Jordan Peterson and Bjørn Lomborg Explain What Climate Activists Get Wrong
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- Watch the full video - • The World is Not Endin...
Bjørn Lomborg is a Danish author, having written numerous books on climate change such as “False Alarm,” “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” and “How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place.” He is the president of the think tank Copenhagen Consensus Center that focuses on doing the most good, for the most people, with increasingly limited budgets. Previously, Lomborg was the director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute.
- Links -
For Bjørn Lomborg:
Website: www.lomborg.com/
"What are the smartest solutions for the world?” We did a big book with 50+ teams of economists and several Nobel Laureates, but you can skip to the one-pager here: www.copenhagen....
Thinking about climate, read my free, peer-reviewed article www.sciencedir.... , or my new book, False Alarm www.amazon.com...."
Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: utm.io/ueSFn
// SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL //
Premium Podcast - jordanbpeterso...
Newsletter: linktr.ee/DrJo...
Donations: jordanbpeterso...
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterso...
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyse...
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterso...
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterso....
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterso....
// LINKS //
Website: jordanbpeterso...
Events: jordanbpeterso...
Blog: jordanbpeterso...
Podcast: jordanbpeterso...
// SOCIAL //
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus #podcast #news #psychology #climatechange #environment
If you hide your motivation to impose your will on others behind a pretext of enlightened compassion, you can manage to convince yourself that any action you take is morally superior to everyone else, and morally justifiable, including censoring and even eliminating any who question or oppose you.
Well said. Like the CS Lewis tyrant quote.
better to do what one thinks God would say if He spoke on an issue - just think like God
This apt statement could have been lifted from the WEF song sheet of "how to"!
"Hell is not paved with good intentions. Hell is paved with sanctimonious pretensions." From Supreme Personality by Delmer Eugene Croft
It worked for Hitler
I took one glance at the thumb nail and first thought that was Gordon Ramsey 🤣
A very much younger one lol.
Image of him 😁
🤣
No, that's commies pushing a global scam.
@@strikemaster1 Lomborg is 1 year older than Ramsey
Humans spent most of our existence starving to death and working to death. Now we overeat to death and rest to death while blaming our ancestors.
But really... Who's fault is that? Ancestors!
Everyone who is born is destined to die. Everything we do in life, good or bad, ends in death. That fact is inescapable. Our only option is to live as best we can while doing as little harm to others as possible.
@@jayejaycurry5485 That's not our only option. We can also choose to live by sacrificing our own comforts for the betterment of others, not simply existing by not causing harm to others. Why simply exist? Why not choose to lift others up? Otherwise what's the point?
@@American-Jello For one thing, we are individuals responsible for our own decisions and wellbeing.
For a second thing, we are not all the same. We all have different ideas, values, and goals in life. Why should we give up our own lives in a vain attempt to make someone else's better, when we have no idea who or what they are?
Third, what you suggest isn't conducive to good life in general. Your communistic ideals have been tried, and have failed. No one got lifted up. The misery of a few ended up being shared by all (except for the very few privileged people in charge).
No, life is a struggle, like it or not. Yes, we can give a helping hand to those on a lower rung on the ladder. But climbing down the ladder of life to join them doesn't advance the human condition.
@@jayejaycurry5485 You've entirely missed my point. I never once said anything about "communistic" anything. You're looking at things from the perspective of the masses. I'm talking about lifting up one person at a time, one person, making a difference to one other person, who may then make a difference to one other person and so on.
Why should we give up of our own lives to make someone else's better when we have no idea who or what they are? Because only self-sacrificial goodness actually DOES lift people up. Goodness for the sake of goodness, not for any reason than because it is good, not for any personal gain, makes a difference.
This may seem impossible for you to fathom, but I challenge you to an experiment. Try it. Do something completely selfless, that you don't benefit from in any way at all, once a week for a month. Pay for someone's groceries. Buy a homeless person a jacket or some shoes. Donate money to a church. Something. Anything. Accept nothing in return. Do good for good's sake. See if you don't start to notice a change. Or you can ignore me and just keep living only for yourself and believe I'm just some idealistic idiot that doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about. But who's outlook sounds better here?
Bjørn Lomborg: "I don't see 4 billion people willing to give up their lives."
World Leaders: "We have to make some hard choices."
We didn't even want to KILL half the population, but we had to save the world
No, of course they are not willing to give-up their lives, but they could have less than replacement children and we can depopulated.
@@airfoiling We also need to stop immigration to the West and giving more and more people a First World carbon footprint.
@@uomodonore245 The United States is the only developed country whose population is growing, thanks to immigration. Without immigration the US's population would be flat.
