2 follows temperature increases. But these scientists tend to be de-funded, ridiculed and dismissed as 'deniers' for daring to question the prevailing dogma. Having read IPCC reports I would hardly call them a reputable scientific organisation. Their original charter was to 'prove anthropogenic global warming', which is anti-science. They are a political organisation pushing an ideology.
@@MsBiggles51 It is not accurate to say that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a political organization. The IPCC is a scientific body that was established by the United Nations in 1988 to provide objective and unbiased information about climate change. It is composed of thousands of scientists from around the world who review and assess the latest research on climate change and its impacts. It is also not accurate to say that the IPCC was established with the goal of "proving" that human activity is causing global warming. The IPCC's mandate is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the state of the climate and the potential impacts of climate change based on the best available scientific evidence. The IPCC does not have a predetermined position on climate change and does not advocate for any particular policy or course of action. The scientific evidence shows that the Earth's climate is changing and that human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are contributing to this change. There is a broad consensus among scientists that the Earth is warming and that human activities are a significant contributor to this warming. This consensus is based on a large and consistent body of scientific evidence, including observations of rising temperatures, melting glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. It is important to note that scientific debate and discussion are an essential part of the scientific process. Scientists are trained to be objective and to follow the evidence where it leads, and it is not uncommon for new evidence to emerge that challenges or contradicts previously accepted ideas. However, the scientific consensus on climate change is based on a large and consistent body of evidence, and it is not accurate to dismiss this consensus simply because it may not align with a particular viewpoint or ideology.
You sound like you have tried to educate yourself on these issues so can you tell me what the current percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is? Did you know that ice core sampling has revealed that prehistoric levels of CO2 were 14x greater than today?
And incidentally, those CO2 figures come from proxy data not ice core samples. There has been no ice at the poles through most of the Earth's history. The ice core samples are only from the current ice age.
Every time I sit down to watch one of Dr. Peterson's videos I tell myself that I will just watch a portion of the video. What really happens is that I get so fascinated and entranced in the presentation that I find myself at the end as if some time warp magically sent me there with loss of apparent time. I think we would like to see a book of "Jordan B. Peterson's doodles". The little "scratches, lines & boxes" that Dr. Peterson seems to place in his notebooks during conversations.
wow, a real eye opener. Ashamed to admit I thought I had a handle on this issue and I was firmly in the camp of reducing fossil fuels. At the least this discussion has inspired me to explore the facts on this issue and gain a more balanced view. Thank you Jordan Petersen for bringing us this discussion with Alex Epstein...
@@indigogogo5444 of course, we will.need to reduce them. The issue is the rate we reduce them and the damage we do to human suffering if we get it wrong which very much looks like we are right now.
We won’t reduce hydrocarbon use. How can you watch this discussion and miss that key point?! As more people in developing nations demand inexpensive, reliable energy, that energy must come from somewhere. About 20-30% may come from solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear eventually, but 70-80% will come from hydrocarbons. These are simple facts about the energy mix. It leaves out all of the other products, not the least of which are plastics, that come from hydrocarbons. So as the world develops, we will need more hydrocarbons by volume, not less. By artificially inflating the price through carbon taxes, choking off investment, driving out skilled workers, and preventing exploration and production, anti-hydrocarbon zealots will cause future hardship, poverty, and death. It’s inevitable.
.... And the politicians that seem to implement these policies. Utterly incredible, when you hear another bat-shyte crazy policy by some government and within a few seconds, you can predict exactly the disastrous consequences down the road. But not the government. It has an unlimited budget, a Civil Service is littered with Ph.Ds, but they fk it up every single time.
oh well, they know exactly how to make more and more money (for themselfs) by EVERY STEP they make; theres no need to think things through as long as every step fills the own pocket with more money in the moment
@@lazenbytim Considering plant life requires CO2 in the atmosphere to survive and maintain a healthy planet branding under "nasties" is a bit extreme don't you think?
The US government has been modifying the weather according to declassified documentation since at least 1962 and other nations have been doing the same as well soon after or possibly before. There are 23 HAARP facilities around the world that can cause storms, earthquakes, hurricanes/typhoons with the aid of bunker fuel being dumped into the ocean where they intend to drop a trillion watt laser into the ocean to heat it up to make the storm larger through evaporation, and many other methods of cloud seeding type technology that ties in with Monsanto’s seeds that are designed to grow in aluminum & barium (chem trails and not the older contrails that would dissipate quickly after the exhaust left the airplane) saturated soil from the aerosols that the governments of the world have been pumping into the atmosphere since the early 1990’s.
It's absolutely shocking that there are people who claim they represent us, who want to stop this Man... not whilst I'm alive will this happen without demonstration of my disapproval
Or maybe Peterson and Epstein are misrepresenting the positions of the majority of climate activists and knocking down strawmen, rather than actually debating the environmental movement. Funny that Peterson never invites an actual climate activist to debate on his shows.
I wouldnt be so ''proud'' about using fossile fuel. I fall in the category of: its the best we have for the moment. I dont think much about CO2 and all the other nonsence coming with it. Im rather more concerned by general pollution. As much as you say ''you love fossile fuel''. Would you like to live next to high traffic highway? Lets just say, air quality is not all that appealing.
Umm..California legislates exhausts on vehicles making the air coming out the back cleaner than the air going in the front. So, why are you not pro exhaust, instead of anti fossil fuel? You absolute political agent.
@@user-pf5xq3lq8i I see the debate in this section turns into political debate of who is right and who is wrong. I dont think this kind of approach works very well with that subject. For instance: Compare cars 50 years ago and now. They have become much cleaner. I personally think that technology finds its way down the line, either to make it work better or finally find better alternative. Forcing the change too early when we dont have better alternative is an issue however and thats where the real discussion should happen!
So damn excited for this one! Thank you Jordan! Been wanting these two minds to meet on this topic for years. Been avidly reading Alex's book and work.
I hope that green screen behind you was accurate Dr Peterson. I'm quite chuffed you produced this excellent interview in Australia. More power to both of you fellows, well done
I've lived in rural Arkansas most of my life. There is more wildlife now than in the 60s. Deer herds in my area are easily 20+ in many areas and when I was a kid they were scarce. I used to spend days in the forest as they are typically lush except for an occasional dry season. Maybe these doomsayers need to get out of their city offices and do some camping or at least hiking to see what is really happening. I agree we need to protect our environment but their plans don't address the real issues.
Grew up in rural Arkansas until I moved north of the state border, still in a rural area. I totally agree with JP pointing out that people who live "in nature" tend not to glamorize it. Appreciate it, absolutely. But it's not somehow "perfect."
Thought experiment. Switch your 20 year old self experience with a person growing up scuba diving the Great Barrier Reef and seeing its rapidly accelerating bleaching and death of marine fauna. Neither the young you or the young scuba enthusiast is evidence for anything but there own experience of that small portion of time and space. The evidence that the natural world is depleting at a vastly accelerated rate is incontrovertible.
I’ve found the same thing where I live on the East coast of Australia. The fish seem more plentiful now in areas that I fished as a boy. I regularly see animals such as Dugong up estuaries where I never saw them as a kid. Similarly shark numbers seem greater as well. May have a bit to do with some good policies preventing commercial overfishing over the years. Even so, you would never know it if you only listened to the media here. Nothing but apocalyptic doom and gloom.
This is true that in the short term the plant has gotten "greener" with respect to the biosphere. However, what this argument fails to take into account is that humans themselves and technology are a huge reason why the satellite imagery shows the planet getting greener. We have gotten better at fertilization and agriculture, started replanting forests that had suffered from deforestation, and have reinstated many of the populations of endangered species due to environmental policies. Obviously, the more CO2 that we continue to pump out in the short term that will benefit plant life as plants thrive under lots of CO2. However, in the long term due to global warming this will cause ocean acidification due to increased CO2 as well as drier areas to become even drier (causing less "greenness") and wetter areas to become even wetter. This will lead to many of the flora and fauna we have on Earth to not be able to survive in these conditions particularly in the tropical climates of the world. I suggest you read up on the IPCC's publications and also watch the channel "All About Climate" refute many of the claims made in this video as these two sources explain it much better than I am able to.
You asked what metrics we have to evaluate whether actions are beneficial. I recommend to the websites of NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC... all of which publish metrics that can evaluate the impacts of human activity on climate. It's called "living in the information age". Your welcome.
I'm very glad to see discussions about the value that humans bring to the world - rather than the self-hating diatribe spouted by so many 'virtue' signalers. Thank you for this.
"Self-hating" is not useful, I agree: but it's something that can happen as a result of the mainly negative effects that we ARE actually having on our environment.
This is the message the whole world should hear from the roof tops. So many Christians have been duped to believe in the movement. The evil group has buttered words. Humanity should listen to this. Thank you for the message. God bless you.
I do not know what you mean by the buttered words of the evil group, but the way that Peterson defies the Sacred is merely yet another sinister layer added to all of those that came before his worthy, snake-tongued contributions. Be alert, for even the elect will be confused by the Wiley ways of men who are fully invested in serving some"thing" other than Truth.
WOW if your a Christian and you have been duped thats not to encouraging . One thing you can count on is the rich won't listen to reason , they are an insane bunch , when you kill the grounds keepers for sport with a gun and then months later wonder why the trees plants and flowers look so shabby , a good sign you are out of touch with reality. Yes we need to be good stewards of the planet , not to over fish " china the real problem there " and we need to stop throwing shit away and filling up the landfills but thats not whats going on here with the rich elites whos solution is to just murder 7 billion of us so they can have the planet to themselves because they are so rich and so smart but remember the rich elites are not better than us , they have to go to the grocery store just like us and if they kill the golden goose they to will find the grocery store shelves empty. And if I may add one more thing , the so called science of global warming as relates to carbon dioxide is false , it is phony science created by the cabal , the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is very very stable , in fact an increase in carbon dioxide would be beneficial to all plant life , the whole idea of having to buy and sell carbon credits is laughably stupid as it will ultimately make zero difference.
Fossil Fuels generate vast amounts of energy; it will not be easy to move away from it until we have a comparable alternative that is renewable. But that doesn't mean we have to always use them. There needs to be a balanced discussion, which Video was not; it was more about promoting the book... Consider, there is much more to discuss: 99% of the stuff we buy is trashed within 6 months. An estimated 1/3 of the world’s fish stocks are overexploited or depleted. There is enough food produced in the world to feed everyone. Yet more people die from obesity and related diseases than underweight. Close to 40% of the wasted food is simply thrown out by supermarkets, shops, and households. Much of it is still perfectly fit for eating. Biggest Garbage patch in our oceans is about twice the size of Texas.
