Only registered users can comment.

  1. Peterson lives in Canada. They don't seem to have big forest fires there. They don't have hurricanes or tornados or much flooding. He isn't experiencing 113 degree summers as I have. Thus he can go the cynical negative route. The "no."

  2. They will not stop driving cars, unless they are rendered illegal, give them bicycles, you could start by making cars that only go 50Mph, that run on less than a litre of gas…could make a difference, could start making products last forever like we used to…legislation could be conceived, but why do it? over 99% of species are gone, so will we 🙂 the worst parasite that ever existed…no one will miss us…no one cares about us, we don't…

  3. His argument about projections is a straw man . We don't need to look at projections to know how the 1-2 degree Celcius increase since the mid 20th century (spiking around the 80s) has adversely affected ecosystems around the world. And I sincerely doubt western democracies could give less of a shit about helping 3rd world countries industrialize. I would sooner hedge my bets with our own technological innovation and green industries, and hope that our beneficial discoveries will proliferate to developing nations.

    These talking points all boil down to: The stars haven't aligned, so we should do nothing , make no effort, assume zero responsibility and IF we must act, we should pursue a completely different course of action. This is completely opposite to the arguments in his own damn book.

    I like Jordan Peterson's work, but the i-can-talk-really-fast-and-finish-all-of-my-arguments-without-taking-a-single-breath is uncharacteristic of him, and is really just a speaking tactic to convince stupid people of weak arguments, and muddy the waters around legit concerns. He's usually better than this.

  4. So to sum up Professor Peterson's long rant…. solving climate change is impossible because we can't solve humanity and human nature. We are going to get in the way of saving ourselves.

  5. Why just not to plant trees? This is the most efficient way to decrease co2 and
    More over converting it in o2, no other tecnology can do this, they only reduce the creation of co2 but don't annihilate it

  6. I presume he figures that when sea levels rise lobsters will thrive. His shallowness in argumentation really comes through very clearly. Talk about "low resolution thinking".

  7. yeah sure. i drive a 100% battery electric vehicle (tesla model 3) and i get 100% wind power from my utility provider (arcadian) and my average utility bill for the year is a whopping $120/month and that includes hvac/electricity/"fueling" up my car. Before I got my BEV I was spending more than that on gasoline alone. I still have a carbon footprint as a consumer of goods and concrete roads etc, but the majority of my carbon footprint is gone, and it cost me less money.

  8. Nuclear energy is the most realistic alternative to fossil fuels. Uneducated people though just hear the word "NUCLEAR" and immediately think they're atomic bomb factories or something and dismiss their energy output potential.

  9. The one thing that could have reduced carbon output for the past few decades, nuclear power, was stopped by leftists protesting it.

  10. Ahh Jordan Peterson the drug addled tool shares his quack philosophy explaining why we should listen to him over actual scientists.

  11. If solar and wind power is fed into a grid doesn't that reduce the amount coal that needs to be burnt, quite regardless of whether it is night or a still day.

  12. Christians should take Genisis more serious
    DO NOT KILL, be a fruitarian!!! Respect creation. Respect life on Earth!!!

  13. Shouldn't we try still? Despite everything Dr Peterson has said about the complexity of the issue and how grim the reality of the climate situation is, I still think that we have to try. We have to make an effort to save the world. Climate change is quickly becoming the planet's most existential threat. Simply saying "NO!" like Peterson did isn't taking any meaningful action.

  14. ANY WORDS ABOUT CHEMTRAILS, HAARP, OR THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH????ITs FLAT 100% ZERO CURVATURE….CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX…THEY CONTROL THE WEATHER SINCE WW2…

  15. Maybe we should get on with our lives and throw the political global warming gurus out the window! CO2 is good for the ecology, at least the plants and tree think so. There would be no such thing as global warming if it wasn't for the elite wanting to control we little sheep to our deaths and believe me they do, fluoridated water, poison GMO food, abortions, chemical trail criss crossing every inch of the skies globally, geoengineering tornado's and earthquakes, harmful vaccines, 5G technology to radiate us 100 times more than 4G technology, killing us with pharmaceuticals (definition of pharmacy in the Greek; witchcraft) and you wonder why there are no cures for anything, and last but not least attaching the time bombs on our homes called Smart Meters. If we had just 10% of the population waking up and smelling the coffee we might have a chance for survival. But then again the boys behind the doors would just poison our coffee!