@@airfoiling Klaus and company don't have the patience for that.
The vast majority of the population who may or may not be climate alarmists are not willing to give up the lifestyle to which they have grown accustomed. They expect someone else to make the sacrifices.
They wouldn't have to if there were only a couple billion of us instead of eight billion.
This is a good point. But do you think lomborg and Peterson downplaying the necessity to tackle climate breakdown by ranking other issues above it allows people to further rationalise not taking the steps required to minimize global warming (e.g. Taking less flights, eating less meat, buying a smaller or more efficient car)?
@@airfoiling Will you volunteer not to live, or who should "we" choose?
@@martinbook85 Actually, I have a pretty small environmental footprint, so my departure wouldn't have much of an impact, but if I could take a couple billion of us with me, I would be happy to oblige because I know I would have saved the future by preventing millions of other species from being driven to extinction by the rapacious, virulent, pestilence that is humanity. Humanity is a cancer for this planet.
@@formulaic78 If it was up to me, energy would be priced progressivly with the billionare topping-off the tanks of his Gulfstream paying sixteen times as much per gallon as the guy filling his eco car to commute to work to put food on his family's table.
The doomsday narrative is what captures the clicks. Informing people that those living in abject poverty are being lifted out of their dire circumstances isn't sexy and doesn't sell, unfortunately. And most people are intrinsically selfish so they wouldn't really care. You need to bring them something that makes them believe it'll have a direct impact on their lives.
The ‘doomsday narrative’ actually states that the most serious consequences of our anthropogenic warming of the atmosphere will be most felt by the future generations, it won’t have a direct impact on our lives but rather our descendants. It’s therefore not selfish to be concerned but quite the opposite
Good post Razear...In my own life I like hearing that over 100,000 people a day are raised out of poverty. But we all know what energy sources are doing that and it ain't wind mills and solar panels.
It also discourages Western people from having children. You didn’t see Greta T go to Asia, India or Africa. They are the ones growing the fastest.
Funny, can’t read one of the “3” replies posted here…hmmm?
@@frigidmonk At the time of writing this, there are supposed to be 4 replies (5 including mine now), and I only see yours.
You cannot discuss anything OUTSIDE of propaganda on CZcams unless you have high visibility. If Peterson's video was taken down, people would be aware of it, when MINE is taken down, nobody knows.
USE OTHER SITES.
Climate change is the “only thing that matters” but I do notice most of these young activists won’t buckle down to study math and engineering.
CIA Declassified Documents LAST WEEK CONFIRM GLOBAL WARMING CATASTROPHE COMING NEAR NEAR FUTURE IN THE NEXT 6 YEARS 👉czcams.com/video/4n3fkTq_p0o/video.html
No, that takes effort
So what do you believe is top 5 priorities, other than the hidden agenda of 15 min cities & reducing earth populous by 6.5-7 billion useless eaters. ?
Also, none of them sacrifice their personal needs that are satisfied by mobile phones, modern medications, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.
It's actually not.
The way things are framed and what gets focused on in the msm tells you a lot about how the elites see the world and how they want to frame it. I think it stems from the elites not having a high opinion about their fellow man and uplifting the human condition in general.
They want us poor or dead, hence the global warming scam.
They think we are expendable at their say so
Davos wants to control the world and cut human population DOWN!
@@pattitempleton4881 100 % correct. It's Agenda 21.
The *_Negative_* has more impact because pain (or discomfort) gets us to move out of our "comfort zone." And by "comfort zone" we're talking about the zone of relative predictability. Step outside of that zone and things become dangerous and full of potential failure.
Most people don’t give a damn about the negative as long as it is not affecting them NOW. And if it is affecting them NOW, they deny the real cause. Because it is not convenient to give any part of their lifestyle. It is more convenient to ignore or deny that it is happening.
@@LomuHabana Yes. Well said. The negative is was referring to IS something which affects them *_painfully_* and now. The positive has virtually no effect (for instance the lure of riches) because it's too much "trouble" to move out of their current "comfort zone."
Don't worry we are going to be back where we were 200 years ago very soon
Way worse.
Mix in biosphere collapse, we soon wont stand a chance
I turn the light off when I leave the room.
I read Bjorn’s book I don’t know how many years ago. I recommend it.
Except he is off by 30 years......time is up.....
I'm interested as to why he chose to be vegetarian? Not to be critical towards his choice but to understand how he arrived at his conclusion of choice. I really don't think of my own dietary choice based off anything other than what I enjoy (in moderation and responsibly), but in saying that I do not care for anything driving someone's idealogically driven choice.