As a (luckily) former atheist and (luckily) former feminist I want to tell you that every theme that you are discussing seems to me very, very, and deeply important. I really very often fell as a victim to deception for almost all my life. And again, luckily, I became a mother (very late and I have only one child) although I was in a great risk not to become ever because of my deformed believes. My soul is bleeding for nowadays children that are going to be much more deceived and some irreparably hurt. The common point that comes to my mind whenever I think about any of the problems from politics, science, social life, activism to economics etc. is that there are some basis of "science" that are quite questionable so they are until today called Theories, but they are the basis of everything that is super structured above. A science for many years has been full of absolute lies because it is cut and sewn by the people who want control above all else. So you know that from the wrong base, you can draw absolutely logic conclusion in correlation with wrong base. You would be surprised to hear what Mr. Tomislav Terzin, Serbian, professor of molecular biology at the University of Alberta (Canada), has to say about this. Unfortunately, most of his TH-cam videos are in Serbian (as are his books). His main personal subject of research is the BIBLE which he calls the GREATEST SCIENCE BOOK OF ALL TIME without a single inconsistency. He himself analyzes every verse of the Bible regarding Darwin's theory of evolution, today's science of genetics, geology that had to be adapted to the standards of the theory of evolution (and in many cases invalidates its bases) so that the first one does not come out invalid. .. When I listen to his speeches, I often think of my grandfather who, when I started studying law in (at that time communistic) Yugoslavia, asked me: How many books with how many laws do you have to read and learn? and I answered: Many. And then the grandfather said: So sit down and learn, since the Ten Commandments are too many and too restrictive for you... one day you will walk down the street not knowing if you are legal or illegal, you will lose any sense of objectivity, justice and humanity and if you don't, you will be the hunted exception....
Thank you for your interesting post. I was raised a Christian but lapsed but am now finding my way back. I too realised that feminism was based on lies, breaking up the family unit and our way of life for thousands of years. I do not think that women are happier now, it seems to me the opposite.
Awesome. Great job Alex! You've devoted your life to this and I'm proud to say I've supported you since the very beginning. You earn all our support more year by year! Confident, concise, unique insights and perfect reframing of the actual arguements our enemies in this area make.
I love what Dr. Peterson is doing talking with peole outside of his field of expertise on which we get good insights and different perspectives on what's happening today keep them coming and thank you much for another educational video like this
@@peterdaoust404 Recognizing the absolute lack of expertise of an impostor is not an ad hominem but a justified and necessary clearification based on the fact that Jordan Peterson never managed to articulate one single sentence that wasn't simply false. All of his utterings stand corrected by science. Every single sentence, and all of his claims.
Find Fossil Future here: www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/678856/fossil-future-by-alex-epstein/
Message to the J's release date?
"Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence." - 2018 National Climate Assessment.
Dr. Peterson, I heard about UNDRIP today, the bill that has recently passed in Canada, I would very much like to hear you talk about it as I am sure you will have a lot to say on the subject, thank you sir for all of the conversations that you have made available and for all that you do
@@powermetal26 Tim Ball was caught lying about his qualifications.
@Valborg Fossil fuels have served us well in the past, but they are no longer a path to a better future. Expect 15%-25% reduction in global per capita output by 2100 with 2.5-3.0°C of global warming. Source: M.Burke et al. (2018) "Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets"
As a physicist who has retired early and become a farmer I am deeply concerned about this current trend towards the destruction of agricultural productivity. On a 10 acre farm I produce enough food to supply a complete nutritious diet for over 100 people. I grow my own animal feed and grow animals and just 1 acre of green vegetables and with planning and vertical farming this is enough land to feed my family and to sell to purchase the energy I need to run our tractor and heat our home. Enough to eat and enough to trade and now this administration is seeking to shut down the ability of all farmers to be self sufficient. We even produce our own electrical energy on our property and are converting half our tractors to run on electric motors. What they are doing is not JUST suicide, it’s MURDER
It may be of some comfort to you to know that there are many people now getting involved in various community groups to help each other and such as yourself. Included is growing your own food, health, farming, and so on.
Bless you, hold on, we will win this.
God's people will not be begging for bread. He will deliver his way and in his time.
What country are you located in that has this administration?
Which policies/laws specifically are doing that? It'd be helpful if you posted some links/stories or references, no offense.
@@mrlitsta A lot of this revolves around the processing of natural gas being how we get certain fertilizer (I believe ammonia? Not 100%) and the belief that all forms of fossil fuels must end no matter what redeeming qualities they have. They can't just outlaw Liquid Natural Gas, it would literally cause famine. So the next "best" thing is putting the screws to farmers for using the product that makes it impossible to get rid of LNG. I'm sure some of them believe that what they're doing is right. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I have shit to do today and don't have time atm to compile links. But if you reply to this I'll save the notification and try to get some links when I have time
Dr.Peterson imo your dissolution from teaching at the university was 'manifest destiny' ; you're reaching far more people now, and doing an immeasurable service to a countless number of people. Your lectures and forums will continue to aid a world in need. Blessings to you.
That was a good decision by him. He definitely has a desirable and uncopyable product in his brain.
I'm tired of all this common sense. I'm going to stop using fossil fuels in order to live longer and have a more productive life. (satire)
@@waynet2165 Now that's comedy 🍷🗿
I don't have confidence in ANY prognostication of anyone who is in favour (yes I'm Canadian) of the reduction of fossil fuels. Along with that is the demonization of Nuclear FISSION. I worked at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and we kept (Still keep) ALL of the fuel bundles ON SITE since first reactor in 1971 and 7 more reactors followed, the last fully online around 1988-89. 500,000,000 watts each at full power. Match THAT with solar my friend !!
Was this conversation recorded in 2014? How is it possible that there is NO reference to the FACT that today, in 2023 solar when combined with battery storage is THE LEAST EXPENSIVE form of energy production?!?! And that the world more is threatened by DECLINING population than over population? I am totally with the JP on the side of humans, over "the environment" but ffs know the most recent data before having a conversation about it. A little research ahead of attacking an old strawman, would do wonders for credibility.
The most thought provoking answer to the debate came from a 16 yo girl who was interviewed by an environmental reporter with one of the most disgusting questions you could ask a young women.
Would she consider not having children to save the planet.
Her response was breathtaking.
"Yes, she said, I have considered that, but to take that action in isolation would be pointless"
"It would have to be done by all women, to be fair, and that would lead to the extinction of the human species".
"And if the human species did not exist, does the environment matter?."
Yes. If the human species doesn't exist the world continues to.
The human species is not anywhere close to extinction. You sleep at night knowing that there are less than 500 Bengal Tigers in the world, why are you troubled by there being less than 8 BILLION people? People that can travel, and use the Internet, can farm, and ship and fertilize in vitro
But less than 300 grey wolves is peachy.
You are being intellectually dishonest which is why you like this kind of drivel
That 16year old girl needs to be nominated for a Nobel prize,..for intelligence
So, she is saying relying on personal responsibility won't solve anything. 1 person not having children won't solve the problem (just like many things left to personal responsibility- guns, recycling, etc).
She isn't saying "let's go ahead and just keep making unlimited humans endlessly without consequence" either.
The practical message is to say "ok, families can only have X amount of children" not "everyone has zero children and the human species dies".
Brilliant.
Amazing that this 16yr old girl is so far In front of EVERY SINGLE climate activist that exists.
What Alex Epstein is saying in this discussion with Jordan B. Peterson reminds me very much of what Patrick Moore has been saying on several occasions about Greenpeace and the reasons he had for leaving this organisation after seven years. He tells us he found it impossible to remain an active supporter of Greenpeace when it became obvious that fewer and fewer Greenpeace activists had any training in the natural sciences and began to regard human beings as the ones that were destroying the planet.
Well, aren't humans destroying the planet? Because that's fact at this point based on a ton of metrics. Just look at species decline caused by mankind alone. Look at cities in the US before the EPA was created.
If it weren't for the environmentalists/ecologists, we would have no redwood forests, no clean water sources, no bald eagles, no forest management, no national parks, and we would all be full of lead and mercury even more than we are.
They went crazy and wants to kill humans to save the planet.
Maybe the Greempeace people knew the Truth and that the Quitter wanted to live in denial. Really, if by sacrificing 99% of 7 Billion People we could save the World, then we should go for it. JP's argument here is that if we can't save the World than just screw the World because it no longer matters. That doesn't seem like the Enlightened View to me. Yes, Humanity might have to make some Sacrifices. Jesus got Crucified. Maybe this is the Generation where we all get Crucified for the Sins of the World.
Patrick Moore is in the PR business and will sing any song you pay him to. The cheques from tho oil companies are good as you know
@@1lightheaded left green government checks also make anyone sing a song against fossil fuels. Just because someone is paid something doesnt make what they say false
One of the most remarkable events in my public state university education was being assigned Epstein's "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" in an Energy Economics class. For all the general failings of modern academia, I think back very fondly on my university for allowing a professor to present this book as a contrast to everything else we were discussing around climate change and fossil fuels. Been following the author ever since, and it makes me happy to see Jordan getting to know him.
Epstein deserves to be well known. So glad to see JP bringing him to light.
based professor
Check out Dr. Happer's work concerning climate. Game changing truths...
Maybe he can get an actual scientist on to discuss climate change ?
@@yahyahboy2 that would be nice, yes.
When I was a child I asked my father what we should do in preparation for the recent forecast of gloom and doom. His response was that the disaster never comes true and there is always a new threat imagined every 10 or 12 years because the old threat never happens. My children can’t believe that politicians would be so corrupt and use fear to distract and to control people. In my 76 years I have observed the failure of every prediction of gloom and doom so proving my father’s observations to be correct. One day, my children will no doubt reach the same conclusion and warn their children to fear only the politicians wanting to create nuclear war.
I had a neighbor that was having a nervous breakdown in 2012 ..he believed the world would end Dec of that year ...I told him to go borrow some money ....I bet him there would be someone around to collect it in 2013
@@cindyhaduik7171 Brilliant. Hilarious. And true.
A neo-Malthusian might say that your father is correct-so far-but just wait, it’s coming. That may be why they’re forever finding a new pig to dress up and apply lipstick and rouge to every generation or so. The kids grow up, though, and recognize how ridiculous it is walking a pig in makeup and a tutu. I do wonder about the current generation of kids. The internet and social media seem to be giving them an avenue to perpetual infancy and shield them somewhat from the harshness of reality.
I came to a similar realization going down the rabbit hole of effectiveness of recycling in the 90s. It's a large scale multibillion dollar obfuscation industry that sadly can never be acted upon to fix the problem it claims to address.
