when I apply Milton Friedman to DESTINY vs PETERSON debate... watch what happens
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 04. 2024
- #destiny #jordanpeterson #miltonfriedman
Warren Smith applies the socratic method & Milton Friedman’s economic perspective - to the Jordan Peterson vs. Destiny debate in an attempt to help someone look at it with a different perspective.
New episodes of the Secret Scholars podcast premiere each Friday.
I love this guest, I know he gets a lot of shit, but I think he’s an excellent “antagonist”. He’s also not afraid to come to different conclusions, but after thoroughly running through it with you. So he is willing to change his perspective.
I'd have to agree w you
The guest is likely very young, so misinformed as he may be, he is at least willing to change his mind.
@toolegit2quit173 Nah he'll likely be right back shortly.
@@toolegit2quit173 he’s actually a fellow professor! Could be young still, not denouncing that idea. He has mentioned he’s very disconnected from “news” and “social media”. There is a video where they both discuss this because he was getting dragged in the comments.
It hurts, but you're right
I was in academia. I got the PhD. The guy you are talking to sounds like me in my first year of graduate school. I believed the top incentive driving scientists was "is this true?" I no longer believe anything close to that. Now I think the first step in analyzing any scientific question is understanding the incentives of those involved.
If you were in the academia and you got your PhD (congrats) you should be also put off by the question "what is the scientific method", since this as well sounds like a first year of a graduate school. There is a difference between asking questions coming from critical thinking and asking questions coming off lack of elementary knowledge. The latter just disproves the former.
ps. Also, not knowing what is the difference between the weather and the climate and making false claims about "not having tools to measure climate 100 years ago" is a further proof of not being at least prepared to tackle the subject
I too had the revelations about modern research. They're not asking the question "is this true?", they usually ask "How to make the data fit our conclusion?".
Your analysis is close to correct. Prior to 2010, the scientific method was based on provable facts and observable truth. During the Obama administration, leftist thinking and leftist ideology took over. Today, many scientific fields have been captured and corrupted by the radical left: psychology, medicine, law, the judiciary to name a few. You can no longer rely upon these professions or institutions to seek justice, to tell you the truth or be honest with you. These professions and institutions put their ideology first, their preferred outcome second, and facts and truth are a distant third.
“Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.”
@@WisdomThumbs show me the man and I will show you the crime. Joseph Stalin’s chief law enforcer. Did I say Biden or Stalin?
As a physician… Every time I hear about ‘absolutes’… I remember when medicine ‘absolutely knew bleeding’ was the pinnacle of good medical care. When ‘washing your hands’ made no difference in infection rates… The only thing I “absolutely know” is that we know very little of what we “absolutely know to be true”.
Yes! And the doctor who first put forth the idea that hand washing improved surgical outcomes and childbirth (I can’t remember his name) was forced out of his job, labeled a lunatic, and died in shame bc no one would listen to him. And here we are, we who have access to all these stories, all this history, so we KNOW this has happened countless times in the past, yet no one will even consider the possibility that it’s happening now. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard ppl confidently express “facts” (which are mostly opinions they think are facts), with absolute certainty and a sense of superiority, but there are 2 or 3 factually incorrect statement, easily falsifiable ones, but the verifiable facts are conspiracy theories. It’s beyond frustrating, it’ll make you crazy.
You are correct but it's not because you are a physician, it's because you utilize intelligence, logic and reason. I know lots of physicians who don't utilize those things and are oblivious to their own ignorance.
I've worked in psych research and I've never heard anyone say "absolute", "100%" or "true" unless it had to do with a chemical, mathematics or statistical model. What you're probably referring to is human's tendency to misspeak, generalize or just talk without thinking/understanding. The further one gets from the available data the more they tend to get wrong with research. Both these individuals have no real clue how real research is conducted. Ex. Neither is a climatologist nor a virologist. Their ability to talk about either subject is rather limited and does us an injustice tbh.
Blood letting is productive for good health. Once a month maybe.
I recommend Eric Dubay
Bro got berserk on his bookshelf with his philosophy library. Respect.
I thought I recognized that cover 😮
I followed the science and found the money. Science works, but scientists always find for the ones paying them too. If you cannot question it, it is not science.
The thing about science working is that most people only work when they get paid
because of private enterprise..........
@@andrewhouser1334 The military hires a lot of them. Government think-tanks do too. Big global companies like Microsoft and such do. The space industry and many more. Private enterprise is often doing better than the government ones. Globalist do not have the people's interest at heart. UN is corrupt and it's definitely paid for.
How do you know that?
@@mindlander Pfizer showed me.
"The data is overwhelming". There is this guy that published a paper on some facet of climate change that after being published in Nature came out and say the paper is technically wrong, because his data came from a bad methodology and he still published because he knew climate related papers have an abnormal acceptance rate by scientific publications. And he was right, the paper was reviewed by multiple peers and nobody batted an eye at it and got it published.
I've done research (not climatology). It's incredibly rare that you'll be able to generate "pure" data on most subjects. What you try to do is account for it as much as possible. "Overwhelming" isn't far from the truth though. It's happening, but how much we are part of the problem is unknown right now. Ex... lets say that the ocean's rise 1" over 100 years. Not much of an issue... Until there's a major storm surge. Many cities have sea walls that will breach above say 6'. That 1" could mean millions of added water pumps and overflows will have to account for. London wont be under water - it could cause lives to be lost and billon's of dmg to the city.
Please tell me which study was that. I'd like to know. This is becoming Goebbels-level propaganda by the alarmist crowd.
@@jonathanstone4878 ""Overwhelming" isn't far from the truth though. It's happening, but how much we are part of the problem is unknown right now. Ex... lets say that the ocean's rise 1" over 100 years. "
>>It was always happening (climatic systems never stayed stable) and when you have unreliable points of reference you don't even know whether "it's happening" or not.
A Soon et al. paper showed that if you exclude urban sensors the "warming anomaly" from the end of LIA onward is a lot less than what's advertised. Almost undetectable and that's without even accounting for the error bars. So don't spout big words you can't support with scientific evidence.
Moreover, sea level rise (SLR) is between 1mm and 3mm per year (depending on location) and for many locations we have negative figures (aka more land).
In the 21st century with the Dutch claiming land from the bottom of the ocean for centuries and with ancient technology, it's ridiculous to talk about potential problems from SLR when everything you mentioned can be prevented.
But that's ONLY if you allow for societies to progress and prosper and that's possible only with access to cheap and abundant energy (which "renewables" - another propaganda term - aren't. Either cheap and/or abundant).
I am a scientist who has been looking into the climate conundrum for over 15 years and my conclusion is that this is a 100% political agenda.
@@C_R_O_M________ You know that video series, what if Google was a person? In it, there's this lady searching "Vaccines cause autism" and Google finds a thousand results that say that it doesn't, with one that says that it does. She grabs the one that supports her belief, and says "I knew it!"
Here we have you do exactly the same with a ludicrous and widely discredited paper written by nonexperts (an aerospace engineer and an astronomer), deciding to throw away the OVERHWELMING preponderance of evidence, based on this one study.
If you knew even the first thing about scientific evidence, you'd be horrendously ashamed of yourself.
What about the IPCC?
"The studies are accurate because they follow the scientific approach" this made me jump out of my seat. Trusting institutions is not the same as trusting the scientific method. Just because we have scientific institutions doesn't mean they are motivated or geared towards truth.
dude's never heard of p-hacking, data fraud, or any of the other numerous practices scientists use to manipulate experiments conducted with "the scientific method"
I thought it interesting that he used the word approach instead of method. Seems the kind of choice one would make to avoid telling an obvious lie while hoping to avoid a challenge.
As long as the approach is scientific, the method can be whatever we want, right?
@@rsimpson69 That's all in your head. The validity of all scientific findings comes from the use of the scientific method. Any time it isn't it gets proven false.
You are right, but its also a cheap point to make. Because you chose to make it, it seems your trust depend on their results more than anything else. That is more suspicious.
The scientific results are clear that CO2 emissions are a serious man made problem. Disputing that is a very different discussion than discussing who and how to respond to that. Warren lost the first discussion point and pivoted smoothly to the second.
@@Crimsonwhocares so often things are announced and then proven false, but the news doesn't report the falsehood as vigorously, so many of us continue to walk around with falsehoods in our minds.