I enjoy his objective approach towards so many areas that it genuinely intrigues me to want to know why?
My wife did it for health reasons. She was having odd joint flair ups every time she ate meat. We tried adding fish back in it came back. Other's do it for losing weight.
Really? Is it impossible for you to understand why someone choses to not feed on animal corpses? Do you have a dog? What would feel if we butchered it? You and your family and your children are animals too. What would you feel if they or yourself were butchered? You really lack the most basic empathy towards the other living creatures that are almost exactly like yourself?
@@gabrielpazos8404 lol WOW! Nice straw man argument followed up with a pinch of gaslighting. Nothing of what I put forward was unreasonable to ask and yes I know people that have a variety of dietary choices that I understand why they have made and out of respect don't challenge.
Is it unreasonable that someone maybe interested as to how a world renown economist came to a conclusion/decision on something that they chose to embrace?
@@jamessparkes5492 it is just moronic to ask why anybody becomes vegetarian. Theres only one reason: because you feel bad with the idea of animals (like yourself) being murdered. There is no ideology whatsoever involved, just feelings of empathy. Also, it might be healthy
@@gabrielpazos8404 not ideological? Really?! Doesn't morning everything/everyone that dies take a toll on your well-being?
Unlike you I don't pretend to personally care about everything/everyone for the badge of moral superiority that you then use to beat others over the head with. Your input into my original (and genuine) inquiry is both vacuous and boring, please stop while you're still behind and concentrate on becoming something better than what you are right now.
I think people are essentially problem solvers, so reading or hearing about problems is more engaging than good news
That might be a part of it. Looking through an evolutionary lens, it makes sense for an extant species to be more concerned with the things around them that are concerning than they are satisfied with the things around them that are satisfactory.
More like people love to virtue signal
I am a climate activist and honestly, to some degree I am annoyed by this kind of framing and all the strawhumans being thrown at us.
Going vegan or vegetarian is such a cop-out move. The video even touches on the point that vegetables require a ton of fossil fuel fertilizer. So obviously eating vegan isn’t going to do anything. Look into regenerative agriculture, they’re the only farms with carbon negative emissions. And regenerative farms require the production of meat
especially the way they farm vegetables - monocultures are terrible, and they have other deleterious effects, including monsanto fcking with the vege gene pool.
To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke: Anyone can say "I have cancer." and instantly have an entire crowd on your side. But, how many people can win over a crowd with five minutes of good stand-up comedy?
Innovation is what is going to save our environment, not the removal of all rights and belongings of the common man.
The biggest problem is that they know that and they're not willing to wait for the innovation. They are happy to accept the consequences to humanity in the meantime and just push forward with these initiatives anyway.
GO B. LOMBORG... DU HAR ALTID HAFT RET,,, OG VI ER MANGE DER VED DET.
PEACE FROM DENMARK 😉👍✨
I'm glad he finally realised what a scam this is
Ikke ..ALT er bar dejligt...!!?
😶🌫
@@valhelluva NEJ, DET ER RIGTIGT,, LAD OS STÅ SAMMEN OM EN SÅ FRI OG GOD VERDEN, SOM MULIGT.
GODT NYTÅR 😉👍✨
PEACE FROM REPUBLICAN DENMARK.
Big Brother provides the CZcams Newspeak tag at the bottom.
Mange tak for klippet! Jeg skal helt sikkert læse Bjørns bog om klimaet og hans syn.
Wait a minute . Please define poverty and how it was measured for this claim? Was it based on an earning threshold ? Does it take into account that a couple generations ago people lived more independently and self- sustained. They grew their own food, were less reliant on stores, utilities etc. They had less day to day need for money. Anyway I can see some things are better but this extreme narrative seems too grandiose to me
When I ask climate change/global warming skeptics what the business model of peer reviewed scientific journals is all I get is silence.
Al gore in his Oscar winning documentary said the Arctic would be gone by 2013 and polar bears would be extinct. Polar bears are thriving right now and not even on endangered list. Media was also fearmongering about 10 years ago, citing "experts" that were predicting Florida would be underwater in 7 years. Australia even warned in 1999, that in 20 years, there would be no more snow. They just had historic record snowfall. Climate has always been changing. That's why ice age is cyclical and Sahara desert was lush 10,000 years ago.
We had snow at the start of summer.