*Frank Pocius:* I hate to sound so pessimistic, but your children, and their entire generation, wIll come to that realization only to discover it’s too late to escape the authoritarian grasp they’ve unwittingly put themselves into.
It’s deeply disappointing that the people calling for a cull of the human population never lead by example
No one is calling for a cull of the human population, they are simply pointing out the obvious that endless population growth with increasing resource needs can't continue indefinitely. Alex here incorrectly frames that as anti-human. It costs less to prepare and switch energy and food production to a sustainable model instead of whatever corporate interests guide us to.
No one has ever suggested a human population cull except for those who don't understand environmentalism or climate science. Ruin the planet and that will cause a population collapse, not a cull.
@@eulldog you’re clearly living in a bubble.
What part of "not a cull of the human population" is abortion or allowing people to freeze to death because the supply of fuel or food is cut off?
@@laurelpickens3364 abortion is someone's individual choice to not have a child, it's not part of some environmentalists scheme to cull the population. Besides Russia, no one is advocating cutting of supply of fuel or food to the point where people die.
01:20:10 As someone with a keen interest in natural forests I learned this lesson on my MSc course when we visited Tunisia and I met real poverty for the first time. The best way to use my talents as a Geoscientist was to work in the oil industry, to discover more fossil fuel, and thereby help to reduce the pressure on woodland destruction for basic fuel needs.
I guess you could make that argument 20 years ago, but you are ignoring the declining cost curves of the low-carbon tech. Today wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy in most parts of the planet and LFP batteries are now so cheap that grid storage with wind and solar is now competitive with electricity from fossil fuels. With future sodium ion batteries, wind/solar + grid storage is going to be far cheaper. Electric vehicles are already cheaper per mile than ICE vehicles, soon the selling price of EVs are going to be cheaper than ICE vehicles (and it already is in China).
In other words, the best way to help the world's poor achieve a better standard of living is to transition to renewable energy and electric vehicles. There is other low-carbon tech like heat pumps which is still more expensive, but the more that the developed world invests in that tech, the cheaper that it will become and the more that the developing world will be able to afford it.
I am interested in forrests and animal population management. Since 1964 I've studied this carefully. In every instance I've been able to personally witness and make my own observations.
I have yet to see environmentalists and anti hunting groups get one thing right. They have thoroughly caused much more damage than improvement. Not because they don't have good intentions. But have idealistic ideas about how they wish things were. They typically believe that nature is static and left untouched will thrive. That's never been the case and never will be.
This is nearly 60 years of study and observations and the only definitive fact is we are extremely inept at understanding complex systems and controlling nature.
I'm not a climate scientist and don't presume to understand the complexity of that massive complex system. But when I hear people discuss climate change it becomes obvious that no one really understands enough about climate to even remotely predict or take any action that will turn out well.
@@amosbatto3051 Your comment is truly astonishing. All of the material assets you cite are mined, refined, fabricated and constructed by the prolific consumption of fossil fuels.
@@Bullittbl "we are extremely inept at understanding complex systems and controlling nature."
I totally agree. I have been studying geoscience for 50 years and am only now just able to start to make some small corrections to the egregious nonsense of "Climate Change".
Google "The Dust Planet Clarified" and also "The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth's Semi-Opaque Troposphere"
Wrong
Almost EVERYTHING in today's world is morally inverted... and it's NOT by accident. Outstanding conversation!
Precisely. If you want to overthrow a society, make that society's vices into your virtues and vice versa. Not a surprise what the modern left actively celebrates is almost verbatim the Seven Deadly Sins.
You are correct. Well stated.
Amen...
@Roger Jamespaul BS. In 200 years the temperature of earth has fluctuated 2 degrees. So, if you’re on board with the global warming crap, are you willing to eliminate YOUR carbon footprint ? You’re anti fossil fuels, of course not for yourself, you’ll continue to use your computer, your cellphone, your electricity, but are suggesting if not outright advocating “other” people do without. Who shall those other people be according to you? Who are the “undeserving “? Please do tell us.
@Roger Jamespaul are you a UN bot??
Agree or disagree, having these kinds of discussions in an open and uncensored forum is absolutely vital for the future of humanity.
It is not what Klaus Schwab desires. Funny how this platform even tried to change the last name I typed above. The censorship will continue until just a few inhabit and control this planet!...
I can reply to Posts, yet if I post in the main thread I get censored... This is not uncensored...
💯
Absolutely !!!!..........…..........Erik
I love your reply. Fair and non bias.
We should feel no guilt in fully enjoying the free gift of life we have been given, just gratitude.
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp if someone is truly grateful, they normally don't have a desire to destroy the good thing that were gifted to us
No kidding my generation, millennials, were trained to believe that humans are a cancer. But it doesn't take much imagination to see that the trend of technological innovation and even the smallest amount of caring about the environment will eventually lead to humans preserving and saving life on a mass scale in the distant future when natural (not anthropomorphic) conditions lead to lesser habitability on this rock. To put it simply, we will do things the dinosaurs could not. Global Warming is a Doomsday Cult, and like all of these cults in history it is used as a tool to subjugate people and take away their rights and their wealth, to keep people poor, and to push them towards depopulation.
Yes, absolutely! "Life" in this home biosphere includes humanity, any argument of a "pre human" earth is absurd - on several levels. Does humanity need to crawl back under rocks?
Do we need a 'Bill Gates' styled Purge of 90%?
Or do we need to talk sense; honor the Creator for ALL of Life, that we are engaged with, and in.
This discussion is the cutting edge of truthful investigation!
Just make sure you make good choices in life.
It's hard to feel gratitude when they're emeregency butchering the dairy cattle.
Anytime the tech overlords put a disclaimer on a video or post, you know the truth is being spoken 💯
It has become an endorsement haha
So true, they are all frauds!
@@anthonyorafferty5632 100 percent, often putting disclaimers encourages more people to watch out of curiosity
You know it's true when the Silicon Fascists state it's dangerous.
Spoken like a smooth brained skinwalker 🤓
I remember making this case to some 18 year old back in 2014. She thought I was a lunatic, told me to "educate myself", accused me of being an oil company shill. I asked her if the world is so ready to be destroyed what was she going to do about it? She looked at me with shocked, wide eyes. Would she give up all of her power consumption? The phone she was holding? Lights? Cars? Her only solution was to not change her ways but wonder why we can't use solar or some such other thing. Somebody else was supposed to do something while she pretended to be worried. It was PURELY about trying to sound/feel morally superior with ZERO actual effort to change something herself.
Probably why we don't see her anymore
Most people would rather be told what to think. Makes sense an open mind can be a miserable place.
Sounds like a close call you masterfully drove away by seeing and saying (Red Flags). Not wanting to address idiots' "ideas" is why humanity has landed where we are now.
@@paullambert6485
We pay for her and now for the immigrants = Pelosi servants as she fled to Italy and then voters to be groomed by puppet joe from Obama 3 and other....
So Sad.
The only absolute good is a good will.
-Kant, leading modern philosopher
I have listened to Alex Epstein’s videos before and I love his clarity of thought and the non-partisan approach to the energy conversation. He has provided a ton of data in his presentations and comes across as a well balanced thinker . I am glad that Dr.Peterson has invited him to his platform and given him wider exposure. Kudos to you Dr.JBP 😊
You think the founder of a for-profit think tank is non-partisan? Do you know which industry supplies that profit? Take a guess.
@@amazingbollweevilit doesn't change the fact that there is NOT crisis except in the minds of dullards like yourself. Even the IPCC isn't declaring a crisis just politicians, those hoping to profit from the panic andthose loo,ing to control us while they themselves will sacrifice nothing.
@@amazingbollweevil The reason I made that statement was because Alex doesn’t deny that renewable energy options such as wind and solar can be part of the energy mix. He is only saying that this radical, lopsided, ideology driven approach to phasing out fossil fuels completely is doomed to fail and will unleash catastrophic energy crisis across the world. This is because the green lobby completely ignores the benefits of fossil fuels to human flourishing and prosperity. Our ability to modernize agriculture and feed billions of people, build better and safer homes, deliver healthcare, build a growing economy and provide employment to people, the technologies we rely on for work and life and the myriad other benefits we consume without even batting an eyelid are all enabled by fossil fuel. It is preposterous to not look at the positives and only exaggerate the negatives.
Critical thinking 101 demands that you evaluate the positives and the negatives of an issue/solution under consideration, evaluate the positives and negatives of alternatives and then arrive at an informed decision. The green lobby, unfortunately is not doing that and instead bullying the world to bow down to their nihilistic demands. The current energy crisis is largely due to this ideological approach to climate change.
@@vigsbond I've always believed in wind and solar I just don't think we've sophisticated it enough to switch the world to it. I feel they push too fast. The only person I've seen successfully start implementing these this was Musk. Whom I gained alot of respect for when he stood for using our fossil fuels right now given the state of the world. He makes half his living developing electric powered things. But thought it was dumb to push for the end of fossil fuels this fast.
@@destinymayberry6217 if belief is what you use as a yardstick, then you won't get very far. Learn about energy and power density before making any silly statements like "believing" that wind and solar can have a role in supplying ENERGY for our society.
ENERGY, and not just electricity. Do you even know the difference?
Read "Fossil Future" and learn, it will be very much enlightening for you, I am sure.
I've loved hearing Alex's philosophical insights into environmentalism for close to two decades. I'm so glad Dr. Peterson chose to interview him.
Epstein speaks common sense and logic which is in short supply these days.
Amen!
Maybe he can get an actual scientist on to discuss climate change ?
Fossil fuels have served us well in the past, but they are no longer a path to a better future.
@@garysarela4431 because?
These are ESSENTIAL conversations Dr. Peterson. My thanks for your hard work.
This has been in my 'Watch Later' list, and I finally listened to it. I wish I'd done so yesterday as I was stuck with a climate loon in a café today.
How are you doing now?
My old buddy who's now in the green energy industry constantly talks about humans as parasites. Alex is absolutely right about the anti-human green philosophy and it's disturbing to see in person.
Sounds like it falls inline with UN agenda21/2030. Rewilding and the restoration of keystone predators etc. All of which we have been working on.
Moving humans to cities is in there somewhere. Looks like the Netherlands has the jump on that one by taking out farmers. The agenda's are available for download.
@@mablesfatalfable6021 HUH?
My 9 year old told me today that there is too many people on earth and we need a purge. I guess he got the idea from school.