And of course to complicate things further, there do exist charlatans who begin with an agenda rather than an interest in true discovery. Big tobacco once paid people called scientists to find smoking safe, after all. I'm not sure big govt or big pharma or big education are any more trustworthy, TBH
Mandating EVs is a good example of extreme government intervention.
giving grants and tax breaks to elon musk is extreme goverment intervention
Not to mention Cafe regulations that had ratios for trucks……now we have just big ass trucks everywhere. Lol. Opposite effect.
@@andrewhouser1334 As is the government trying to sue him for not hiring illegals.
One thing that I would like to add to that is that GM Ford and dodge would not exist without subsidies. We bailed them out during the financial crisis. On top of that oil and gas also receive subsidies and tax breaks.
The President of Toyota told the WEF to kick rocks. They will never be exclusively EV.
Dear Lord,
I pray that you grant me the patience to be able to deal with people as Warren is capable of.
Amen.
Practice perceiving with an open heart and an open mind.
Milton Friedman - agree or disagree with him - had a very well-thought-out philosophical worldview.
@@Dukkha-Bhavana He has been dead for 16 years so I doubt he trusts anyone anymore. It is my understanding that he trusted individuals, particularly shareholders/owners, to use their profits and wealth as they saw fit to support social causes of their choosing. If you think this is accurate can, you explain your argument that those people are not doing as he expected. Do you think they are not choosing to support the causes that they wish to? He didn't posit that they would do as you would wish of them.
@@vicnighthorse Sorry my bad, & CZcams's. I tried to delete my shirry comment the moment after posting, but I couldn't even find it.
Which has been proven wrong time and time again.
@@ijclark No.
@@Mozz78000 afraid so. As Warren would say, you just need to apply logic.
Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Berserk in the background, that bookshelf goes so hard lol
Beserk made me like him more.
My brain didn't hurt so much today! Your opponent (?) Is really stuck on government involvement- and ignoring the possibility that governments can have their agendas and be in cohoots with large corporations.....your thinkiing is critical inn getting people to open their eyes. Thank you🙏
All his arguments are an appeal to authority which he fails to justify as it’s a fallacy.
People loves throwing big phrases like "scientific concessus", "data is overwhelming", "the science is settled" et al.
Even here in the comments someone retorts to Government imposing EV by some date in the future as they being a "better product". Better for who or what? that'll bring their own set of big phrases.
"Government is in cahoots with big corporations! Let's instead get rid of government oversight and let the big corporations do what they want, that'll be better!"
i struggle to understand why people would think corpos, that are usually controlled by a single person, would do a better job than government, at doing the things our taxes take care off... people want to just give elon no taxes and expect what to happen? he'll start fixing the roads or what? dont regulate the emissions in his factories and what? he'll decide to lower the emissions on his own? am i missing something???
Sweden was a higher number in a list, this means pollution there is lower (warren used it as a false argument and proof). Sweden has a lot of government involvement. Also is that pollution overall, per person, per area?
Notice how every solution costs money and uses more
Materials, more strip mining the earth, more expensive wasteful homes. Never once does us govt say we need to live more simple lives and use less resources…but they have no problem telling africa they need to calm down on trying to upgrade their lives
Exactly, can't stop people making useless products, the debt is already bigger than our GDP. Vegans are the same, don't eat any meat, instead of don't eat more food than you need. Stopping fat people from staying fat will decrease meat consumption by like half. But then the supermarkets will throw away more food, because they HAVE to keep shelves fully stocked for bullshit psychological reasons. Spend billions on trains to save one route 20 minutes. Outsource all industry to make one corner look better when the whole becomes worse. UK emissions down because we throw all our batteries into Africa for poor individuals to cut up and get killed by. Have you seen the tire burning field. Ain't nothing gonna top that in the western world. Could use nuclear energy but then less bombs I guess, that's the only reason I can see why you wouldn't do it
Hi Mr. Smith! Big fan from Canada ❤ just wanna say I'm also a HUGE fan of your teacher-friend. I'm really sorry he gets so much hate because to me, the purpose of these videos is clear: he makes a great Devil's Advocate and this is exactly how MOST people (on any side of anything) debate these days. It's good practice for us to remember to remain patient, loving and understanding.
Anyone who thinks government could accelerate innovation should work for a government for a month.
"The studies" and "the scientific world" are meaningless, nebulous terms. How are you supposed to analyze the validity of "the studies". Pick one. "The scientific world" is who, exactly? Does that include the ones who don't agree with the methodology in "the studies"? What about the ones who disagree with the premise altogether?
But they're there to make a living, not find out the truth lol. If they are, they should've looked at the data themselves from both sides and analayze how they can be verified or improved on. But yeah, they don't really care that much.
His guest's go to position is to trust the experts without any questioning of the quality of the 'evidence'...but there are other 'experts' who disagree with his world view..but he ignores that...
scientists are human so there will be some scientists who may be religious who claim the world isnt as old as 99.9 percent of scientists would say it is. Those fringe outliers are not as valid scientifically speaking, even though they may have earned a phd.
Oh god. He does question the quality of the evidence. Checkmate? Oh you literally thought he didn't do this and that was your entire argument? No way your thinking is that shallow.
Funnily enough from your own projection here, I actually do have some evidence that YOU never questioned the quality of the evidence on those that agree with you.
Seriously take a look at the "experts" that agree with you and actually read the sources they cite. I did this with RFK Jr, and I cannot unsee how full of shit that guy is.
It’s fear.
1) fear that the world isn’t as nice as I want it to be
2) fear that if this information is true I will have to deal with it
3) fear that if I believe this, I will an outsider in society and academia
4) fear that I’m not as intelligent as I hoped, or (most likely) that people will not perceive me as intelligent if I accept this new controversial perspective.
@@uploadinstuff Why are you comparing scientists who draw different conclusions from the data with freaking religious creationists. That is so disingenuous.
I learned critical thinking from my dad. He was a researcher at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge, then a project manager for NRC, overseeing the operations of nuclear plants around the US.
He would love watching these exercises in the Socratic method.
Very good, Warren. You’re doing good work. 🙏🏻
Him: Pharmaceutical companies are reliable.
Also him: Pharmaceutical companies are corrupt.
Hmm... It's almost like he's saying whatever he needs to to support his argument at that moment.
maybe they are reliably corrupt
This is a month late, but maybe pharmaceutical companies are reliable for majority of the treatments because it's in their interest to provide drugs that work. But with regards to giving access to said drugs and all the patenting stuff and the war that goes on between them they are unreliable and corrupt. Both can be true.
This is the exact strategy used by every group in every sector of American culture that is highlighted right now.
Law, red pill, meme culture, politics, on and on.
The vast vast majority are and have always been incredibly corrupt and they’ve lost the desire to understand now. So they say 1 thing to answer the question posed and the opposite to answer the next.
Go watch any woman on a red pill podcast, and you’ll see. They don’t have a thought in their head they just say what they wish were true right now.
Any modern politician is the same, any legal official, any popular streamer, they all do it.
@@animus355no. If they cured something like cancer but couldn’t market it then that cure would never reach the public.
It’s been demonstrated hundreds of times that they have no regard for human life, only profit and prestige.
This sounds like the same guy you're always discussing topics with, and man is he clueless. How does he show up every time without ever even inquiring into the talking points he's landed on? I'm not attacking him personally, but everything he says is phrased like a question, like he's not even sure of what he's saying, yet he can't seem to admit his limitations. Is one humbling not enough? Apparently not, and this really outlines the problem we're in culturally. People are so entrenched in their positions they're not even willing to be open and question, to come to their own conclusions outside of social pressure. Having holes poked in every single stance should be enough for an honest and intelligent person to go back to the drawing board and question all their previously held beliefs (and that is exactly what they are).
Edit: on reflection, I’d like to state that I get it, and in fact I’ve been this guy before and probably still am in many areas. Nonetheless I think what I’ve said is valid. It would be nice to see at least the attempt at curiosity, humility, and honesty.
I'm guessing this interlocutor is playing the fool to aid in the critical thinking exercise. Least I hope so.
They explain this in one another video. To put it very simply this guy is not on social media. I would suggest watching the video as they go more in detail about the offscreen voice. It’s the other video about the destiny guy.