Al Gore ( whose goal it is to be the first climate alarmist billionaire): Baffling people with BS. Just because something is said doesn't make it true. There are far greater forces placed upon planet Earth from space, than those by humans. Planetary cycles such a the Milankovitch cycle are far more rational, logical and science based than the hysterical propaganda pedalled by the climate alarmists. But I guess there is no profit to be had by accepting that these forces are absolutely beyond our ( Humankind's) control. Live within our means, by all means. Live conservatively, definitely. Be kind to one another, of course. Accept that the only constant is change and adapt to it. Live in harmony with nature, not try to dominate it. Are we not the most adaptable species on the planet?
Do you think that there is nothing particularly unusual about the rate at which global temperatures and environments have been changing during the past century when compared to the trends of last one hundred thousand years?
@@tarkamlokar9709 do you think it's valid to claim to know how fast temperature changed in the past 100k years?
Do you think it's valid to say the past 100 years temperature changes are rapid when there are constant changes to historical temperature data due to "errors" that consistently adjust historical temperatures *DOWN* (ie increasing the rate of increase by dint of manipulation of past data alone)?
Do you think it's valid to claim any change in temperature is due to CO2 changes when those changes remain a miniscule part of the total volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
Do you think it's valid to predict future trends when clouds and ice age and exit from ice age mechanisms are not modeled or known at all?
@@aarondcmedia9585 I don't know. I'm factually ignorant on the subject.
Thank you CZcams people, but I don't need the "context" reminder . . .
Without an existential crisis, how can we obtain public congratulations and bask in well deserved hubris by demonstrating our wokeness?
Focus on negatives. Ignore positives. Exaggerate negatives. Fuse multiple exaggerated negatives into several cohesive narratives. Set up a time line, and a point of no return. Start the countdown. Propose drastic solutions. Propose "solutions" that will create worse negatives. Cause catastrophe and chaos. Weaken and decimate populations. Rescue and control weakened populations. Wah la.
Can we see an interview with Dr Peter Ridd in Australia
Good idea
@@Marc-io8qm I think it would be an awesome interview..
We seem to be worried about damaging the economy by taking steps against climate change, when climate change alone is going to damage the economy in a drastic and uncontrolled fashion.
There is very little adaptation possible when areas dependent on established patterns of rainfall and temperature, dry out and experience heatwaves making crops useless year after year. That is the economy we should be worried about, because after all it doesn't matter how high our annual salary is or has been raised, if we can afford a new car but can't afford to put bread on the table because the wheat fields have become barren dusty dry lands.
I am speaking from experience here. The mediterranean is experiencing unprecedented draughts and heat waves that are putting centuries-old wine and olive oil businesses under serious risk, affecting local economies drastically.
So it's not just a case of raising the dile of the air conditioning to adapt to higher temperatutes as Mr Lomborg seems to suggest as the best way to fight climate change.
Matthew 26:11 The poor will always be with you. It’s what we do to help them that matters. Thank you Jordan for another great conversation. I’ve missed your CZcamss. You look sharp in your suit. Luv ya 👍🏻❤️✝️
They usually get abused. What does that tell you about the world we live in? Don't forget that God created this world and everything is exactly as it was intended.
@@johnsham7568 Yes, but we are to help the orphan, the widow, the poor, the sick and the less fortunate. One of my favorite things to do is to give out goody bags, clothes, food, Bibles and hugs to the homeless. They are the most beautiful people I’ve ever met. They are full of love. Everyone is our neighbor. Goodnight and God bless.
@@Cinderella227sticking plaster on a gaping wound.
@@neverindoubtjones4789 It’s not the same as repainting rotten wood if we can make a difference in even just one life by following Jesus Christ example. He is out greatest mentor. If we help the poor, sick and hungry, we help him. Life is not just about ourselves. We must face hardships and sorrows to understand and appreciate the meaning of life itself. Life is about what we can do to help others even in the smallest of ways. God is so wonderful to me that I must give back in any way I can. I think that’s the purpose in life, it’s giving and helping others no matter what. We are even supposed to help our enemies. That’s why Almighty God is all powerful, glory and the wisest. Have a wonderful and blessed day. ✝️
@@Cinderella227 - My sincere appreciation for your service to our fellow man/woman. Honestly, yet there is judgment in the Bible against those who won't work, for example, or against theft, both of which is the sin of certain individuals who are homeless. Loving homeless individuals is noble while it must be met with discernment, not much different from helping a self-sustaining housed individuals who has character flaws they don't want to admit to nor address. ( Depends on what it is, to what extent. ) My admiration and respect for the supreme example of Jesus Christ does not read in a way that He helped everyone, because He also confronted sin in anyone, rich or poor. Happy New Year. ✝
Jordan is looking really good! Great color coordination too!
We need the rest of the discussion..