I have an easy response for those people. Save the planet and end yourself. They always have the same excuse. "I'm working towards making things better"
@@Chris-kp1bq that's why more kids are being home schooled. You need to take them out
Since I discovered Alex last year, I honestly believe he’s one of the most important thinkers in the world right now. He’s fighting a hard battle to prevent the starvation and death of literally billions of people.
"Prevent the starvation and death of literally billions of people." You're talking about the guy who's advocating for the use of fossil fuels which kills millions of people each year!
The airpods in his ears make him look like a total tool though
I read discovered as divorced initially 😆
A M E N
I listen on Banned 6 days a week!
You can tell Alex is loving this... in his mind he's going ahhhh someone that realllllyyyy can digest this and actually really contribute to my ideas here"
I am a student of energy engineering and this talk has really opened up my eyes to another perspective of the energy sector that is almost never spoken about in the academic circles. Thank you Dr Peterson and Alex.
Climate change is irrelevant. AI is the only real threat we face. We need to get ahead on it now and we need humanists like Dr. Peterson to realize this and get ahead of this.
AI will give us the power to deep freeze the planet within the timescale that climate change activists are worried that the planet will get too hot.
So as an engineer they teach you there is only one way to solve a problem? Theres only one way to engineering a solution? This means they are training the worst engineers in history if they are training them to think like this.
@@crzyruskie86big leap of faith! the commenter didn't imply any of what you said LOL!
Which is ?
Maybe your professors know what they are talking about, whereas Alex Epstein is just spewing misinformation and strawman arguments. Wind/solar + grid storage with LFP is now cheaper per kWh than electricity from gas or coal. EVs now cost less per mile than ICE vehicles. 80% of new power generation worldwide was renewable in 2022. The best way to help the environment and the world's poor to to transition to renewable energy and EVs as fast as possible, not to use fossil fuels, which are changing the climate.
I'm sure most everyone is very thankful that your putting this out there to stop this mind twist. I am very thankful for this.
If the wisdom of man is foolish like the Bible says. How many of the world's problems will they solve?
Thank you for having Alex on. He's been unwaivering in his Crusade to protect fossil fuels and speak truth to power about the 'climate' situation, for over a decade now. It's good to see him in the the light again and his statements previously about the environmentalists more or less being anti-human, rather than pro -Earth, is very apt and telling.
those are extremist views. Not doing anything won't change the problem.
@@suhaasvemuri7980 I am not persuaded that there’s a problem at all.
@@suhaasvemuri7980 there is no problem. The world is adjusting back to a more tropical climate as it was before the ice age. We know this by the animals found frozen in the poles with green grass in their mouth. Which is now covered in ice and co.plete Forestes are buried under the ice.
This is my second time watching this because it is so fascinating to see the peeling away of the lies being propagated the climate nuts.
What about all the Climate related disasters? What about the rising sea level. What will happen when the Gulf Stream quits flowing? The Arctic Vortex Wobbles are now permanent. The Temperate Zone is now characterized as either being in state of Drought or state of Flood. WE CAN SEE IT HAPPENING BEFORE OUR OWN EYES, but you believe this IDEOLOGICAL CLAP TRAP, from a Psychologist who discovered that Talking Right Winger Trash was the Better Business Model for him to follow. You are what they call a 'Rube', a 'Sucker'.
JB for president! Lol
@@marylane3372 Who's "JB" and Jordan Peterson is Canadian and so he doesn't even count as Human as far as President is concerned.
Wtf is it every comment you have replied to? 😆 is this one of those howling at the moon idealogues?
There's no lies, Perterson is so keen to offer facts and data when talking about social science yet shuns the scientific consensus on climate change.. Wonder why that is?
This video was hard to watch. Not because I didn’t believe the facts that were laid out, but because it made me realize that I am part of the problem despite the fact that I was lead (or allowed myself be lead) to believe my blind moral stance was the solution, and that my political ‘side’ wouldn’t present false information... Jesus, that is such an ignorant to think now that I say it out loud 😣. How is this information not more readily available? I am so thankful for this video so I can reevaluate my thoughts. This video makes me question what other core believes I hold that are based on deceit and lies…😢 watching was a wake up call for sure. Just one more positive change in my life thanks to Jordan Peterson.
It's not that you where lied to its that you where indoctrinated into the green movement. Most of us have been. We have come a long way from the pollution ways of the past, it's just now gone to far.
Truly appreciate your post. The section of the discussion that specifically deals with morality is intellectually priceless and relevant to most progressive issues our world currently face
This is maybe the most important topic and you guys are nailing it!
@@steven5054 Hitting all those commie talking points, brought to you by We're all gonna die Corp and The Walt Disney Corporation
There is no right and left in politics. They are the same agenda. Go back to the 1990s you divider.
I absolutely loved this discussion! I believe that humans are capable of solving any problem environmental or otherwise that we are faced with. I recently toured an 18,000 square foot vertical agricultural facility that can produce on an annual basis the same amount of fodder (cattle feed) as one section (640 acres) of irrigated land using 90% less water!
Fascinating! Where was that?
Jacque fresco Venus project is the answer
@@thefoalingchannel6623 It was (past tense) a company called Groviv located on a large dairy farm in Elberta Utah. It has since gone broke. However, there are many new companies out there. Just do a search of youtube for indoor fodder systems or hydroponic fodder production. You will find dozens of them.
Excellent guests. Would certainly like to hear more from them.
I've followed Alex for years, read both of his books, listened to his podcasts and interviews with others. Very happy to see him on the Jordan Peterson Podcast. I hope that his message resonates with more and more people.
Did he give any indication in anything that you read that he thinks there might be a level of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations that we should avoid going beyond?
We are 50% above what it was two centuries ago. At the rate we are going, we will be at a level double the pre-industrial level of CO₂ within a very few decades.
The number of naked protons zipping around in the oceans is about 25% higher now than it was before we started dumping fossil carbon into the air.
Did you see any hint from Epstein as to what level of acidity in the oceans might motivate concern about possible adverse effects?
@@rc5466 A person who writes on the topic of fossil fuels might make a point to study the potential impact of their emissions, even outside of a formal academic degree program.
A philosopher or a citizen with no advanced degree can understand the Precautionary Principle.
A person who makes a name for himself by emphasizing the importance of honesty might occasionally say what he thinks would be a good policy for taking account of economic externalities, so prices will more honestly represent costs of production, including costs in terms of environmental degradation and lost opportunities for future generations.
I hate how the right-wing arguments against climate change always focus on the economics. At least Shellenberger acknowledges that climate change is a serious problem. Then he does the analysis of how the environmental movement affects the developing world. But aside from him, there's way too much backwards logic going on. "Fossil fuels have lifted billions of people out of poverty, therefore climate change isn't bad" is just a stupid argument.
@@DstnyCln I think, when we see those economic analyses, we should ask: Did the economic case in favor of some warming calculate an economic cost to increased rates of species extinction caused by climate instability? How is that done?
Did they factor in the consequence of 25%, 50% or 100% more naked protons zipping around in the oceans? (We've already reach about a 25% increase. I think this equals any variability in ocean pH that has occurred any time in the past tens of millions of years, but it is a more rapid change, and the change is continuing and can be expected to accelerate. When carbon dioxide and water get together, they make a baby called 'carbonic acid'.)
Peterson has said on numerous occasions that environmentalists who say that humans are like a cancer on the Earth show themselves to be genocidal, "because what do you do with a cancer? You destroy it". His comment could be a textbook example of over-extending a metaphor.
Peterson's vile comment shows that he has, for some reason, not considered the possibility that people who have likened humans to a cancer on the Earth may want a change in the rules we live by (analogous to a correction of the defect in the cancer cells that make them dysfunctional). IF we make prices honest, by charging substantial fees to industries when they pollute, extract resources or destroy wildlife habitat, then profits of industry will align with sustainable business practices.
If we share proceeds from environmental impact fees to all people equally, no one will live in abject poverty. The policy will provide a net benefit to those who buy relatively little, particularly those who by little in the way of the most environmentally-damaging goods and services.
For someone who has become famous as a person who gives voice to the idea that honesty is important, Peterson has remarkably little to say about the harm done by dishonest prices. He has even less to say about what efficient and fair policy could help to make the system operate more honestly.
@@JohnChampagne In my own reply to this podcast, I pointed out how AGW deniers always love to point out the flaws in the official IPCC models for being inadequately predictive. And yet they always seem entirely confident that there won't be any bad consequences that we weren't able to predict. Since we can't model the climate perfectly, the only sensible thing to do is to follow the precautionary principle and don't mess with things we don't fully understand. Unfortunately, taxing pollution has proven difficult because the world has so many different jurisdictions. But we'd certainly stand a better chance without all these charlatans spreading misinformation.
Long waited interview. Thanks Dr. Peterson!
Amazing conversation and crucial to know information... Thanks to you both for your time and energy.
Anti Human is a perfect description of this criminal act being waged on us.
Wow almost 6 million Subs! You helped soooo many ! Thank you! Please be proud and never feel overwhelmed!
Oy
I heard that he only has 300k subs.
@@stephenpaccone8120🙄 loser! Are you aware his live talks and presentations get sold out over the entire world.
@@kenthhamner2641 i think he means the 6m jews in holocaust
Inflated numbers. Probably more like 20 or 30k. 6 million? Seems like a lie.
Another Great Program. Canadians need to hear more about this, especially those under the Climate delusion. You will not get these types of discussions on Canada's Legacy Media.
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky.
Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years
Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
Excellent talk and should be watched by people of the world.
Mr. Peterson. I truly enjoy listening to your discussions. The precision of evidence and genuine back and forth debate give me a sense of optmism. there might be more like you out there One can see the passion in your conviction. Thank you.
'If I can make you hungry and afraid I own you'..Voltaire, in a nut shell.
Even a 4-year-old can see what they're up to, but our pundits, "wise men" and leaders will debate and theorize forever over the mystery of the Lefts & Elites real motivations. Because being blunt and straightforward about it, and how obvious it is, just doesn't seem as authoritative and intellectually astute. No, we must persistently demonstrate our eternal eagerness to assign good, honest motives to those who demonstrate daily that honesty and our better interests are all simply out of the question.
I'm already growing sour on "conservatism". It seems what we most want to conserve is a "good guy" image, in spite of how much the Left already hates us, because heaven forbid the Left should think we don't like them, or that we don't respect their constant onslaught of ever-increasingly ridiculous & destructive logic, along with the obvious agenda behind it.
Or you created your henchman. Igor Stravinsky, the nutcracker
Temporarily. But people always rebel. People always seek freedom and wealth eventually.
@@micchaelsanders6286 I certainly hope so. The majority of people - particularly in the developed/Western world - have enjoyed the privilege of comparatively easy lives and never known struggle or suffering for basic necessitates.