I don't think it's about humbling anyone. I think Warren is the first to actually and try to find a way to bridge gaps. If the voice professor ran into our opinions, he'd walk away and not engage. Same with most of us "right lol" ppl. We would dismiss the voice altogether. At some point, we've gotta stop doing that and find a way to agree on some stuff. Cause pointing and dismissing isn't working right now.
Saying "the data is overwhelming" time after time after time does NOT make it true! I think you need a better discussion partner, this guy supports his vaguely at best.
It's a religion. It's not like they all arrive independently at these positions by examining data and evidence, wherever it may lead... There's a party line, and they have to toe it. Their relationships, social status, self-identity, even their job depends on it. Some of them may even have private suspicions that it's all BS -- but they're already committed, for a range of instrumental reasons that have nothing to do with the truth. So digging into the evidence now can only make faith harder to sustain. Better to just pick a side and stick with it, and not worry about silly ideas like "objective truth" -- there IS no objective truth! It's MY truth! In fact I think a lot of these leftist tenets are deliberately incoherent and contradictory, on purpose -- to weed out people who are thinking. You're not supposed to think about it and decide what's true -- it's about submitting to a higher power. They want submission. Publicly proclaim ridiculous and incoherent positions, even though it makes you look like an idiot -- BECAUSE it makes you look like an idiot -- as a show of loyalty. A ritual display of piety. So even though we watch this and think, man, that guy is just willfully ignorant -- to his comrades he's a hero. A brave soldier for the cause. Because he refuses to waver, even when all the evidence tells him he's wrong. Isn't that REAL faith? After all, it's easy to believe in something because you think it's true; but just trying believing in something you KNOW to be false! That's what they want -- unwavering, unquestioning loyalty, against all evidence and reason. Zealotry is a very important quality for a useful idiot. If you're open to evidence, you can still be reached, reasoned with; you're not an idiot and not useful. Which automatically makes you dangerous.
The data is not over whelming. Look at the ice core samples over the last 200,000 years. You would be shocked at the temperature vacillations in temperature. The last one hindered years is a microscopic slice of the climate timeline. Are we affecting the climate? Yes. We definitely need to be better custodians of the earth. Just don’t kill 1/3 the population of the earth to do it.
My guy… you are assuming that Jenny Side is not an acceptable answer to ideologues every single time. You want better custodians? You won’t get them. There are people who will kill you in your sleep to prevent carbon emissions and also to ensure carbon emissions when they need them (the entire third world).
I'm way more worried about cooling than warming.
human activity on the climate is minimal. solar flares, sun minimum and maximum periods, planet succession where our axis tilts by a degree or two, changes in orbit, the moon slowly moving away from the earth and lots of other factors that affect earths climate. right now we are in an ice age that began 3 million years ago. we are in an interglacial period ( a warmish period occuring within an ice age) but data indicates that with each of these intergalcial periods the next cold wave will be much colder than the preceding one. my information is limited as i am not a scientist but i do follow science and have the ability to comprehend. so just go about your business chicken littles.
@@lindaostrom570We have abundance not lack of fresh water .... we could mitigate and eliminate any negative.... even provide energy and way cheaper and easier then anything they doing.
Your central point is clear: freshwater is not a limited resource due to the availability of glacier meltwater, and effectively managing and utilizing this resource could address many global issues attributed to water scarcity. Here are some key considerations to emphasize your perspective:
1. Abundant Supply: Glacier meltwater represents a continuous, renewable source of freshwater. Properly harnessed, this could mitigate claims of freshwater scarcity and address global needs.
2. Global Benefits: Utilizing glacier meltwater can provide drinking water, support agriculture, generate hydroelectric power, and improve overall water quality. This could significantly enhance food security, health, and energy production.
3. Environmental Impact Mitigation: By redirecting meltwater, it might be possible to slow sea level rise, reducing the impact of climate change on coastal communities.
4. Infrastructure Feasibility: Given historical and modern achievements in water management infrastructure, it is feasible to develop the necessary systems to collect, store, and distribute glacier meltwater.
5. Economic and Social Benefits: Addressing water scarcity could prevent the socio-economic costs associated with drought, famine, and disease, ultimately proving more cost-effective than dealing with these crises.
6. Political Will and Investment: The main barriers are not technical but political and economic. Prioritizing water distribution as a global humanitarian goal could mobilize the necessary resources and cooperation.
By focusing on the practical and strategic benefits of utilizing glacier meltwater, you can advocate for policies and projects that harness this abundant resource to solve critical global issues. The argument is that with the right political will and investment, we can shift the narrative from scarcity to abundance, effectively addressing the root causes of many current and future challeng.
I have to admit this debate tickled me pink 😂 Jorden getting serious x aggressive x destiny fidgeting like a little boy. TV gold.
Density is a nobody. An intellectual dwarf next to Peterson.
And Destiny writing notes, probably on what he wanted to say next, instead of paying attention to what Jordan was saying
@@MrDadGuynote-taking is not a bad thing. That's how many folks keep track of discussions, especially during a debate in long form and real time.
Dr. Peterson speaks at length about topics with myriad nuances. If Destiny took notes, it was so he could follow the chain of ideas that Peterson laid out without missing the parts he thought were important.
He didn't seem like he was looking for a pwn, he seemed to be taking notes to keep track of where the conversation would need to go.
I commented under the debate bc that is something that me and many others who like Peterson, criticise on him. He is no longer the calm person he used to be and someone replied, that this is probably due to the benzo drugs he took and the effect is probably irreversible:/
@@0num4 Maybe
Here is what always frustrates me in these debates. When people debate Government vs Private Sector, they always reference the people running the private sector and when they reference the government, they speak of it as this utopian entity. The truth is, both are frameworks run by humans! The real issue always is, which humans do you trust, not which framework you trust. It’s so simple yet we constantly overlook this simple truth.
True, and likely both headed by the same people (heads of mega corps) if they are even people, of which we have no proof. We will never see, hear or know about those who own it all
Pharma used to not be allowed to advertise. They were not allowed to push drugs through doctors. As soon as they were our use of drugs skyrocketed. Our pharmaceutical industry does make a bunch of very good medicine, they also make some terrible stuff.
I agree. As a Paleoliberatarian myself, at the end of the day, the market is not a moral force. It would support what is most profitable and the truth is Pharmaceutical industries will make more money if you use more drugs. Thus, it makes sense that they push for more drug usage.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the western world, pharma is NOT allowed to advertise. They at least have enough common sense about human nature than Americans do.
@@kennorthunder2428 Yep. The only reason we allow it is because our lawmakers are owned by corporations. We don't live in a capitalist system, it's a corporatist system, and both parties are captured.
I moved to the US from a country with socialized medicine. Yankees are obsessed with medical care. Like to the point of being hypochondriacs. Back home you just assume that your terrible medical care is the best there is.
@@blotto3422 There's a lot of truth to that. I know a bunch of people who look at a scrape and ignore it, but I also know people who look at a scrape and behave as if they can't walk and need emergency transport to the hospital.
900 million to solyndra, government picks horrible winners
Great example. I was thinking the same thing!!
Many thanks to Warren’s interlocutor. Much appreciated. 👍
If the list of countries is from the worst to the best and US is 102, whereas Sweden is 124 why would that mean that Sweden has more pollution than USA? That doesn't make sense.
Nor does it mean that "we are doing better today than at any point in history". This seems like an entirely unwarranted conclusion without historical data of concentration of particulate matter.
Also if free markets are so good at eliminating pollution why is it that government intervention was needed to eliminate leaded gasoline? How come the markets didn't just take care of it? Why did governments need to take action?
It also doesn’t take into account types of pollution or how it migrates to neighboring areas. Seems to be a per capita shell game going on as well. Say London did produce more air pollution per person 200 years ago than today based on coal use which is the rough data they have from that time. All that tells us is that individuals burn less coal than they did 200 years ago. Today a person is using electricity for everything, traveling by car, and heating AND cooling their homes with natural gas. And London itself has more than double the population now than in the 1800s and the surrounding cities and towns are also more populated now. Thats not including industry. He’s saying we can’t accurately measure and compare changes in climate and weather over such a long period but somehow we can say that two centuries ago London’s pollution was worse than all of modern day Iraq.
How do you know that the markets wouldn't take care of it?
Moreover, leaded gasoline was used to "lubricate" the metallurgy of that time. The market created better metallurgy without government intervention and THEN unleaded gas was not a problem and it would surely phased out leaded gasoline for health reasons.
If I sell you a product and that product proves to be detrimental to your health (and that gets to be public knowledge - which my competitors have incentives to do so) then my product will stop selling. Then I have to improve it so as to make you a customer again or some competitor will and he'll put me out of business.
But R&D costs big money and that's why established, big fish businesses are lobbying for government regulations and interventions, to moat their business interests from competitor R&D and antagonistic products.
The market is the most democratic system we have. It's not politics.
P.S. The depleting Ozone layer conundrum that forced the market to quit certain fluorocarbon-containing refrigerants was another complete scam (as Dr. Happer has demonstrated) to ensure that DuPond who was losing its patent at the time, wasn't going to lose a market share from shed refrigerant market. The end result? Less efficient and more toxic refrigerants and an Ozone hole that came back in 2022 (which is what Happer had hypothesized - it being a cyclical phenomenon that had nothing to do with fluorocarbons).
@@C_R_O_M________
Did the markets take care of it without government intervention? And if so, when and in which country did they do that?
I haven't seen any evidence that leaded gasoline poofed out of existence without government intervention anywhere. If you have you should produce it instead of making baseless assertions about what could have been. The last batch of leaded gasoline was used in 2021 by Algeria, because that is when it banned it.
There are plenty of products that are detrimental to your health that people continue buying. You don't have to be a smoker, eat really unhealthy foods, or live in Louisiana's Cancer Alley to figure it out. To pretend that long term health effects are the only thing that factors into someone's purchasing or consumption decisions is to be completely out of touch with reality.
The markets you are talking about are regulated in case you haven't noticed. On an unregulated market leaded gasoline would be selling tomorrow and you wouldn't know any better. And you'd be lucky if lead is the only thing added to it. A company has every incentive for the consumers to believe that their competitor's products are inferior in some manner regardless of whether that is true.
@@C_R_O_M________
Because the last nation to use leaded gasoline was Algeria in 2021. And the use stopped only after Algeria's government banned it.
There is no shortage of products detrimental to people's health being sold on the market in case you haven't noticed. Believing that's the only thing consumers factor in when making purchasing decisions is a fundamental misunderstanding of how consumer markets work.
The markets which you are referring to are regulated. Even according to your own post markets are influenced by politics.
@@C_R_O_M________
Because the last nation to use leaded gasoline was Algeria in 2021. And the use stopped only after Algeria's government banned it.
There is no shortage of products detrimental to people's health being sold on the market in case you haven't noticed and that's with government regulation. Believing that's the only thing consumers factor in when making purchasing decisions is a fundamental misunderstanding of how consumer markets work.
The markets which you are referring to are regulated. Even according to your own post markets are influenced by politics.
(confidently) "the data is overwhelming"
'which data'
"oh I don't know all the scientists data" 😅
He clearly was overwhelmed by all the data and couldn't process it. jk
should've followed up with:
- so how do you know its overwhelming
- who exactly tells you its overwhelming
- what are their exact credentials, and do those credentials enable them to come to the conclusion that its overwhelming
- what are their individual incentives
- what would happen to them if they said data wasn't overwhelming
Great follow-on questions @yes-vy6bn
Fact check: ‘There are less people driving than at any point in history.’ Number of cars US 1929: 7.5 million. Number of cars US 2024: 294 million.
He meant to say that the number of drivers is actually declining.
Fair enough. Are the number of 16 year olds getting there licenses lower than any point in your life time?
Additionally, as stated the trend of driving is going down. The efficiency and cleanliness of vehicles is something not accounting for here with the numbers.
@@SecretScholars Why are you reaching for obtuse statistics to support the claim when the absolute number of cars are still near historic highs. The number of 16 years old drivers would have little downstream effect on co2 even in a decade. This is assuming they simply don't get a car at 20.
We did get down stream benefits from covid with huge increases in working from home. However, the CO2 yearly output reduction isn't sufficient to prevent what the climate models expect. It would slightly delay it.
If the models are reasonably accurate, the question becomes what is the best approach to solve the problem and what mechanisms.
21:00 I generally get where you’re coming from over the course of this conversation but I just have to ask, you just explained how pharma companies are corrupt and how we just had this record lawsuit over the opioid epidemic, but then you say pharma companies have a self interest in transparency and providing a quality product. How do you square that circle? Are they corrupt corporations covering up information about the addictiveness of their drugs and hiding it from doctors and the general public so they can make record profits? Or are they honest actors providing customers with transparency and accurate information so they can make an informed choice?
The fact of the matter is that climate change will mostly negatively affect parts of the world that are least able to cope with the effects.
Private enterprise will NOT act to intervene in those processes that are deteriorating the environment because those processes are part of the process that generate profits. Historically AND AT PRESENT corporations act to rollback regulation that prevents them from exploitation for profit.
The post-WW1 economic crisis in Germany was NOT addressed by ths German government, it was addressed by a political party headed by Hitler. Because of the financial crisis voters were persuaded that Hitler's party were best suited to fix the situation and only then did they become the government. Initially the Nazi party DID IN FACT FIX THE GERMAN ECONOMY. Anti-semitic aspects of Nazism and the resulting WW2 were not necessarily predictable from the initial objective of fixing the economy... they are only "obvious" with 20-20 hindsight.
Elon musk is very much an environmentalist. Our country is not the problem.
Considering he is thinking about terraformation on other Planets, most definitely 😂
The word "vaccine" was redefined to suit the needs of the multi-national corporations.
Explain that sir.
$
Vaccines used to be a thing that you got to prevent you from spreading or getting something
The Covid vax did neither of these. Now vaccines are what ... a treatment? Like Alka Seltzer or NyQuil?
What data is there that can prove that the Covid "vaccine" did anything curative at all?
Wasn't that astonishing!
What boggles me about people saying, "trust the science" or quoting "99% of scientists" without a list, is that the last step of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is to PEER REVIEW.
These useful idiots behave in a way that poses THEIR science is unquestionable.
They want to ban anyone, even with the credentials to peer review, any chance to peer review.
BTW, this is the second video I have seen with you and I'll gladly subscribe.
Found your videos months ago and have been watching them on and off. I can echo all of the comments of how what you're doing is important and applaud what you're doing.
But the thing that sticks out to me most is you don't seem confrontational. You're not trying to "crush" anyone in a debate. You're acting like a teacher or a guide to help them notice the potential flaws in their thinking. You're helping them not just understand the other side's points, but their own.
Thank you so much for all of this.
I believe you're a professor... Do you have any recommended texts or resources for someone wanting to learn more about how to think critically and converse with people with differing views?
The data is not reliable, as JP pointed out (as have numerous qualified individuals).
As one example, if a thermometer, 100 years ago, was in a field, and today that field is now a concrete car park, the temperature will go up without any CO2. Many temperature readings are simply theoretical, based on models, because the original equipment no longer exists, in that location... but we're still getting "data" from those locations... because 'models'. This is not reliable data, in my opinion.
As to 'solutions', western nations patting themselves on the back for becoming "net zero", by transferring their emissions to emerging nations that are less efficient (i.e. dirtier), does nothing but more harm to the planet... and then there's additional transport required, because the west still wants the end products. It's getting farcical. King Canute leaps to mind.
Personally, I don't care what is correct (though every right-minded person should hope the data is wrong, surely?). All I want is to discover reality. Then, I'll deal with that.
Just for the record, Sabine describes the system, which yields this "data" : czcams.com/video/LKiBlGDfRU8/video.htmlsi=nj_zikbPzcNJYZti
If you measure the temperature for 100 years and the planet is 10,000 years old you have 1% of the available data. Obviously the planet's a lot older than that...
There is no climate data and therefore no climate science.
0.0421% CO2 in the earth's atmosphere as well...
In research getting "pure" data is very difficult and sometimes just impossible. You try to account for it in various ways, but further research typically clarifies and narrows the margin of error. JP, though right, ignores hundreds of other data points and theoretical modeling performed around the globe, with no connection to each other, with similar findings. 10 years ago the there was such an outcry that global warming was happening - now, only a tiny minority are denying it.
Fact is they can tell if a CO2 molecule was created by the burning of fossil fuel or by other means. As an independent here who leans right this topic frustrates me. Conservatives laugh on to conspiracy theories here. But that is far fetched.
What are conservatives known for, small government, so the approach they should have is not simply denying things but saying that private industry is the solution. I agree the government always makes things worse. It's up to entrepreneurs.
