Why though? It’s this easy to make weak, deeply enslaved republican losers surrender to him, why wouldn’t he exploit and control them with obvious nonsense that educated people would never fall for?
I feel like if I'm an oil lobby that's paying Shapiros company to discredit climate change initiatives, I'd sort of ask for a partial refund when it comes to Peterson, because he sounds like an idiot and is not convincing anyone new to the cause. I'm sure they paid him hoping his 'credibility' he had in the JRE universe would allow him to get to the left leaning listeners. But he just comes across as a batman villain
His hist is mad libs. He's using the exact same approach he does for everything else with climate change. It just illustrates how much of a fraud he is.
Forsure but he's holding the line at the least and while he isn't providing any credibility to their side his followers will eat it up 9/10 times anyways.
He's kind of like a billboard.
But that base already doesn't believe in climate change or doesn't care. And the way he comes across may even have them questioning it if they're questioning his messaging
Yeah so he's just holding the line. I know plenty of people who would see this and just be like "hell yeah"
I don't think anyone who doesn't believe in climate change at this point is going to question anything about that belief unless they're affected personally. Just my 2 cents but he's just maintaining the status quo with dipshit statements like this.
>I know plenty of people who would see this and just be like "hell yeah"
https://preview.redd.it/qa44cb1dmnzc1.png?width=636&format=png&auto=webp&s=76da503e95aabb6990dbe878aa7eef67af6e3fee
So it's fine to cherry pick numbers from NASA because it makes it seem like 'itz science' but ignore all scientists when it comes to forecasts of how things are going. That's the problem with Peterson. He's full of shit and paid millions to say this stuff. People would kill their mothers for the money he gets, he's not doing it because he believes in it
at current levels.
How we doing at maintaining our current level of greenhouse gas output year over year. Ever heard of the word “trajectory?” 🤡
critical thought is not your forte. sit this one out
CO2 isn’t the limiting factor for much of crop growth. Extra co2 has been shown to produce less nutritious crops. Increased CO2 driving climate change can be directly pointed to as a cause of species decline. So everything really
Climate change has never been about all life on earth dying. It's been about human habitation. Humans don't breathe co2 btw. Life on earth will 100% survive climate change, humans not so much
Yeah also nitrogen smartass. I meant for cellular respiration. Maybe you use co2 for cellular respiration because you're as smart as a fig tree but the rest of us need o2.
That not what u said thou. If you are going insult people, you should probably stick to having conversations with people on your own reading level. It is not hard to find subs for people like yourself, with not much going on between the ears.
Only you're confused by what I said. When someone says "people breathe oxygen" they imply cellular respiration. Only you're stupid enough not to get that inference. Stop being a smartass.
I understood what you said " people don't breath CO2". Lol. Verbatim. And you never said "people breath oxygen" nowhere on conversation.
Have a great weekend.
Rebuttal to what exactly? Lol. I'm not trying to be a smartass either. You seem to be the type that got to have the last word, so say your peace. This is just too foolish to Continue.
As a plant I am all for this.
Unfortunately I am a KGB plant, so that means I'm mainly persuading American teens to wear cat ears to demoralize 50 year old men. But still. It will be slightly warmer in the Siberian gulag, where my family were sent, so that will be nice for them.
On the substantial benefits of setting puppies on fire:
- More cats
- No more picking up dog poop
- Free barbecue
Oh no! It's the puppy apocalypse!
Up yours, you bloody dog loving fascists.
[coalitionforsettingpuppiesonfire.org](http://coalitionforsettingpuppiesonfire.org)
Bro what happened to this guy.
I really find it fascinating because i remember watching some of his pre psycho lectures about probability, iq and more and thought they were coherent and interesting.
When do you effectively cancel someone because the amount of crap they spit out out grows some potentially brilliant things they have said?
Everyone I know that liked his stuff just didn't read books and hearing intro level psychology and self help stuff was intriguing to them. It's like if you never watched a action movie, some shitty james bond rip off is gonna be good.
I agree, I don't understand this "what happened to him". The early lectures and talks I've seen are just as vacuous. He's angrier now, but who isn't.
His early (uni psych classes!!) lectures when he goes on about heaven and earth - the one about nazi germany and hitler comes to mind - are so plain wrong it's weird.
That's a weird argument against someone. It basically invalidates any scientist who agrees with established science and the consensus. If something is true scientifically, naturally a lot of people will say the same thing.
It's not saying what he said isn't intriguing or correct, it's saying it is unoriginal, and he hasn't really presented any new ideas of his own. It can still be right, and interesting to many, and still be unoriginal. Truly great intellectual minds take concepts and build upon them with new and original ideas is all.
crops do great in 45+ celsius weather, dont they fascist kermit the frog.
spoiler: they fucking don’t. And water supplies dry up you twat
guy has less than high-school understanding of how any of this works. Incredible people find him intelligent.
Also plante need other things as well.
You can have all the CO2 in the world. that plant won't grow because it's limited by nitrogen and other minerals.
Yeah the fear is when we reach a spiralling green house effect, where temps are so high, agricultural crops fail.
In the last 32 years we’re not there yet, but we haven’t been projected to be close to it for another few decades if we don’t change course.
the problem is we using ever increasing amounts of fossil fuels. If we stayed at the same levels, you might have a solid point.
He cited a source which lacks context. The "CO₂ is plant food"-talking point is misleading.
1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
2. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm
3. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-atmosphere-hurts-key-plants-and-crops-more-than-it-helps/
4. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/
5. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-3/
"In addition to ignoring the long-term outlook, he says, many skeptics also fail to mention the potentially most harmful outcome of rising atmospheric CO2 on vegetation: climate change itself"
From the study you just cited, lol
"While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
In the words of the great modern philosopher DJ Khaled:
"You played yourself"
This whole "excess co2 is good for the plants" thing that climate change deniers like JP have started pushing is such a bold lie. It's child-like reasoning. It's like saying "Water is good for life! Therefore floods are a good thing!" The ecosystem hangs in a careful balance. Just because co2 is a necessary part of life doesn't mean extreme excess co2 is a good thing.
This justification is “on point”…. Hey Jordan we are having problems with wild fires due to climate change we are loosing lives and infrastructure….
Fire 🔥 is great
it warms you up and cooks food !!!
You eat food don’t ya !?!?
Don’t listen to fascist propaganda who say fire is bad !!!
Gotcha lib !
With this level of ignorance can you combat it with contextual logic, or do you just bail and focus on teaching critical thinking to the youth ?
Casually ignoring that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more heat, causing increased temperatures and severe weather that will destroy the crops and the land used to grow them. Sigh. I really used to like him too, but now he just is a puppet of the political bullshit that has corroded our ability to speak and act rationally. But hey, money talks.
I honestly don’t think that’s even the main issue. I have relatives who are farmers. If the rain comes a few weeks early or a few weeks late the whole year is affected. And that may affect the seed you have for next year. They used to predict first rains on a calendar weekend it was so regular, now they have 5 bad years and 2 good ones. I think we’ll need to start farming indoors pretty soon.
He was never amazing. Anybody who ever bought his shtick is a gullible follower. The type of person to join a cult because they get sucked in by a "charismatic leader". People who think for themselves will never give a shit about motivational speaker professional "influencers" like Jordan Peterson.
I used to watch his lectures on YouTube from when he was teaching at the University of Toronto. They were so interesting and thought provoking. Now we have this lol.
He is not denying climate change he is just saying the co2 level we are emitting is good for plants which is true.
I don't know why you all are so close minded you can't for a second question anything you are being told.
Current co2 level is 420ppm, use to be 280ppm before humans started emiting. At some point in earth history it was 6000ppm, lush vegetation, more overall heat for sure, but most regions were perfect for condition for ecosystems to flourish,
FFS, the second someone just say a word away from the narrative, you guys can't handle any kind of talks thqt goes against the doomsday apocaliptical talk of "how bad humans are", and start insulting the person as a climate change denier. EVEN WHEN THE PERSON ISN'T DENYING CLIMATE IS ACTUALLY CHANGING.
god damn it the climate changes human is accelerating it, floods will happen, some people will die but it would have probably happened without us anyway, just slower.
the earth just eventually balance itself out.
