Advertisements

JORDAN PETERSON On Global Warming : The Clip That Should Be Mandatory Viewing In All Schools!

JORDAN PETERSON - Cambridge - AGW Beatdown - Climatism

Jordan Peterson – Canada’s way of apologizing to the world for Justin Trudeau!


JORDAN PETERSON is a professor at the University of Toronto, a clinical psychologist and the author of the million-plus selling ’12 Rules for Life’, a Number 1 bestseller. He rose to international prominence in 2016, after criticising the Canadian government’s enactment of Bill C-16.

THE psychologist and internet celebrity has been touted as ‘the most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now’, with contentious views on gender, political correctness. A culture warrior, who has no truck with “white privilege”, “cultural appropriation” and a range of other ideas associated with social justice movements.

PROFESSOR Peterson is Canada’s way of apologizing to the world for Justin Trudeau!

*

MUST WATCH clip of on global warming at the Cambridge Union that should be mandatory viewing in all schools!

DOESN’T get much better than this…

CLIP via GWPF

*

H/t @Cartoonsbyjosh

•••

NEW Science Just In :

RELATED :

SEE also :

CO2 related :

CO2 ‘Greening The Planet’ related :

CLIMATISM Hot Links :

STATE Of The Climate (August 2018) :

IPCC Report 2018 SR15 :

TEMPERATURE Related :

ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :

•••

Climatism Tip Jar – Help Keep The Good Fight Against Costly Climate Alarmism Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help Climatism to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated and continue on a monthly cycle! Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps!

Click link for more info…TQ! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••

Advertisements

9 Comments on “JORDAN PETERSON On Global Warming : The Clip That Should Be Mandatory Viewing In All Schools!”

  1. chaamjamal says:

    There are a couple of things that Jordan might have said but didn’t.

    1. First, the ocean acidification incident 55 million years ago does not have any relevance to this instance of global warming. Please see
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/10/28/petm/

    2. Second, the issue of the uncertainty of the effect of atmospheric co2 on surface temperature is more profound because the reason there is so much uncertainty is that climate sensitivity is derived from a spurious correlation and when that statistical error is corrected, no climate sensitivity remains. In other words the very idea of climate sensitivity derives from bad statistics. It does not really exist. Please see
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/09/25/a-test-for-ecs-climate-sensitivity-in-observational-data/

    Like

  2. Jordan Peterson has good intuition. He’s right about a lot of things. Humans being poor at unifying for the common good is one of them, but knowledge of real technological solutions to climate change is not. Nuclear energy is not the huge risk most people think it is. The generalist in us all needs to look at the facts. We need to decide for ourselves. Look at the failure of Germany as Peterson points out to replace nuclear energy with renewable energy. They needed coal plants. The ranking of the relative safety of various energy forms places nuclear plants as the safest and least harmful of all. They actually save lives by replacing coal plants that emit harmful and toxic particles. The nuclear waste issue is also an overblown issue. The amount of waste is tiny compared to the actual energy it creates and electricity it produces. What humans need to do is focus on making the solutions easier to accomplish. For example making new nuclear plants cheaper to build. Over-regulation that has been put in place to satisfy the non-experts from protests is a large part of the costs. How much built in safety do the plants actually need? These kinds of questions are currently being tackled.
    There are also plenty of sources that show the actual death toll from the well known nuclear plant meltdowns being much smaller. In fact Chernobyl is the only plant accident that caused fatalities and they were much, much smaller than many claims..

    Liked by 2 people

    • CROM says:

      Hi! I second your thought on nuclear power and I agree in most parts of your assertion. Moreover, not only the Germans fired up their coal plants but they have also been buying supplementary nuclear power from France!

      Total disaster and ridicule of their central planning. A central planning which according to Lomborg costed the German taxpayers about 30-35 billion Euros a year. In addition, their environment is far worse because to install solar and wind power means, especially for the latter, a good amount of deforestation (to make roads that will take you to the locations where wind turbines are to be installed and maintained) and lots of deaths of raptor-type birds and millions of bats.

      The former are endangered species.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Ricardo Castro says:

    A few keypoints not mentioned and to consider as well:

    There are no permanent repositories in place anywhere in the world. The proposed storage repository at Yucca Mountain was canned after spending $13.5 billion. Finland and Sweden are currently working on underground repositories.

    Even if a permanent storage solution can be found, there are still social and economic issues to consider, as the waste must be stored for 100,000 years.

    Forecasts project that only a few decades of high-grade uranium ore reserves left. Over time, the ore-grade will decline, making nuclear even less efficient. Mining will need to occur more frequently, which will require the use of diesel-fueled equipment. Greenhouse gas emissions will undoubtedly be higher.

    The majority of nuclear power reactors are classified as Generation 2. Generation 2 reactors are inneficient. New nuclear power stations are classified as Generation 3 or Generation 3+.

    There are only four Generation 3 reactors in operation today, all of which are in Japan. Their performance has been unimpressive thus far. There are no Generation 3+ reactors operating today, but there are several under construction in the U.S., Europe and China. Unfortunately, these projects are all behind schedule and way over-budget.

    Vogtle is now running three years behind schedule — and over $2 billion USD over budget.

    http://www.euradcom.org/renewable-energy-versus-nuclear-energy-debunking-the-myths/

    But….

    There are people who believe that nuclear is the only realistic answer and people who believe that nuclear is a flailing mess that will play little role in the coming energy transition. This often makes productive discussion difficult.

    Problem is, we’ve seen several nuclear plants shut down in recent years and now have a pretty good idea what replaces them. It’s mostly natural gas and some coal.

    For practical purposes, the choice is not existing nuclear versus renewables; it’s existing nuclear versus natural gas. And as a fossil fuel, natural gas creates more greenhouse gases.

    The transition from Nuclear to RES is not as smooth and clean as it was planned.

    I personally think, both energy sources can and should co-exist for some time, while replacing
    and incorporating better technologies.

    Like

  4. Konrad says:

    By no means do I pretend to have sufficient knowledge to debate people like Jordan Peterson, but another very intelligent man, Elon Musk, says that an equal in surface area solar power plant produces more power than a nuclear power plant + accompanying green belt.

    As for the objection Jordan raises about the sun going down at night – then the solution is to store the energy in batteries (another solution put forward by Elon Musk).

    Otherwise he makes some great points, but I wasn’t convinced by the immediate dismissal of solar power.

    Like

    • Grant says:

      Konrad, in a recent publication from Nuclear Physicists in India, they have shown the sheer size of operations that are required to provide sufficient electricity generation, with respect to equal output. Wind requires 500 Square Kilometers, Solar 400 Square Kilometers and Nuclear/Thorium 2 Square Kilometers for 1 Gigawatt of generation. In comparison on cost; the Nuclear/Thorium option is far less than the other 2, and with Nuclear/Thorium, there is no requirement for Batteries, which would drastically increase the cost and size of those operations.

      A small example of a local Solar installation. A small town recently installed solar on several rooftops to help power their city hall and street lights. It took 14 buildings, and 2,000 panels to offset $300 per month of actual electricity usage (Bills were $2700-2900, though the bulk of it was transmission fees). Total cost $2 mil. which will never be recovered, well maybe in 555 years, though the panels have a 20-25 year lifespan of their own, while the batteries will be replaced in 10 years.

      The primary issue with Solar is the efficiency. It sits at 21.5%, where Natural Gas is at 68.9%. It takes quite a bit of petroleum products to produce the panels, including Rare Earth Metals. A better solution is to focus on Fusion and Thorium reactors for generation, over fossil fuels. India and China both have reactors going online within the next few months, and I expect that once shown to outperform Nuclear and every other solution currently in use, it will be the next big push.

      Like

    • CROM says:

      Batteries have, not only an enormous carbon footprint (during production) but pose challenges when it is time to recycle them. Moreover, Musk is wrong if he referred to the example that you gave. In fact, the area covered by solar panels that’s needed to produce an equal amount of power to that of a nuclear plant’s is an area as big as the entire State or Maine.

      The aforementioned argument was mentioned within a lecture in a conference for climate change by an expert scientist. I mean if you think about it (and do the math) it’s so preposterous to claim a thing like that that I consider highly improbable that Musk actually claimed something along these lines. Maybe you misunderstood what he said or maybe he was on what Joe Rohan gave him during his interview!

      Liked by 1 person

  5. With almost a million twitter followers, he is probably the world’s most influential climate sceotic at the moment.

    I did a partial transcript of what he said at the Cambridge Union and in his GQ interview here:

    https://cliscep.com/2018/11/08/jordan-peterson-on-climate-change/

    Liked by 1 person


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.