@@rt-uh6mt - I agree; though I'm not sure how that relates to my comment (assuming it's supposed to do so).
@@rt-uh6mt What conspiracy theories? It's usually a bad sign when people try to write off arguments with that buzzword.
I'm sure you're right in some instances regardless, but I'm not familiar with any _remotely_ prominent ones
What do you think about naturally aligned incentives?
Great convo, love your vids
The individual he is discussing with has so many holes in his arguments that Warren seems to be very gentle woth him.
Good lord, Warren is so far off and uneducated about this topic that it's embarrassing anyone is falling for it
@@randeepwalia1507 seriously. And his guest was far less critical of his claims than he was of his guest's. I woulda held his feet to the fire on probably at least half of the stuff he's saying..
@randeepwalia1507 Seems his opponent’s only position is an appeal to authority. It’s you whose head cannon is gibberish.
@@henrywolf5332Exactly. Those who worship the data from billionaires will eat sh!t given by those billionaires. "bUt ThE dAtA!!"
@@randeepwalia1507simply stating that doesn’t do anything. Provide evidence
Excellent, as usual! Getting to the the actual nuts and bolts, nitty gritty of the issue, without disparaging remarks to personalities, is what really brings out understanding that is beneficial to all sides of the issue.
23:30 - I'd say the happiness that the interviwer seems to feel at this point in the conversation is something he could benefit from examining closely. One thing I admire about Peterson is that he seems to have done a lot of work to deal with the problem of "feeling good when winning".
It's not clear to me that this conversation actually brought the interviewee around to a new way of thinking. He agreed that unscientific overconfident representation is an issue, but he is still confident in the data so that doesn't change much.
I don't think Peterson was necessarily at his best in the Destiny interview either. Both interviews involved a certain amount of "battle", and I don't know that it's avoidable, but my feeling is that there might be a way to approach these arguments that stay true to our understanding but transcends the need to convince - which might paradoxically lead to an improved position.
In a public interview, winning is a misleading goal, I think. We should present our view as honestly and solidly as we can, but the manner in which we treat our opponent is also a message to them and our audience.
Cooperation aimed towards truth, honesty, and faith that we are not doomed if we apply and improve our model of the world/universe with our eyes open for any sign as to where or how we may be wrong... I think that's the ticket. And there will always be those for whom that is an antithetical stance - they must be right, and their solutions must be implemented, no matter what.
There's a quote to the effect: The more a belief deviates from reality, the more cruelty must be applied to enforce it.
Anyway, those are my thoughts at the moment, at least.
An aspect I'd like to have seen tackled is: We have different views, and both worry the other's views could destroy the world if enacted. But so could our fighting. So how can we cooperate, keep the conversation going, keep from ticking each other off too much in the process, and deal with the fact that some people on both sides will insist on fighting anyways?
Thanks for the vid!
Sorry, just wanted to correct. Sweden does have LESS pollution than the US, based on the study you cited. That also means Canada has more pollution than the US.
Don't apologize for correcting this guy. He spreads misinformation.
@@jonnyleeg4058 And why is okay for you to do the same? I was just correcting something he misspoke on, unintentionally. It removes the validity of his argument, which I was attempting to restore.
@DanielVoyles if he claims to be using facts to back up his critical thinking, he should be citing them correctly and not relying on others to make corrections for him. It's supposed to be an academic discourse. So misquoted facts are misinformation. I am not spreading any misinformation. He is.
Yes, I misspoke. Thanks for the correction.
@SecretScholars it would be nice if you made a video where you directly address mistakes like that and other contradictions you make.
It’s pointless to have a discussion on climate if you don’t have, or can’t agree on the facts. No facts - no premise. Wrong (propagandized) facts - propagandized premise. Watch the documentary Climate The Movie (the cold truth) together and there would be nothing to debate because you would both be aware of the facts about the climate “narrative”. I suggest this documentary only for convenience.
Who are you talking to/debating with in this video?
I think some people only consent under condition of anonymity due to the Left being very inflexible about debate.
Why talk to a guy who literally is the most NPC person i have ever heard, the things he says, the way he talks. Its like he is litterally a robot.
its called a strawman. He gets this idiot to present him with stupid arguments he can refute. The guy probably agrees with him, and is helping his channel to succeed,
Let's be very clear, models are not data. So you can't say its the data that says something, its the models. You have to be able to talk about the right things.
The models can be right and the data wrong. The data can be right and the models wrong. The could both be right or wrong.
Only in one of those situations is the results usable. You have to be able to prove both things are correct, or at least mostly correct if you are going to live by them.
There are questions about the premise of the idea that carbon in the atmosphere will actually be this horrible thing. We know if there isn't enough of it in the air, all life on earth dies.
And every one of our plans to fix the problem involves trying to take control of the cycle of weather. The danger involved in this is extinction level on all sides.
Sorry but if the margins for error are greater than the difference you are measuring then there is no data. It is useless.
"The data is overwhelming" is neither data nor an arument.
omfg i genuinely laughed so hard hearing this guy say "yes, I trust the pharmaceutical companies, just wow , outstanding how insane that statement is without any aspect about what these companies use to do and still do to people and lie constantly about stuff, I would not have had the same patience as warren, well done.
"isn't this a slow process" "the data is overwhelming" this man is falling hook line and sinker into all the headlines. Even if it was true, he doesn't have anything that he's learned to back it up, just "it's coming hard and fast and we're all doomed unless taxes go up by 200% tomorrow"
For people to pretend to be able to predict the future in 100 years is hilarious. The complexity of that equation is so vast that no model can accurately predict that far ahead.
I predict that in 100 years from now the moon will still be orbiting the earth
I predict that in 100 years from now the average temperature on earth surfaces will be lower than 1000°C. Sadly that will not win me a Nobel Prize
@@manuelneumann6118 now predict something meaningful. 🤔
That global average temperatures in 100 years from now will be higher than today. But It is good that you agree with me that not all future predictions must be difficult to make
You know that there is an entire field of complex systems and dynamics which studies precisely the occurrence of cycles and macroscopic large scale behaviour even in very large multidimensional systems? Just because we cannot predict the individual trajectories of every single object in the system, doesn't mean that there aren't mean field dynamics that can be observed by averaging out the small degrees of freedom. This is why we have classical statistical behaviour and why quantum effects at microscopic level do not generally effect how a ball bounces off a wall or how a planet orbits a star even though there are billions of degrees of freedom relating to the nuclear and electronic position-momenta and spin.
Human beings are notoriously bad at statistics but that doesn't change the fact that are thousands of people who study stochastic effects in large dimension systems and develop intuition which the laymen do not possess, not because the laymen are stupid but because they haven't gone through the years of efforts to develop the intuition and knowledge. You're just making an appeal to incredulity.
I realize many are not old enough to have personally witnessed the climate alarmism hype (largely from one side of the aisle) morph from global cooling through global warming and then into the inarguable and irrelevant "climate change" based on projecting some "scientific" trend (holding all other variables constant) decades into the future. This is folly. A respectable meteorologist can reasonably predict the weather - with maybe 70% accuracy - only 24 hours into to future. How many times per day do meteorologists update their weather-model predictions about a hurricane's path in the week before landfall? And yet we are expected to believe that no other variables will fluctuate in a century and we are therefore doomed to incinerate ourselves and drown as sea-level rises two inches or two feet in 100 years? Tides change the local sea-level more than that twice a day. No matter how rigorous a model is, the farther out in time that you try to project its mathematical result, the more opportunity that other variables (that we do not know to consider right now) will subsequently intervene in the future to bring the system back into equilibrium. If you are terrified about climate change, pick up your trash, put it in a waste container, and take the time to listen to someone old enough (~50) to know (PSA) how this simple act can keep a Native American from shedding a tear.
Are there companies that lack transparency for consumers to take advantage of them? Are those companies ran by foolish people or just unethical people?
If an entire section of science depends on something to be real for it to get funding, what do you think the scientists in that field will conclude? Do you think they will ever say that climate change has been solved? Or that it was never as bad as they originally said? They would lose all their funding over night if they said that.
I think it was very uncharitable not to put the evidence on screen at 1:10 or to not let the other person read the institutions, specially since you you were asking whether the evidence shown in is more complicated than we give it credit and whether we have the understanding necessary to reach an accurate conclusion. I think it was a particularly important piece of evidence left out.
Listing a bunch of 3 + 4 letter agencies does not aid in furthering any argument or this debate at all.
@@richardlefaive1944 Knowing the agencies and the data they provide to check it out definitely does, specially if we are trying to confirm the legitimacy of their data.
If anyone wants to dismiss global warming, it's not by ignoring evidence. Burying our heads in the sand don't benefit anyone.
I'm appalled that anyone can support withholding evidence on the basis it doesn't further a discussion centered around the evidence provided and the organizations that provide them.
He didn't have evidence, he had organisations. His argument at that juncture was an appeal to authority.
@@mshaman86 There is no way to know, specially since he was unable to provide the organizations and what data they had.
@@Rogerio_FM You don't seem to be understanding, Simply stating that these organizations think something and then their acronym is not going to be useful to anyone.
It is _literally_ an appeal to authority, that is not in question.
If you think they could have simply flashed the 'evidence' on screen I know you haven't looked at an iota of the research they're referring to yourself (which is standard considering this belief is purely faith based)
"There are less sixteen year olds driving today than at any other point in history. "
I have my doubts about that. Let's pick a point in history, shall we? What about 1245 ad?
the most important part is to have all side at the debate table , as it is right now one side is muzzled.
Good video, good to see two sensible people talk with respect
Bjorn Lomborg's book False Alarm is a book that covers a lot of this. Basically just accept that climate change is real, but highlight that there is a lot of inefficient policy purporting to address climate change, but most of the proposed solutions by politicians and activists are unrealistic, expensive, and wouldn't have much of an effect. We need technology innovation, a sensible carbon tax, and human adaptation.
Why would you accept that it's real when we only have 140 years of data on a planet that's over 1,000,000,000 years old?
We don't know anything about the climate - it's a complete farce
Carbon Tax is BS.
Be careful of "technological innovation". Pellet stoves are a technological innovation, but they are also a trap.
Warren I appreciate what you are adding to the discussion. The way that you address modality and thought before content and context is a extreme value add and IMHO a severely diminished skill set. Thank you for asking simple yet overlooked questions. I appreciate your efforts.
Why didn't the subject of Dr. Peterson's work on sustainability and climate for the UN come up in the discussion?
I hear a lot of references to the "data" but nothing of the quality of said data . Awesome discussion and looking forward to more
This is ideological capture, not critical thinking.
I'm grateful to anyone and everyone who can easily see this is not critical thinking being displayed in this video.
@@jonnyleeg4058
Happy to meet fellow travellers on the Tube. 👋🏼
At first I thought Peterson did some sort of motivational talk about embracing your destiny or something. Then I remembered there is a dude with blue hair that decided to name himself after a female stripper that debates people online.
I would have disputed the data, and I would dispute it thus: "Do you dispute the data that smoking cigarettes are good for you?"
"What data?"
In the early 20th century, the tobacco industry funded studies that found smoking was good for you. Do you dispute that data?
"Yes, of course, that data was flawed and from corrupted studies."
I, likewise, dispute the flawed and corrupted climate studies.
"Which data do you argue is flawed or corrupted?"
I don't know. But let me ask you: is it your contention that the data is flawless? That there is no flawed or corrupted studies? (If I prepared for it, I'm pretty sure I could dig up at least one scandal)
"Okay, I admit there is at least one flawed study, but the rest of the data is sound."
The reason for the flawed tobacco studies is that there is intense financial incentive to claim smoking is good for you. The scientific process falls under pressure of corruption Is it possible that imposing governmental regulations on entire populations could generate financial windfalls for certain people? For example, those who invested in green energy companies vs those who invested in oil companies?
"Sure, but that doesn't mean that climate change isn't real. The preponderence of evidence clearly shows it, and there is consensus"
That's true! But precision matters, because corruption often creeps in like little cracks from the margin. If there are a non-zero amount of corruption within climate science, and there are intense financial and political implications in play, if we silence debate on this topic, if we are not allowed to look at those cracks of beginning corruption, we encourage that corruption to grow. By silencing debate, you harm, rather than help, climate science.
"But climate deniers will use those discussions to promote misinformation about the true state of climate science."
That's absolutely true. They do it with cosmology, paleontology and archaeology too. But those disciplines allow robust debate and make a point of debunking the misinfiormation on specific points, and this results in a more educated populace. Silencing debate on climate change does not result in a more robustly educated populace.
This then ties into the next part. If we are to trust the free market to solve this problem, then we must persuade the people to fix these problems from the bottom up. This is why Musk is great and one of a kind, but there are others. It's hard to convince a man to give up his car. But it's not hard to convince him to embrace cheap solar energy to lower the costs of his house. If we get everyone on board with this problem patiently, if we put it in people's hands and they know what needs to be done, they'll do it. The whole ESG investment nonsense came about BECAUSE investors as a class were more and more interested in environmentalism (among other things). Get everyone else on board through careful and patient and reasoned debate, and your problem will solve itself. Force it down peoples' throats, and they'll fight you until the end of time.
Such a good post. 🙏🏻
Who's the guy you're talking to? He sounds like he's working backwards from their assumption.
Any time you asked for specifics he had nothing.
He is like Destiny. What they know is a mile wide and an inch deep. They have opinions on everything but know nothing.
It's curious that it's the same person he's debating in every video.
@@user-gy1pu3gq3d I LOATHE Destiny. Your description is perfect.
There's a difference between intelligence and wisdom and Destiny (and this guy) seem to know a lot about a lot but have no experience in what they claim to know.
@ 3:50 You cannot be talking about CO2 and then compare it to pollution like soot and smog.
Just because less 16 year old's getting their license does not mean there are less cars on the road.
With the amount of people we have, we are doing better per capita, but US CO2 emission peaked in 2005 but are not lower than 1990 levels. That is still a lot of CO2 going in the air, it's not getting better until those numbers go down even more.
Globally, transport emission have double since 1990. Electricity and heat has double.
My thoughts exactly. He's challenging the rigor of the other speakers thinking, yet at a drop of a hat utters claims which are easily debunked with a 5 minute search.
Visit the possibility that CO2 emissions are actually a win-win for both the emitters and the environment.
It is a documented fact that CO2 fertilization is greening the planet. It is also a fact that the minuscule 1C degree "warming anomaly" (an arbitrary term) in GATs (global average temperatures) in 150 years and coming out the LIA (little ice age), the coldest era in 10000 years, is actually a blessing not a curse for all climatic systems on the planet.
Bear in mind that there is not ONE climate on the planet but SEVERAL. All of them benefit from the added warming (from whatever source it's caused) and makes them more livable and less hostile for life.
Warmer climates are always more friendly and desirable than frigid cold ones. That's why everyone migrates to a warmer climate to retire. Siberia and Canada are empty!
I am a scientist who has been researching the climate conundrum for more than 15 years and I have concluded that this is a 100% political agenda.
So, before believing the narrative of people with incentives take a step back and think for yourself.
At the end of the last Ice age was about 180 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. At 150 ppm all plant life starts dying. Around the biggening of the indusial age there was about 220 ppm. There is currently about 440 ppm. 65 million years ago there was about 17000 ppm and the planet was roughly 15 degrees hotter than today and way greener with much larger animals and plant life.... Higher CO2 is not the end of anything....
@@aaronhanlon772 a few inaccuracies there but comparing to alarmist nonsense, your comment is as good as gold.
Record temperaturesnin my area last year... Imagine that. Environment Canada moved the weather station off my land away from any built up area to the centre of a town of 10000. It's on a pole in the centre of an asphalt parking lot.
"the data is overwhelming" So overwhelming, in fact, that he can't cite a single data point without doing research to see what it actually says. The number of ideologues in our world is considerably more alarming than the climate.
Always be skeptical of *_scientists_* that say "the science is settled". Science has evolved since the dawn of time and will continue to do so til the end.
That dosen’t mean that everything is subjective. Are the americans and canadians still debating if climate changes are real - jesus
@@Morlock1943Its pretty evident it is real, but the cause is not.
When it comes to something like climate change where there is thousands of variables, yes the science is far from settled. When it comes to newtonian physics, Maxwell's equation, or moles, that has to be settled by this point. The science and technology built from those foundations wouldn't work otherwise.
@@Morlock1943 No, and we never did. The other side denies that the climate changes naturally.