Complacency is as effective a killer as corrupt leaders who would give us bread and circuses to make us unable to see the evil they sow.
@@zacharyshinder940 Unleash capitalism and individual rights and everyone gets rich relatively quickly.
I have been noticing the dogma and religiosity inherent in climate activism and messaging for some time, and so I have been sceptical of this messaging.
This interview is really illuminating those concerns and presenting them with credence. Thank you for having this conversation.
@@kaivogel253 What dogma? Paid by billionaires? Wow, just wow. Please use logical arguments backed by facts next time.
@@kaivogel253 Bruh, you really calling centrists, cultists? Sad. And thanks for letting me know about the Wilks brothers. Will need to keep that fact in mind.
@@kaivogel253 Looks to me like you are stuck in a bubble. Peterson isn't a neonazzzi. He's clearly against it. All he talks about is improving your own life and psychology.
Secondly, Cultural Marxism isn't a conspiracy theory, there is too much proof for it. Search for "subversion of a culture" and you'll find several people talking about their real life stories. It was used by Russia in many countries. If you can see proof of Marxism, and even people nowadays proudly supporting communism and socialism, how can it be a conspiracy?
Look, the most important thing is to be factual and be a skeptic. Not label things as conspiracies. Look at both sides of the argument, and come to your own conclusion. Right now, given the amount of information on Marxism, one cannot deny it is happening. Whether it is on-purpose or intentional is unknown.
Aagh Dr JP - you did it again - I am reading Bjorn Lomborg thanks to you- now thank you Alex - I will read your works. You both give me hope - what a refreshing world view...
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky.
Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years
Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
Bjorn Lomborg is not who you should be reading if you want an honest appraisal. it is proven that he cherry picks data to support his positions. He is quite dishonest.
@@jamesjackson8652 ok - who should I be reading? Alex Epstein ?
If you're looking for true effectual hope then you should read the Bible.
@@Project-pq1qh You are a bright one arent ya - your Mum must be so proud...
Our young people are being taught to be afraid. I will share this discussion and can only hope that many others will do the same. Thank you!
Count me in if the club is inclusive and not exclusive but has degrees of dimensions in dynamics of harmonics and not just tape recordings of the village idiots HERALDING that which anti American
Wealth promotes .
They should be afraid of climate change. We can see the effects of it all over the world and they're only going to get worse.
they aren't taught to be afraid, they're taught the truth. It's more than likely for you to fear the unknown and what you don't understand.
@@Name.......... I'm sorry but I don't agree. I'm not thinking about myself as I won't be around for much longer. But I'm afraid for the generations coming up that have to live with this BS! And yes I do believe there is climate change but this craziness is beyond the pale. I think you need to do more research instead of letting the government decide for!
Fossil Future. Bought the book and read it twice a few months ago Alex. A thorough and well argued tour de force. Bravo Alex.
thαnks fσr wαtchíng..
mαkє α nσtє tσ єnσs kєnt rєgαrdíng crчptσ ínvєstmєnt вtc/єth skílls…
🈂️ᗩ ᑎᗝ丅ᗴ Ƴᗝᑌ ᗯᕼᗴᖇᗴ ᖇᗴᖴᗴᖇᖇᗴᗪ ᗷƳ ᗰᗴ
丅ᗴxт▪️🔘◼ Ŵ𝒉ạťʂ𝑨ƤƤ
🌀±𝟏𝟗𝟕𝟏𝟑𝟕𝟔𝟒𝟔𝟖𝟔✔💯⚡️🤍
ᑎOTIᖴY ᕼIᗰ TᕼᗩT I ᖇEᖴEᖇᖇEᗪ YOᑌ.........
I heard you on the podcast version. Thank you for inviting Alex Epstein. I sent it to my two children (they are hesitant to bring children to ‚this world‘ 😢). I am grateful for your hard work. If I may bring some critic : it would have been optimal to let Alex talk more about his views.
I agree. This is one of the interviews where the interviewer talked too much.
1:04:45 I really appreciate Alex's point about one side getting the "stamp of 'science'" and his efforts to combat that with his own evidence. The ability of one side to swoop in with a moral claim of "Science!" to win every argument has been a hallmark of current politics, and it needs to stop if we're ever to get to the bottom of issues and decide what actions are best for our future.
I grew up loving biology, chemistry, meteorology, and other sciences, but now my views on things put me in the camp of the "deniers" on several issues.
Science is fact based. Anything that keep you from asking for all the evidence is definitionally not science. Also when exploring science beware of repeatable loaded experiments. Those can lead you to very bad conclusions.
Somebody ttell Alex the magician doesn't really saw the woman in half.
@@omegapointil5741hi troll bot!
Since a couple of years I began a denier even though I’m following and reading science since more than 40 years.
So if 'science' disagrees with your position on a scientific topic you can wear the 'anti-science' badge with pride - like a Christian fundamentalist?
When popular opinion can be so swayed by a media controlled by interests with their own agenda, voices like your own (those of reason) are SO refreshing to hear.
Wow, I sincerely appreciate both of you fellows. I really gravitate towards Alex’s simple explanations and perspectives, particularly his thoughts about life being an incredible opportunity. I grew very tired of constantly being accused of guilt by convoluted intellectual reasoning many years ago, guilt implied simply because of fact that I was alive and had ears to hear. Sometimes a short parable is far easier to grasp then a long lecture, and if it has punch line so much the better. Thank you Mr. Peterson and Mr. Epstein you do us a great service!
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky.
Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years
Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
Thank you, Jordan and Alex. This interview is essential viewing, given everything happening in the world today.
What makes you think Jordan is qualified to talk about climate? He’s pandering towards his audience for patreon $$
@@damnationdan5253 What makes anyone think you are qualified to comment on JP and his views? Damnation Dan says it all.
@@grahamguest6506 Everyone is. Even school children can expose an impostor as stupid as Peterson.
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 your comment is a mere projection and it’s highly unlikely you will ever realise it. But for your sake I hope you do
I am amused that so many people think "watching this" will change minds or, more important, policy.
Policy is still being dictated by government employees and consultants in the pocket of the energy industry which is of course a huge source of tax income. Giving up carbon means government moving to a non-fossil future where different approaches to taxation prevail.
"I think of life as opportunity, not atonement." With that one statement, Alex completely nails it.
This time last year I was dying for Jordan Peterson to talk about the depopulation agenda. No pun intended. I wondered if he ever would. We all wake up at different points. He’s not disappointing these days. Thanks JP.
Yeah, that Bill Gates speech is pretty scary. How someone can basically promote genocide with a smile on his face and be proud to do it is beyond me.
oh did you see his interview with Ben. Natanyahu?
You are the carbon they want to eliminate.
Depopulation agenda is made up. The effort has been mischaracterized by JP and his guest. Environmentalists are simply pointing out that an unimpeded human population growth with rapidly increasing resource needs cannot be sustained. We are hitting a wall and need to address this as a reality of a finite earth with finite resources. Sustainable practices need to be incorporated, which may include limiting human behavior in some respects.
@@eulldog Please elaborate on "limiting human behavior." I'm sure it'll apply to our elites.
Thanks for having Alex, finally. I have listened to him and have his books. Alex is great!
@@kaivogel253 no, the grifters are the bureaucrats with an eye on more control and tax $$ that are feeding the Climate Alarm Beast (who have become grifters themselves as grant-seeking whores who feed the grantors whatever they want.)
Logically with critical thought. I love it. Salutations and Merry Christmas .
Maybe he can get an actual scientist on to discuss climate change ?
J's don't celebrate christmas.
@@yahyahboy2 So long as they invite PhDs scientists from the 3% of skeptics. Without them it's not science. Same with any field of study.
@@yahyahboy2 Where is one on TH-cam? And one where the comments are not turned off! We also need AOC to come on and debate climate too! Bankers, politicians and paid scientists! What could go wrong?
@@derp8575 it's not science, it's an interview
I could listen to Jordan forever. Such a brilliant mind.
That you, Jordan, for at long last showcasing the ideas of Alex Epstein, in my view the deepest, most profound thinker we have on this topic.
Maybe he can get an actual scientist on to discuss climate change ?
@@yahyahboy2 once again the “argument from authority”; you do not need to be a fireman to know that burning house is likely to claim a life or two, you need a real argument, not an expert opinion, and you do need to trust your own eyes!!
@@yahyahboy2 you mean the scientists, who academic career and funding is dependant upon towing the party line of catastrophic climate change.... or do you mean the scientists that have been ostracized as being climate deniers for following independent lines of inquiry and reaching different conclusions.
@@yahyahboy2 So long as they invite PhDs scientists from the 3% of skeptics. Without them it's not science. Same with any field of study.
@@derp8575 how is that balanced, I would describe this space as an echo chamber. if anything, 3% of his guests should be supportive of his views but so far it's 100% - it's blatant bias
I love every second of hearing Dr. Jordan formulate his thoughts on a topic and the added bonus of the guests that come on to discuss the topics. I think one of the fundamental issues of this topic is the issue of how the people who have obtained the moral high ground continue to use it to there advantage. It's a problem of what is politically profitable. It's hard to get elected or re elected on something that your opponent has deemed or label immoral. So how do we regain the moral high ground and make it less politically profitable for the opposing side/ arguments ??
Maybe he can get an actual scientist on to discuss climate change ?
Rock, Paper, Scissors. 🤺
@@yahyahboy2 So long as they invite PhDs scientists from the 3% of skeptics. Without them it's not science. Same with any field of study.
@@yahyahboy2 Why? 97% of those 'scientists' have been proven wrong - over the last 20 years - haven't they! Of course fossil fuel positivity deniers still want those 97% 'scientists' to stay, because they fit their evil agenda. You didn't actually watch very much of this - did you? ;-)
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky.
Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years
Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
Al gore in his Oscar winning documentary said the Arctic would be gone by 2013 and polar bears would be extinct. Polar bears are thriving right now and not even on endangered list. Media was also fearmongering about 10 years ago, citing "experts" that were predicting Florida would be underwater in 7 years. Australia even warned in 1999, that in 20 years, there would be no more snow. They just had historic record snowfall. Climate has always been changing. That's why ice age is cyclical and Sahara desert was lush 10,000 years ago.
A lot of crappy movies have won Oscars. Not much of a recommendation. Al Gore has made millions from his climate evangelism.
Some of us- many of us, in fact - do not feel any need whatsoever to "justify the crime of our existence," nor do we buy into any version or form of the confused and sick thinking that tries to make us feel that way!
“Opportunity not atonement” . Incredible . This conversation was amazing.
Yes!!
Read Ayn Rand. She conveys this benevolent universe premise about the potential for mans happiness and achievement, contrasted to Jordan Peterson's view that life is suffering.
As always Jordan, I have fully enjoyed your thoughtful engagement with your enlightened followers. I have four sons and myself that find your conversations riveting and thoughtfully truthful. Hope to attend your lecture as budget allows.
Brilliant! I'm so greatful to Jordan Peterson for spreading clarity on this issue, and promoting brilliant people like Alex Epstein and Richard Lindzen to his millions of followers.
Sadly he didn't argue or failed to recognize the extremely dumb idea of "a rise in temperature would mean a more tropical and lush world with more life", someone needs to explain to him the basics of farming. We'd lose so many different important food plants, trees and fauna that's crucial to our world.
Many plants can't survive harsh weather and would end up with shorter growth cycles or just drying up or shrinking.
Sorry but you completely lost the entire argument there. "Oh but you just need greenhouses then" well yeah, why not build more wind water and solar power plants too while you're at it? Spending a huge bunch of money in inefficient tech just to prove a stupid point.
Yes, the climate obsessed morons are worse, hinting towards decimating the human population just to live more in peace, it really shows they've never been to rural areas and they're just stuck in their cities, so much space for everyone away from the mega cities they live in, so much peace and contact with nature in simple towns.
I don't like the fact that you're just basically saying "let the world go to shit OUR WAY, because WE are right and you are wrong. You are both wrong in different ways. We do need to find a way to manipulate weather before it's too late, since our sun is an unstable giant ball of gas, which fluctuates between hotter and colder temps, messing with our climate even further.
Your LACK of knowledge and being a fan of Big Oil shills just proves how little you know about anything
Open, frank, and honest discussion of challenges facing society is greatly needed to enlighten us all to situations facing us.
Not really. It is two ignoramuses attacking strawmen and confirming each other's biases. I posted my critique of their arguments in a different comment, but nobody will read it, and the right-wing echo chamber will continue. Get an actual expert to debate Peterson and Epstein and you will see how quickly their arguments fall apart, but Peterson isn't interested in debating actual experts.
@@amosbatto3051 Thank you for your opinion. Where is your critique? I would very much like to read/listen to it. Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to reply.
@@amosbatto3051As soon as you resort to shrill ad hominem attacks you've lost.
"Life as opportunity and not as atonement." Well said Alex.
I just need to know how the water rationing is an opportunity.
@@SusCalvin Sell some water.
OMG been waiting for Alex Epstein for ages to collaborate with you! This is truly a blissful day, slightly an early bd present for me as well!:D
It's of real concern to me, when in the UK the climate crisis narrative is so pervasive on both mainstream news outlets, social media, and TV ads that unless you educate yourself against it, you could quite easily believe that we (the general populace) are the harbingers of our own doom!
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky.
Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years
Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
Very true indeed
BBC shot themselves down in flames, when they couldn't explain the cold snap. Even reeled out a meteorologist, who couldn't make a climate change reason.
IT IS ALL AIMED AT DOMINATING SUBDUING US IN TO SLAVERY BY THE SO CALLED ELITE WE MUST GET RID OF THEM FAST
We ARE the harbinger of our own doom, but not because we burn fossil fuels. It is because we continue to believe the fear-porn being produced by those who openly hate us, and insist that we need to die for our own good. The only existential threat we face is from a small number of humans creating imaginary problems and then selling us imaginary solutions at a very high cost! The only power and wealth they have is that which we surrender to them. Just say NO!
The idea carbon dioxide (CO2) was responsible for global warming was an artifact of the environmental awakening of the early 1980s. Yes, there was a lot we humans were doing that needed to stop but it became an over-reaction when they took aim at CO2 emissions. CO2 is one of the foundations of life on this planet and without it everything dies. Does it cause atmospheric warming? Yes, but only to a limited degree. Above 300 parts per million saturation occurs and additional CO2 has little effect. Twice there have been ice ages during the Cryogenic with the entire planet covered in ice with CO2 levels in excess of 40,000 ppm. Those who push the idea that increasing amounts of CO2 will cause the planet to overheat are mistaken. Overall temperatures are actually controlled by the oceans which cover 70% of the Earth's surface. When temperatures climb there is additional evaporation which forms clouds which reflect sunlight. Evaporation also moves the heat up into the upper atmosphere where the thermal energy is lost into space. The real reason temperatures appear to be rising is because most temperature sensors are n the USA and in cities which are urban heat islands. As they grow larger so does the heat island effect I believe the real reason CO2 was declared a pollutant was so the wealthy could grow even wealthier trading carbon credits and politicians could grow wealthy by taxing it and using the money to reward their donors. In the end it's money out of the pockets of those who can least afford it and it won't 'save the planet'. It will only doom western civilization. For those interested search for Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis to find a more realistic alternative of how climate on our planet really works.
I've read both the books discussed in this interview by Alex Epstein. As a person who regularly finds myself discussing climate change in online forums, I can say they have both been instrumental in arming myself with the best approach to this issue: Highlighting the positives that fossil fuels have brought to our lives. When you start discussing this, you will find 9 times out of 10 the opposition you'll encounter has rarely even considered the issue in these terms. He, and I'll credit Lomborg for this as well, do an excellent job of specifically identifying all of the modern wonders we have and enjoy because of fossil fuels. Even simple stuff like refrigeration, or air conditioning, and the incredible life saving measures these technologies have produced. Access to energy is the number one determining factor in quality of life, and I encourage everyone to read Alex's work on the subject. The future of the species might just depend on it!
how is that remotely relevant to climate sustainability. like yes obviously fossil fuels made our lives cushy. tf does that have to do with if their destroying the planet or not
@@jda1627 Climate sustainability is directly linked to our ability to master climate. Mastering climate is impossible without fossil fuels. It's pretty simple.
What do you mean by 'destroying the planet'? The earth is more habitable, greener, and safer today than at any point in human history. Please, explain.
@@evbbjones7 "Mastering climate is impossible without fossil fuels."
Simply untrue. Or if true, we're fucked as fossil fuels are not an infinite resource. Guess we'll no longer be able to master the climate in another hundred years...
"The earth is more habitable, greener, and safer today than at any point in human history."
By what metric? How do you define habitability, safety and greenness?
@@1kwerty7 '
"Simply untrue."
Afraid not. Can you name a single piece of heavy equipment that can be run on renewables?
"Or if true, we're fucked as fossil fuels are not an infinite resource."
Wait, in your very last sentence you declared it was 'simply untrue', now you're unclear whether or not it is?
"Guess we'll no longer be able to master the climate in another hundred years...'
Why would you think that? History certainly suggests otherwise.
'By what metric? How do you define habitability, safety and greenness?'
Access to housing and climate control(Air conditioning, modern construction methods) , life expectancy (Increased by 15+ years on average worldwide), access to food(2/3rds of people use to have to be farmers on four times as much land), the amount of people who are no longer dying to climate( down by 95%+!), the average GDP(Records never before seen in human history), the number of people who fall below the immense poverty line(Decreased by billions over the last hundred years), by comparing our records from the past to our records from the present(There's a plot of land worldwide the size of the US that is now green that did not use to be). Fossil Fuels are responsible for all of it, because access to energy is the number one determining factor in quality of life.
@@evbbjones7 Heavy equipment powered by renewables already exists. Anything that can be powered with electricity can be powered with renewables.
My point with the ,"Or if true, we're fucked, as fossil fuels are not an infinite resource" was that we will run out now them eventually, and so if fossil fuels are necessary for human existence then human
existence will be over in a century or two.
The last part of your comment is true, due to all the countries that have developed over that time period. Modern technology, science, and the spread of these ideas to new places have absolutely improved peoples lives. And yes, almost all of our technology was and is fueled with fossil fuels.
However, there's no reason renewables can't replace fossil fuels, at least in part (and they NEED to be able to, as fossil fuels are a finite resource and cause environmental problems.) Uruguay uses 95% renewables, with low energy prices as well. Many European countries get about half their energy from renewables.
Obviously it's going to be a big shift and it would be disastrous to instantly stop using all fossil fuels. However, as we are already seeing the affects of climate change, we do need to start switching more sooner than later...
Dr. Peterson - I know you cannot see all comments posted to your videos, but I wanted to tell you that my father is having a transplant surgery today. Watching your videos about standing up solidly for your family and being a man that can be relied upon in difficult situations has prepared me for this moment. Thank you, and God Bless
Much love to your father and family, from Italy
God bless your family
@@leonorpimenta4118 thank you very much
@@swesleyc7 thank you for the kind words
@@AFringedGentian Thank you! Everything went well and he returned home yesterday. Modern medicine is truly a miracle!
This is very good. Alex is a display of a clear thought. What a hero!
A display of bad faith paid by the Koch bros.
Yeah, I called this an anti-human movement from day one, and it goes hand-in-hand with ZPG. I have even heard of people getting vasectomies to save the planet. This is an excellent conversation.
i met smart lovely lady. very sad she said she wasn't having kids because would be irresponsible to the planet. at the time i thought if anyone should have kids its her, her kids would be scientists and engineers. which is what we need more of to solve all the little problems.
@@nikitaw1982 I agree: if anyone should have children, it's people like them. Meanwhile, people in lower social classes who are unable to provide a decent future for their children, who are not well educated and whose kids will grow up in a home environment that shuns any form of mental achievement, and consequently will never enjoy higher education nor be able to contribute to bettering the planet, are the ones utterly unconcerned with having fewer kids to unburden the planet.
So we're letting the people who contribute to the problem contribute more, while the people who could contribute to the solution are too afraid to do so because they don't want to make things worse.
If you want to live in your deluged right-wing information bubble, that is your choice, but Peterson and Epstein are totally misrepresenting the position of climate scientists and climate activists by calling it "anti-human". They have no interest in debating the actual positions of their opponents and are just spreading misinformation about climate change and constructing strawman arguments that are easy to knock down. It is sad how many ignoramuses fall for their BS.
"Merely feeling sorry for the planet, does not make you a good person...[but rather] a shallow narcissist who's using the EASY identification with a genocidal ideology to elevate yourself in the moral hierarchy." I give that a full blown Batman "POW!" I love the way Peterson assembles words like this. He truly shows he's a true professor.
We all love the way you assemble words like the "full blown Batman POW."
So glad Alex is getting this level of amplification. I'm so concerned about our country and hope he continues to change minds and votes.
It's important to recognize that there is a broad scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that it is largely caused by human activity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the United Nations body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change, has concluded that "there is high confidence that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." In addition, the vast majority of scientific organizations around the world, including the United States National Academy of Sciences and the American Meteorological Society, have issued statements acknowledging the reality of climate change and the role that human activity plays in it.