It’s available in the description of the video
Very nice suit, Jordan 😉
Why does Bjorn spew out stuff like this? He doesn't know if a lot of people each doing their little bit won't make a difference. Besides he does nothing to mark out that the rich pollute and corporations pollute excessively.
you may want to amend your statement while you can guys......it is only July and we are boiling marlin in Florida.....
Thank goodness when I was 16-21 I was discovering my own personal interests fashion of music and girls, I thought it was the job of adults to deal with what was going on in the world and simply let me enjoy my youth !
Among every day citizens, im sure most are well intentioned. But then there's some....
Those who don't want to fix anything, they don't want to hear solutions or ideas or feedback, I think they want to keep a power trip or a moral superiority high up for as long as they can.
Only thing is disagree with is in thinking climate is even a problem at all. the doomsday scenarios are only in faulty computer programs. The early Roman warm period and the medieval warm period were significantly warmer than today. It helped civilisation- not hurt it.
I think we should stop all wars and our own armament to save the climate. Long before we try to take away the sausage from poor people's sandwiches.
Bjorn, you may know a lot, but the fact that you don't know CO2 is plant food, is greatly disturbing.
Double CO2 in the atmosphere and you reduce irrigation by HALF. It will also increase food production by magnitudes.
You need to communicate with Bill Happer, Princeton.
That is just not true. Greenhouses have increases in plant production by increasing CO2 because the Greenhouse has adequate temperature, water, good plants, good level of sunlight, good soil, etc.. It is all the other things that are needed for fast plant growth, that will allow faster plant growth from more CO2. For the rest of the plant world, it is all the other shortages that will mean that there is not increased plant growth because of more CO2.
@@ronaldlindeman6136 Correct. That sort of argument only applies to when CO2 is the limiting factor out of all the variables involved in plant growth.
In the real world, conditions for water, sunlight, soil etc will almost always be the limiting factor way before CO2 becomes one.
The United States of America experts millions of tonnes of grain per year for free to countries with abject poverty. This goes on a massive ship that is powered by polluting fossil fuels. The climate activists will complain about the pollution of these ships but entirely ignore what that ship does for humanity.
All actions have consequences both good and bad, consequences both intended, and more importantly unintended.
Mankind's use of fossil fuels has *UNDOUBTEDLY* lifted mankind up out of the muck of life to a level of comfort and abundance never before seen on this planet.
A good, and intended consequence of its use.
When man began ensl@ving carbon instead of other human beings, that was a good day!
But mankind's use of fossil fuels also has bad, and unintended consequences, namely that it pollutes the air we breath leading to higher incidences of cancer, and it warms the climate.
The answer is to move from fossil fuels to nuclear.
It's a GD no brainer.
They want to get rid of both ships and planes by 2030. I don't think they care about what will happen as a result.
Yes - Jordan Peterson - Gig-Up JP 👍❤🙏- Peace & Love...
Two men whistling in the dark. An environmental skeptic and a psychotherapist trying to pretend it's all actually getting better. The latest IPCC report by actual environmental scientists says, in layman's language, that if we don't massively change now we're fucked. I'm not 16 I'm 65 and I think we're way past the tipping point. The world may last, minus most of the animals which we've destroyed , but we won't. Might be a relief if only not to hear any more of Jordans little theories about teenagers.
Net zero will never happen, and we can get all the nitrogen we need from manure if we double sheep and cattle production.
This guy has a great lighting guy
Read Bjorn’s book “False Alarm”, great read!
I would like to see Jordan talk this through with Steve Keen. He will explain his view that the economics of climate change is radically different from Bjorn's view. And that the most serious work on the economics of climate change is radically flawed and radically underestimates the gravity of the situation. Uncovering the truth or otherwise of his view would be a serious contribution to the debate.
use full spectrum lighting shine from front of face , slightly above like bathroom light, dont film in 4k, film in 1080p
What drives true climate zealots to despair is that under the dire scenarios they push, none of them will live long enough to exact retribution on their opponents.
You are gaslighting the subject.
The main reason the lifting of people out of poverty has not been a big story in European and North American media is simply because almost all of it has been in China. Not something governments here would like to broadcast. As far as people "giving up their lives", climate change will cause that all by itself. It's already happening. People are being displaced, their former homes becoming unlivable. At the same time, droughts and floods are causing rising food prices. It is a conceit of climate change deniers like Peterson and Lomborg that climate change won't cost anything. Thus anything that might be done to ameliorate the situation is a cost that we shouldn't bear. Believe me, the costs of ignoring the situtation will be huge, and in many cases insurmountable. That is, money will not be able to fix the problem. When we reach that stage, pundits like these two will undoubtedly blame the lefty media for preventing us from doing something about it when we could.