  16. peterson should stick to psychology.. how is he qualified to speak about politics and science in general ? hes being put forward as another mesiah figure simply because of his image.

  17. To increase overall brain ower globally we need more videos like this involving critical analysis, far less crap on social media, proper journalism and reading more well-written books + peer-review scientific journal articles. 👍

  18. Eventually it's just a psychologist who worth being listened to when talking about psychology…talking about physics, which he apparently doesn't really understand.

    A natural scientists thinking would be: if climate change will destroy civilization, it's the only problem worth solving, because without solving it, solutions for all other problems will go down the drain anyway.
    A psychologists thinking is shaped by the object of his profession, the human mind and when considering a persons psychological problems, you always start with a small problem and move to the bigger one later.

    i very much like the example with the UN development goals being assessed by economists.
    Economy is about the markets and hasn't the market done a wonderful job of protecting common goods, e.g. the environment?
    Or non-marketable goods, like social stability?
    Oh, wait….

  19. Am I the only one shaking my head and thinking what an idiot? What kind of reasoning is "it's so complicated so I'm just going to endorse inaction and negatively"? Climate change is already uniting millions of people all around the world and the solution is painfully simple- reduce CO2 emissions. No amount of arrogant, academic dithering is going to help us achieve that.

  20. CO2 truths, by a geologist for a change (14,500 viewings in 6 months) …

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332245803_27_bullet_points_prove_global_warming_by_the_sun_not_CO2_by_a_GEOLOGIST_for_a_change

  21. Most people don't got the time to map the complexity of a branched network of consequences a global decision creates.
    As Jordan said, the climatechange issue is a "total-catastrophic-nightmareish-mess".

    Some politicians try to solve a problem that we do not understand with scarce tools and hidden consequences of the act. Its like buy a pig in a poke.

  22. Well, there is only one solution: kill as much people as you can and keep a small amount left and they will obey to THE NEW WORLD ORDER. That is the plan and it will be executed very soon…
    I wonder if he dares to speak that out, because he knows about it. He is going to be depressed…because he knows what is going to come..

  23. Didn't the false data about climate change come from Cambridge University? If you think CO2 is the problem then watch this,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zrejG-WI3U&t=7s

  24. GWPF claims that 'Professor Jordan Peterson explains why the world won't unite to solve the complex issue of climate change.' GWPF is full of crap and so is Peterson. 180+ countries signed the Paris Accord to fight climate change. Also climate change is a science issue, so why would anyone invite JP to speak on science? He is no scientist. His escapades into science, politics, and philosophy are an embarrassment to the field of psychology.

  25. Greta is not my  PROUDEST fap, I mean, the tears made it better, the whining not so much, stealing dreams was just a bonus, but I can say, without a doubt, Jordan Peterson IS my proudest fap after that answer.  LOL 😀

  26. Greta getta grip! Prof. Jordan Peterson is correct. In a Regulated, ever improving World, there is no catastrophe! We will never get to the Jetsons by restricting our advance to only the use of Incapable, Costly GREEN!

  27. The assertion that we have more trees now than in the past is true. However, someone well-versed in environmental science would realize that this comes at a cost to biodiversity. A human planted forest is not the same as a natural and mature forest. The destruction of the habitat of wild animals driven by the human need for cheap beef will bring with it incredible and irreversible consequences.
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/

  28. Climate change is a hoax!! Man created free energy years ago but it is being suppressed from the elites,zionists!!the whole world is a stage

  29. This man is as honest as you can be! Best answer I have heard so far about climate change. Just the truth, nothing else.

  30. "The actual science says it isn't enough of a big deal to enact any expensive sweeping changes."
    left: HERETIC!
    globalists: but how else can we enact draconian laws that deprive people of national sovereignty? I know we'll find an autistic 16 year old.