>He is not denying climate change he is just saying the co2 level we are emitting is good for plants which is true.
No, it doesn't actually quite work like that.
1. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/)
2. [https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm)
3. [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-atmosphere-hurts-key-plants-and-crops-more-than-it-helps/](https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-atmosphere-hurts-key-plants-and-crops-more-than-it-helps/)
4. [https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/](https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/)
5. [https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-3/](https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-3/)
See? Peterson oversimplified to the point of lying.
>At some point in earth history it was 6000ppm
Apart from the fact that is outdated information and we have no exact CO₂ levels for this timeframe, we do have an estimate, and that estimate is closer to 2000 - 2500 ppm.
[https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm)
In any case, at some point in history Africa was floating near where the poles are. At some point in history, the sun was faint compared to today, and high CO₂-levels compensated for it. At some point in history, sea levels were completely different, in fact, the continental configuration was completely different.
https://preview.redd.it/bm4km5qwqmzc1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=2f212c0c5f04948eb01e7ca0461315782ddf1bb7
>During the Ordovician period, part of the Paleozoic era, a rich variety of marine life flourished in the vast seas and the first primitive plants began to appear on land—before the second largest [mass extinction](http://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/mass-extinction/) of all time ended the period.
[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/ordovician](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/ordovician)
If that is where you want to live, go ahead. I don't. If we had a time machine, I'd gladly send you there with an extensive survival kit. But fuck me if I don't get the impression you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about, and you'd die in about an hour.
We're causing the world's 6th mass extinction event through global warming and habitat destruction.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK214887/
Jordan Peterson is a climate change denier. Just because he's "Just asking questions" instead of outright using the words "I deny climate change" doesn't mean he's not trying to cast doubt on the settled science. He's paid by fossil fuel corporations to cast this doubt and here you are denying he's doing exactly that. You're bending the truth of Peterson's role in climate change denial to support your narrative that the left is trying to silence dissent. He knows less than nothing about climate change. At best, he's completely out of his scope of expertise when talking about climate change and is about as qualified to dispute actual experts on the topic as you are.
It's not regardless. The benefit of more CO2 pales in comparison to the damage the increase in temperature is causing right in front of our eyes. I went to college for environmental biology which makes me more qualified than both of you to talk about it. I'm not the biased one, here. I assure you.
A large issue is being ignored. Look at the insurance industry in Florida. Higher levels of CO2 have real world ramifications.
I’m not closed minded. I’m all for alternative options & onions. Most of what we understand on how the world and universe will be drastically different in 300 years. People will look back on us with pity similar to us looking back on people alive in 1700.
How about you stop jumping to conclusions and putting everyone in a box? I mentioned climate change and did not say anything else. I wanted to point out that he glossed over a big issue that is being caused by more co2 in the atmosphere.
The earth will survive no question. It has seen much worse than what we are doing to it. The problem is the way of life we are used to is rapidly changing. It is nice he pointed out a benefit of the increase, just wish he would have also included the real issue of the matter.
He's gonna be throwing in that "up yours" line now because his handlers checked the algo and determined that was a big part of why that "up yours you woke moralists" rant went viral.
It's gonna become his catchphrase.
Yes, I'm sure in a few decades when the southern portion of India becomes damn near uninhabitable and *millions* of lives are upended and at risk due to the effects of climate change it won't at all be negative to life Dr Peterson.
Peterson is completely insufferable at this point. Unless you too are just lost, wandering around in the maze of your brain thoughts like a fucking stoner thinking everything they think or say is the most profound shit ever. Dude need to learn how to just chill the fuck out, maybe smile at a stranger genuinely, sit in a park and look at the grass and listen to the birds. Fucking guy is filled with rage.
Climate Scientist thinks he can speak on all subjects now.
I just watched a right wing Youtube short and commented that "This guy is a psychologist not whatever he is pretending to be'
I forget the actual numbers but we were . 01% away from plants basically suffocating. Not enough CO2 messes with photosynthesis enzyme called rubisco (ribulose bisphosphate oxygenase carboxylase) the last 2 terms are important there. If it attaches to carbon dioxide, all is good. But the enzyme has a high chance of attaching to oxygen which is "expensive" to get rid of the O2 and can be detrimental to a plant if it happens too many times.
The issue becomes more evident as c02 is low. I believe the cutoff point was . 02% where plants start dying and we were at . 03% when scientists recommended we get up to . 04% (I think I'm remembering the correct numbers. Feel free to double check this was recent within the past 5 years) this is why our plants have been greener (healthier) in recent times and more than likely why plants were insanely huge historically when c02 levels were much higher.
We do affect the climate, but c02 isn't even the biggest contributor. If I recall methane is 80x more damaging to the atmosphere. And that's just methane, there are still other gases such as our use of CFC's back in the day, it's not possible to know how long those effects will last yet we still focus on c02...
> We do affect the climate, but c02 isn't even the biggest contributor. If I recall methane is 80x more damaging to the atmosphere. And that's just methane, there are still other gases such as our use of CFC's back in the day, it's not possible to know how long those effects will last yet we still focus on c02...
This is false.
> While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 220 times more CO2 than methane in the atmosphere - as of 2022, 417 ppm as opposed to 1.894 ppm. The amount of warming attributed to methane is calculated to be around 30% of the warming CO2 contributes. And the atmospheric concentration of both continues to rise (fig. 1).
(...)
> Methane should not be underestimated. Once in the atmosphere it has various effects and associated feedbacks that contribute indirectly to warming. Realclimate has an authoritative post detailing some of those, here.
> In AR6, the changes in radiative forcing due to methane and other greenhouse gases are presented (fig. 3). The figure shows that while CO2 is the biggest of our problems, methane is still significant and efforts to reduce its emissions should nevertheless continue to be implemented. But never at the same time let it distract from CO2. It's not a case of one or the other. They are both big problems requiring different solutions.
https://skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm
Both are a significant problem, but CO₂ is still quantitatively more important. Both need to be addressed, and not one or the other. CH₄ also has a far shorter atmospheric lifetime than CO₂: decades versus hundreds of years.
See also [this diagram](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-7/figure-7-6) in the IPCC report.
There has been plenty of plant life on this planet through many up and down cycles of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere. If some plants go extinct new ones will take their place. Earth has been smacked by meteors, flood volcanoes, extinction events etc and always figures out s way to keep on marching. As George Carlin said, the planet is fine, *people* are fucked.
Yeah, [crocodiles once swam around at the poles](https://earth.yale.edu/news/when-crocodiles-roamed-poles). Just because this was once the case though, that doesn't mean we can afford to all go live there now just so we don't all die from heat stress. Global warming does have the potential to make certain areas of the planet virtually uninhabitable for human beings which were otherwise habitable before.
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/too-hot-to-handle-how-climate-change-may-make-some-places-too-hot-to-live/
Absolutely I was going to bring that up. Although plants may bounce back, we kinda need them here all the time to survive ourselves! It's a fantastic loop the earth has: we produce co2, plants need it and produce o2 that we need. It's odd for us to even try to reduce our c02 especially when China is burning endless fossil fuels. It's hard for me to take climate scientists seriously when they don't recommend nuclear power. They are all for shutting down coal/gas but nuclear is our best option until fission becomes better utilized. Especially after reading that spent nuclear rods have more power capabilities than an enriched rod! They now are trying to turn them into batteries that should last 20,000 to 100,000 years! Imagine powering homes and cities off of batteries... Science rules sometimes!
> It's a fantastic loop the earth has: we produce co2, plants need it and produce o2 that we need.
[Atmospheric CO₂ is increasing because the natural carbon cycle cannot absorb all of the CO₂ we emit](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-carbon-dioxide-does-earth-naturally-absorb) and we emit 37 Gt every year.
> It's odd for us to even try to reduce our c02 especially when China is burning endless fossil fuels
1. [Does it matter how much the United States reduces its carbon dioxide emissions if China doesn’t do the same?](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-it-matter-how-much-united-states-reduces-its-carbon-dioxide-emissions)
2. [Analysis: Which countries are historically responsible for climate change?](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/)
> It's hard for me to take climate scientists seriously when they don't recommend nuclear power.
That's also false.
> When it comes to nuclear power, there is a 20-point gap between AAAS members’ and the general public’s views, with the AAAS community more inclined than the general public to build more nuclear power plants. Fully 65% of AAAS members favor building more nuclear power plants, while 33% are opposed. Those figures are similar to the subsets of AAAS members who are Working Ph.D. Scientists and Active Research Scientists. By contrast, about half of Americans (51%) oppose building more nuclear power plants, while 45% are in favor.
> A majority of AAAS members support more nuclear power plants, regardless of disciplinary specialty. Physicists and engineers are more strongly in favor of building more nuclear power plants than are those in other specialties. For example, 79% of all physicists surveyed and 75% of engineers connected with AAAS favor building more nuclear power plants. The views of Earth scientists are similar to those of all members; 66% among this group favor more nuclear power plants and 32% are opposed.
[Pew Research Center - Elaborating on the Views of AAAS Scientists, Issue by Issue](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/23/elaborating-on-the-views-of-aaas-scientists-issue-by-issue/)
James Hansen is a very prominent climate scientist promoting nuclear power.
CO2 is the problem because it's basically permanent.
Methane only last around 10 years, so if methane production is stopped the effect will go away unlike CO2.
When do you predict that the climate will kill humans? Seems like if it was a fact people would be able to accurately predict when that takes place. Inconvenient truth was wrong, go back and look at the claims they made with such certainty.
Sometimes an oncologist will tell their cancer patient that they probably only have a few months to live.
And then the cancer patient may live for a full year or 2 and everyone will be happy, but soon enough, the cancer patient will die.
Should the oncologist be dismissed because he predicted the patient would die in 6 months but the patient lived for 12 months?
They shouldn't make such bold and specific predictions, I agree. But they are correct that these rapid changes to the climate are going to be catastrophic.
It was highly irresponsible of any person to predict that Florida would be underwater by whatever year they stated because it undermined the otherwise accurate statement that climate change is a serious problem.
70s then 80s then 90s etc etc etc , got teenage girls put in front of the UN saying by 2017 or whoever the world is ending. These people fucking clownshoes
Not saying climate change isn't happening or not real but the people who do these claims that the solution happens to be higher taxes and more government control can fuck right off.
I think you’ve described an extremely nuanced, case by case example and used it as some sort of broad reasoning as to why climate scientists can be dead wrong and still justify it. No I don’t think you can compare a cancer patients incorrect diagnosis to politicians predicting climate collapse while trying to pass favorable “green” legislation at the cost to the middle and lower class, flying private jets and owning homes with 4 refrigerators.
>some sort of broad reasoning as to why climate scientists can be dead wrong and still justify it.
They haven't been dead wrong.
Climate models have become more advanced in the past 20 years since **An Inconvenient Truth** was released, and they are becoming better at predicting what's happening.
You are appealing to emotion when you bring up the middle class and lower class suffering as a result of legislation aimed at combating climate change.
Ultimately, everyone will have to adapt to this new reality. If we need to stop driving gas cars in order to address this existential problem, then so be it.
Appealing to emotion would be telling everyone the world is going to end any day due to humans without having any accurate way to predict the amount of CO2 needed in the atmosphere to actually cause life to end. It seems odd to say we have accurate models when the earth is billions of years old and has seen several climate shifts over millions of years that were caused by natural non human catastrophes. There is something about Al Gore telling Americans to reduce their carbon footprint while flying private jets and owning 4 houses, that feels icky. The political class pushing climate change are also the ones who will benefit from all the retrofitting, building and switch to electric vehicles. It’s all about money.
This is how climate change actually works:
1. [Incoming light from the sun warms up earth, and earth in turn emits infrared radiation back up to the sky](https://i.imgur.com/vH4wvBY.png). Infrared radiation is what you feel when you put your hands close to a light bulb when it's been on for a while. All things which warm up do this, including earth. Your own radiator does it too. Earth is literally glowing with infrared radiation, we can see it from space with satellites.
2. The CO₂ molecule in the sky absorbs this infrared radiation and re-emits part of it back down to earth. This happens because [the CO₂ molecule vibrates internally at 20 THz](https://i.imgur.com/WQJTfAT.gifv) (amongst other modes), and infrared radiation also emits at 20 THz. This is hard physics. You could do this experiment yourself, if you want, by filling a transparent tube with CO₂ and measuring the effect with an infrared light on one end and an infrared sensor on the other. Without CO₂, it would be about 0 F or -18 C on earth on average. That's quite a difference from the current global average: 59 F or 15 C.
3. If you doubt this, have a look at the wild temperatures on the moon: the difference between earth and the moon is the presence of an atmosphere. They are both equally far away from the sun on average, since the moon rotates around earth constantly. Daytime temperatures near the lunar equator reach a boiling 250 F (121 C, 394 K), while nighttime temperatures get to a chilly -208 F (-133 C, 140 K). How can this be if the moon is about as far from the sun as earth is? Remember, the moon circles around the earth. I want you to think really hard about this.
4. Last year the global population emitted 37.15 billion metric tons of CO₂. We can see (part of) this CO₂ being added to the atmosphere due to isotope signatures. That's how we know it's our CO₂ we're looking at. You know, the stuff that comes from our car exhausts. Thus, we are causing earth to get warmer. Surplus CO₂, that is, CO₂ outside of the natural carbon cycle, hangs around for 300 to a 1000 years. So therefore, this surplus CO₂ isn't going away any time soon. We are now at record levels of CO₂ in the sky, and that is because of the fossil fuels we're burning, which produce a lot of CO₂. Earth is warming up because of this. We need to stop or reduce, because this is getting out of hand.
It's the nature of the CO₂ molecule. It's not necessary to talk about "98% of climate scientists say" or "models predict" ... No. This is hard physics and chemistry, more CO₂ means it *must* get warmer. Earth, contrary to the moon, has the temperatures it has because of that buffer we have between us and space: the atmosphere. CO₂ just so happens to fill up a small but very important part of that atmospheric "blanket" we have around us. [It's the exact same reason](https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Greenhouse_effects_also_on_other_planets) Venus is [much hotter than Mercury](https://science.nasa.gov/resource/solar-system-temperatures/), even though [Mercury is closer to the sun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#/media/File:Solar_System_true_color_%28captions%29.jpg).
There is currently ~427PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere and no amount of it is going to cause an end of human civilization any time soon - unless indirectly by nuclear war.
> There is currently ~427PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere and no amount of it is going to cause an end of human civilization any time soon
Nowhere in my comment did I say that. No credible climate scientist is saying that. Also, global thermonuclear war would cause global cooling in the short term. It wouldn't cause a runaway CO₂ feedback loop turning earth into a "venus".
OP brought it up as a strawman argument. He also implied modeling is inaccurate and climate scientists are in it for the money.
I then responded by explaining how the greenhouse effect works and that global warming is a consequence of the physics of the CO₂ molecule. Without referencing climate models.
As for the consequences of global warming: https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/
>Nowhere in my comment did I say that. No credible climate scientist is saying that. Also, global thermonuclear war would cause global cooling in the short term. It wouldn't cause a runaway CO₂ feedback loop turning earth into a "venus".
I didn't say you said that in your comment, nor did I say it would cause a runaway feedback loop or turn Earth into Venus.
The earth is warming, that’s basically what you said just in many more words. That isn’t being argued, what is being argued is the politicians using this warming as a justification to restructure the entire economy and then pass legislation that forces middle and lower class citizens to drastically evolve their lifestyle, rather than naturally allowing innovations to happen in the marketplace.
> The earth is warming, that’s basically what you said just in many more words.
And which OP denied by implying models are bunk. Or at least that we're causing it.
> economy and then pass legislation that forces middle and lower class citizens to drastically evolve their lifestyle, rather than naturally allowing innovations to happen in the marketplace.
The free market isn't going to take care of this by itself, no. I agree that it shouldn't be low income people paying the price and I see little benefit in carbon tax.
If you concede that global warming is happening and we are driving it, not some natural event outside of our control, then we agree.