2:01 *Jean Piaget's messianic stage*
• ethical & cognitive development
love Dr. Peterson's suits and ties.
Clownish
Apt. Apt analysis
In. In your opinion.
Why does this video come with a "context" from the United Nations when man made climate change is only a theory.
Bad News are Good News (saleswise)
Nitrogen is 78% of the air. Not using nitrogen is beyond moronic
Excellent men.
Ah yes, a political scientist who has never done serious research and a psychologist want to lecture people about climate change.
Yeah a lot different than brain dead politicians and children lecturing us 😂😂
@@jershannon1897 not what I am saying, Listen to Manabe and Hasselmann if you care for an experts evaluation.
@@LomuHabana I looked them up, they are theorists not practical scientists, again more people that claim the sky is falling and after a generation we will see that it was a nothing burger just like all the rest of it
I love how twitchy CZcams gets with these videos 🤣😜
9:10 "there are no 4B volunteers who will say OK I won't be here tomorrow" ... who says they are gonna be volunteers?
"The current solutions are all very counter productive" - they are counter-productive if you want to save everyone, if you don't then they are perfect.
You have a rather jaundiced view of your fellow human beings, well some of them anyway...on the other hand you could be correct !
Simply presenting it here as if activists claimed that climate change was the only problem would be about the same as someone claiming that psychologists could solve all problems through knowledge of the human psyche. (Knowing full well that they caused many problems in the first place, for example in the form of targeted advertising strategies for largely useless products.)
Themes: humans look for validation; humans retreat to their tribes; humans in order to buy validation do so by keeping poor people poor & such people are easily swayed & misinformed; it's always easy to use someone else's money.
It's OK to starve a lot of people if you starve a lot of plants.
U wrote..."activist" and "get wrong"in the same sentence. U assume they want ,try or capable of getting somthing wrong. They don't care...they are activist they shaut what ever people pay them to shaut. After covid activist's job opportunity only grew.
Interesting point of view on climate change. When I went to college the doomsday narrative was prevailing. It created a depressing outlook on the world. I strayed away from it, and embraced the arts. Even in cultural Anthropology it was this doomsday narrative to document the lives of Indigeous people before they no longer exist. So fast forward from the mid 70s to now; the ethnic groups that were supposed to disappear are still here and so is the planet. I do think better management is a better way. I then went into Agroecology. I don't accept the narrative of too many people to be feed. I strongly believe the means are there. Small farming networks can feed the world.
We can feed them all… but Soylent Green is People.
Seriously though, like any ecosystem the earth has a limited number of resources, water and carbon, that even technology cannot compensate for. Population will cap/“stabilize” around 10 Billion. Jordan has referenced this a few times that I’ve seen, too.
Excellent
We need more energy less government
"Jordan Peterson and Bjørn Lomborg Explain what Climate Activists get Wrong"
Not really. You never explain why you don't think it's an existential threat.
Did you listen, they don't deny the threat, rather they are pointing out that in the real world the "climate activists" solutions are as bad for a large portion of the world's population as the problem.
If you have to make a choice now between "eating or heating" and face the possibility of abject poverty [ even death ] now what would you care about the planet in 100 years. If you are one of the targeted 4 billion excess population the planet cannot " support " under clean green sustainable proposals what would you care about the future comfort of the wealthy thoroughly insulated "elites" making such proposals.
@@jeremymead8546 Did you listen? Lomborg literally says in this very fucking clip that IF the situation was like a meteor threatening to hit the earth, THEN it would be right to totally focus on that and ignore other problems. Then he goes on to say that it is NOT a situation like that and that climate is just "a problem" among others. And that's where his cost benefit analyses come in.
But that is what climate activists think. That climate change is an immediate threat to the survival of humanity, or at least of civilization. I used the word "existential" that you omitted, thereby attributing a claim to me that I didn't make, for a reason. Peterson and Lomborg in this conversation never make the case that it isn't that kind of threat. They just claim that it isn't.
@@homoduplex it's not a world population level existential threat at all for a number of reasons.
1st and most simply human adaptability
2nd the idea that we should expect the climate to remain the same as it has been for the last 100 or 200 years of human history is nonsensical.
3rd, yes we want to survive but the planet doesn't care. It's been hotter, colder, wetter , drier. Homo sapiens are not the standard against which the climate should be measured. It is up to us to adapt and we have more ability to do this than ever before.
4th while not denying the problems associated with climate change many of the proposed solutions do pose existential threats, if you are facing " eating or heating" decisions right now then 50, 100 years in the future is meaningless.
5th there are more immediate and actual existential threats, namely the decline in human fertility.
Given current declines in human fertility there may not be many people breeding by 2100. Alternatively given what the West has done with endocrine disruptors in our food, food storage, environment in general, it may be as soon as 2050.
Already the West, Russia, China, Japan etc are all breeding well below replacement. The anthropogenic part of anthropogenic global warming is set to disappear quite rapidly.
Anonymity Matters JP
Fractional Distillation of Liquid Air to Produce Nitrogen
In simple terms, a four-step process is used: cool it, isolate the nitrogen, separate it from the air, and then collect it. At the correct low temperature, the nitrogen becomes liquid and can then be extracted and harvested for industrial processes.22 May 2018
Anyone ever wonder what Mr Peterson is writing in his notebook while he speaks?
Shopping list for his wife
drawing. What Lomborg looks like with breasts.
We need more fossil fuels not less. It's the wealthy modern world that keeps people safe. Fossil fuels mitigate and neutralize threats from warming. Poverty is what kills.
@@Hrotiberhtaz Climate change *solutions* are what leads to poverty. You want to see a real Mad Max world? Deprive the world of inexpensive reliable energy. 25% of the Netherlands already sits below sea level. The Dutch aren't dying, drowning or turning into climate refugees. Why? In the early 1970's 250,000 people died in a cyclical flood in Bangladesh. When a hurricane hits the American east coast 50 people may die. When they hit the Philippines 20,000 can die. Why?
Data proves that death tolls from every natural disaster, *including every single climate related disaster* has been in precipitous decline for the last hundred years. This is even more extraordinary when you realize there are 8 times more people on the planet than there were just over a hundred years ago.
People also need to stop pointing at every single flood and drought and absurdly saying "See, climate change". Even the IPCC in its latest report confirmed that floods and droughts were not getting worse. The only thing that's worse, is people's propensity to parrot nonsense, and the 24/7 media that shoves every flood down our throats as if this is new phenomena. History didn't start the day you were born.
@@Hrotiberhtaz concrete doesn't melt, the reports from India were about tarmac melting in the heat. Tarmac melting on road surfaces is nothing new.
The water shortages/ lack of rain are a real problem. The green revolution hasn't helped though. Moving away from sustainable traditional cropping and rotation practices to modern western cropping practices requiring pesticides fertilizer and irrigation has created a much more fragile, environmentally unfriendly, debt intensive Agriculture that is much less resilient, much less sustainable and vastly dependant on fossil fuels.
@@Hrotiberhtazhe areas of Pakistan that flooded are in a floodplain. How does a floodplain form? Through many repeated floods.
It dishonest to say the floods of last year in Pakistan were caused by humans. Were the floods ten thousand years ago in this area caused by humans?
It got hot in India last year. It always gets hot in India. The sub continent straddles the equator.
We get weather reports and then fear climate change, something no one can do much about.
@@Hrotiberhtaz please stop lying. Nothing you said is backup by any evidence, and at least part of what you say is blatanly false. I live in Korea and been to China several times. I have relatives there... You're just lying.
@@Hrotiberhtaz That is a lie. Extreme weather deaths have dropped dramatically over the last century, to a tiny fraction of what they were. Why? Because of what this video discusses: massive reductions in global poverty. When there are huge floods in Pakistan, many people die. When there are massive floods in America, almost no one dies. Why? America doesn't have mass extreme poverty.
Why is wealth only measured in dollars ? In an ideal gift based society no one would earn a single penny but everybody would have abundance in terms of connection to the products, the producers, the input like land and animals and be rich in all kinds of ways that are not suited to be measured in quantity of currency.
The term "lifted" is also a euphamism, most of the people are working very hard, being incorporated into system that makes some people very rich but leaves them with a miserable life, devoid of all the beautiful things they might have had before leaving the village to work in the big city.
All the sweat shop workers in china are to be counted among those who are miraculously lifted out of poverty, is that considered to be an achievement we should celebrate ?
looks like a couple of the links bring up pages that have been removed, wonder why? lol
You know it's good when it has the *context* note from the CCP above the comments.
Oh not Lomborg again. Another fellow charlatan of Peterson
We're all doomed,but not really!.
Kohlberg, not Piaget.
Interesting theory on the current state of affairs
What Bjorn Lomborg gets wrong is that he still believes the CO2 = Warming LIE, and the Warming is relatively bad LIE. Neither of those are true and these facts are demonstrably verifiable. What I like about Lomborg is his insistence that cheap solutions can do far more good than the gargantuanly expensive Carbon Taxation scheme.
REFERENCES:
*_Climate Basics: Nothing to Fear_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook; #1 Weather Bestseller for 14 weeks on Amazon)
*_Thermophobia_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook; #10 Weather Bestseller)
*_Red Line -- Carbon Dioxide_* (paperback, ebook; #25 Weather Bestseller)
*_Dumb Genius: How intelligence is sometimes its own worst enemy_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)
It's a shame.
I can do that in one word: .... EVERYTHING!
I just think its funny when they talk about us destroying the earth. I mean, the data is pretty clear, the earth will become inhospitable, we will die or leave, then it will recover just fine.
Why people focus on the negative more is because we were created to live in an imperfect world. God created the first humans to be perfect, to fill the earth and live in love and harmony, and then they sinned, disrupting God's purpose. That is why death and everything negative makes us sad or mad, because it should not be happening. Soon God will fix the problems and we can return to live the way we were meant to live.
Love the idiotic CZcams disclaimer lol.
The numbers & stats cited here are not accurate.
What these two don't get is bubble gum. You are cheweing bubble gum, and of course you are tempted to blow that bubble as big as it can get. At that microsecond before it bursts, it is as big as it is ever going to be. Then it blows-up in your face and you have a mess. Bringing people out of poverty is great, but at some point the bubble bursts.
Not if you keep adding gum
@@plantfeeder6677 At some point you are limited by the volume of your mouth.
@@airfoiling No, you're limited by the volume of your lungs, but even then you could hold the bubble for a moment, refill your lungs via your nose, and blow more... The ultimate limit though is surface tension on the bubble gum itself. In other words you can only make the bubble so big based on how much gum you have, and how well you're able to manage it.
@@Les_S537The sad reality is as humanity grows it will lead to an uglier and uglier world and the reason being is pretty easy to understand: More and more people chasing after fewer and fewer resources will cause likeminded people to band together to fight for what they believe they are entitled to. With current technology an Earth of three to four billion of us could be an Eden, at eight things are going to shit fast, and an earth of nine to ten billion of us will just be one huge living Hell.
@@airfoiling I'm slightly confused... We were talking about bubble gum and blowing bubbles. But generally, I don't disagree about your point on population. My only concern is how we go about controlling that. When you present a problem, overpopulation, you are invariably going to have nuts take the mitigation of that problem to an extreme so be careful what you wish for...
The only climate change occuring is natural , it has & will continue to change for ETERNITY. (Fact) Co2 & Nitrogen makes plants grow , (fact) all Co2 that exists has allways existed . Pollution & ecosystem destruction must stop , those are problems that can be solved. Carbon capture & reduction is not only counter productive its fatal.
One nitrogen is an inert gas and can poison some plants if given too much. Technically all CO2 that is on earth has existed but not at the same time. Also the CO2 that man makes is from hundreds of millions years ago that has been trapped and not in the system. The CO2 is just the start because it is the first pebble that starts the whole rock slide of climate change.
How about people agree to have netzero children
What do climate activists get wrong? Everything.
the reason is rather simple! the positive doesn't kill you!
Exactly. You don't have to be negative to want to have a better environment actually doing nothing or believing we can't do nothing is the real pessimism. To have ideas, to read scientists (more than one ) to think about solutions, that I believe is very positive and It has to be very depressing to think well since it's very complex "good luck with that" in a condescending way
Gizmo Green
so your saying because we can raise people out of poverty via changing the climate that we (and all the other aninals and plants) evolved in is a good idea?? can't we do both- lift people out of poverty AND keep the planet in the stable zone we, and the other species- can survive in?
The shlub stills believes it's getting warmer. Got news for you all, warmings over, time to get cold again.
I believe the discussion in the video is that money and man power are both limited, so the question becomes how to best divide these resources between Climate recovery and Helping poor people. It's a complicated question tbh and I don't know if there even is a right answer to it.
Jordan is so hard to listen too. Bjorn is a pleasure.
Since when is a vegetarian diet good for the earth's climate. That's superficial a myth.
I thought primitive societies engaged in initiation at the onset of puberty.
It’s always good to see someone speak on a subject they are not trained in. I love getting librarians to fix my car and having plumbers do my needed surgery
End of!
CZcams propaganda called Context.
Mostly, our nightly News Reports have become Entertainment Shows. The days of news anchors like Walter Cronkite are long gone. Woke whimsical fantasy, a Greta story and some paid political spinning efforts rule the hour. A little weather, a little sports, a quick glimpse at the financial markets and call it a wrap.
fellow Dane. A controversiel person like Jordan. Some points makes sense to me. Others doesent