  31. Sadly this is the first JP interview that has truly dissapointed. Whilst I agree with his answer that the road to global co-operation around climate change will be a difficult one, I do not agree with his reasoning which entirely avoids the psychological factors (his area of expertise). He also entirely misses the point that even should a wide margin for error exist within some of the prediction models, the impact of the bad to worse case scenarios would be catastrophic. It's like wearing a seatbelt whilst driving, most of the time you're not going to need your seatbelt but the argument for that time when you do need your seatbelt is still very strong. Climate change, we all know it is happening. The combination of incomplete global data combined with new models and impacts still being researched and developed leaves a large area of uncertainty in the "when" aspect of this timeline. That it will happen, can no longer be denied. And that should be enough. If we were a more moral species, well then a bio-diversity argument might also be enough. If we were a more humane society, perhaps then global social pressure for family planning would be enough. If we were a more ethical global economy then Triple Bottom Line thinking might be our accounting standard. But collectively we're none of those things. At least not yet. What it might take to shift the psychology of our global collective society towards these things would be something I'd like to hear JP speak on. Thus far religion, massive inequality and political attempts at ideology have failed to do so. Perhaps the answer to those questions will be more than simply a "No". We can do better.

  32. Well we fixed the hole in the ozonlayer. We can decrease Co2 but we need to be creative about it. Doing nothing is no option. We need to try. Answer: NO. haha Well I say YES. Better try failing then not even try. There are some good devolpments and some set backs. But this is true all down history.

  33. THE AUDIENCE LOOKED LIKE THEY’VE JUST REALIZED THEIR ACTIVIST PROFESSORS AND MEDIA HAVE BEEN PROPAGANDIZING THEM… DOH!

  34. Brilliant minds are taking over things that were meant to distract us and I love it!

    We would have never ever heard of such views from mainstream but we are thankful to the internet and youtube

  35. Bravo, splendid show, what!? .. Why are people getting confused about warmer vs colder climates, like it's a reflection of political left and right parties? The climate is swinging ever more erratically from hot to freezing everywhere around the globe, like every living body does in a fever, while learning to identify and rid itself of the exact thing that threatens it!

    Personal observation and receptivity is key to knowing.

  36. CO2 is plant food Lol … If a plant's leaves and veins are coated with all forms of pollution, or/and hindered by lack of other forms of nutrition due to all kinds of other environmental conditions, then how can it breath efficiently at all??! An argument in deed. Though, for instance, people who aren't fully experienced gardeners, should never talk plants

  37. Yeah, Jordan got his head on straight, he fully understands that people are hypocrites, those left wind radicals and environmentalists are just getting rich off the whole hype of global warming, no one is willing to give up anything

  38. So he is a climate scientist. No
    Any science degree. No
    Geography… eh no
    Ah so you are a fisherman, farmer, even backyard gardener? No
    You like saying no and people think you are smart because you say no? No..yes

  39. Climate change will unite us!
    How?
    Well, because it's your fault you're going to stop doing all the things you enjoy, be less productive, give me your wealth and let my country catch up with you because it's your fault that my country actually pollutes more than you. So give me everything you have as your punishment for me being worse than you and in hopes that I'll do better. And if you don't then I'll invade you with mass migration and destroy your culture…but I'll probably do that anyway.

  40. Did he just suggest that the way to fix global warming is to give food aid to the 3rd world so they'll produce more and maybe produce a genius? lmfao wut?

  41. i came to the same conclusion as Peterson, years ago (also); global warming wasn't just a catastrophe, but difficult, if not impossible to solve…they didn't even define the problem. the problem really is pollution, and human over population.
    but, they don't know all of the available technology, like a well informed engineer does.
    i didn't give into pessimism that way.
    the way forward is geothermal energy extraction via advances in material sciences and processes.
    building up of the hydrogen-highway, and helium harvesting via 30+ km high towers – think blimps that stay aloft i.e. Sky Captain. art-deco.
    the pollution / garbage has to be shipped to Antarctica. very large ships with double hulls.
    nuclear weapons have to be banned – nations that sign on, must be willing to commit military might to fight nuclear weapons manufacturers – there must be a real United Nations…
    Islam has to be removed – it is the most toxic political ideology created by mankind, without exception; the purpose of Islam is simply Jihad.
    Russia and China need to convert to quasi-democracies (voting based on the amount of tax you pay: y = square root of x)…not full democracies. e.g. look how they impeach Trump for making a phone call, that is described as 'quid pro quo'…when, it was an investigation into 'quid pro quo (Biden & son).