While it is important to consider a range of viewpoints and to engage in respectful dialogue, it is important to base our understanding of climate change on the best available scientific evidence. Rejecting the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and instead promoting misinformation or disinformation can have serious consequences, as it can delay or prevent the actions that are needed to address this important global challenge.
@@tedzards509 Your comment is focusing on the cause of climate change, not the risk it poses. That is where most of the debate is. The severe warming predictions are based on models that have shown to be inaccurate, because of how complex climate is. Further, nearly all catastrophic predictions have been completely wrong since about the 1970s.
The cause isn't the issue, it's the fact that a dangerous energy policy is being pushed forward based on the assumption that we're all going to starve and die in 12-50 years, and many, legitimately, think that is absolutely not the case.
@@rc5466 So then credibly refute some of the things he said for us!
@@briangorman1079 I gotta point out that when JP/Alex say "the earth is 15% greener today", it is not an accurate description of the situation. It's not greener naturally due to CO2 levels as they hint, it's only ~5% more green in the last 20 years due to huge human forest planting and rejuvenation initiatives in China and India - aka the kind of stuff they oppose with their rhetoric.
Really great discussion guys. I can’t thank you enough for all the great subject matter and actually working towards solutions
which proposed solution did you like the most?
@@Krytos13 Promoting and expanding the efficient production of fossil fuels by fracking and other innovative methods of fossil fuel exploration and extraction. This increased supply will lower energy costs substantially and make more energy and fertilizer economically available to the developing world, lifting millions of people out of poverty. How's that for a desirable solution?
@@bearowen5480 so the proposal is do more of what's hurting the climate? The USSR lifted millions out of poverty too. But I don't agree with their methods. Ends don't always justify the means.
@@Krytos13 What's hurting the climate is pretty small on the US front, if you really wanna make a difference go talk to china and india
@@dbio305 It's better if the US is a role model that can help second and third-world countries not take the same environmentally harmful path we took a hundred years ago. If the richest nation in the world doesn't do anything about climate change, that sets a precedent for other countries to do the same in the future. Although our impact on the climate is little compared to other countries, our impact on the world is huge, and we need to take advantage of that.
Absolutely correct: the energy sustaining the climate catastrophe faithful is the HATRED of human progress and flourishing. Cheap energy that allows common people to live lives with less pain and agony run against their ideology and hatred AGAINST the common person.
You got it , they said we are the last humans to live on this planet , they want us extinct but they will make some into cyborgs to live forever supposedly but they won’t live forever the way they think lol
We’re all just human livestock to them!
"human progress and flourishing" is not going to be the case if the temperature keeps warming up.
Working in 30 degrees celcius doesn't feel like flourishing progress.
@@SueMyChin please check the satellite date for the last 10 years. The avg temp is not increasing, in fact has cooled. How is this possible if CO2 is controlling the temp?
I was once a member of the Greens and Greenpeace, and I left them both because I realised I had become profoundly anti-human. I avoided having children because I thought that was the best thing for the planet. I regret it so much now, but it's too late for me. I think the light bulb moment was reading Ishmael by Daniel Quinn and realising that we ARE nature. We're not above it or apart from it, we are nature. And it made no sense then to classify humans as bad for the planet or some fundamentally evil species. Yes, we have made and are making mistakes, but we have as much right to be on this planet as any other species and we have had a far more positive effect on the planet than negative. We have the potential to be a truly amazing and wonderful species, but instead we are becoming the most stupid and brainwashed.
It is understandable that you may have had concerns about climate change and the impact of human activity on the environment, and that you may have changed your perspective after reading "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. It is important to carefully consider and evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by any individual or group on any topic, including climate change.
It is true that humans are a part of nature and that we have the capacity to have both positive and negative impacts on the environment. However, the scientific consensus is that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are contributing to significant and potentially dangerous changes in the Earth's climate. This view is supported by a large body of evidence that has been carefully gathered and analyzed by scientists over many years.
The overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change, including those affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other reputable scientific organizations, agree that climate change is real and that it is largely caused by human activities. These scientists base their conclusions on a thorough review of the available evidence, and their views are supported by the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed research in the field.
While it is important to recognize the potential for humans to have a positive impact on the environment and to be mindful of our actions, it is also important to take the scientific consensus on climate change seriously and to consider the potential consequences of ignoring this issue.
@@tedzards509 Thanks for the lecture and the assumptions that I am too stupid to evaluate the existing evidence on both 'sides' (not that science has sides). Consensus is neither here nor there. If a million scientists, all with Nobel prizes, believe a hypothesis and a high school dropout produces evidence the hypothesis is wrong, it's wrong. That's how science works. There is an equally large body of evidence carefully gathered and analysed by scientists over many years that the sun is the main driver of climate change and that rising CO2 follows temperature increases. But these scientists tend to be de-funded, ridiculed and dismissed as 'deniers' for daring to question the prevailing dogma. Having read IPCC reports I would hardly call them a reputable scientific organisation. Their original charter was to 'prove anthropogenic global warming', which is anti-science. They are a political organisation pushing an ideology.
@@MsBiggles51 It is not accurate to say that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a political organization. The IPCC is a scientific body that was established by the United Nations in 1988 to provide objective and unbiased information about climate change. It is composed of thousands of scientists from around the world who review and assess the latest research on climate change and its impacts.
It is also not accurate to say that the IPCC was established with the goal of "proving" that human activity is causing global warming. The IPCC's mandate is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the state of the climate and the potential impacts of climate change based on the best available scientific evidence. The IPCC does not have a predetermined position on climate change and does not advocate for any particular policy or course of action.
The scientific evidence shows that the Earth's climate is changing and that human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are contributing to this change. There is a broad consensus among scientists that the Earth is warming and that human activities are a significant contributor to this warming. This consensus is based on a large and consistent body of scientific evidence, including observations of rising temperatures, melting glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels.
It is important to note that scientific debate and discussion are an essential part of the scientific process. Scientists are trained to be objective and to follow the evidence where it leads, and it is not uncommon for new evidence to emerge that challenges or contradicts previously accepted ideas. However, the scientific consensus on climate change is based on a large and consistent body of evidence, and it is not accurate to dismiss this consensus simply because it may not align with a particular viewpoint or ideology.
You sound like you have tried to educate yourself on these issues so can you tell me what the current percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is? Did you know that ice core sampling has revealed that prehistoric levels of CO2 were 14x greater than today?
And incidentally, those CO2 figures come from proxy data not ice core samples. There has been no ice at the poles through most of the Earth's history. The ice core samples are only from the current ice age.
Much love JP and Alex you are both very important humans keep up the good intellectual fight 👏
Woah.. this is the first time I've heard Peterson not sound like Kermit.
What sorcery is this?
Every time I sit down to watch one of Dr. Peterson's videos I tell myself that I will just watch a portion of the video. What really happens is that I get so fascinated and entranced in the presentation that I find myself at the end as if some time warp magically sent me there with loss of apparent time.
I think we would like to see a book of "Jordan B. Peterson's doodles". The little "scratches, lines & boxes" that Dr. Peterson seems to place in his notebooks during conversations.
I find Alex Epsteins world view so uplifting and positive. See life as an opportunity. Be a producer/improver of value.
wow, a real eye opener. Ashamed to admit I thought I had a handle on this issue and I was firmly in the camp of reducing fossil fuels. At the least this discussion has inspired me to explore the facts on this issue and gain a more balanced view. Thank you Jordan Petersen for bringing us this discussion with Alex Epstein...
The elites solutions to global warming is global euthanasia.
" I was firmly in the camp of reducing fossil fuels" we will reduce them anyway a we ever reach the peak oil (same for a lot of raw materials) 😅
@@indigogogo5444 of course, we will.need to reduce them. The issue is the rate we reduce them and the damage we do to human suffering if we get it wrong which very much looks like we are right now.
@@gazzap6664 I agree
We won’t reduce hydrocarbon use. How can you watch this discussion and miss that key point?! As more people in developing nations demand inexpensive, reliable energy, that energy must come from somewhere. About 20-30% may come from solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear eventually, but 70-80% will come from hydrocarbons. These are simple facts about the energy mix. It leaves out all of the other products, not the least of which are plastics, that come from hydrocarbons. So as the world develops, we will need more hydrocarbons by volume, not less. By artificially inflating the price through carbon taxes, choking off investment, driving out skilled workers, and preventing exploration and production, anti-hydrocarbon zealots will cause future hardship, poverty, and death. It’s inevitable.
*_Not_** thinking things through* seems to be a habit of the green movement.
.... And the politicians that seem to implement these policies.
Utterly incredible, when you hear another bat-shyte crazy policy by some government and within a few seconds, you can predict exactly the disastrous consequences down the road. But not the government. It has an unlimited budget, a Civil Service is littered with Ph.Ds, but they fk it up every single time.
oh well, they know exactly how to make more and more money (for themselfs) by EVERY STEP they make; theres no need to think things through as long as every step fills the own pocket with more money in the moment
Everyone who thinks the world is gonna end can't even tell me how much the earth warmed between 2000 and 2022.
Wonderful discussion. Alex is very candid clear thinker as is Jordan. I no longer feel a tinge of regret for owning my diesel car.
@@countsnackula And gas isn't very far behind it.
Nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels but we could capture the CO2 and other nasties before they go into the atmosphere.
@@lazenbytim Considering plant life requires CO2 in the atmosphere to survive and maintain a healthy planet branding under "nasties" is a bit extreme don't you think?
The US government has been modifying the weather according to declassified documentation since at least 1962 and other nations have been doing the same as well soon after or possibly before. There are 23 HAARP facilities around the world that can cause storms, earthquakes, hurricanes/typhoons with the aid of bunker fuel being dumped into the ocean where they intend to drop a trillion watt laser into the ocean to heat it up to make the storm larger through evaporation, and many other methods of cloud seeding type technology that ties in with Monsanto’s seeds that are designed to grow in aluminum & barium (chem trails and not the older contrails that would dissipate quickly after the exhaust left the airplane) saturated soil from the aerosols that the governments of the world have been pumping into the atmosphere since the early 1990’s.
Diesel also burns cleaner than gas too
Alex is brilliant and makes great points!!! No panic folks!
I'm so glad you're using this platform to spread awareness of the GreeNazis
It's absolutely shocking that there are people who claim they represent us, who want to stop this Man... not whilst I'm alive will this happen without demonstration of my disapproval
Or maybe Peterson and Epstein are misrepresenting the positions of the majority of climate activists and knocking down strawmen, rather than actually debating the environmental movement. Funny that Peterson never invites an actual climate activist to debate on his shows.
Your disapproval will stop them mighty flea!
Alex Epstein was in Calgary a month ago. My wife and I went to hear him. Fantastic. I wear my “I Love Fossil Fuels” pin with pride.
Go Alex!!
I wouldnt be so ''proud'' about using fossile fuel. I fall in the category of: its the best we have for the moment. I dont think much about CO2 and all the other nonsence coming with it. Im rather more concerned by general pollution. As much as you say ''you love fossile fuel''. Would you like to live next to high traffic highway? Lets just say, air quality is not all that appealing.
Umm..California legislates exhausts on vehicles making the air coming out the back cleaner than the air going in the front. So, why are you not pro exhaust, instead of anti fossil fuel? You absolute political agent.
@@user-pf5xq3lq8i I see the debate in this section turns into political debate of who is right and who is wrong. I dont think this kind of approach works very well with that subject.
For instance: Compare cars 50 years ago and now. They have become much cleaner.
I personally think that technology finds its way down the line, either to make it work better or finally find better alternative. Forcing the change too early when we dont have better alternative is an issue however and thats where the real discussion should happen!
1:35:15 this is what Dr Peterson's podcasts are doing for me! Thank you good sir
So damn excited for this one! Thank you Jordan! Been wanting these two minds to meet on this topic for years. Been avidly reading Alex's book and work.
Excellent discussion, and very thought-provoking. Thank you Jordan, and to your guest Alex
I have been waiting for this conversation for a while. Thank you for spreading the good word, Dr. Peterson!
Another superb discussion, thank you!
I hope that green screen behind you was accurate Dr Peterson. I'm quite chuffed you produced this excellent interview in Australia. More power to both of you fellows, well done
It's Hellgate Bridge in NYC.
@@aliendroneservices6621 LOL!!!🤣😂🤣
@Roger Jamespaul did you know that the radiative effect of CO2 is logarithmic?
@@thefleecer3673 what?
@@pucknhusker9426 The more CO2 you pump into the atmosphere the less effect it has
Brilliant as always, Jordan. Thank you for having Alex on - this is SUCH an important video to SHARE.
I've lived in rural Arkansas most of my life. There is more wildlife now than in the 60s. Deer herds in my area are easily 20+ in many areas and when I was a kid they were scarce. I used to spend days in the forest as they are typically lush except for an occasional dry season. Maybe these doomsayers need to get out of their city offices and do some camping or at least hiking to see what is really happening. I agree we need to protect our environment but their plans don't address the real issues.
Grew up in rural Arkansas until I moved north of the state border, still in a rural area. I totally agree with JP pointing out that people who live "in nature" tend not to glamorize it. Appreciate it, absolutely. But it's not somehow "perfect."
Thought experiment. Switch your 20 year old self experience with a person growing up scuba diving the Great Barrier Reef and seeing its rapidly accelerating bleaching and death of marine fauna. Neither the young you or the young scuba enthusiast is evidence for anything but there own experience of that small portion of time and space. The evidence that the natural world is depleting at a vastly accelerated rate is incontrovertible.
I’ve found the same thing where I live on the East coast of Australia. The fish seem more plentiful now in areas that I fished as a boy. I regularly see animals such as Dugong up estuaries where I never saw them as a kid. Similarly shark numbers seem greater as well. May have a bit to do with some good policies preventing commercial overfishing over the years. Even so, you would never know it if you only listened to the media here. Nothing but apocalyptic doom and gloom.
@@Andrew-zp7mc yes - incontrovertible. Incontrovertible.
This is true that in the short term the plant has gotten "greener" with respect to the biosphere. However, what this argument fails to take into account is that humans themselves and technology are a huge reason why the satellite imagery shows the planet getting greener. We have gotten better at fertilization and agriculture, started replanting forests that had suffered from deforestation, and have reinstated many of the populations of endangered species due to environmental policies. Obviously, the more CO2 that we continue to pump out in the short term that will benefit plant life as plants thrive under lots of CO2. However, in the long term due to global warming this will cause ocean acidification due to increased CO2 as well as drier areas to become even drier (causing less "greenness") and wetter areas to become even wetter. This will lead to many of the flora and fauna we have on Earth to not be able to survive in these conditions particularly in the tropical climates of the world. I suggest you read up on the IPCC's publications and also watch the channel "All About Climate" refute many of the claims made in this video as these two sources explain it much better than I am able to.
You asked what metrics we have to evaluate whether actions are beneficial. I recommend to the websites of NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC... all of which publish metrics that can evaluate the impacts of human activity on climate. It's called "living in the information age".
Your welcome.
I'm very glad to see discussions about the value that humans bring to the world - rather than the self-hating diatribe spouted by so many 'virtue' signalers. Thank you for this.
"Self-hating" is not useful, I agree: but it's something that can happen as a result of the mainly negative effects that we ARE actually having on our environment.
I AGREE WITH YOU
Thats fine but you know thats "ALL" it is "TALK" !
@@PeterOzanne don't be silly. The sky isn't falling, even with all the hyped-up, distorted "science" the left is peddling.
This is the message the whole world should hear from the roof tops. So many Christians have been duped to believe in the movement. The evil group has buttered words. Humanity should listen to this. Thank you for the message. God bless you.
I do not know what you mean by the buttered words of the evil group, but the way that Peterson defies the Sacred is merely yet another sinister layer added to all of those that came before his worthy, snake-tongued contributions.
Be alert, for even the elect will be confused by the Wiley ways of men who are fully invested in serving some"thing" other than Truth.
WOW if your a Christian and you have been duped thats not to encouraging . One thing you can count on is the rich won't listen to reason , they are an insane bunch , when you kill
the grounds keepers for sport with a gun and then months later wonder why the trees plants and flowers look so shabby , a good sign you are out of touch with reality. Yes we need
to be good stewards of the planet , not to over fish " china the real problem there " and we need to stop throwing shit away and filling up the landfills but thats not whats going on here
with the rich elites whos solution is to just murder 7 billion of us so they can have the planet to themselves because they are so rich and so smart but remember the rich elites are not
better than us , they have to go to the grocery store just like us and if they kill the golden goose they to will find the grocery store shelves empty. And if I may add one more thing , the
so called science of global warming as relates to carbon dioxide is false , it is phony science created by the cabal , the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is very very stable , in fact
an increase in carbon dioxide would be beneficial to all plant life , the whole idea of having to buy and sell carbon credits is laughably stupid as it will ultimately make zero difference.
Fossil Fuels generate vast amounts of energy; it will not be easy to move away from it until we have a comparable alternative that is renewable. But that doesn't mean we have to always use them.
There needs to be a balanced discussion, which Video was not; it was more about promoting the book...
Consider, there is much more to discuss:
99% of the stuff we buy is trashed within 6 months.
An estimated 1/3 of the world’s fish stocks are overexploited or depleted.
There is enough food produced in the world to feed everyone. Yet more people die from obesity and related diseases than underweight.
Close to 40% of the wasted food is simply thrown out by supermarkets, shops, and households. Much of it is still perfectly fit for eating.
Biggest Garbage patch in our oceans is about twice the size of Texas.
@@VitalityForGamers lol, you think this conversation was promoting a book? Stick to video games, they're good for the environment right? lmao
Christianity is an impediment to human progress because the catastrophes we cause are gods will instead of our own ignorant consumption
Great Interview. Bravo. I'm definitely going to have to listen to that more than once.
As a (luckily) former atheist and (luckily) former feminist I want to tell you that every theme that you are discussing seems to me very, very, and deeply important. I really very often fell as a victim to deception for almost all my life. And again, luckily, I became a mother (very late and I have only one child) although I was in a great risk not to become ever because of my deformed believes. My soul is bleeding for nowadays children that are going to be much more deceived and some irreparably hurt. The common point that comes to my mind whenever I think about any of the problems from politics, science, social life, activism to economics etc. is that there are some basis of "science" that are quite questionable so they are until today called Theories, but they are the basis of everything that is super structured above.
A science for many years has been full of absolute lies because it is cut and sewn by the people who want control above all else. So you know that from the wrong base, you can draw absolutely logic conclusion in correlation with wrong base. You would be surprised to hear what Mr. Tomislav Terzin, Serbian, professor of molecular biology at the University of Alberta (Canada), has to say about this. Unfortunately, most of his TH-cam videos are in Serbian (as are his books). His main personal subject of research is the BIBLE which he calls the GREATEST SCIENCE BOOK OF ALL TIME without a single inconsistency. He himself analyzes every verse of the Bible regarding Darwin's theory of evolution, today's science of genetics, geology that had to be adapted to the standards of the theory of evolution (and in many cases invalidates its bases) so that the first one does not come out invalid. .. When I listen to his speeches, I often think of my grandfather who, when I started studying law in (at that time communistic) Yugoslavia, asked me: How many books with how many laws do you have to read and learn? and I answered: Many. And then the grandfather said: So sit down and learn, since the Ten Commandments are too many and too restrictive for you... one day you will walk down the street not knowing if you are legal or illegal, you will lose any sense of objectivity, justice and humanity and if you don't, you will be the hunted exception....
Ne mogu ni opisati koliko mi je drago pročitati ovu prvu rečenicu.
Very powerful comment. Thank you and may God bless you
Волим ово сведочанство.
Thank you for your interesting post. I was raised a Christian but lapsed but am now finding my way back. I too realised that feminism was based on lies, breaking up the family unit and our way of life for thousands of years. I do not think that women are happier now, it seems to me the opposite.
God is GOOD and faithful . Thank you for Sharing. There is much wisdom in your experience.
Awesome. Great job Alex! You've devoted your life to this and I'm proud to say I've supported you since the very beginning. You earn all our support more year by year!
Confident, concise, unique insights and perfect reframing of the actual arguements our enemies in this area make.
I love what Dr. Peterson is doing talking with peole outside of his field of expertise on which we get good insights and different perspectives on what's happening today keep them coming and thank you much for another educational video like this
He has to. You know, he really has no field of expertise.
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 There needs to be a more balanced and in-depth discussion. This was more pushing the Book than anything...
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 and out come the ad-hominems…
@@peterdaoust404 Recognizing the absolute lack of expertise of an impostor is not an ad hominem but a justified and necessary clearification based on the fact that Jordan Peterson never managed to articulate one single sentence that wasn't simply false. All of his utterings stand corrected by science. Every single sentence, and all of his claims.
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 are you OK? Seems like you are having a bad time in life.
I literally started reading A Moral Case for Fossil Fuels on Monday. Great timing Jordan!
The first 2.5 minutes were awesome. I can only imagine how good the video will get.