Which scientists said that the science is settled regarding climate change? I mean, your statement heavily implies that you've heard of some who have said such things. Otherwise, you get a Captain Obvious award for saying something no one needed to hear..
Pre, 03:44 there's an obvious conflation of particulate-pollution and "greenhouse gasses", they're not the same
And what are greenhouse gasses and where do they come from? Are co2 numbers the highest theyve ever been? Id love to hear your answers
@@jasonhutchins9239 I feel you have an opinion
@@noturauntie4784 It's that you don't know what you're talking about, which is why they asked some extremely basic questions for you to dodge.
@@kerwynpk why don't you explain it to me? I didn't give an opinion, just the fact that there can be one without the other. That fact has not be refuted.
@@noturauntie4784 I'm just guessing why they asked you those questions, your post kind of implies this supposed conflation invalidates the argument - Maybe the answer to those questions would be relevant in demonstrating if that's the case or not?
The Trivium: Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric, IN THAT ORDER.
The vast majority if us will have learned these out of order, because "we live in a society" or "I already am eating from the trash can all the time. The name of this trash can is ideology."
Don't be unconsciously selectively critically thinking.
"I'm just asking questions!"
"Isn't it curious?"
Mmmm. Yes. I'm sure you believe that.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 *🌡️ Scientific World and Climate Change Measurements*
- Studies on climate change are accurate due to following the scientific approach.
03:13 *🚗 Pollution, Technology, and Climate Change Concerns*
- Countries with high pollution rankings show improvements over time.
04:50 *🔔 Alarmism, Government, and Climate Impact*
- Alarmism about climate change combined with government actions can lead to unintended consequences.
05:58 *💡 Opposing Views on Government Intervention for Climate Change*
- Proposing private sector innovation over government control for climate change solutions.
09:13 *🌍 Crisis Framing and Government Response to Climate Change*
- Questioning the crisis level of climate change and the impact of government regulations on addressing the issue.
15:10 *🤔 Historical Comparisons and Government Responses to Crises*
- Drawing parallels between historical crises and government responses to crises like climate change.
21:43 *🏭 Pharmaceutical Companies and Government Regulations*
- Examining the role of government regulations on pharmaceutical companies and the impact on drug innovation.
25:36 *🧪 Data Presentation, Scientific World, and Public Trust*
- Reflecting on data presentation during the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on public trust in the scientific world.
at 19 min in you are very sceptical toward private sector solutions (pharma) earlier your position was that only private sector solutions could and should solve climate change.
The scepticism I think is directed at the way the government was involved with pharma, letting the vaccine be rushed out. It wasn't people going down to buy the vaccine of their own free will, they went down because of government forces.
They have a monopoly through government intervention. Yes Market forces would act on climate change , as all things - if the government did not artificially 'fix' the problem 😂😂😂😂😂
Here in Canada they put a carbon tax in place and it has made everything so much more expensive and they had to add a carve out for oil heat here in NS because so many people still use it and they would have likely died or become poor if they didn't put in the carve out. These policies have real consequences.
Agree. In Canada the federal government is knowingly and willfully causing hardship to force the change it needs to meet WEF targets. This should be illegal. It's certainly unethical.
Canada has one of the highest CO2 footprints per capita in the world (due to the cold climate), and yet they import millions of immigrants every year from warmer regions with far lower CO2 footprints. This shows the obvious hypocrisy in government policy.
They idiots in Canada and the US voted for the current state of our countries.
The effects of trying to prevent suppoed global warming will be almost as bad as doing nothing and letting it proceed.
Dear Warren, this is science and not sociology or philosophy. There are wayw to do measurements even before 200 years. From taking samples from glaciers or the soil to animal or human remains and analysing them. So do not play logical games about the data. Please talk about these subjects to scientists who know about the subject and not to a random student.
One critical piece with the problem of pharmaceuticals is waiver of liability. When you setup a structure that states jump through these hoops and you can't be sued, that system will be gamed at the expense of safety.
This data is probably the easiest data to manipulate outside the social sciences
Science changes over time. I remember when scientists all said that pollution was going to cause an ice age. Also, CO2 was never considered a pollutant until recently, which is why pollution controls on cars convert CO into CO2.
Even made movies about it
If you’re talking about climate change, and not talking about nuclear energy, then you’re not serious about climate change
Funny that now one of the questions you answer for blood donation is, “have you been vaccinated?”
I remember growing up in the 70s and 80s, and global cooling was the big thing. They kept saying the earth would completely freeze in 10 years.
Yes. And I remember being young and I couldn't sleep because I was horrified that my whole family was going to freeze to death. Then it was global warming, now climate change. And the other person in this video is wrong. Scientists do not all agree with the models and the stats. In fact, what calmed my fear in the 70s and 80s was a small article that mentioned that scientists were very upset with politicians for politicizing the issue. All they were trying to do was bring awareness to a topic, not cause panic and alarm at all. In fact they felt there wasn't any reason for alarm.
It's a basic appeal to authority. The irony is that the person's decision-making is based on this rather than any scientifically methodical thinking to probe the "overwhelming consensus".
The data says it’s true.
Ok, which data? How did they measure it? What were the incentives of the researchers?
I don’t know, but the data is overwhelming.
It’s a fallacy to think we are doing better than ever in the history. We’ve been doing poorly after the Industrial Revolution. We need to go back to a time before the Industrial Revolution to say we’re doing good. So if we are doing better than some decades ago doesn’t mean we’re doing well.
It's not hard to imagine we're having an impact on the planet: We take resources out of the ground, chop down millions of trees, we emit gasses, we farm, we fly planes, drive cars, have factories producing smoke and gas every single day. It would be weirder if we weren't changing the planet after all of that.
People say it's because there's a monetary incentive but I find that odd because if you go back some years to when this was first being globally recognised, a lot of big business was entirely against the climate science. So if we go by the logic that money talks then that would tell you that climate change was true because they're vehemently against it, yet now these companies have flipped and are in support and people are still using the same logic. Their motivation is always going to be more money, clearly they saw a chance to make more money, but they were initially resistant to the idea.
The way I look at it is simple: I live in Australia, it can get pretty god damn hot here, to the point where you don't want to move. During the last major bushfire the smoke was so bad that you could hardly breathe, we lost a lot of wildlife, including Koalas. Of course a corrupt government was partially to blame, but If we take steps to mitigate these things, I'm all for it. Not being able to breathe is horrific, anything to improve the air quality is a positive. Some places around the world cannot afford to transition to green energy though, many places heavily rely on fossil fuels to power and heat their houses. Either we help them transition or we have more lenience towards them.
Setting climate change aside though: Simply improving air quality, creating sustainable and environmentally considerate logging practices, and reducing excess heat by reducing the absorption rate of heat into our urban areas would be a great step towards a better life for all. I don't think these are bad goals to have
you're taking a moderate, common sense approach. JP and Warren are arguing against an alarmist and tyrannical approach.
It’s not hard to imagine…that is exactly the problem. We shouldn’t simply stop at imagining. We MUST look at data-even countervailing data. For example, that core ice and other reserves of information for temperature show it increases before CO2 rise by as much a 800 years. That CO2 concentration is logarithmic. That other forcing is far more demonstrable than CO2.
The govts aren't mitigating these circumstances by helping urban areas. Instead they want everyone who has land or a farm to move to the urban city areas. That isn't mitigating, it is controlling.
We all want a good environment, but govts all over the world are trying to control what we can say, what we own, how we drive, what we eat, what we choose as a career, if we can travel, etc. This is not mitigation and until you admit that, you will eventually be enslaved to the will of a very small minority of elites who will live like kings and gods, while you are confined to what they deem "good for you".
I would certainly never claim humans do not have an impact upon the environment.
More controlled burning of shrubs to prevent forest fires.
Warren using anecdotal evidence is pretty all over the map. Just one example is that teens may be getting their licenses later but many more are ordering door dash and Amazon. Let’s say London in the 1800s was much worse. The countries he listed off with Chad, Iraq, etc were not industrialized at the time. So London is cleaner but dozens of cities and countries pollute more than 1800s London ever did in its own 200 years ago. I’m curious if he thinks that all the regulations governing dumping chemicals in waterways were needed or if the industry would’ve regulated itself.
More pollution per capita than London in the 1800s? Running entirely on coal? You sure?
And those countries are ranked this year
And no I don’t think it should be legal to dump in rivers. That’s one thing we do need government for is laws. Milton Friedman said the same thing
@@SecretScholars in the aggregate I would imagine yes though I could be wrong. There were a million London residents burning coal in the 1800s and there are more than 2.5 million Londoners driving cars today. That doesn’t include commercial vehicles. Thats in addition to the natural gas burned for all the electricity consumption. Coal was replaced but not by a carbon neutral energy source and that energy source is used for far more things. Seems like one city in the 1800s, industrialized as it was, when cars were not ubiquitous and even indoor lighting was a luxury likely polluted less than the modern Iraq today alone. I would imagine Bejing, measuring parts per million of particulates in the air, is likely on par or close as well. Air and water pollution travel as well so air pollution from burning coal tends to sit in an area meaning that London itself may have been more polluted at the time but switching from coal allowed the lighter particulates from natural gas to travel. This would mean that London itself has better air quality but the surrounding areas have it worse than before when the heavy coal particulates migrated less easily.
As far as regulation I just wonder what the cutoff is and what factors weigh what. The food and drug industry seem like something we would want to be more heavily regulated in comparison to something like television and film. I can see the benefits Friedman mentions in relation to easing regulations on the pharmaceutical industry however in the clip provided he left a lot hanging. You agree that there should be no dumping in waterways but the question is why can’t we let those industries who do that regulate themselves? Why trust the drug companies to self regulate but not potential environmental polluters?
well i doubt you were around then, i was. and it wasnt govt intervention on its own, there was public outrage and evidence of harms. anti dumping initiatives came from the people. if it hadnt there would be dumping all over the place cause the govt wouldnt have done squat.
@@lindaostrom570 some of the first water pollution laws enacted by government regulation were in the late 1800s so not sure what you mean specifically. Government studies on DDT found that it was causing loads of health issues which is what sparked public outrage. That outrage caused the government to enact regulations. The companies knew the negative effects and covered them up so it’s doubtful they’d change on their own. Plenty of other examples like lead in gasoline and fracking clearly show that the government is the only recourse the public has as a defense against corporation overreach and malfeasance.
Here's something to think about... Did we actually reduce our level of pollution or did we just export it to China so that we could feel like we were "doing something"?
The private sector will only innovate, WHEN a profit can be derived from selling the solution.
... Innovation requires capital to create and test the infrastructure necessary to implement a solution. Without access to a large pool of funds innovation is unlikely to happen. There are two ways to get access to the funds, (1) through government, (2) through private equity, or a combination of both. However, private equity is limited by the profit motive, so if the solution can not be monentized, then it is unlikely to be implemented. Government financing is control by the politicians that control the relevant department.
It's sad when you see someone you respected intellectually say stupid things... "less people are driving today than at any point in history", pretty sure less people were driving 200 years ago. It's like Peterson in the interview saying solar panels are no good in Europe, sheesh. Warren clearly has made up his mind on this subject and is arguing that position, I watched the video hoping for critical thinking rather than debating a preconceived point of view. Other weak points in this video: Warren asks the other participant to back up every statement with evidence but claims many things without providing evidence e.g. private companies can solve the problem better than government (a point of view he later contradicts when criticising the corporate pharmaceutical companies - companies are self serving to make money - not a shocking revelation). Maybe it's just me as other commenters seem to love this video but I'm less of a fan of this channel after watching this.
100 % agreed. This channel was about critical thinking and now it is more about politics, how bad the left is and denying actual facts. Not fun or rewarding anymore.
Do you believe that Warren doesn't actually understand this or is it more likely that he was talking within the context of "since driving had reached a widespread popularity."
Your other point seems to conflate pharmaceutical companies that enact regulatory capture which includes not being liable for your products harming people in addition to governmental mandates the population use your products with an actual private company that must sell a viable product based on its own merits.
Think of it as a test or heuristic, that no-one can be trusted soley based on authority. This video could be the best video regarding critical thinking on his channel.
People are so fast in building authority figures, parents, big men, messiahs - whatever you want to call it. Anything, so they can stop thinking.
Ya I think you are misunderstanding something
Is Warren prepared to defend the view that Consumer Protections harm the consumer?
Start by defining "consumer protections"
@@odieodencrantz4832 sure. “Consumer protections” here means laws or regulation designed to prevent unethical business practices such as fraud, deception, providing defective products, etc.
You mean the type of protections that lead to when I knowingly order a hot coffee and spill it on myself, allows me to sue and win because the cup didn’t say the coffee is hot?
@@fryingbaconstudios3429 Are you referring to Liebeck v McDonald’s? I’m not sure if that tort cases are limited to consumer protection scenarios. That doesn’t seem to be the case. But yes, I defend the constitutional right to sue.
Yes I am. I was alive when that case happened. Before that case personal responsibility was a factor in deciding such cases. That case single-handedly took that out of the judicial equation. Now decades later we have a society in complete disconnection from personal responsibility. I should state that consumer protections are very important but are being used by some to bolster their political standing. All reason and measures are lost on the current civilization. Unfortunately, I believe we are past the point of no return. Historically, this common pattern of human behavior doesn’t end well generally.
I had a feeling you were a fan of Dr.Peterson since your Pierce Morgan interview lol 😉
The accidental authoritarianism of a young mind
“The science is settled”
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
Mr Smith, methinks the belief in the free market's efficiency to address any and all crises is just as ideological as handing over your fate to a government. Tbc
Re the pharmaceutical industry and government, there are tools other than regulation (which i do believe is necessary), for instance subsidies, which just happen to be instrumental in allowing research to flourish (via federally funded labs in universities for instance).
There is a balance to be made....checks and balance. If government were to actually create laws that require complete transparency of the free market (not to mention MUCH NEEDED government/politician/lobby/special interest transparency), then the PEOPLE (i.e the consumer) can make accurate and informed decisions on where to spend/invest their dollars in order to directly support the markets/products/services that can show/prove their efficacy...HONESTLY. Just like how cigarettes have a surgeon generals warning on the outside of the box, there should be labels on products & goods, that inform the consumer of HOW the product was made, WHERE every element of the product was made, WHAT the labor conditions were while the product was being made, etc. Let the people vote with their dollars. (Since, let's be honest, that's the only vote that actually has any chance of enacting progress or change).
Governments and "free markets" have become so corrupt, that neither should be trusted! So, FULL transparency from government AND free markets becomes mandatory if we ever want to eliminate corruption, greed, and ultimately...tyranny from both. (The fact that neither are willing to offer genuine transparency...tells you exactly just how "free" us, peasants, actually are.)
A free market would be the best tool for it, tho. For example, if most people want to drive low carbon emissions vehicles, the market will produce highly carbon efficient vehicles. The competition in the auto industry would innovate and produce vehicles that would meet the demand. A real world example is america pulling out of the Paris climate according. Our emission steadily decreased because that's what the people wanted. But countries like Germany had their emissions increase, and they blamed the lack of funding from america.
Argument through implication doesn’t achieve anything besides beating around the bush. It’s like watching wrestling and thinking “this is all real”.
You may well be correct about more than you are not.
However, this conversation seemed particularly muddled.
Jordan Peterson debates are a great source to watch to see critical thinking in action.
Warren not so much.
"Whats an extreme response to climate change," he's asked.
He fails to give a proper answer. Like, say, millions of people starving to death by crippling their economy. Denying them the coal that lifted us, India, China, and all first world countries out of poverty.
I don't see Peterson as a critical thinker .
@odinallfarther6038 How?
Have you watched any of JBP's videos from 10 years ago? He also has a fantastic psychological and philosophical analysis of the Bible.
@@panzer00 you are easily impressed , the man is shallow and bigoted he likes to pontificate about things he know nothing about , he is a pseudo CZcams intellect and a self obsessed drama queen . He and destiny are of equal intellect and good match of a low standard .
Jordon would be awesome if he could keeps his emotions in check better. That's the only reason I don't listen to him more. I love the way Warren gently probes the guest into getting to the root of whatever they are talking about.
You should try to get on Peter Boghossian’s podcast, I think your personalities would mesh wel
We’ve been in touch. I hope we can do something soon
Not sure doubling up on poorly researched, anecdotal debates is a good way forwards for anyone.
It's so weird to me when I listen to or talk to someone who really does not know how to think critically. It's always fascinating to see the struggle in their minds when they begin to actually think for the first time in their lives. It's especially odd when the person in question is an adult.
Fauci quite literally said "I am the science".