  42. 2:49 Also works for piracy, if you improve the lives of your citzens they will start to acquire media through legal means.

  43. what a joker…
    sure. we can multitask on many issues. not a problem.
    there are 7.5 billion people in the world. put them to work.
    only 200 issues ?
    ——
    Peterson should explain why the USA, Canada, Russia generate 16 tons of CO2 per person per year.
    many European nations generate 9 tons per person.
    China 8 tons. ( a lot of coal, but a lot of renewable too)
    Spain, UK, Denmark, Italy down to 6 tons.
    World average is 4 tons per person.
    Everyone needs to get down to less than one ton person quickly.
    —–
    it seems that nations are finding ways to reduce CO2 emissions.
    how come it is working in Spain but not the USA. different technology in Spain ?
    it seems that the more advanced the economy, the dirtier is becomes CO2-wise.
    no hope in more development making the world cleaner.
    —–
    So why are USA, Canada, and Russia "leaders" in CO2 emissions ?
    because they are also leaders in fossil fuel production. pretty simply. why rock the boat.
    —–
    In the USA, corporate america has an outsized influence in politics.
    most corporations have looked at climate change and determined that it will be profitable.
    climate damage will cause floods, droughts, wildfires, heavy rains, cat 5 hurricanes, changing shorelines, etc.
    a lot of damage that will need to be fixed.
    new drywall from Lowes, new appliances from Walmart, new furniture, new cars, new everything, etc.
    it's a gift that keeps on giving… don't stop it.
    who pays ?
    the consumer, taxpayer, and the insurance premium payers.
    —–
    any questions ?
    yeah… I am old and wise and a bit jaded. 🙂

  44. His point doesn‘t make sense. Lifting the GDP won‘t do anything. That is not how capitalism works, look at countries like the US and Germany, they have a very high GDP and they are responsible for a lot of the pollution and emissions.

  45. how do we know its all a scam? easy…The world largest producer of global warming is the US Military and its 700 bases around the world…the entire military industrial complex uses so much energy produces so much waste and destroys so many natural resources…yet no one says anything about it…..ask greta how much fossil fuel goes into the logistic to operate all the US military trucks tanks planes helicopters jeeps by products of manufacturing nuclear fuel…? people dont realize all nuclear power plants vent radiation…they have too and its goes out into the air you breath……

  46. Facts backed up with common sense in my opinion is always welcomed,let's not beat about the bush most of these so called scholars need to wake up.Jordan Peterson makes some great points,hopefully a few might sink in…But I doubt it.

  47. Peterson is a liar.
    A self promoting click bait promulagtor.
    And this speech is full of it.
    Hes a psychologist!
    He knows how to manipulate minds and he does it to sell books.

  48. Don't get it twisted, he's not denying it's a thing. He's just putting forth the issues.

    He's also not the end all of the discussion. People, this is an actual issue. Humans have a huge influence on the environment, how can't we? Cities and farmland aren't natural landmarks. Nor are cars or airplanes.
    What exists here, planet earth, is a rarity in the universe. It's difficult to maintain. It can be subtlety destroyed in mere generations.

  49. Ah yes the narcissistic all important human being making a feeble attempt to control the planet! I wonder after our species is wiped off the face of the earth and another billon or two years go by how big of an issue "Climate Change" will be then!

  50. "🇦🇹 Do not trust, question everything, think for yourself.
    The atmosphere:
    10,000 molecules = 100%
    of which CO2 4 molecules = 0.04%
    of which CO2 is man-made 0.00125%
    = 0.1 molecule of 10,000 in the atmosphere.
    Question: How brain-dead does one have to be to believe that 0.1 molecules of 10,000 in the atmosphere could affect them.
    The elites, with their vassal politicians, will trillions of euros, by taxing the breath to squeeze air out of the people.

  51. The error bars around the 0.8C increase in global temperatures are also so wide as to imply that the Earth could have possibly been COOLING over the lasts 150 years. It's not probable, but it is possible. 0.98C is the margin of error according to Standford University.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *