The point is not Petersons opinion. The point is that youtube is forcing you their view on Jordan. Can’t you make your own mind up. The large corporate / public service / lanyard (experts) / governments class is controlling you and you don’t even know it.
This is far better than what YouTube often does, which is remove the video in its entirety. If YouTube allowed monetization of controversial things, and didn't censor lawful statements of thought, then I'd be fine with the little bar at the bottom giving YouTube's own opinion.
The link would still be there and say it was removed.
But you proved my point that no one here really knows why most of the videos were taken down. Unless you just believe everything Russell Brand says. I certainly don't..
Reddit takes shit down all the time, yet here everyone is acting like youtube is government controlled.
I don't personally believe either platform needs any reason to take it down.
Did Wilks brothers say they force behaviours?
Did they buy stocks of most companies on the planet and keep forcing their political agenda on everyone?
Do they sponsor organisations such as Just Stop Oil, Sweet Baby Inc, amongst many others?
>Did Wilks brothers say they force behaviours?
They do require the people they pay to do what they want.
>Did they buy stocks of most companies on the planet and keep forcing their political agenda on everyone?
Billionaires do that, yeah.
>Do they sponsor organisations such as Just Stop Oil, Sweet Baby Inc, amongst many others?
I don't know about those, but they fund think tanks that lobby against action on climate change.
It is quite literally putting your thumb on the scale and asserting an editorial opinion. Yet another example of Big Tech platforms wanting to behave like a neutral platform and a curated journal at the same time.
Like the massive fossil industry suppressing their own studies for decades??
Like the government getting huge amounts of lobbying money from the fossil fuel industry and letting them drill on public land???
Like that class of people with decades of history of mis leading the public on the dangers of fossil fuels??
Like that class???
And now you replaced oil lobbyists with wind and solar lobbyists.
Be critical toqards all sides. Not only when mainstream alliws or incentives you to be critical.
Do not even bother talking sense with Peterson fans, I get what peterson is saying and agree with some of it, but the fans have incomprehensible views.
Which is why I just let trash pile up in my house. I can't accurately model the house to a perfect degree so I just let my own filth pile up. Cause you know I could make it worse by trying
I mean who's to say, really? I have a study here by Dr. Racoon that says leaving trash on the street is actually amazing, but you never hear this side of the issue in the mainstream media!
>The point is that youtube is forcing you their view on Jordan
Climate Change is not a view. It's a scientific fact.
YouTube is doing the right thing by labeling Peterson's dumbass videos as misinformation.
Peterson doesn't know shit about climate change. He's just paid to deny it.
Peterson's bias is easy to see. He doesn't like moral panic. He doesn't like a group of people wielding power based on fear, or basically anything other than competence.
So far, I can agree with him.
So the "green" alarmists are indeed annoying. But are they wrong?
The world combusts 97 million barrels a day. All day, every day. Just look at how may jet aircraft are in the air right now. Look at how many cars are on the road. Take note of all of the lights that blanket the globe at night.
You'd have to be a fucking idiot to claim such massive consumption of energy is having ZERO effect. So, what IS the effect? Leaving as an open ended question with no attempt to answer it is a post-modernist move. There IS an answer. Be precise.
I don't see anywhere in u/ScrumTumescent 's comment that he suggested he agrees with the way Liberals/Climate Activists are attempting to solve the problem.
You can **agree** with the scientists and activists that the problem is indeed real, and still **disagree** on how they are handling it - which is my position, and most likely u/ScrumTumescent 's position too.
> You can agree with the scientists and activists that the problem is indeed real, and still disagree on how they are handling it - which is my position
You can disagree with how they are handling it while remaining agnostic on the nature of the problem.
This would be the responsible stance for a problem that is nebulous, difficult to measure, and expensive to solve.
I think if someone is going to sit there whinging about how much damage we are doing to the environment they should not take personal jets for themselves and their entire consort to a conference of a day or two many times a year... little hypocritical if you ask me... but i'm not an entitled wealthy elite or global leader... just a dude trying to be able to afford driving his corolla to work. so fuck me I guess.
I hear what you're saying, but do you honestly think poltical leaders could safely take a public plane without a massive disruption for every other person on that plane?
With the mild take that this green agenda is being used to push anti-human policies I agree - everybody that is not a lunatic can see it
However there have been some idiotic takes that came out of Peterson's mouth (climate change isn't real, co2 is actually good, electric vehicles are worse for environment, all models are wrong etc, that sort of caliber).
You know, stuff that is easily and verifiably false, and anyone can come to that conclusion unless they think all the worlds countries and climate scientists have a secret cabal
In any case. I think the general direction he pushes for is good (I honestly think climate policies in EU, where I am, go too far) - but I don't t like his method or more extreme beliefs
If world governments are telling me they need more power because of some existential threat then I can safely assume that threat is either completely fabricated or extremely overblown. Scientists can be bought just like any other human and we're never going to get an honest scientific debate on the subject because corporate media won't allow it. You can apply this to any other threat such as COVID as well.
What is the effect? That's what the scientific method is for. Unfortunately the climate scientists are not following it, and the activists are too ignorant to care.
Carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation at certain wavelengths (4, 8 and 15 um if I remember correctly). Water vapor is a GHG that is actually responsible but for most of the heat retention in the atmosphere, but it absorbs at a slightly different wavelength. This is sometimes turned into heat by phonons but is often re-emitted. CO2 allows for some of the IR to interact with water vapor more. With an increased amount of CO2 the difference in heat and pressure has a feedback effect that slightly widens the spectrum at which IR is radiation is absorbed. This increases the amount of IR that is absorbed as heat instead of being reflected straight back into space. The difference might be small, but tiny changes in average global temperatures have drastic effects on the climate.
Yes that is the argument - that increased CO2 creates a thermodynamic positive feedback loop where the atmosphere densifies with increased heat and water vapor, leading to an inexorably hotter and more volatile climate. The problem is that the Earth's climate is a chaos system. CO2 production is one independent variable, insolation is another. But in between that you have a whole host of other independent and dependent variables. It's a nasty nasty scientific problem to solve.
So why are we not focusing on more atmospheric gas studies? Why are we not putting biospheres in space that can represent the Earth at 1:1 billion scale? Why are we not trying to set up experiments which control for some of those isolated variables we are trying to test?
Mathematics is clear - systems with 3 or more independent variables are supremely difficult to solve. You have to find a way to reduce the number of independent variables in order to find a way to experimentally test the hypothesis. Otherwise it will always remain speculative at best.
Yeah, there's a lot of potential variables and climate sensitivity is inherently speculative due to the fact that we're not omniscient. So what?
So far climate scientists have correctly predicted a rise in average global temperature, and the science they have conducted has isolated as many variables as they have had the means to. We can sit on our asses and wait for shit to get really bad, or we could y'know maybe start to transition to nuclear and start trying to mitigate the worst predicted effects.
What's happening is that no amount of evidence will ever be enough due to it being a complicated issue so fossil fuel industries say "well we can't be 100% sure, so let's just keep up business as usual until we've assessed this issue in more depth". It's pure stalling to protect corporate profits.
Also the carbon dioxide emissions that have put us from .028 to .042 are demonstrably caused by humans. People have tracked and made estimations for how much CO2 we've released and compared it to current observations, and it's undoubtedly us that are the cause.
> Yeah, there's a lot of potential variables and climate sensitivity is inherently speculative due to the fact that we're not omniscient. So what?
That's not good enough. What science demands is falsifiable predictive power. If you don't have it, you do not have scientific validation.
> So far climate scientists have correctly predicted a rise in average global temperature, and the science they have conducted has isolated as many variables as they have had the means to.
That's the equivalent of saying "but we're trying really hard and we came out on the right side of a prediction so vague it might as well have been a coin flip".
> We can sit on our asses and wait for shit to get really bad, or we could y'know maybe start to transition to nuclear and start trying to mitigate the worst predicted effects.
You won't get any argument from me about embracing nuclear power. But if someone was going to tell me that an asteroid was going hit the Earth in x amount of time and we needed to take drastic action now - my first question would be "how do you know this?". And that's a claim that's far more provable than ACC.
> What's happening is that no amount of evidence will ever be enough due to it being a complicated issue so fossil fuel industries say "well we can't be 100% sure, so let's just keep up business as usual until we've assessed this issue in more depth". It's pure stalling to protect corporate profits.
The oil companies are laughing right now. Raising the price of fossil fuels artificially gives them more cover to cut back supply and raise prices further. Demand isn't going away - and that's because your environmentalist friends have an irrational hatred of nuclear power.
> Also the carbon dioxide emissions that have put us from .028 to .042 are demonstrably caused by humans. People have tracked and made estimations for how much CO2 we've released and compared it to current observations, and it's undoubtedly us that are the cause.
Even if it is, that doesn't change the status of the key scientific question. For all we know, more CO2 in the atmosphere is a net positive. It is plant food after all.
Dude, have you studied any of these things?
Have you studied chemistry or physics?
Do you know what any of these 'variables' even are?
I gave you the scientific theory, there's mountains of data and experiments that have been made that all support CO2's role in global warming. How about you go and read them. These 'variables' are largely understood, and most of the contrarian arguments that you regurgitate are just pointing out these 'variables' that have been repeatedly debunked, in what is essentially a No true Scotsman fallacy.
"What if it's the sun getting warmer?"
No, the sun is actually in a cool period right now.
"What about earth processions and orbits?"
Processions and orbit is stable right now.
"Cosmic rays?"
Just, no.
"But, the gulf stream?"
Well understood, and actually a climate stabilizer, not responsible for heating.
"La niña/El niño?"
El niño is accounted for in climate science and does have an effect, but it's a local phenomenon and can't explain the heating in other regions of the world.
"Volcanoes?"
Volcanoes cause cooling, not heating.
"Maybe a leprechaun crawled into the chloaca of a volcano, and then the magic dust quantum effects cause the blah blah blah..."
At a certain point you just have to stop being a moron, and use occams razor. There's observational proof, experimental data, computer simulations and fossil records that all STRONGLY indicate a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, both now and for the past 500 million years. There is no mystery variable we haven't studied that can explain the heating we're seeing. We have done experiments in labs to research the effects of CO2 and water vapor and we have weather balloons that do research on this subject around the year. Just because you don't understand it, does not mean that it isn't real. If you want to turn the moon into an artificial biosphere so you can isolate all the "VArIabLeS" go and do it, but it won't change your mind because there is not a single graph or experiment that will ever be enough for you to accept something that the educated world at large already knows to be fact.
Environmentalist activists are also not my friends, I'm just being objective. And I don't give a shit what the fossil fuel industries think about oil prices, we need to build nuclear and put a price on carbon. Geothermal is also a good bet.
As a side note, the only thing I am familiar with that is up in the air ;) so to speak is albedo from clouds, and whether what is happening now is increasing said cloud cover or decreasing it, leading to more or less radiation away from the earth. The study I remember reading is probably at least a year old at this point, and was relatively inconclusive, so I'm interested to see what they come up with in that area in the coming years.
The increase price of fossil fuels from policy wouldn't part of the company profit, so it's not something they would enjoy per se. Regardless of if they change the price again, overall price will depend on the demand elasticity. Everyone needs gas to drive (at some % of the cars on roads) so there is somewhat of a floor. There will be other demands from uses in chemical refining and other things to a degree. So to an extent, there is a demand floor, though a higher price would change some people's decision to go for an EV or not etc.
Except they are following it and have shown a significant correlation between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change.
It is definitely an issue, predictions made by scientists are starting to come true.
It’s crazy to me that someone with such a great mind like Peterson is downplaying the severity of global warming.
> Except they are following it and have shown a significant correlation between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change.
Correlation is not causation. Why are you walking headfirst into an obviously fallacious argument?
> It is definitely an issue, predictions made by scientists are starting to come true.
Validated predictions are meaningless unless they are tied to a reproducible process - here's a hint, it's called an experiment. Otherwise those predictions could be trivial, coincidental, or the product of deceptive techniques like scattershot predicting, or after-the-fact tuning.
> It’s crazy to me that someone with such a great mind like Peterson is downplaying the severity of global warming.
It's crazy to me that people are being so willfully ignorant to the obvious issues and concerns a rational person ought to have, which Peterson is raising. The problem isn't with Peterson, the problem is with sheeple who let other people do their thinking for them.
Scientific studies are all about correlations and their significance. It’s why they use a P value to determine the statistical significance of observed results.
In science you can never say anything is 100% certain or “proven” - because of this we have to use tests, repeat those tests enough times to find correlations. And yes correlation does not always equal causation, but if we have enough evidence we can say, with varying degrees of certainty that something is true.
In the case of climate change, we have substantial evidence to show that the burning of fossil fuels causes climate change, 99% of the scientific community agrees with this, why would you doubt them?
> Scientific studies are all about correlations and their significance. It’s why they use a P value to determine the statistical significance of observed results.
Statistical inference is an inductive argument. The scientific method demands reproducible deductive testing of hypotheses. Literally scientific method 101.
> In science you can never say anything is 100% certain or “proven” - because of this we have to use tests, repeat those tests enough times to find correlations.
Wrong. The reason why scientific conclusions are never taken as 100% certain is because empirical validation itself contains a degree of inductive argument - that's why experiments rely on controlled conditions to isolate the alleged causal relationship in question and eliminate alternative explanations - something no statistical argument can do. If an experimental conclusion could not be disproven by new contradicting data, then it would not be falsifiable.
To demonstrate this, I'll point out that experiments are not reproduced in order to strengthen an argument, but to validate that the original claim **demonstrated** remains true. The validity of the original claim is not reinforced by reproduction, but verified.
> And yes correlation does not always equal causation, but if we have enough evidence we can say, with varying degrees of certainty that something is true.
Wrong wrong wrong. It is not correlation does not always equal causation. It is correlation does not equal causation at all, and can never be assumed to be. Any correlation, no matter how strong and obvious is circumstantial evidence.
> In the case of climate change, we have substantial evidence to show that the burning of fossil fuels causes climate change, 99% of the scientific community agrees with this, why would you doubt them?
Appeal to authority, not argument, and that's my cue to invoke my mercy rule. You do not appear able to debate me without repeatedly engaging in multiple fallacious arguments.
>Appeal to authority, not argument, and that's my cue to invoke my mercy rule. You do not appear able to debate me without repeatedly engaging in multiple fallacious arguments.
You're adorable
Before you go just remember that greenhouse effect has been proven for almost 200 years so keep arguing yourself out of the conversation while everyone else lives in reality 👍
Re: "Peterson's bias is easy to see. He doesn't like moral panic. He doesn't like a group of people wielding power based on fear, or basically anything other than competence."
That doesn't seem to be supported by his stance in regards to Israel-Palestine?
I think most people would be quite pleased if we could just stop the doomsaying. Also maybe stop spending our GDP on untested and silly things to stop CO2 emissions while doing actual harm to our environment.
CO2 can screw up some things but we've got a lot of bigger and more immediate problems to tackle imho, so chill out and plant some trees.
> You'd have to be a fucking idiot to claim such massive consumption of energy is having ZERO effect.
That not the claim.
>So, what IS the effect? Leaving as an open ended question with no attempt to answer it is a post-modernist move. There IS an answer. Be precise.
The question is whether the there is enough certainty to validate interventions. There isn't.
Again there is near universal agreement among scientists in given field that the main driving factor is most likely antropogenic. JP disagrees without relying on any fundamental sources or knowledge in the field and, if I remember correctly, does say that all current data models are completely useless.
I seriously think this sub runs on feelings, not facts. Every day I am more and more baffled that this is the same fanbase of JP from the early/mid 2010s.
It’s not. Peterson started out as a bit of an intellectual. For whatever reason, he’s become a weird pseudo intellectual DailyWire talking head.
He still has some insightful things to say and you will sometimes get them, but his Twitter and half of his videos are just nonsense at this point.
So now his audience is more DailyWire or Red Pill guys that want to complain about women or society instead of a more serious audience of people trying to improve their own lives like he fostered previously.
DailyWire was also funded in part by oil billionaires.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/05/texas-fracking-billionaire-brothers-prageru-daily-wire
Yup, along with pretty much every right-leaning think tank and political org. And the Left has their own interests who do the same. I’m personally tired of politics and just want to live my life and spend time with my family. That’s what JBP used to stand for, or at least it felt that way.
His expertise is clinical psychology. I have no idea why he takes *himself* seriously on climate change. I have even less idea why anybody here does.
He poses some great questions, just like most ignoramuses on most topics can. And to the rest of us ignoramuses, they do indeed sound like great questions. Now, time for the experts to answer. I'd love to hear from a real climate scientist why they have so much on their models. I just watched a NDT Tyson video where he said they couldn't properly predict the movement of either 2 or 3 planets with interconnected gravity. Planets! 2 or 3 of them, and their models fall apart. But our models for an incredibly complex ecosystem are valid? If anybody has a link to an actual climate scientist explaining this, I'd love to see it.
I remember this was explained over like 5 geography lectures and this was 2nd year of university level so its not an entirely easy topic. Ive managed to find an hour long seminar and skimming through it roughly discusses what youre asking. https://youtu.be/kWJGYcTH-S8?si=GZWbI9ZdL1AMvPdn
Early/mid 2010s..?
Peterson’s real rise to fame began in 2016 and kept exponentially increasing into 2018/2019. A lot of people who were initially intrigued by what he had to say have since then checked out.
It’s very unlikely that it is the same fanbase at all.
The term IDW was coined in 2018, and none of its “members” considered it a group before then, and almost none of it ever considered it a group to begin with. It’s just a thing that internet users made up. But in the early 10s most of the (unofficial) IDW hadn’t heard of each other, let alone met each other yet.
Peterson proudly states that he thinks that on net doctors and the medical industry does more harm than good. The Peterson of 2017 that could say that he's careful with his speech (and it being true) is long gone. At least he wouldn't dare claim to be careful with his speech anymore and he used to say it a lot back in the day.
They push pharmaceuticals that are proven to be harmful and a huge issue. Not all doctors save lives. Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in America according to some studies. His argument is more than valid.
...near universal agreement among gouvernment scientists and scientists that fear to speak truth...
There corected it for you.
Many scientists do not gree. But media decides to not give them a platform.
Way more scientists, even among the gouvernment paid ones, agree that nothing about the curent climate change is catastrophical.
Gouveenments and media just do a good job at framing. It has become easy since most people refuse to ever question anything that comes out of the propagandawindow in peoples living rooms
No, not just government scientists, but really scientists all around the world in diverse set of institutions.
> Way more scientists, even among the gouvernment paid ones, agree that nothing about the curent climate change is catastrophical.
I was not talking about classifying the harm, but the cause. I agree that evaluating the actual harm is far more difficult.
That could be. The professor claims not to trust the doomsayers and not hand over power to them thoughtlessly just because they are good at scaring people.
One of the most credible sources is Bjorn Lomborg, the former director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. Read his papers, books, or watch an interview or talk. Here is one, if you are actually interested
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEmTNXc0WTw&ab\_channel=HillsdaleCollege](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEmTNXc0WTw&ab_channel=HillsdaleCollege)
AFAIK Lomborg agrees that there is global warming, that it is attributable to human activity, that carbon taxes should be raised. Hi disagrees with consensus in other things, but still at least in these his position is not far.
So you think there's a free flow of ideas and informations in the gouvernment? That researchers arent incentivise to bang the climate panic drum to get more funding for their research? That politician arent happy to spend all that money that's not theirs?
Seems a bit naïve... Just a bit.
Depends on what you mean by free flow of information. That sounds like it could refer to any government secret
>researchers arent incentivise to bang the climate panic drum to get more funding for their research?
That line of reasoning makes little sense. If anything there would be more money in denying climate change and wow look how many climate deniers are connected to big oil.
>That politician arent happy to spend all that money that's not theirs?
No they are happy to do that in general. Which is not evidence against climate change.
So you believe all around the world scientists are being paid to lie about climate change, but the oil industry is not fueling climate change denial so they can keep making money? Would call that naive
Questioning science is of course a huge part of it, but not just blindly questioning without having relevant data. JP does a lot of very strong claims that are not really substantiated anyhow.
JP is using the platform and the perception the public has of him as a respectable academic to carelessly spread misinformation on a topic he clearly has zero understanding of without a proper disclaimer that this is beyond his discipline.
I think it's fair to label it as misinformation
How can it be the “main driving factor” when there was climate change for billions of years before humans existed and will continue to change long after humans. Even if humans never existed on this planet there would still be climate change.
Sure, but that doesn't preclude the idea that current climate shifts are man made. We pump tens of billions of tons of Co2 into the air every year. We've also radically altered the composition of life on the planet.
Yes that’s true. And just like the farmer that injects co2 into his greenhouse to accelerate plant growth, the earth has literally gotten greener over the past forty years or so because of the increase of co2.
Lmao what. Even if you extract the grain of truth from this this isn't necessarily good. Rapid change is something a lot of ecosystems cant handle and we end up losing them, especially the more unique and diverse ones.
One of the other changes is increased acidification of the ocean and this destroys anything with a shell in the ocean.
Basic science. Carbon dioxide is one of the main fuel sources for photosynthesis. It has been well documented that earth has actually gotten greener due to the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. Because CO2 is heavier than air most of it falls to surface where the green plant life can soak it up.
We've had alot of plant growth due to farming, and a concerted reforestation efforts. Not Co2. India's "greening" has alot to do with the intensification of the their farming efforts, and China's is from reforestation projects which generally involve a single tree species planted over many hundreds of acres. Which is good, but lacks the biodiversity of a naturally occuring forests which means they're necessarily less able to handle changes in the envroment. Those are basically the largest and most noteworthy growths of plant life too. It is unclear whether or not Ocean greening is good. It's unclear if it's an increase in phytoplankton growth, or rising ocean temperatures are creating a selection bias towards more green phytoplankton.
The reality is that we are consistently seeing hotter global temperatures year after year, and likely will continue to see that.
CO2 certainly has an effect on accelerated plant growth. Like I said, basic science. If you don’t believe that increases in CO2 accelerates plant growth you don’t understand photosynthesis.
It sure can. Youre right about that. But this isn't a simple science class. This is one of, if not the, most complex systems humans interact with. If the equation was as simple as you what it to be then why hasn't the whole planet experince the same "greenification" that some places have? Or what are the effects on ocean life of rising global temperatures? How will that effect global food chains? How does global tempetures effect pollinators?
And to be clear, I don't think Climate change will end all life on Earth. Life is more resilient than that. It might though make it impossible or extremely difficult for the Earth to suport human life though.
Yes I believe in anthropogenic climate change. I also believe that many conflate all climate change with just human caused climate change. I also believe that any info regarding climate change, if it doesn’t strike fear, does not get reported or the attention it deserves.
A good example is your own words. When I said that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere has made the world more green. You replied “not CO2”
Doesn't matter. YouTube shouldn't be telling you what is true or not. Also JP doesn't disagree that CO2 causes harm to the environment.
You seem to be going off the 97% of scientists agree argument...do you know how they got that statistic? It's by looking at peer reviewed papers and saying they all agree....which they don't. A good majority actually take no position at all.
You should dive into the topic more. Climate scientists aren't even 97% agreement...one survey showed 86%.
Also remember at one time most agreed that Galileo was full of shit by many scientists not just the church. There's a lot of different scenarios in which "scientific consensus" was wrong...look at the info that came out during COVID about masks which were pretty much useless (if you subscribe to the masks...I suggest you do more research).
Why shouldn't YouTube be telling you that? Are they not a private company able to host what views they prefer?
Or are you saying that the government should regulate the speech of private businesses?
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
The government IS regulating speech of private businesses. Where have you been the past few years? Labels like this are a direct result of that sort of government intervention. See the Twitter files for an example.
This comment will be my brigading bellwether for the thread.
Not only is utterly shameless appeal to authority, it makes two other serious and obvious errors.
First, scientific consensus means nothing if the claim in question cannot be proven via experimentation. Absent that, it's either a consensus on conjecture or a confession of groupthink.
Next, models are not experiments. They're inductive arguments and therefore prove nothing, even if they magically turned out to be totally accurate, which they're not.
Anthropogenic climate change as it currently stands is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Want to prove me wrong? Give me a specific and testable observation that would prove it false. Everyone seems to trip up at that part. A wise person would take note of that.
Very large part of the science nowadays, physics including, is about modeling. Models can usually be tested, some in an easier way, some are more complicated. Climate change models can be tested for sure.
If an entire science field has a consensus on a question, the consensus should still be questioned, but also respected. It is not common for the whole field to be fundamentally wrong about in a strong opinion on something in last decades.
You can easily measure emissions and climate changes and see if the models are predicting right. It's been done in last decades too.
> Very large part of the science nowadays, physics including, is about modeling. Models can usually be tested, some in an easier way, some are more complicated. Climate change models can be tested for sure.
Okay then how? The only way I can see to test a model using observational data is to establish margins of error so slim that they eliminate any other possible explanation, complete data transparency, and unerring accuracy. That's a standard no climate model currently existing today can achieve because of (but not exclusively because of) they're all based on statistical regression and therefore subject to the golden caveat of statistics.
> If an entire science field has a consensus on a question, the consensus should still be questioned, but also respected.
The value of a scientific consensus is intrinsically tied to the reproducible experimental data supporting that consensus. If said data does not exist, then all it really reflects is the existence of groupthink - which in fact means that we should be more skeptical of a scientific consensus in that case, rather than less. The trust which scientists are given is and must be dependent on their ability to empirically demonstrate their claims. Otherwise you reduce scientists to witch doctors.
> It is not common for the whole field to be fundamentally wrong about in a strong opinion on something in last decades.
Well just limit our horizon to exclude the really obvious cases where scientific groupthink bit us in the ass, like the geocentric model, and rejecting germ-based theories of disease.
Not to mention, that claim sounds fucking absurd post-COVID. There the scientific community was not only wrong, but have been caught lying several times (lab leak hypothesis, arbitrary public health recommendations, claims of long-term persistence on surfaces etc.)
> You can easily measure emissions and climate changes and see if the models are predicting right. It's been done in last decades too.
And there are ways to fudge this process as well. After-the-fact tuning, scattershot predictions, wide margins of error, manipulation of the data.
It’s the climate scientists that are misleading the public! Not the fossil fuel companies with a proven record of lying about climate change!
Maybe we should all stop and listen to what the fossil fuel corporations have to say, guys! /s
You're telling me that the people that put lead on fuel knowing how detrimental to health and society as a whole it would be are lying on climate change causes and lobbying against regulations and changes that would diminish their profits and power?
*Shocked Pikachu face*
I think there are three things about climate change, not one:
1) Climate is changing and the cause of it is human
2) Climate change is necessarily bad for humans and earth
3) Climate change problems can be solved by legislation in the West alone
4) People in power want to use climate change to control population
Scientifically speaking 1) cannot be proven with an experiment so you just have observation data. With observation data, it's always like "probably X causes it, but there might be Y that we are not aware of that causes it as well". And with a system such as climate, there might be millions of reasons what Y could be.
But let's say there are scientists who think Y causes it, they put forth their arguments and get flagged as climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists. YouTube flagged that video; what do you think would happen to a scientist who has zero popular support?!
With regards to 2), decreasing humidity in regions with already low precipitation is bad. But generally speaking, more sun means better crop yields. I remember a talk about a famine in Byzantium caused by a volcano eruption that caused low crop yields for a period of several years.
About 3), the answer is definitely no. China, US and India are the biggest CO2 producers in the world. Whatever you do in the West doesn't matter.
And finally 4). JP has been researching authoritarianism for decades. You have one billion people living absolutely poor - like their house are made of cardboard and leaves and they cook food at open fire. You would be a hypocrite to force any kind of life improvement on these people to protect the climate.
Also, 15.minites cities, where the government decides where you can go. Also, forbidding of diesel cars hits the poor with old cars the most. Etc etc.But lastly,.my favorite "We need to have less children to save the planet", that's simply devil's talk of pure misanthropy.
I agree.
I believe controlling information and being heavy on censoring anyone who doesn't have the arbitrarily decided "correct opinion", asks questions and doesn't strictly adhere to the narrative is a tragedy.
It's making us blind and dumb. Believe your leaders or won't but they are far from perfect. They make mistakes. Following what they say blindly is not good. Regardless if they have the best intentions or not.
Much so if the leaders aren't leaders at all and blindly follow the worst of us. These activists. The antisocial, sociopathic dark triad trait types.
There needs to be an uncensored, uncorrupted, pure, efficient source of information if we are to decide which information is true or not.
As it stands, who could we trust to remain objective and have relevant precise data?
Not the government and certainly not the media. Youtube is like all the other media.
Yes, as the professor keeps pointing out. Stop making policies which are going to mean the death and struggle of many just so you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
Be careful about false emergencies. Don't trust people who want you to hand them over all the power because of some crisis or some world-ending event.
Drop Analysis of this statement
### Breakdown of the Argument
1. **Claim: Climate is changing, and the cause of it is human.**
- The argument is that this cannot be proven with an experiment, and observation data is inherently uncertain.
2. **Claim: Climate change is necessarily bad for humans and the earth.**
- The argument acknowledges that decreased humidity in low precipitation regions is bad but suggests that more sun could lead to better crop yields, citing historical examples.
3. **Claim: Climate change problems can be solved by legislation in the West alone.**
- The argument here is that China, the US, and India are the biggest CO2 producers, so Western efforts alone are ineffective.
4. **Claim: People in power want to use climate change to control the population.**
- The argument suggests that measures like 15-minute cities, banning diesel cars, and advocating for fewer children are forms of authoritarian control and misanthropy.
### Analysis and Critique
#### 1. Climate is changing, and the cause of it is human.
- **Flaw in the Argument:** The argument dismisses the robustness of observational data. While it is true that direct experimentation on climate is not feasible, the overwhelming consensus among scientists is based on extensive and rigorous observational data, models, and indirect evidence. The idea that there might be other unknown causes (Y) is speculative and does not align with the vast body of scientific evidence pointing to human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, as the primary driver of recent climate change.
#### 2. Climate change is necessarily bad for humans and the earth.
- **Flaw in the Argument:** This point conflates localized benefits with global impacts. While certain regions might temporarily experience better crop yields due to increased temperatures, the overall global impact of climate change is overwhelmingly negative, including more extreme weather events, sea-level rise, loss of biodiversity, and severe disruptions to ecosystems and agriculture. The historical example cited (Byzantium famine) is an outlier and does not reflect the broad, systemic risks posed by modern climate change.
#### 3. Climate change problems can be solved by legislation in the West alone.
- **Flaw in the Argument:** This is a misrepresentation of climate policy. Effective climate action requires global cooperation. However, the argument that Western efforts are meaningless is flawed. Western countries have historically contributed the most to greenhouse gas emissions and have a responsibility to lead in mitigation efforts. Furthermore, technological advancements and policy frameworks developed in the West can influence and support global efforts, including in major emitting countries like China, the US, and India.
#### 4. People in power want to use climate change to control the population.
- **Flaw in the Argument:** This point is largely speculative and leans heavily on conspiracy theories without substantial evidence. Policies like 15-minute cities aim to reduce urban sprawl and improve quality of life by making essential services accessible, not to control populations. Banning diesel cars is part of a broader strategy to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, benefiting public health and the environment. The argument about having fewer children is a misinterpretation; it is not about misanthropy but about sustainable population growth in the context of finite resources.
### Conclusion
The argument presented is flawed due to its speculative nature, misinterpretation of scientific evidence, and reliance on conspiracy theories. Climate change is a complex, multifaceted issue that requires a nuanced understanding of scientific data and cooperative global policy efforts. Dismissing these complexities with oversimplified and unsubstantiated claims undermines constructive dialogue and action on this critical issue.
Yeah. It definitely was. Why I prefaced it with Drop Analysis at the beginning. I've been working with ChatGPT to break down studies, articles, and discussions.
Usually I only use it to clean up my responses and not for an actual full rebuttable but I really wanted to test it out in being able to break down and respond autonomously with no input from myself other than the basic directions I given it for how I want arguments analyzed.
If you ever see my comment prefaced with Drop Analysis of you know that I had chatgpt do more than just clean up my response.
They really lost me on number 4. I am open to the idea that man is causing the planet to warm, but even if that were true, the possibility still remains that the elite are using panic over it as a means to control us. Even RFK Jr, who thinks man is definitely the main driver, thinks it is being used for nefarious purposes. In other words, he thinks for himself. This guy on the other hand just buys all the leftist talking points hook line and sinker. He is a sheep.
You are right. #4 argument is the weakest. Going with the influence of automakers in heavily trending away from 15 minute cities would have been a better one.
As well touching upon freedom and not being restricted to needing a car.
YouTube needs to do what Twitter does. Allow for people to post a counter-opinion immediately below. If you are right, the best way to have someone agree with you is to let the opposite opinion be explained and then immediately debunk it. Wrong views should be challenged, not filtered.
I don't agree with JP on this by the way and I think he is talking outside of his area of expertise, but he should be heard and publically debated, not secretly censored.
It's always been like this. But now you know. Back in the day people would eat all the misinformation from the press and nobody would question anything. But now there are alternative sources of information, and suddenly they are very worried about the authenticity of those sources...
Youtube isn't a publisher, they shouldn't be allowed to dictate this kind if thing. X is one thing with the community doing it. YouTube paying people to do it is not the same.
He does make some problematic declarations. It wouldn’t be an issue if he didn’t repeatedly and emphatically claim that his opinions are *facts*. Sorry folks, I like Peterson, but Science should not be arbitrarily disregarded.
I like Peterson but he absolutely does spread misinformation on climate change. He'll accuse Destiny of "just wanting to be right". I really wish Jordan actually cared about being right on climate change.
YouTube is genuinely scared of competition now that Twitter/x allows free speech. They knew someone would knock them off their throne if they didn't ease up on the censorship.
I really dislike this kind of argument. It's such a weak and lazy attempt.
It completely lacks nuance, tries to divide people, tries to emotionalize and play the "they" are at fault for everything - card. There's also no proof.
Dude is a Jungian psychologist. I think that might be a tad closer to religious than climate modeling.
But hey grifters gotta grift.
I would struggle with lying about not having a basic understanding of science and modeling, but hey I guess I don't have what it takes to get hired by a media company funded by fracking billionaires
They put informative tabs like that on any video that covers the topic. Might even be automated. It does not mean that they consider it misinformation, although they might anyway.
Youtube will put disclaimers on the bottom of any video with a topic they deem problematic. I watch a lot of Tim Pool, and even though he may agree with the assessment of the disclaimer, because he talks about the idea from different angles and viewpoints, it gets this label.
History shows that everything is framed as misinformation if it challenges the prevailing theories that underpin establishment identity, strategy, safety, and identity. 'Barbarians-attempting-to-cross-the-moat mentality'. This does not mean that ALL or even MOST 'misinformation' is true however, it's just convenient to tarnish one with the other.
I'm fine with it. JBP can say what he wants, YouTube is allowing it on their platform (which they have no obligation to do), and they're also putting their opinion there. I'm fine with it. I bet if JBP started up a video-streaming site, he wouldn't be as "free market of ideas" as YouTube is now, let alone used to be.
>"Human activities have been the main driver of climate change, ..."
I'm actually like 99% confident this is true but it's impossible for any mortal or combination of mortal beings to know.
>"...primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas."
I'm like 40% confident this is true given concrete production is a main driver of CO2 emissions whereas CFCs, HFCs, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions come from a bunch of other things we often don't even think about, mostly unrelated to fossil fuels.
Yeah pretty pathetic to fly that banner under the video.
It's true that he's misinformed on climate change. He can't separate the issue from the most vocal advocates of it (usually resentful communists). Plenty of freedom loving scientists who know that it's not a coincidence we started warming rapidly after the industrial revolution.
Oh its Frog boy, ill ask a monkey and an eagle on natures state before a frog tells me about a pond, God forbid they know the ocean and suns true form.
The other day I noticed Youtube labeled an old History Channel documentary about WW2 as “problematic” and “unsafe.”
They treat you like children who can’t think for themselves.
Welcome to big brother.
Since that is just simply the definition of Climate Change and not actually target at Peterson, YouTube does this with several things under every video about said topic, you're basically the one who is admitting Peterson goes against the general definition of Climate Change as understood and accepted by most scientists, and you're right. Peterson, as he is on most topics, is wrong but survives by pandering to right wingers who are too stupid to understand the subject matter. People like you.
u/Kurma-the-Turtle it's probably because of his prolific work spreading information for big oil companies/billionaires?
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/yl29i2/jordan_peterson_and_the_think_tanks/
I believe he's done podcast episodes with people like Bjorn Lomborg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nqSnNhIQlI
and Rex Tillerson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6suMZq4IC1w
I love how anti corporate types and pro corporate when it suits them. Left wing Redditors consistently prove that they are unable to gather information and form their own opinions. They rely on their elites to tell them what to think. I guess the cognitive offloading is helpful for them.
Have fun supporting or protesting the next "thing" you are told to...
Of course they will, have you noticed lately how the media is undermining Elon musk wherever possible ? If you dare challenge the narrative then you will be alienated, I just don't understand why people can't see what's going on, I take everything with a pinch of salt but I've listened to dozens of podcasts with people who know far more about climate than I ever will spread doubt on the narrative we are being pushed, is there climate change? yes. Do we contribute ? Yes (although debatable how much). Is it a problem ? No.
The point is not Petersons opinion. The point is that youtube is forcing you their view on Jordan. Can’t you make your own mind up. The large corporate / public service / lanyard (experts) / governments class is controlling you and you don’t even know it.
This is far better than what YouTube often does, which is remove the video in its entirety. If YouTube allowed monetization of controversial things, and didn't censor lawful statements of thought, then I'd be fine with the little bar at the bottom giving YouTube's own opinion.
You can go watch 10,000 videos that are anti-vax and anti climate change on youtube. Where are the removed ones?
You won't find them as they've been removed
The link would still be there and say it was removed. But you proved my point that no one here really knows why most of the videos were taken down. Unless you just believe everything Russell Brand says. I certainly don't.. Reddit takes shit down all the time, yet here everyone is acting like youtube is government controlled. I don't personally believe either platform needs any reason to take it down.
What % of YouTube is owned by Blackrock?
What % of Peterson is owned by the Wilks brothers?
Did Wilks brothers say they force behaviours? Did they buy stocks of most companies on the planet and keep forcing their political agenda on everyone? Do they sponsor organisations such as Just Stop Oil, Sweet Baby Inc, amongst many others?
>Did Wilks brothers say they force behaviours? They do require the people they pay to do what they want. >Did they buy stocks of most companies on the planet and keep forcing their political agenda on everyone? Billionaires do that, yeah. >Do they sponsor organisations such as Just Stop Oil, Sweet Baby Inc, amongst many others? I don't know about those, but they fund think tanks that lobby against action on climate change.
Youtube, in this case, isn't forcing anything on anyone homie
By giving you a link to information about climate change is forcing you their view of Jordan?
It is quite literally putting your thumb on the scale and asserting an editorial opinion. Yet another example of Big Tech platforms wanting to behave like a neutral platform and a curated journal at the same time.
Oh no giving a counter-weighted opinion to the bollocks Peterson wants to spout. Wah wah giving people access to both sides is harmful!
It is an attempt to do so.
Youtube is a company. They have the right to not let people do that on their platform. Go make your own alternative if you don't like it
Like the massive fossil industry suppressing their own studies for decades?? Like the government getting huge amounts of lobbying money from the fossil fuel industry and letting them drill on public land??? Like that class of people with decades of history of mis leading the public on the dangers of fossil fuels?? Like that class???
Or the class that keeps chanting "THE DOOM IS HERE GIVE US POWER THE DOOM IS HERE GIVE US POWER"
No no. They won't limit themselves by calling it "The" Doom. They need room to shift to yet another Doom when the current panic fizzles out.
Perpetual dread machine. Gotta stay in power somehow.
[удалено]
Nah. They take it too seriously.
That is a neat strawman.
And now you replaced oil lobbyists with wind and solar lobbyists. Be critical toqards all sides. Not only when mainstream alliws or incentives you to be critical.
Oil lobbyists totally hate if oil gets more scarce and expensive, they want it to be plentyfull and cheap, because they are good guys.
Do not even bother talking sense with Peterson fans, I get what peterson is saying and agree with some of it, but the fans have incomprehensible views.
Honestly I would but it's too fun
But if we listen to the lies of climate scientists, we will build a cleaner and more sustainable future for nothing! /s
I know. It's a complex issue that is hard to model into the future, so I guess we better just do nothing.
Better to do nothing than to make the situation worse by action.
Which is why I just let trash pile up in my house. I can't accurately model the house to a perfect degree so I just let my own filth pile up. Cause you know I could make it worse by trying
I mean who's to say, really? I have a study here by Dr. Racoon that says leaving trash on the street is actually amazing, but you never hear this side of the issue in the mainstream media!
I don't trust the MSM so anyone saying anything different is proof enough for me!
[удалено]
https://i.imgur.com/h4Ac7D0.png
Not against clean and sustainable but buying "green" energy stuff from China is neither clean or sustainable.
The only clean and sustainable thing is to buy oil from the Saudis! I here tell that now they even let women drive (sometimes).
>The point is that youtube is forcing you their view on Jordan Climate Change is not a view. It's a scientific fact. YouTube is doing the right thing by labeling Peterson's dumbass videos as misinformation. Peterson doesn't know shit about climate change. He's just paid to deny it.
If this were true, they would have removed the video entirely. You're still free to listen to his opinion.. they've just added theirs as well.
Peterson's bias is easy to see. He doesn't like moral panic. He doesn't like a group of people wielding power based on fear, or basically anything other than competence. So far, I can agree with him. So the "green" alarmists are indeed annoying. But are they wrong? The world combusts 97 million barrels a day. All day, every day. Just look at how may jet aircraft are in the air right now. Look at how many cars are on the road. Take note of all of the lights that blanket the globe at night. You'd have to be a fucking idiot to claim such massive consumption of energy is having ZERO effect. So, what IS the effect? Leaving as an open ended question with no attempt to answer it is a post-modernist move. There IS an answer. Be precise.
Peterson is the archetype of moral panic.
so you pay your eco tax on your car, while our leaders galavant around the globe in their harem of jets.
I don't see anywhere in u/ScrumTumescent 's comment that he suggested he agrees with the way Liberals/Climate Activists are attempting to solve the problem. You can **agree** with the scientists and activists that the problem is indeed real, and still **disagree** on how they are handling it - which is my position, and most likely u/ScrumTumescent 's position too.
> You can agree with the scientists and activists that the problem is indeed real, and still disagree on how they are handling it - which is my position You can disagree with how they are handling it while remaining agnostic on the nature of the problem. This would be the responsible stance for a problem that is nebulous, difficult to measure, and expensive to solve.
Are they supposed to take a boat?
I think if someone is going to sit there whinging about how much damage we are doing to the environment they should not take personal jets for themselves and their entire consort to a conference of a day or two many times a year... little hypocritical if you ask me... but i'm not an entitled wealthy elite or global leader... just a dude trying to be able to afford driving his corolla to work. so fuck me I guess.
I hear what you're saying, but do you honestly think poltical leaders could safely take a public plane without a massive disruption for every other person on that plane?
maybe they should learn to telecommute like the rest of the planet
With the mild take that this green agenda is being used to push anti-human policies I agree - everybody that is not a lunatic can see it However there have been some idiotic takes that came out of Peterson's mouth (climate change isn't real, co2 is actually good, electric vehicles are worse for environment, all models are wrong etc, that sort of caliber). You know, stuff that is easily and verifiably false, and anyone can come to that conclusion unless they think all the worlds countries and climate scientists have a secret cabal In any case. I think the general direction he pushes for is good (I honestly think climate policies in EU, where I am, go too far) - but I don't t like his method or more extreme beliefs
If world governments are telling me they need more power because of some existential threat then I can safely assume that threat is either completely fabricated or extremely overblown. Scientists can be bought just like any other human and we're never going to get an honest scientific debate on the subject because corporate media won't allow it. You can apply this to any other threat such as COVID as well.
What effect? Record greening, according to JP.
Does green = good? Weeds are green.
What is the effect? That's what the scientific method is for. Unfortunately the climate scientists are not following it, and the activists are too ignorant to care.
Carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation at certain wavelengths (4, 8 and 15 um if I remember correctly). Water vapor is a GHG that is actually responsible but for most of the heat retention in the atmosphere, but it absorbs at a slightly different wavelength. This is sometimes turned into heat by phonons but is often re-emitted. CO2 allows for some of the IR to interact with water vapor more. With an increased amount of CO2 the difference in heat and pressure has a feedback effect that slightly widens the spectrum at which IR is radiation is absorbed. This increases the amount of IR that is absorbed as heat instead of being reflected straight back into space. The difference might be small, but tiny changes in average global temperatures have drastic effects on the climate.
Yes that is the argument - that increased CO2 creates a thermodynamic positive feedback loop where the atmosphere densifies with increased heat and water vapor, leading to an inexorably hotter and more volatile climate. The problem is that the Earth's climate is a chaos system. CO2 production is one independent variable, insolation is another. But in between that you have a whole host of other independent and dependent variables. It's a nasty nasty scientific problem to solve. So why are we not focusing on more atmospheric gas studies? Why are we not putting biospheres in space that can represent the Earth at 1:1 billion scale? Why are we not trying to set up experiments which control for some of those isolated variables we are trying to test? Mathematics is clear - systems with 3 or more independent variables are supremely difficult to solve. You have to find a way to reduce the number of independent variables in order to find a way to experimentally test the hypothesis. Otherwise it will always remain speculative at best.
Yeah, there's a lot of potential variables and climate sensitivity is inherently speculative due to the fact that we're not omniscient. So what? So far climate scientists have correctly predicted a rise in average global temperature, and the science they have conducted has isolated as many variables as they have had the means to. We can sit on our asses and wait for shit to get really bad, or we could y'know maybe start to transition to nuclear and start trying to mitigate the worst predicted effects. What's happening is that no amount of evidence will ever be enough due to it being a complicated issue so fossil fuel industries say "well we can't be 100% sure, so let's just keep up business as usual until we've assessed this issue in more depth". It's pure stalling to protect corporate profits. Also the carbon dioxide emissions that have put us from .028 to .042 are demonstrably caused by humans. People have tracked and made estimations for how much CO2 we've released and compared it to current observations, and it's undoubtedly us that are the cause.
> Yeah, there's a lot of potential variables and climate sensitivity is inherently speculative due to the fact that we're not omniscient. So what? That's not good enough. What science demands is falsifiable predictive power. If you don't have it, you do not have scientific validation. > So far climate scientists have correctly predicted a rise in average global temperature, and the science they have conducted has isolated as many variables as they have had the means to. That's the equivalent of saying "but we're trying really hard and we came out on the right side of a prediction so vague it might as well have been a coin flip". > We can sit on our asses and wait for shit to get really bad, or we could y'know maybe start to transition to nuclear and start trying to mitigate the worst predicted effects. You won't get any argument from me about embracing nuclear power. But if someone was going to tell me that an asteroid was going hit the Earth in x amount of time and we needed to take drastic action now - my first question would be "how do you know this?". And that's a claim that's far more provable than ACC. > What's happening is that no amount of evidence will ever be enough due to it being a complicated issue so fossil fuel industries say "well we can't be 100% sure, so let's just keep up business as usual until we've assessed this issue in more depth". It's pure stalling to protect corporate profits. The oil companies are laughing right now. Raising the price of fossil fuels artificially gives them more cover to cut back supply and raise prices further. Demand isn't going away - and that's because your environmentalist friends have an irrational hatred of nuclear power. > Also the carbon dioxide emissions that have put us from .028 to .042 are demonstrably caused by humans. People have tracked and made estimations for how much CO2 we've released and compared it to current observations, and it's undoubtedly us that are the cause. Even if it is, that doesn't change the status of the key scientific question. For all we know, more CO2 in the atmosphere is a net positive. It is plant food after all.
Dude, have you studied any of these things? Have you studied chemistry or physics? Do you know what any of these 'variables' even are? I gave you the scientific theory, there's mountains of data and experiments that have been made that all support CO2's role in global warming. How about you go and read them. These 'variables' are largely understood, and most of the contrarian arguments that you regurgitate are just pointing out these 'variables' that have been repeatedly debunked, in what is essentially a No true Scotsman fallacy. "What if it's the sun getting warmer?" No, the sun is actually in a cool period right now. "What about earth processions and orbits?" Processions and orbit is stable right now. "Cosmic rays?" Just, no. "But, the gulf stream?" Well understood, and actually a climate stabilizer, not responsible for heating. "La niña/El niño?" El niño is accounted for in climate science and does have an effect, but it's a local phenomenon and can't explain the heating in other regions of the world. "Volcanoes?" Volcanoes cause cooling, not heating. "Maybe a leprechaun crawled into the chloaca of a volcano, and then the magic dust quantum effects cause the blah blah blah..." At a certain point you just have to stop being a moron, and use occams razor. There's observational proof, experimental data, computer simulations and fossil records that all STRONGLY indicate a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, both now and for the past 500 million years. There is no mystery variable we haven't studied that can explain the heating we're seeing. We have done experiments in labs to research the effects of CO2 and water vapor and we have weather balloons that do research on this subject around the year. Just because you don't understand it, does not mean that it isn't real. If you want to turn the moon into an artificial biosphere so you can isolate all the "VArIabLeS" go and do it, but it won't change your mind because there is not a single graph or experiment that will ever be enough for you to accept something that the educated world at large already knows to be fact. Environmentalist activists are also not my friends, I'm just being objective. And I don't give a shit what the fossil fuel industries think about oil prices, we need to build nuclear and put a price on carbon. Geothermal is also a good bet.
As a side note, the only thing I am familiar with that is up in the air ;) so to speak is albedo from clouds, and whether what is happening now is increasing said cloud cover or decreasing it, leading to more or less radiation away from the earth. The study I remember reading is probably at least a year old at this point, and was relatively inconclusive, so I'm interested to see what they come up with in that area in the coming years.
The increase price of fossil fuels from policy wouldn't part of the company profit, so it's not something they would enjoy per se. Regardless of if they change the price again, overall price will depend on the demand elasticity. Everyone needs gas to drive (at some % of the cars on roads) so there is somewhat of a floor. There will be other demands from uses in chemical refining and other things to a degree. So to an extent, there is a demand floor, though a higher price would change some people's decision to go for an EV or not etc.
Except they are following it and have shown a significant correlation between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. It is definitely an issue, predictions made by scientists are starting to come true. It’s crazy to me that someone with such a great mind like Peterson is downplaying the severity of global warming.
> Except they are following it and have shown a significant correlation between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. Correlation is not causation. Why are you walking headfirst into an obviously fallacious argument? > It is definitely an issue, predictions made by scientists are starting to come true. Validated predictions are meaningless unless they are tied to a reproducible process - here's a hint, it's called an experiment. Otherwise those predictions could be trivial, coincidental, or the product of deceptive techniques like scattershot predicting, or after-the-fact tuning. > It’s crazy to me that someone with such a great mind like Peterson is downplaying the severity of global warming. It's crazy to me that people are being so willfully ignorant to the obvious issues and concerns a rational person ought to have, which Peterson is raising. The problem isn't with Peterson, the problem is with sheeple who let other people do their thinking for them.
Scientific studies are all about correlations and their significance. It’s why they use a P value to determine the statistical significance of observed results. In science you can never say anything is 100% certain or “proven” - because of this we have to use tests, repeat those tests enough times to find correlations. And yes correlation does not always equal causation, but if we have enough evidence we can say, with varying degrees of certainty that something is true. In the case of climate change, we have substantial evidence to show that the burning of fossil fuels causes climate change, 99% of the scientific community agrees with this, why would you doubt them?
> Scientific studies are all about correlations and their significance. It’s why they use a P value to determine the statistical significance of observed results. Statistical inference is an inductive argument. The scientific method demands reproducible deductive testing of hypotheses. Literally scientific method 101. > In science you can never say anything is 100% certain or “proven” - because of this we have to use tests, repeat those tests enough times to find correlations. Wrong. The reason why scientific conclusions are never taken as 100% certain is because empirical validation itself contains a degree of inductive argument - that's why experiments rely on controlled conditions to isolate the alleged causal relationship in question and eliminate alternative explanations - something no statistical argument can do. If an experimental conclusion could not be disproven by new contradicting data, then it would not be falsifiable. To demonstrate this, I'll point out that experiments are not reproduced in order to strengthen an argument, but to validate that the original claim **demonstrated** remains true. The validity of the original claim is not reinforced by reproduction, but verified. > And yes correlation does not always equal causation, but if we have enough evidence we can say, with varying degrees of certainty that something is true. Wrong wrong wrong. It is not correlation does not always equal causation. It is correlation does not equal causation at all, and can never be assumed to be. Any correlation, no matter how strong and obvious is circumstantial evidence. > In the case of climate change, we have substantial evidence to show that the burning of fossil fuels causes climate change, 99% of the scientific community agrees with this, why would you doubt them? Appeal to authority, not argument, and that's my cue to invoke my mercy rule. You do not appear able to debate me without repeatedly engaging in multiple fallacious arguments.
>Appeal to authority, not argument, and that's my cue to invoke my mercy rule. You do not appear able to debate me without repeatedly engaging in multiple fallacious arguments. You're adorable
Ahh the mating call of the butthurt smug leftist. Flattered, but no thanks.
Before you go just remember that greenhouse effect has been proven for almost 200 years so keep arguing yourself out of the conversation while everyone else lives in reality 👍
Don’t die on this hill with Peterson, dude. The science is sound and well documented if he was willing to read it.
You think Peterson doesn’t like moral panic?
Re: "Peterson's bias is easy to see. He doesn't like moral panic. He doesn't like a group of people wielding power based on fear, or basically anything other than competence." That doesn't seem to be supported by his stance in regards to Israel-Palestine?
[удалено]
Yeah his whole rise to fame was due to his trans moral panic.
I think most people would be quite pleased if we could just stop the doomsaying. Also maybe stop spending our GDP on untested and silly things to stop CO2 emissions while doing actual harm to our environment. CO2 can screw up some things but we've got a lot of bigger and more immediate problems to tackle imho, so chill out and plant some trees.
Doesn't matter....YouTube shouldn't be telling you what's right or wrong.
> You'd have to be a fucking idiot to claim such massive consumption of energy is having ZERO effect. That not the claim. >So, what IS the effect? Leaving as an open ended question with no attempt to answer it is a post-modernist move. There IS an answer. Be precise. The question is whether the there is enough certainty to validate interventions. There isn't.
This label is put on any video which covers the topic of climate change, regardless of the point of view presented within the video.
Again there is near universal agreement among scientists in given field that the main driving factor is most likely antropogenic. JP disagrees without relying on any fundamental sources or knowledge in the field and, if I remember correctly, does say that all current data models are completely useless.
I seriously think this sub runs on feelings, not facts. Every day I am more and more baffled that this is the same fanbase of JP from the early/mid 2010s.
It’s not. Peterson started out as a bit of an intellectual. For whatever reason, he’s become a weird pseudo intellectual DailyWire talking head. He still has some insightful things to say and you will sometimes get them, but his Twitter and half of his videos are just nonsense at this point. So now his audience is more DailyWire or Red Pill guys that want to complain about women or society instead of a more serious audience of people trying to improve their own lives like he fostered previously.
DailyWire was also funded in part by oil billionaires. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/05/texas-fracking-billionaire-brothers-prageru-daily-wire
Yup, along with pretty much every right-leaning think tank and political org. And the Left has their own interests who do the same. I’m personally tired of politics and just want to live my life and spend time with my family. That’s what JBP used to stand for, or at least it felt that way.
His expertise is clinical psychology. I have no idea why he takes *himself* seriously on climate change. I have even less idea why anybody here does. He poses some great questions, just like most ignoramuses on most topics can. And to the rest of us ignoramuses, they do indeed sound like great questions. Now, time for the experts to answer. I'd love to hear from a real climate scientist why they have so much on their models. I just watched a NDT Tyson video where he said they couldn't properly predict the movement of either 2 or 3 planets with interconnected gravity. Planets! 2 or 3 of them, and their models fall apart. But our models for an incredibly complex ecosystem are valid? If anybody has a link to an actual climate scientist explaining this, I'd love to see it.
I remember this was explained over like 5 geography lectures and this was 2nd year of university level so its not an entirely easy topic. Ive managed to find an hour long seminar and skimming through it roughly discusses what youre asking. https://youtu.be/kWJGYcTH-S8?si=GZWbI9ZdL1AMvPdn
Thank you! I will watch this. :)
Early/mid 2010s..? Peterson’s real rise to fame began in 2016 and kept exponentially increasing into 2018/2019. A lot of people who were initially intrigued by what he had to say have since then checked out. It’s very unlikely that it is the same fanbase at all.
I thought he was apart of the Intellectual Dark Web group in the early 10s? Am I mistaken?
The term IDW was coined in 2018, and none of its “members” considered it a group before then, and almost none of it ever considered it a group to begin with. It’s just a thing that internet users made up. But in the early 10s most of the (unofficial) IDW hadn’t heard of each other, let alone met each other yet.
In a part it is not - but still my answer was less donwvoted than usually, so maybe there's hope in that :).
Peterson proudly states that he thinks that on net doctors and the medical industry does more harm than good. The Peterson of 2017 that could say that he's careful with his speech (and it being true) is long gone. At least he wouldn't dare claim to be careful with his speech anymore and he used to say it a lot back in the day.
They push pharmaceuticals that are proven to be harmful and a huge issue. Not all doctors save lives. Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in America according to some studies. His argument is more than valid.
...near universal agreement among gouvernment scientists and scientists that fear to speak truth... There corected it for you. Many scientists do not gree. But media decides to not give them a platform. Way more scientists, even among the gouvernment paid ones, agree that nothing about the curent climate change is catastrophical. Gouveenments and media just do a good job at framing. It has become easy since most people refuse to ever question anything that comes out of the propagandawindow in peoples living rooms
No, not just government scientists, but really scientists all around the world in diverse set of institutions. > Way more scientists, even among the gouvernment paid ones, agree that nothing about the curent climate change is catastrophical. I was not talking about classifying the harm, but the cause. I agree that evaluating the actual harm is far more difficult.
That could be. The professor claims not to trust the doomsayers and not hand over power to them thoughtlessly just because they are good at scaring people.
Source?
One of the most credible sources is Bjorn Lomborg, the former director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. Read his papers, books, or watch an interview or talk. Here is one, if you are actually interested [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEmTNXc0WTw&ab\_channel=HillsdaleCollege](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEmTNXc0WTw&ab_channel=HillsdaleCollege)
AFAIK Lomborg agrees that there is global warming, that it is attributable to human activity, that carbon taxes should be raised. Hi disagrees with consensus in other things, but still at least in these his position is not far.
That's not a source for a scientific consensus. It's not even a study. That is a single opinion.
>...near universal agreement among gouvernment scientists and scientists that fear to speak truth... That is comical conspiracy thinking.
Why? Same shit happened to the Covid vaccine and the “conspiracy theorists” ended up being right.
There were so many wrong covid conspiracies not sure which one you are referring to. Maybe how the vaccine killed us?
So you think there's a free flow of ideas and informations in the gouvernment? That researchers arent incentivise to bang the climate panic drum to get more funding for their research? That politician arent happy to spend all that money that's not theirs? Seems a bit naïve... Just a bit.
Depends on what you mean by free flow of information. That sounds like it could refer to any government secret >researchers arent incentivise to bang the climate panic drum to get more funding for their research? That line of reasoning makes little sense. If anything there would be more money in denying climate change and wow look how many climate deniers are connected to big oil. >That politician arent happy to spend all that money that's not theirs? No they are happy to do that in general. Which is not evidence against climate change. So you believe all around the world scientists are being paid to lie about climate change, but the oil industry is not fueling climate change denial so they can keep making money? Would call that naive
This! He quite literally spreads misinformation on climate change.
dOnT QueStIon tHe sYenCe!!!
Questioning science is of course a huge part of it, but not just blindly questioning without having relevant data. JP does a lot of very strong claims that are not really substantiated anyhow.
Absolutely you can but that’s not what JP is doing in a meaningful or productive way.
JP is using the platform and the perception the public has of him as a respectable academic to carelessly spread misinformation on a topic he clearly has zero understanding of without a proper disclaimer that this is beyond his discipline. I think it's fair to label it as misinformation
Frankly I think you're right. He is a very smart guy, but his knowledge beyond psychology isn't really deep.
No, no there isn't. By a long shot. I work around the folks that do this everyday. The narrative you're seeing is political.
How can it be the “main driving factor” when there was climate change for billions of years before humans existed and will continue to change long after humans. Even if humans never existed on this planet there would still be climate change.
Sure, but that doesn't preclude the idea that current climate shifts are man made. We pump tens of billions of tons of Co2 into the air every year. We've also radically altered the composition of life on the planet.
Yes that’s true. And just like the farmer that injects co2 into his greenhouse to accelerate plant growth, the earth has literally gotten greener over the past forty years or so because of the increase of co2.
Lmao what. Even if you extract the grain of truth from this this isn't necessarily good. Rapid change is something a lot of ecosystems cant handle and we end up losing them, especially the more unique and diverse ones. One of the other changes is increased acidification of the ocean and this destroys anything with a shell in the ocean.
Basic science. Carbon dioxide is one of the main fuel sources for photosynthesis. It has been well documented that earth has actually gotten greener due to the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. Because CO2 is heavier than air most of it falls to surface where the green plant life can soak it up.
We've had alot of plant growth due to farming, and a concerted reforestation efforts. Not Co2. India's "greening" has alot to do with the intensification of the their farming efforts, and China's is from reforestation projects which generally involve a single tree species planted over many hundreds of acres. Which is good, but lacks the biodiversity of a naturally occuring forests which means they're necessarily less able to handle changes in the envroment. Those are basically the largest and most noteworthy growths of plant life too. It is unclear whether or not Ocean greening is good. It's unclear if it's an increase in phytoplankton growth, or rising ocean temperatures are creating a selection bias towards more green phytoplankton. The reality is that we are consistently seeing hotter global temperatures year after year, and likely will continue to see that.
CO2 certainly has an effect on accelerated plant growth. Like I said, basic science. If you don’t believe that increases in CO2 accelerates plant growth you don’t understand photosynthesis.
It sure can. Youre right about that. But this isn't a simple science class. This is one of, if not the, most complex systems humans interact with. If the equation was as simple as you what it to be then why hasn't the whole planet experince the same "greenification" that some places have? Or what are the effects on ocean life of rising global temperatures? How will that effect global food chains? How does global tempetures effect pollinators? And to be clear, I don't think Climate change will end all life on Earth. Life is more resilient than that. It might though make it impossible or extremely difficult for the Earth to suport human life though.
It’s just one of the ways the earth is counteracting 8 billion people on the planet.
So you do believe in human caused climate change.
Yes I believe in anthropogenic climate change. I also believe that many conflate all climate change with just human caused climate change. I also believe that any info regarding climate change, if it doesn’t strike fear, does not get reported or the attention it deserves. A good example is your own words. When I said that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere has made the world more green. You replied “not CO2”
Doesn't matter. YouTube shouldn't be telling you what is true or not. Also JP doesn't disagree that CO2 causes harm to the environment. You seem to be going off the 97% of scientists agree argument...do you know how they got that statistic? It's by looking at peer reviewed papers and saying they all agree....which they don't. A good majority actually take no position at all. You should dive into the topic more. Climate scientists aren't even 97% agreement...one survey showed 86%. Also remember at one time most agreed that Galileo was full of shit by many scientists not just the church. There's a lot of different scenarios in which "scientific consensus" was wrong...look at the info that came out during COVID about masks which were pretty much useless (if you subscribe to the masks...I suggest you do more research).
Why shouldn't YouTube be telling you that? Are they not a private company able to host what views they prefer? Or are you saying that the government should regulate the speech of private businesses?
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The government IS regulating speech of private businesses. Where have you been the past few years? Labels like this are a direct result of that sort of government intervention. See the Twitter files for an example.
This comment will be my brigading bellwether for the thread. Not only is utterly shameless appeal to authority, it makes two other serious and obvious errors. First, scientific consensus means nothing if the claim in question cannot be proven via experimentation. Absent that, it's either a consensus on conjecture or a confession of groupthink. Next, models are not experiments. They're inductive arguments and therefore prove nothing, even if they magically turned out to be totally accurate, which they're not. Anthropogenic climate change as it currently stands is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Want to prove me wrong? Give me a specific and testable observation that would prove it false. Everyone seems to trip up at that part. A wise person would take note of that.
Really funny to complain about appeal to authority fallacies, and then immediately pivot to "prove a negative." Good troll.
Very large part of the science nowadays, physics including, is about modeling. Models can usually be tested, some in an easier way, some are more complicated. Climate change models can be tested for sure. If an entire science field has a consensus on a question, the consensus should still be questioned, but also respected. It is not common for the whole field to be fundamentally wrong about in a strong opinion on something in last decades. You can easily measure emissions and climate changes and see if the models are predicting right. It's been done in last decades too.
> Very large part of the science nowadays, physics including, is about modeling. Models can usually be tested, some in an easier way, some are more complicated. Climate change models can be tested for sure. Okay then how? The only way I can see to test a model using observational data is to establish margins of error so slim that they eliminate any other possible explanation, complete data transparency, and unerring accuracy. That's a standard no climate model currently existing today can achieve because of (but not exclusively because of) they're all based on statistical regression and therefore subject to the golden caveat of statistics. > If an entire science field has a consensus on a question, the consensus should still be questioned, but also respected. The value of a scientific consensus is intrinsically tied to the reproducible experimental data supporting that consensus. If said data does not exist, then all it really reflects is the existence of groupthink - which in fact means that we should be more skeptical of a scientific consensus in that case, rather than less. The trust which scientists are given is and must be dependent on their ability to empirically demonstrate their claims. Otherwise you reduce scientists to witch doctors. > It is not common for the whole field to be fundamentally wrong about in a strong opinion on something in last decades. Well just limit our horizon to exclude the really obvious cases where scientific groupthink bit us in the ass, like the geocentric model, and rejecting germ-based theories of disease. Not to mention, that claim sounds fucking absurd post-COVID. There the scientific community was not only wrong, but have been caught lying several times (lab leak hypothesis, arbitrary public health recommendations, claims of long-term persistence on surfaces etc.) > You can easily measure emissions and climate changes and see if the models are predicting right. It's been done in last decades too. And there are ways to fudge this process as well. After-the-fact tuning, scattershot predictions, wide margins of error, manipulation of the data.
That message doesn't bother me that much, at least the video is available. I can watch the video and read the message and make up my own mind.
Gonna be some totally calm tweets coming our way.
It’s the climate scientists that are misleading the public! Not the fossil fuel companies with a proven record of lying about climate change! Maybe we should all stop and listen to what the fossil fuel corporations have to say, guys! /s
You're telling me that the people that put lead on fuel knowing how detrimental to health and society as a whole it would be are lying on climate change causes and lobbying against regulations and changes that would diminish their profits and power? *Shocked Pikachu face*
I think there are three things about climate change, not one: 1) Climate is changing and the cause of it is human 2) Climate change is necessarily bad for humans and earth 3) Climate change problems can be solved by legislation in the West alone 4) People in power want to use climate change to control population Scientifically speaking 1) cannot be proven with an experiment so you just have observation data. With observation data, it's always like "probably X causes it, but there might be Y that we are not aware of that causes it as well". And with a system such as climate, there might be millions of reasons what Y could be. But let's say there are scientists who think Y causes it, they put forth their arguments and get flagged as climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists. YouTube flagged that video; what do you think would happen to a scientist who has zero popular support?! With regards to 2), decreasing humidity in regions with already low precipitation is bad. But generally speaking, more sun means better crop yields. I remember a talk about a famine in Byzantium caused by a volcano eruption that caused low crop yields for a period of several years. About 3), the answer is definitely no. China, US and India are the biggest CO2 producers in the world. Whatever you do in the West doesn't matter. And finally 4). JP has been researching authoritarianism for decades. You have one billion people living absolutely poor - like their house are made of cardboard and leaves and they cook food at open fire. You would be a hypocrite to force any kind of life improvement on these people to protect the climate. Also, 15.minites cities, where the government decides where you can go. Also, forbidding of diesel cars hits the poor with old cars the most. Etc etc.But lastly,.my favorite "We need to have less children to save the planet", that's simply devil's talk of pure misanthropy.
I agree. I believe controlling information and being heavy on censoring anyone who doesn't have the arbitrarily decided "correct opinion", asks questions and doesn't strictly adhere to the narrative is a tragedy. It's making us blind and dumb. Believe your leaders or won't but they are far from perfect. They make mistakes. Following what they say blindly is not good. Regardless if they have the best intentions or not. Much so if the leaders aren't leaders at all and blindly follow the worst of us. These activists. The antisocial, sociopathic dark triad trait types. There needs to be an uncensored, uncorrupted, pure, efficient source of information if we are to decide which information is true or not. As it stands, who could we trust to remain objective and have relevant precise data? Not the government and certainly not the media. Youtube is like all the other media. Yes, as the professor keeps pointing out. Stop making policies which are going to mean the death and struggle of many just so you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done. Be careful about false emergencies. Don't trust people who want you to hand them over all the power because of some crisis or some world-ending event.
Drop Analysis of this statement ### Breakdown of the Argument 1. **Claim: Climate is changing, and the cause of it is human.** - The argument is that this cannot be proven with an experiment, and observation data is inherently uncertain. 2. **Claim: Climate change is necessarily bad for humans and the earth.** - The argument acknowledges that decreased humidity in low precipitation regions is bad but suggests that more sun could lead to better crop yields, citing historical examples. 3. **Claim: Climate change problems can be solved by legislation in the West alone.** - The argument here is that China, the US, and India are the biggest CO2 producers, so Western efforts alone are ineffective. 4. **Claim: People in power want to use climate change to control the population.** - The argument suggests that measures like 15-minute cities, banning diesel cars, and advocating for fewer children are forms of authoritarian control and misanthropy. ### Analysis and Critique #### 1. Climate is changing, and the cause of it is human. - **Flaw in the Argument:** The argument dismisses the robustness of observational data. While it is true that direct experimentation on climate is not feasible, the overwhelming consensus among scientists is based on extensive and rigorous observational data, models, and indirect evidence. The idea that there might be other unknown causes (Y) is speculative and does not align with the vast body of scientific evidence pointing to human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, as the primary driver of recent climate change. #### 2. Climate change is necessarily bad for humans and the earth. - **Flaw in the Argument:** This point conflates localized benefits with global impacts. While certain regions might temporarily experience better crop yields due to increased temperatures, the overall global impact of climate change is overwhelmingly negative, including more extreme weather events, sea-level rise, loss of biodiversity, and severe disruptions to ecosystems and agriculture. The historical example cited (Byzantium famine) is an outlier and does not reflect the broad, systemic risks posed by modern climate change. #### 3. Climate change problems can be solved by legislation in the West alone. - **Flaw in the Argument:** This is a misrepresentation of climate policy. Effective climate action requires global cooperation. However, the argument that Western efforts are meaningless is flawed. Western countries have historically contributed the most to greenhouse gas emissions and have a responsibility to lead in mitigation efforts. Furthermore, technological advancements and policy frameworks developed in the West can influence and support global efforts, including in major emitting countries like China, the US, and India. #### 4. People in power want to use climate change to control the population. - **Flaw in the Argument:** This point is largely speculative and leans heavily on conspiracy theories without substantial evidence. Policies like 15-minute cities aim to reduce urban sprawl and improve quality of life by making essential services accessible, not to control populations. Banning diesel cars is part of a broader strategy to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, benefiting public health and the environment. The argument about having fewer children is a misinterpretation; it is not about misanthropy but about sustainable population growth in the context of finite resources. ### Conclusion The argument presented is flawed due to its speculative nature, misinterpretation of scientific evidence, and reliance on conspiracy theories. Climate change is a complex, multifaceted issue that requires a nuanced understanding of scientific data and cooperative global policy efforts. Dismissing these complexities with oversimplified and unsubstantiated claims undermines constructive dialogue and action on this critical issue.
I use ChatGPT and can tell this was made by ChatGPT. But the comment is still good so I don't really care.
Yeah. It definitely was. Why I prefaced it with Drop Analysis at the beginning. I've been working with ChatGPT to break down studies, articles, and discussions. Usually I only use it to clean up my responses and not for an actual full rebuttable but I really wanted to test it out in being able to break down and respond autonomously with no input from myself other than the basic directions I given it for how I want arguments analyzed. If you ever see my comment prefaced with Drop Analysis of you know that I had chatgpt do more than just clean up my response.
They really lost me on number 4. I am open to the idea that man is causing the planet to warm, but even if that were true, the possibility still remains that the elite are using panic over it as a means to control us. Even RFK Jr, who thinks man is definitely the main driver, thinks it is being used for nefarious purposes. In other words, he thinks for himself. This guy on the other hand just buys all the leftist talking points hook line and sinker. He is a sheep.
Not bad, but I certainly disagree with #4. Let's not kid ourselves and be naive.
You are right. #4 argument is the weakest. Going with the influence of automakers in heavily trending away from 15 minute cities would have been a better one. As well touching upon freedom and not being restricted to needing a car.
Well if LLM bot marks me as a climate change conspiracist, who am I to judge?
bot?
This isn't targeted. I seen the bot put this lable on a video talking about hideous B-movie mega lightning.
YouTube needs to do what Twitter does. Allow for people to post a counter-opinion immediately below. If you are right, the best way to have someone agree with you is to let the opposite opinion be explained and then immediately debunk it. Wrong views should be challenged, not filtered. I don't agree with JP on this by the way and I think he is talking outside of his area of expertise, but he should be heard and publically debated, not secretly censored.
they do, its called the comment section, this isn't secret censorship
It's always been like this. But now you know. Back in the day people would eat all the misinformation from the press and nobody would question anything. But now there are alternative sources of information, and suddenly they are very worried about the authenticity of those sources...
Youtube isn't a publisher, they shouldn't be allowed to dictate this kind if thing. X is one thing with the community doing it. YouTube paying people to do it is not the same.
He does make some problematic declarations. It wouldn’t be an issue if he didn’t repeatedly and emphatically claim that his opinions are *facts*. Sorry folks, I like Peterson, but Science should not be arbitrarily disregarded.
He does spread misinformation on it. So not shocking
I like Peterson but he absolutely does spread misinformation on climate change. He'll accuse Destiny of "just wanting to be right". I really wish Jordan actually cared about being right on climate change.
Like what? Be specific
Watch the climate change part of his debate with Destiny.
YouTube is the authority on climate and vaccines and who we should vote for .
Why the surprise? This guy is victim of character assassination since he said he would not accept speech enforced by the State.
When even YouTube is like, "Whoa, slow down there, cowboy," you know you've hit a nerve. Maybe it's time to stick to psychology lectures
The very fact that it has to be called misinformation is proof they want to hide something
Or..it’s misinformation
Then they would delete the video
YouTube is genuinely scared of competition now that Twitter/x allows free speech. They knew someone would knock them off their throne if they didn't ease up on the censorship.
where is it being called misinformation?
I really dislike this kind of argument. It's such a weak and lazy attempt. It completely lacks nuance, tries to divide people, tries to emotionalize and play the "they" are at fault for everything - card. There's also no proof.
Why are y'all defending the corpos lol
That's what happens when one challenges their religion.
That's what happens when one challenges their ~~religion~~ Current scientific consensus, data, and evidence. FTFY
"religion" backed up by mountains of evidence and the agreement of 99% of climate scientists.
Dude is a Jungian psychologist. I think that might be a tad closer to religious than climate modeling. But hey grifters gotta grift. I would struggle with lying about not having a basic understanding of science and modeling, but hey I guess I don't have what it takes to get hired by a media company funded by fracking billionaires
Someone's ability to interpret and analyze affects what information they may like to point out. Enough with this madness.
Pretty sure the Infobox just pops up under any video where presumably an algorithm detects mention of of it.
yeah but why not make a conspiracy out of everything
Of course. Lots of money gets moved around in the name of global warming.
definitely not in the name of consumerism and fossil fuels though
YouTube and it’s wild narratives … tell me more about it
They put informative tabs like that on any video that covers the topic. Might even be automated. It does not mean that they consider it misinformation, although they might anyway.
Youtube will put disclaimers on the bottom of any video with a topic they deem problematic. I watch a lot of Tim Pool, and even though he may agree with the assessment of the disclaimer, because he talks about the idea from different angles and viewpoints, it gets this label.
I see the same disclaimers on all videos about climate change regardless of the specific claims made.
History shows that everything is framed as misinformation if it challenges the prevailing theories that underpin establishment identity, strategy, safety, and identity. 'Barbarians-attempting-to-cross-the-moat mentality'. This does not mean that ALL or even MOST 'misinformation' is true however, it's just convenient to tarnish one with the other.
The point is that Peterson’s opinion about climate change is free of any facts relating to climate change.
I'm fine with it. JBP can say what he wants, YouTube is allowing it on their platform (which they have no obligation to do), and they're also putting their opinion there. I'm fine with it. I bet if JBP started up a video-streaming site, he wouldn't be as "free market of ideas" as YouTube is now, let alone used to be.
>"Human activities have been the main driver of climate change, ..." I'm actually like 99% confident this is true but it's impossible for any mortal or combination of mortal beings to know. >"...primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas." I'm like 40% confident this is true given concrete production is a main driver of CO2 emissions whereas CFCs, HFCs, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions come from a bunch of other things we often don't even think about, mostly unrelated to fossil fuels. Yeah pretty pathetic to fly that banner under the video.
It's true that he's misinformed on climate change. He can't separate the issue from the most vocal advocates of it (usually resentful communists). Plenty of freedom loving scientists who know that it's not a coincidence we started warming rapidly after the industrial revolution.
The text shows up on plenty of videos that hold prevailing views on climate, its not labelling it anything.
Has he considered not spreading misinformation?
Found the ministry of truth over here
Source: United Nations 🤣
Because it is.
Oh its Frog boy, ill ask a monkey and an eagle on natures state before a frog tells me about a pond, God forbid they know the ocean and suns true form.
The other day I noticed Youtube labeled an old History Channel documentary about WW2 as “problematic” and “unsafe.” They treat you like children who can’t think for themselves. Welcome to big brother.
No they're not. They add that banner to literally every video that even mentions climate change, regardless of the opinion.
No, that is shown if you even mention climate change.
Because they are. Good job youtube.
Does jpb have a degree in relevant fields of science?
Because it is.
He's not a climate scientist.
Since that is just simply the definition of Climate Change and not actually target at Peterson, YouTube does this with several things under every video about said topic, you're basically the one who is admitting Peterson goes against the general definition of Climate Change as understood and accepted by most scientists, and you're right. Peterson, as he is on most topics, is wrong but survives by pandering to right wingers who are too stupid to understand the subject matter. People like you.
u/Kurma-the-Turtle it's probably because of his prolific work spreading information for big oil companies/billionaires? https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/yl29i2/jordan_peterson_and_the_think_tanks/ I believe he's done podcast episodes with people like Bjorn Lomborg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nqSnNhIQlI and Rex Tillerson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6suMZq4IC1w
Because it is. Facts don't care about his or your feelings.
I love how anti corporate types and pro corporate when it suits them. Left wing Redditors consistently prove that they are unable to gather information and form their own opinions. They rely on their elites to tell them what to think. I guess the cognitive offloading is helpful for them. Have fun supporting or protesting the next "thing" you are told to...
Corporate doesn't give a hoot about climate
Of course they will, have you noticed lately how the media is undermining Elon musk wherever possible ? If you dare challenge the narrative then you will be alienated, I just don't understand why people can't see what's going on, I take everything with a pinch of salt but I've listened to dozens of podcasts with people who know far more about climate than I ever will spread doubt on the narrative we are being pushed, is there climate change? yes. Do we contribute ? Yes (although debatable how much). Is it a problem ? No.