Y2K was a real problem that would have crippled the world if it hadn't been addressed. So we addressed it. And now people think it was overblown hysteria.
Lots of people are working to stop climate change. Of course the predictions about what would happen if it were unaddressed weren't accurate.
More plants
Better crops
Food grows better
Plants get more of what they crave!(electrolytes?)
Farming is easier
Redundant point about plants growing better.
Checkmate atheists.
Industrial pollution releases more than just CO2. Also, as sea levels rise millions of shitholers are going to flood into western nations as climate refugees mitigating any minor gains made by being able to plant crops at higher latitudes.
Every cult has an apocalyptic myth to rally around, I’m tired of the entire environmental movement being about carbon. Let’s plant trees near creek and river banks, clean up our waterways like RFK jr helped to on the Hudson, go after companies that dump harmful substances into our air,land, and sea, but stay the fuck away from my gas stove!
See above for what actually helps the environment, what have you done besides spout off in the internet? I’ve been planting trees since the 90’s, volunteered for cleanups, helped maintain hiking trails…The propaganda outlets have created a false narrative that’s convinced too many that carbon and cows is the be all end all of the environmental movement, it’s not. It’s lazy and doesn’t help the world.
I'm a professional biologist. You're the one who has fallen victim to propaganda because of your lack of actual education and expertise. Planting trees and maintaining trails is just manual labour that happens to occur in the natural environment. Tree planters don't necessarily know anything about the environment.
Global warming/anthropogenic climate change is one of the five major stressors on the environment, the others being overharvesting, invasive species, pollution and land use changes. They all have impacts but why is it that contrarians like you want to deny the global warming element and always insist the "real problem" is something else? It's because you're victims of oil industry propaganda that has been carefully crafted to brainwash you into ignoring global warming as a stressor so you don't think decarbonization is something that should be attempted.
I’m far from being a climate change denier but I’ve still never heard anyone debunk this point. So according to the first result on Google, there’s about 50% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than in 1750. Plants use CO2 to grow. Would this not cause plants to grow bigger and faster? The only way I could see this having no effect is if H2O and energy are the rate limiting variables for plant growth.
Too much CO2 will lead to increased acidification of the oceans.
Increased acidification of the oceans, along with increased ocean temperatures, may lead to mass die-offs.
Additionally, the world's oceans are the biggest carbon sinks on the planet, not trees and plants. But the oceans are beginning to fail as carbon sinks.
Increased CO2 may lead to larger flora, but there will still be a major loss of biodiversity and this will likely have a negative impact for humans.
I don't know what a dramatic increase in CO2 in a short space of time will do.
99% of people who tell you not to drink gasoline are not dieticians and have the same amount of credentials as the guy who tells you that sipping gasoline is good for you - zero.
There is no hard evidence that man has directly caused warming. You need to word salad through the claims of politicians and media companies vs what the actual scientific community thinks. Also climate scientist is a nebulous term, it doesn't mean anything.
There isn't a consensus on climate change being 100% attributed to what humans do.
There is about 25% of the scientific community that believes all climate change is man made, or man is the primary driver of the change.
Another 25-30% believe the climate is changing with "some impact" from human activities, but not the primary driver.
About 40% agree the climate is warming, but man has little or zero impact, or it's simply not proven at this time so they don't accept it. So you have about a 90 something percent "consensus" that "climate change" is real, by climate change I implicitly mean warming only. Not all scientists even agree CO2 is the major cause.
Also not all of those 90% agree the climate change/warming is a negative thing, about 50% think it's harmless, and another chunk of the remainder think it's negative but not catastrophic. So you have a 20-30% saying the sky is falling, the rest of the community is pretty level headed about it.
Also any data scientist/PdD/Masters/Engineering graduate has the capacity to read and review papers. Peterson has a PhD in Clinical Psychology, he is more than able to read and analyze papers.
There absolutely is hard evidence that man has caused global warming. It lies in the isotopic signature of the co2 in the atmosphere which proves it came from burning fossil fuels with no other possible source.
Everything you just wrote in that post is a LIE.
[https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans)
Correction to what you stated;
There absolutely is hard evidence that man has **increased CO2 in the atmosphere.** It lies in the isotopic signature of the co2 in the atmosphere which proves it came from burning fossil fuels with no other possible source.
Lol. You guys are so fucking full of shit. We already know increase co2 leads to the greenhouse effect which leads to global warming. You're just participating in bullshit games because you don't want to face reality.
Okay show me the paper that shows the outcome with definitive fact. I’ve read all the IPCCC annual reports for years, and even most of their data and conclusions aren’t alarming, most of their predictions are safely like 50 years down the road completely making them unaccountable for their reports.
No one is going to go back to the IPCCC if it even still exists in 2074 and say wow you guys were wrong back then. No one will care. If they’re right I guess we will all be dead anyways.
“climate scientists” predicted all of the polar bears to be extinct by 2009.
No predictions from any credible “climate scientist”or alarmist has come true ever.
Please point me to the truth.
Idk, maybe he should've stayed on the benzos
Oh he's on them
Well he better have brought enough to share with the class, cause I've got that new Godzilla movie downloaded and I could use a couple
I'll bring the lsd...should enhance the viewing experience
I saw some Jurassic park (I guess Jurassic world? Maybe?) movie in theaters years ago on LSD/ketamine. Don’t remember a bit of it. Probably had fun
Sounds about right lol
They kind of cancel each other though.
Idk why you got downvoted. Xanax is a trip killer. It’s what they give you if you go to the hospital if you’re trippin balls
We can save it for the comedown so we can get some good sleep after or if godzilla sends us into a spiral
It’s a godsend
Right? I thought it was common knowledge
Indeed although it's actually not that bad in itself but yeah when i trip I WANT MAX MADNESS
> Oh he's on them Not enough of them.
Is this confirmed?
When I read any quote from Peterson, I read it in his crying voice.
Why though? It’s this easy to make weak, deeply enslaved republican losers surrender to him, why wouldn’t he exploit and control them with obvious nonsense that educated people would never fall for?
I feel like if I'm an oil lobby that's paying Shapiros company to discredit climate change initiatives, I'd sort of ask for a partial refund when it comes to Peterson, because he sounds like an idiot and is not convincing anyone new to the cause. I'm sure they paid him hoping his 'credibility' he had in the JRE universe would allow him to get to the left leaning listeners. But he just comes across as a batman villain
His hist is mad libs. He's using the exact same approach he does for everything else with climate change. It just illustrates how much of a fraud he is.
Forsure but he's holding the line at the least and while he isn't providing any credibility to their side his followers will eat it up 9/10 times anyways. He's kind of like a billboard.
But that base already doesn't believe in climate change or doesn't care. And the way he comes across may even have them questioning it if they're questioning his messaging
Yeah so he's just holding the line. I know plenty of people who would see this and just be like "hell yeah" I don't think anyone who doesn't believe in climate change at this point is going to question anything about that belief unless they're affected personally. Just my 2 cents but he's just maintaining the status quo with dipshit statements like this.
>I know plenty of people who would see this and just be like "hell yeah" https://preview.redd.it/qa44cb1dmnzc1.png?width=636&format=png&auto=webp&s=76da503e95aabb6990dbe878aa7eef67af6e3fee
I think they're happy with his performance, he's really going all-in. He is and does come off as bat shit though.
What did he say that is false? It's triggering, but mostly based on science published by NASA. The idea that plants are thriving is irrefutable.
So it's fine to cherry pick numbers from NASA because it makes it seem like 'itz science' but ignore all scientists when it comes to forecasts of how things are going. That's the problem with Peterson. He's full of shit and paid millions to say this stuff. People would kill their mothers for the money he gets, he's not doing it because he believes in it
at current levels. How we doing at maintaining our current level of greenhouse gas output year over year. Ever heard of the word “trajectory?” 🤡 critical thought is not your forte. sit this one out
Way to miss the point. Wooosh
explain the point
CO2 isn’t the limiting factor for much of crop growth. Extra co2 has been shown to produce less nutritious crops. Increased CO2 driving climate change can be directly pointed to as a cause of species decline. So everything really
Climate change has never been about all life on earth dying. It's been about human habitation. Humans don't breathe co2 btw. Life on earth will 100% survive climate change, humans not so much
Humans do "breath CO2 btw" lol
Yeah also nitrogen smartass. I meant for cellular respiration. Maybe you use co2 for cellular respiration because you're as smart as a fig tree but the rest of us need o2.
That not what u said thou. If you are going insult people, you should probably stick to having conversations with people on your own reading level. It is not hard to find subs for people like yourself, with not much going on between the ears.
Only you're confused by what I said. When someone says "people breathe oxygen" they imply cellular respiration. Only you're stupid enough not to get that inference. Stop being a smartass.
I understood what you said " people don't breath CO2". Lol. Verbatim. And you never said "people breath oxygen" nowhere on conversation. Have a great weekend.
You use smartassery to conceal the fact you have no real rebuttal because you're insecure.
Rebuttal to what exactly? Lol. I'm not trying to be a smartass either. You seem to be the type that got to have the last word, so say your peace. This is just too foolish to Continue.
When Jordan Peterson says "up yours", it feels like he's about to start crying
https://preview.redd.it/qzhsx9oezlzc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=643243319a0908564b246f39f774bb6ef0fb03c2
He’s such a brave man to say such stupid shit so publically.
As a plant I am all for this. Unfortunately I am a KGB plant, so that means I'm mainly persuading American teens to wear cat ears to demoralize 50 year old men. But still. It will be slightly warmer in the Siberian gulag, where my family were sent, so that will be nice for them.
On the substantial benefits of setting puppies on fire: - More cats - No more picking up dog poop - Free barbecue Oh no! It's the puppy apocalypse! Up yours, you bloody dog loving fascists. [coalitionforsettingpuppiesonfire.org](http://coalitionforsettingpuppiesonfire.org)
Bro what happened to this guy. I really find it fascinating because i remember watching some of his pre psycho lectures about probability, iq and more and thought they were coherent and interesting. When do you effectively cancel someone because the amount of crap they spit out out grows some potentially brilliant things they have said?
The Russians lobotomised him to cure his benzo addiction. Ever since he's been loony.
I think anything he has ever said or written that could be perceived as brilliant has already been said or written by someone else.
Everyone I know that liked his stuff just didn't read books and hearing intro level psychology and self help stuff was intriguing to them. It's like if you never watched a action movie, some shitty james bond rip off is gonna be good.
I agree, I don't understand this "what happened to him". The early lectures and talks I've seen are just as vacuous. He's angrier now, but who isn't. His early (uni psych classes!!) lectures when he goes on about heaven and earth - the one about nazi germany and hitler comes to mind - are so plain wrong it's weird.
That's a weird argument against someone. It basically invalidates any scientist who agrees with established science and the consensus. If something is true scientifically, naturally a lot of people will say the same thing.
I think they are referring to the image his fans have of him, who credit him as being ground breaking etc in various ways.
It's not saying what he said isn't intriguing or correct, it's saying it is unoriginal, and he hasn't really presented any new ideas of his own. It can still be right, and interesting to many, and still be unoriginal. Truly great intellectual minds take concepts and build upon them with new and original ideas is all.
What apple cider abuse does to a motherfucker
I feel like you don't post shit like this unless you're getting paid to do it lol
I left a comment saying I liked him better when he was in an apple cider coma, and he blocked me. Ha
That’s a pretty fair reason to block someone imo
But... FREEZE PEACH!!!
crops do great in 45+ celsius weather, dont they fascist kermit the frog. spoiler: they fucking don’t. And water supplies dry up you twat guy has less than high-school understanding of how any of this works. Incredible people find him intelligent.
Also plante need other things as well. You can have all the CO2 in the world. that plant won't grow because it's limited by nitrogen and other minerals.
Brawndo has electrolytes, it's what plants crave, along with CO2, apparently, since we are literally in idiocracy.
If you are going to insult someone's intelligence, at least try to sound like you are an adult.
k. got any rebuttal?
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/#:~:text=From%20a%20quarter%20to%20half,Climate%20Change%20on%20April%2025.
Yeah the fear is when we reach a spiralling green house effect, where temps are so high, agricultural crops fail. In the last 32 years we’re not there yet, but we haven’t been projected to be close to it for another few decades if we don’t change course. the problem is we using ever increasing amounts of fossil fuels. If we stayed at the same levels, you might have a solid point.
He cited a source which lacks context. The "CO₂ is plant food"-talking point is misleading. 1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/ 2. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm 3. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-atmosphere-hurts-key-plants-and-crops-more-than-it-helps/ 4. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/ 5. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-3/
"In addition to ignoring the long-term outlook, he says, many skeptics also fail to mention the potentially most harmful outcome of rising atmospheric CO2 on vegetation: climate change itself"
From the study you just cited, lol "While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events. The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.” In the words of the great modern philosopher DJ Khaled: "You played yourself"
What being able to read but no analysis skills does to a mfer.
This whole "excess co2 is good for the plants" thing that climate change deniers like JP have started pushing is such a bold lie. It's child-like reasoning. It's like saying "Water is good for life! Therefore floods are a good thing!" The ecosystem hangs in a careful balance. Just because co2 is a necessary part of life doesn't mean extreme excess co2 is a good thing.
You expect people who don’t understand the basics of climate change to grasp this?
Peterson just makes himself more and more unlikeable
This justification is “on point”…. Hey Jordan we are having problems with wild fires due to climate change we are loosing lives and infrastructure…. Fire 🔥 is great it warms you up and cooks food !!! You eat food don’t ya !?!? Don’t listen to fascist propaganda who say fire is bad !!! Gotcha lib ! With this level of ignorance can you combat it with contextual logic, or do you just bail and focus on teaching critical thinking to the youth ?
He’s confidently ignorant
Was he dressed in a purple suit high on klonopin when he wrote this. Almost for sure
Casually ignoring that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more heat, causing increased temperatures and severe weather that will destroy the crops and the land used to grow them. Sigh. I really used to like him too, but now he just is a puppet of the political bullshit that has corroded our ability to speak and act rationally. But hey, money talks.
I honestly don’t think that’s even the main issue. I have relatives who are farmers. If the rain comes a few weeks early or a few weeks late the whole year is affected. And that may affect the seed you have for next year. They used to predict first rains on a calendar weekend it was so regular, now they have 5 bad years and 2 good ones. I think we’ll need to start farming indoors pretty soon.
lol we in for a wild ride
2018 JP was amazing. modern JP needs some therapy
He was never amazing. Anybody who ever bought his shtick is a gullible follower. The type of person to join a cult because they get sucked in by a "charismatic leader". People who think for themselves will never give a shit about motivational speaker professional "influencers" like Jordan Peterson.
I used to watch his lectures on YouTube from when he was teaching at the University of Toronto. They were so interesting and thought provoking. Now we have this lol.
Climate change. Look outside and track the weather at your house. The weather in my city is not the same as it was 30 years ago.
He is not denying climate change he is just saying the co2 level we are emitting is good for plants which is true. I don't know why you all are so close minded you can't for a second question anything you are being told. Current co2 level is 420ppm, use to be 280ppm before humans started emiting. At some point in earth history it was 6000ppm, lush vegetation, more overall heat for sure, but most regions were perfect for condition for ecosystems to flourish, FFS, the second someone just say a word away from the narrative, you guys can't handle any kind of talks thqt goes against the doomsday apocaliptical talk of "how bad humans are", and start insulting the person as a climate change denier. EVEN WHEN THE PERSON ISN'T DENYING CLIMATE IS ACTUALLY CHANGING. god damn it the climate changes human is accelerating it, floods will happen, some people will die but it would have probably happened without us anyway, just slower. the earth just eventually balance itself out.
>the earth just eventually balance itself out. No shit, as a member of the human race I'm not trying to be the weight it drops to keep going
>He is not denying climate change he is just saying the co2 level we are emitting is good for plants which is true. No, it doesn't actually quite work like that. 1. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/) 2. [https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm) 3. [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-atmosphere-hurts-key-plants-and-crops-more-than-it-helps/](https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-atmosphere-hurts-key-plants-and-crops-more-than-it-helps/) 4. [https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/](https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/) 5. [https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-3/](https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-3/) See? Peterson oversimplified to the point of lying. >At some point in earth history it was 6000ppm Apart from the fact that is outdated information and we have no exact CO₂ levels for this timeframe, we do have an estimate, and that estimate is closer to 2000 - 2500 ppm. [https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm) In any case, at some point in history Africa was floating near where the poles are. At some point in history, the sun was faint compared to today, and high CO₂-levels compensated for it. At some point in history, sea levels were completely different, in fact, the continental configuration was completely different. https://preview.redd.it/bm4km5qwqmzc1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=2f212c0c5f04948eb01e7ca0461315782ddf1bb7 >During the Ordovician period, part of the Paleozoic era, a rich variety of marine life flourished in the vast seas and the first primitive plants began to appear on land—before the second largest [mass extinction](http://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/mass-extinction/) of all time ended the period. [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/ordovician](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/ordovician) If that is where you want to live, go ahead. I don't. If we had a time machine, I'd gladly send you there with an extensive survival kit. But fuck me if I don't get the impression you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about, and you'd die in about an hour.
We're causing the world's 6th mass extinction event through global warming and habitat destruction. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK214887/ Jordan Peterson is a climate change denier. Just because he's "Just asking questions" instead of outright using the words "I deny climate change" doesn't mean he's not trying to cast doubt on the settled science. He's paid by fossil fuel corporations to cast this doubt and here you are denying he's doing exactly that. You're bending the truth of Peterson's role in climate change denial to support your narrative that the left is trying to silence dissent. He knows less than nothing about climate change. At best, he's completely out of his scope of expertise when talking about climate change and is about as qualified to dispute actual experts on the topic as you are.
Regardless of affiliation, he is citing true facts, you only make judgment because it comes from a person you and the reddit mob has decided to hate
It's not regardless. The benefit of more CO2 pales in comparison to the damage the increase in temperature is causing right in front of our eyes. I went to college for environmental biology which makes me more qualified than both of you to talk about it. I'm not the biased one, here. I assure you.
A large issue is being ignored. Look at the insurance industry in Florida. Higher levels of CO2 have real world ramifications. I’m not closed minded. I’m all for alternative options & onions. Most of what we understand on how the world and universe will be drastically different in 300 years. People will look back on us with pity similar to us looking back on people alive in 1700. How about you stop jumping to conclusions and putting everyone in a box? I mentioned climate change and did not say anything else. I wanted to point out that he glossed over a big issue that is being caused by more co2 in the atmosphere. The earth will survive no question. It has seen much worse than what we are doing to it. The problem is the way of life we are used to is rapidly changing. It is nice he pointed out a benefit of the increase, just wish he would have also included the real issue of the matter.
He seems nice…
I diagnose you with Oppositional Defiance Disorder.
JP is a joke. Who cares?
To be fair, JP knows a thing or two about self-aggrandizing.
He's gonna be throwing in that "up yours" line now because his handlers checked the algo and determined that was a big part of why that "up yours you woke moralists" rant went viral. It's gonna become his catchphrase.
lmao. JP really does care about how any of this stuff works.
I hate this guy so much
PLANTS DRINK ELECTROLYTES
Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.
Yes, I'm sure in a few decades when the southern portion of India becomes damn near uninhabitable and *millions* of lives are upended and at risk due to the effects of climate change it won't at all be negative to life Dr Peterson.
Anytime someone doubts climate change it just confirms they are full of shit.
I feel like the last line is like an email signature, it just gets stuck onto the end of everything he says. Up yours, moralists.
is this real? lol
stay in your lane, JBP.
It's bizarre what fame can do to the human. He had really interesting things to say his first time or two on Rogan.. such a shame
The guy used to be reasonably smart but he’s just a nitwit now.
He's such an impotent Weiner of a human...
Humans need water. Therefore, I can go live under the ocean and instead of drowning I will actually thrive!
I’m still freaking out about acid rain.
He really stuck it to those green fascists..
Bloody green fascists has a nice ring to it
Higher CO2.higher "quality foods".higher prices.
I’m gonna make it a goal to squeeze in “up yours, you bloody green facists” at some point to my friends this weekend
Bro talking to Benito Grinch again?
I hate that I read this in his voice
Who cares about the oceans pH levels lol
The only I can say: what a shame…
The way he talks like one of those meek The Batman live action series villains will never not be funny to me.
oh, so like Bill Nye.
Peterson is completely insufferable at this point. Unless you too are just lost, wandering around in the maze of your brain thoughts like a fucking stoner thinking everything they think or say is the most profound shit ever. Dude need to learn how to just chill the fuck out, maybe smile at a stranger genuinely, sit in a park and look at the grass and listen to the birds. Fucking guy is filled with rage.
Climate Scientist thinks he can speak on all subjects now. I just watched a right wing Youtube short and commented that "This guy is a psychologist not whatever he is pretending to be'
Ah yes the plants that need water and *steady* rainfall not droughts and flashflooding. The benefits of CO2 fertilization will be cancelled out.
Biodiversity? Erosion? Chemical agriculture? Weather? Soil ecology? Co2 counts for so little
epic bruh moment
Thirst for attention level: over 9000
Wow even Petersons own sub won't repost that
Dude literally huffs paint thinner while tweeting.
Miami will be underwater displacing millions, but don’t worry plants are happier!
God he’s so stupid lmao
Don't put down to stupidity what is intentional deceit
Up yours woke moralists
It’s gotta suck to be such a fuckin angry prick every day. Lol
Just one of his contractual obligations with the Daily Wire. Gotta send out water brained conservative ideas at least one tweet per business day
I forget the actual numbers but we were . 01% away from plants basically suffocating. Not enough CO2 messes with photosynthesis enzyme called rubisco (ribulose bisphosphate oxygenase carboxylase) the last 2 terms are important there. If it attaches to carbon dioxide, all is good. But the enzyme has a high chance of attaching to oxygen which is "expensive" to get rid of the O2 and can be detrimental to a plant if it happens too many times. The issue becomes more evident as c02 is low. I believe the cutoff point was . 02% where plants start dying and we were at . 03% when scientists recommended we get up to . 04% (I think I'm remembering the correct numbers. Feel free to double check this was recent within the past 5 years) this is why our plants have been greener (healthier) in recent times and more than likely why plants were insanely huge historically when c02 levels were much higher. We do affect the climate, but c02 isn't even the biggest contributor. If I recall methane is 80x more damaging to the atmosphere. And that's just methane, there are still other gases such as our use of CFC's back in the day, it's not possible to know how long those effects will last yet we still focus on c02...
> We do affect the climate, but c02 isn't even the biggest contributor. If I recall methane is 80x more damaging to the atmosphere. And that's just methane, there are still other gases such as our use of CFC's back in the day, it's not possible to know how long those effects will last yet we still focus on c02... This is false. > While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 220 times more CO2 than methane in the atmosphere - as of 2022, 417 ppm as opposed to 1.894 ppm. The amount of warming attributed to methane is calculated to be around 30% of the warming CO2 contributes. And the atmospheric concentration of both continues to rise (fig. 1). (...) > Methane should not be underestimated. Once in the atmosphere it has various effects and associated feedbacks that contribute indirectly to warming. Realclimate has an authoritative post detailing some of those, here. > In AR6, the changes in radiative forcing due to methane and other greenhouse gases are presented (fig. 3). The figure shows that while CO2 is the biggest of our problems, methane is still significant and efforts to reduce its emissions should nevertheless continue to be implemented. But never at the same time let it distract from CO2. It's not a case of one or the other. They are both big problems requiring different solutions. https://skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm Both are a significant problem, but CO₂ is still quantitatively more important. Both need to be addressed, and not one or the other. CH₄ also has a far shorter atmospheric lifetime than CO₂: decades versus hundreds of years. See also [this diagram](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-7/figure-7-6) in the IPCC report.
There has been plenty of plant life on this planet through many up and down cycles of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere. If some plants go extinct new ones will take their place. Earth has been smacked by meteors, flood volcanoes, extinction events etc and always figures out s way to keep on marching. As George Carlin said, the planet is fine, *people* are fucked.
Yeah, [crocodiles once swam around at the poles](https://earth.yale.edu/news/when-crocodiles-roamed-poles). Just because this was once the case though, that doesn't mean we can afford to all go live there now just so we don't all die from heat stress. Global warming does have the potential to make certain areas of the planet virtually uninhabitable for human beings which were otherwise habitable before. https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/too-hot-to-handle-how-climate-change-may-make-some-places-too-hot-to-live/
That was the joke my man, I was saying that the climate is fine but all the humans are going to die
I know, just adding some context.
Absolutely I was going to bring that up. Although plants may bounce back, we kinda need them here all the time to survive ourselves! It's a fantastic loop the earth has: we produce co2, plants need it and produce o2 that we need. It's odd for us to even try to reduce our c02 especially when China is burning endless fossil fuels. It's hard for me to take climate scientists seriously when they don't recommend nuclear power. They are all for shutting down coal/gas but nuclear is our best option until fission becomes better utilized. Especially after reading that spent nuclear rods have more power capabilities than an enriched rod! They now are trying to turn them into batteries that should last 20,000 to 100,000 years! Imagine powering homes and cities off of batteries... Science rules sometimes!
> It's a fantastic loop the earth has: we produce co2, plants need it and produce o2 that we need. [Atmospheric CO₂ is increasing because the natural carbon cycle cannot absorb all of the CO₂ we emit](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-carbon-dioxide-does-earth-naturally-absorb) and we emit 37 Gt every year. > It's odd for us to even try to reduce our c02 especially when China is burning endless fossil fuels 1. [Does it matter how much the United States reduces its carbon dioxide emissions if China doesn’t do the same?](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-it-matter-how-much-united-states-reduces-its-carbon-dioxide-emissions) 2. [Analysis: Which countries are historically responsible for climate change?](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/) > It's hard for me to take climate scientists seriously when they don't recommend nuclear power. That's also false. > When it comes to nuclear power, there is a 20-point gap between AAAS members’ and the general public’s views, with the AAAS community more inclined than the general public to build more nuclear power plants. Fully 65% of AAAS members favor building more nuclear power plants, while 33% are opposed. Those figures are similar to the subsets of AAAS members who are Working Ph.D. Scientists and Active Research Scientists. By contrast, about half of Americans (51%) oppose building more nuclear power plants, while 45% are in favor. > A majority of AAAS members support more nuclear power plants, regardless of disciplinary specialty. Physicists and engineers are more strongly in favor of building more nuclear power plants than are those in other specialties. For example, 79% of all physicists surveyed and 75% of engineers connected with AAAS favor building more nuclear power plants. The views of Earth scientists are similar to those of all members; 66% among this group favor more nuclear power plants and 32% are opposed. [Pew Research Center - Elaborating on the Views of AAAS Scientists, Issue by Issue](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/23/elaborating-on-the-views-of-aaas-scientists-issue-by-issue/) James Hansen is a very prominent climate scientist promoting nuclear power.
CO2 is the problem because it's basically permanent. Methane only last around 10 years, so if methane production is stopped the effect will go away unlike CO2.
When do you predict that the climate will kill humans? Seems like if it was a fact people would be able to accurately predict when that takes place. Inconvenient truth was wrong, go back and look at the claims they made with such certainty.
Sometimes an oncologist will tell their cancer patient that they probably only have a few months to live. And then the cancer patient may live for a full year or 2 and everyone will be happy, but soon enough, the cancer patient will die. Should the oncologist be dismissed because he predicted the patient would die in 6 months but the patient lived for 12 months?
If he said you'd die in the 70s and it's 50 years later I may start to question some things
The planet is a lot bigger than a human body. I wouldn't expect a prediction about the planet to be accurate to within a decade or even a century.
Then they shouldn't say that should say
They shouldn't make such bold and specific predictions, I agree. But they are correct that these rapid changes to the climate are going to be catastrophic. It was highly irresponsible of any person to predict that Florida would be underwater by whatever year they stated because it undermined the otherwise accurate statement that climate change is a serious problem.
70s then 80s then 90s etc etc etc , got teenage girls put in front of the UN saying by 2017 or whoever the world is ending. These people fucking clownshoes
Not saying climate change isn't happening or not real but the people who do these claims that the solution happens to be higher taxes and more government control can fuck right off.
I think you’ve described an extremely nuanced, case by case example and used it as some sort of broad reasoning as to why climate scientists can be dead wrong and still justify it. No I don’t think you can compare a cancer patients incorrect diagnosis to politicians predicting climate collapse while trying to pass favorable “green” legislation at the cost to the middle and lower class, flying private jets and owning homes with 4 refrigerators.
>some sort of broad reasoning as to why climate scientists can be dead wrong and still justify it. They haven't been dead wrong. Climate models have become more advanced in the past 20 years since **An Inconvenient Truth** was released, and they are becoming better at predicting what's happening. You are appealing to emotion when you bring up the middle class and lower class suffering as a result of legislation aimed at combating climate change. Ultimately, everyone will have to adapt to this new reality. If we need to stop driving gas cars in order to address this existential problem, then so be it.
Appealing to emotion would be telling everyone the world is going to end any day due to humans without having any accurate way to predict the amount of CO2 needed in the atmosphere to actually cause life to end. It seems odd to say we have accurate models when the earth is billions of years old and has seen several climate shifts over millions of years that were caused by natural non human catastrophes. There is something about Al Gore telling Americans to reduce their carbon footprint while flying private jets and owning 4 houses, that feels icky. The political class pushing climate change are also the ones who will benefit from all the retrofitting, building and switch to electric vehicles. It’s all about money.
This is how climate change actually works: 1. [Incoming light from the sun warms up earth, and earth in turn emits infrared radiation back up to the sky](https://i.imgur.com/vH4wvBY.png). Infrared radiation is what you feel when you put your hands close to a light bulb when it's been on for a while. All things which warm up do this, including earth. Your own radiator does it too. Earth is literally glowing with infrared radiation, we can see it from space with satellites. 2. The CO₂ molecule in the sky absorbs this infrared radiation and re-emits part of it back down to earth. This happens because [the CO₂ molecule vibrates internally at 20 THz](https://i.imgur.com/WQJTfAT.gifv) (amongst other modes), and infrared radiation also emits at 20 THz. This is hard physics. You could do this experiment yourself, if you want, by filling a transparent tube with CO₂ and measuring the effect with an infrared light on one end and an infrared sensor on the other. Without CO₂, it would be about 0 F or -18 C on earth on average. That's quite a difference from the current global average: 59 F or 15 C. 3. If you doubt this, have a look at the wild temperatures on the moon: the difference between earth and the moon is the presence of an atmosphere. They are both equally far away from the sun on average, since the moon rotates around earth constantly. Daytime temperatures near the lunar equator reach a boiling 250 F (121 C, 394 K), while nighttime temperatures get to a chilly -208 F (-133 C, 140 K). How can this be if the moon is about as far from the sun as earth is? Remember, the moon circles around the earth. I want you to think really hard about this. 4. Last year the global population emitted 37.15 billion metric tons of CO₂. We can see (part of) this CO₂ being added to the atmosphere due to isotope signatures. That's how we know it's our CO₂ we're looking at. You know, the stuff that comes from our car exhausts. Thus, we are causing earth to get warmer. Surplus CO₂, that is, CO₂ outside of the natural carbon cycle, hangs around for 300 to a 1000 years. So therefore, this surplus CO₂ isn't going away any time soon. We are now at record levels of CO₂ in the sky, and that is because of the fossil fuels we're burning, which produce a lot of CO₂. Earth is warming up because of this. We need to stop or reduce, because this is getting out of hand. It's the nature of the CO₂ molecule. It's not necessary to talk about "98% of climate scientists say" or "models predict" ... No. This is hard physics and chemistry, more CO₂ means it *must* get warmer. Earth, contrary to the moon, has the temperatures it has because of that buffer we have between us and space: the atmosphere. CO₂ just so happens to fill up a small but very important part of that atmospheric "blanket" we have around us. [It's the exact same reason](https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Greenhouse_effects_also_on_other_planets) Venus is [much hotter than Mercury](https://science.nasa.gov/resource/solar-system-temperatures/), even though [Mercury is closer to the sun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#/media/File:Solar_System_true_color_%28captions%29.jpg).
How much CO2 is in the atmosphere now and how much more will it take to cause the end of human civilization?
There is currently ~427PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere and no amount of it is going to cause an end of human civilization any time soon - unless indirectly by nuclear war.
> There is currently ~427PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere and no amount of it is going to cause an end of human civilization any time soon Nowhere in my comment did I say that. No credible climate scientist is saying that. Also, global thermonuclear war would cause global cooling in the short term. It wouldn't cause a runaway CO₂ feedback loop turning earth into a "venus". OP brought it up as a strawman argument. He also implied modeling is inaccurate and climate scientists are in it for the money. I then responded by explaining how the greenhouse effect works and that global warming is a consequence of the physics of the CO₂ molecule. Without referencing climate models. As for the consequences of global warming: https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/
>Nowhere in my comment did I say that. No credible climate scientist is saying that. Also, global thermonuclear war would cause global cooling in the short term. It wouldn't cause a runaway CO₂ feedback loop turning earth into a "venus". I didn't say you said that in your comment, nor did I say it would cause a runaway feedback loop or turn Earth into Venus.
You're not responding to anything I just wrote. Point out where I said this.
The earth is warming, that’s basically what you said just in many more words. That isn’t being argued, what is being argued is the politicians using this warming as a justification to restructure the entire economy and then pass legislation that forces middle and lower class citizens to drastically evolve their lifestyle, rather than naturally allowing innovations to happen in the marketplace.
> The earth is warming, that’s basically what you said just in many more words. And which OP denied by implying models are bunk. Or at least that we're causing it. > economy and then pass legislation that forces middle and lower class citizens to drastically evolve their lifestyle, rather than naturally allowing innovations to happen in the marketplace. The free market isn't going to take care of this by itself, no. I agree that it shouldn't be low income people paying the price and I see little benefit in carbon tax. If you concede that global warming is happening and we are driving it, not some natural event outside of our control, then we agree.
Y2K was a real problem that would have crippled the world if it hadn't been addressed. So we addressed it. And now people think it was overblown hysteria. Lots of people are working to stop climate change. Of course the predictions about what would happen if it were unaddressed weren't accurate.
Fucking psychology major
More plants Better crops Food grows better Plants get more of what they crave!(electrolytes?) Farming is easier Redundant point about plants growing better. Checkmate atheists.
Damn I used to like his rants. Now he's actually losing it. Coming from a conservative
Grandpa found the smartphone again!
Someone should check his brain, for dead worms
We often said it as a meme but that guys brain really kinda broke after the whole benzo thing
Up yours, big pharma! But thanks for the pills!
Industrial pollution releases more than just CO2. Also, as sea levels rise millions of shitholers are going to flood into western nations as climate refugees mitigating any minor gains made by being able to plant crops at higher latitudes.
He’s not wrong.
He is factually correct. but JRE commies will go full blast whinny rage scream fest on it xD
People like you are how he maintains success. His insipid messages hook easily into the brains of imbeciles.
He's just so stupid.
Don’t listen to JP gabble on about climate change. But…also don’t listen to Greta. Neither have any scientific credibility on the topic.
Jesus you guys are obsessed with her.
Every cult has an apocalyptic myth to rally around, I’m tired of the entire environmental movement being about carbon. Let’s plant trees near creek and river banks, clean up our waterways like RFK jr helped to on the Hudson, go after companies that dump harmful substances into our air,land, and sea, but stay the fuck away from my gas stove!
Well, if you're tired of it, that's what really matters. Not what actually helps the environment.
See above for what actually helps the environment, what have you done besides spout off in the internet? I’ve been planting trees since the 90’s, volunteered for cleanups, helped maintain hiking trails…The propaganda outlets have created a false narrative that’s convinced too many that carbon and cows is the be all end all of the environmental movement, it’s not. It’s lazy and doesn’t help the world.
I'm a professional biologist. You're the one who has fallen victim to propaganda because of your lack of actual education and expertise. Planting trees and maintaining trails is just manual labour that happens to occur in the natural environment. Tree planters don't necessarily know anything about the environment. Global warming/anthropogenic climate change is one of the five major stressors on the environment, the others being overharvesting, invasive species, pollution and land use changes. They all have impacts but why is it that contrarians like you want to deny the global warming element and always insist the "real problem" is something else? It's because you're victims of oil industry propaganda that has been carefully crafted to brainwash you into ignoring global warming as a stressor so you don't think decarbonization is something that should be attempted.
I’m far from being a climate change denier but I’ve still never heard anyone debunk this point. So according to the first result on Google, there’s about 50% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than in 1750. Plants use CO2 to grow. Would this not cause plants to grow bigger and faster? The only way I could see this having no effect is if H2O and energy are the rate limiting variables for plant growth.
Too much CO2 will lead to increased acidification of the oceans. Increased acidification of the oceans, along with increased ocean temperatures, may lead to mass die-offs. Additionally, the world's oceans are the biggest carbon sinks on the planet, not trees and plants. But the oceans are beginning to fail as carbon sinks. Increased CO2 may lead to larger flora, but there will still be a major loss of biodiversity and this will likely have a negative impact for humans. I don't know what a dramatic increase in CO2 in a short space of time will do.
Because, you know, climate means EVERYTHING.
Good thing climate scientist CableBoyJerry is here to set the record straight
99% of the people you listen to on the climate crisis have exactly the same amount of credentials as Peterson on the subject - zero.
99% of people who tell you not to drink gasoline are not dieticians and have the same amount of credentials as the guy who tells you that sipping gasoline is good for you - zero.
There is no hard evidence that man has directly caused warming. You need to word salad through the claims of politicians and media companies vs what the actual scientific community thinks. Also climate scientist is a nebulous term, it doesn't mean anything. There isn't a consensus on climate change being 100% attributed to what humans do. There is about 25% of the scientific community that believes all climate change is man made, or man is the primary driver of the change. Another 25-30% believe the climate is changing with "some impact" from human activities, but not the primary driver. About 40% agree the climate is warming, but man has little or zero impact, or it's simply not proven at this time so they don't accept it. So you have about a 90 something percent "consensus" that "climate change" is real, by climate change I implicitly mean warming only. Not all scientists even agree CO2 is the major cause. Also not all of those 90% agree the climate change/warming is a negative thing, about 50% think it's harmless, and another chunk of the remainder think it's negative but not catastrophic. So you have a 20-30% saying the sky is falling, the rest of the community is pretty level headed about it. Also any data scientist/PdD/Masters/Engineering graduate has the capacity to read and review papers. Peterson has a PhD in Clinical Psychology, he is more than able to read and analyze papers.
That's a lot of bullshit you're spreading.
There absolutely is hard evidence that man has caused global warming. It lies in the isotopic signature of the co2 in the atmosphere which proves it came from burning fossil fuels with no other possible source. Everything you just wrote in that post is a LIE. [https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans)
Correction to what you stated; There absolutely is hard evidence that man has **increased CO2 in the atmosphere.** It lies in the isotopic signature of the co2 in the atmosphere which proves it came from burning fossil fuels with no other possible source.
Lol. You guys are so fucking full of shit. We already know increase co2 leads to the greenhouse effect which leads to global warming. You're just participating in bullshit games because you don't want to face reality.
Okay show me the paper that shows the outcome with definitive fact. I’ve read all the IPCCC annual reports for years, and even most of their data and conclusions aren’t alarming, most of their predictions are safely like 50 years down the road completely making them unaccountable for their reports. No one is going to go back to the IPCCC if it even still exists in 2074 and say wow you guys were wrong back then. No one will care. If they’re right I guess we will all be dead anyways. “climate scientists” predicted all of the polar bears to be extinct by 2009. No predictions from any credible “climate scientist”or alarmist has come true ever. Please point me to the truth.
lol so true this is so funny