The Great Climate Con | Alex Epstein | EP 312
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 05. 2024
- Dr Jordan B Peterson and Alex Epstein discuss the undeniable need for fossil fuels, the toxic underlying nihilism of the “climate concerned” left, the need for balance between conservation and human progress, and the unexplored worth of wild potential.
Alex Epstein is a philosopher and energy expert who argues that "human flourishing" should be the guiding principle of energy and environmental progress. He is the author of the new bestselling book Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas-Not Less. He is also the creator of EnergyTalkingPoints.com-a source of powerful, well-referenced talking points on energy, environmental, and climate issues.
Dr Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: utm.io/ueSXh
- Sponsors -
Birch Gold: Text "JORDAN" to 989898 for a FREE Goldback with every $5000 purchase, when you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a precious metals IRA with Birch Gold by December 22nd.
Masterworks: Invest in art today with Masterworks at masterworks.art/jbp.
See important disclosures at masterworks.com/cd.
Black Rifle Coffee:
Get 10% off your first order or Coffee Club subscription with code JORDAN: www.blackriflecoffee.com/
- Chapters -
(0:00) coming up
(1:28) Intro
(3:36) Fossil Future
(6:17) The metric for success
(12:28) Nature viewed as a god, Fusion
(16:49) Hostility toward impact
(21:33) How the climate cult evolved
(24:09) What drives the anti-capitalist ethos?
(30:30) The planet has gotten 15 percent greener
(33:20) Conceptions of Earth
(35:24) The world without humanity
(38:48) The underlying Nihilism
(43:00) Worth of man to the Left
(45:14) The toxicity of modern environmentalism
(50:35) Moral monopoly, Bjørn Lomborg
(59:35) Climate Denier, propaganda
(1:05:00) 50+ years, a complete failure as a movement
(1:07:20) Keeping the third world poor
(1:12:10) Actual concern for the poor
(1:15:00) Climate Reparations
(1:16:30) Moral Aesthetics
(1:20:10) Importance of conservation
(1:23:30) Existential guilt, sufficient value
(1:28:03) Delicate nurture dogma, wild potential
// SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL //
Newsletter: mailchi.mp/jordanbpeterson.co...
Donations: jordanbpeterson.com/donate
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterson.com/personality
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyself.com
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m...
// LINKS //
Website: jordanbpeterson.com
Events: jordanbpeterson.com/events
Blog: jordanbpeterson.com/blog
// SOCIAL //
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
Telegram: t.me/DrJordanPeterson
All socials: linktr.ee/drjordanbpeterson
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus
Find Fossil Future here: www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/678856/fossil-future-by-alex-epstein/
Message to the J's release date?
"Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence." - 2018 National Climate Assessment.
con1
/kän/
See definitions in:
All
Law
INFORMAL
verb
persuade (someone) to do or believe something, typically by use of a Deception.
J or Dan
Tu vois?
Dr. Peterson, I heard about UNDRIP today, the bill that has recently passed in Canada, I would very much like to hear you talk about it as I am sure you will have a lot to say on the subject, thank you sir for all of the conversations that you have made available and for all that you do
@@powermetal26 Tim Ball was caught lying about his qualifications.
As a physicist who has retired early and become a farmer I am deeply concerned about this current trend towards the destruction of agricultural productivity. On a 10 acre farm I produce enough food to supply a complete nutritious diet for over 100 people. I grow my own animal feed and grow animals and just 1 acre of green vegetables and with planning and vertical farming this is enough land to feed my family and to sell to purchase the energy I need to run our tractor and heat our home. Enough to eat and enough to trade and now this administration is seeking to shut down the ability of all farmers to be self sufficient. We even produce our own electrical energy on our property and are converting half our tractors to run on electric motors. What they are doing is not JUST suicide, it’s MURDER
It may be of some comfort to you to know that there are many people now getting involved in various community groups to help each other and such as yourself. Included is growing your own food, health, farming, and so on.
Bless you, hold on, we will win this.
God's people will not be begging for bread. He will deliver his way and in his time.
What country are you located in that has this administration?
Which policies/laws specifically are doing that? It'd be helpful if you posted some links/stories or references, no offense.
@@mrlitsta A lot of this revolves around the processing of natural gas being how we get certain fertilizer (I believe ammonia? Not 100%) and the belief that all forms of fossil fuels must end no matter what redeeming qualities they have. They can't just outlaw Liquid Natural Gas, it would literally cause famine. So the next "best" thing is putting the screws to farmers for using the product that makes it impossible to get rid of LNG. I'm sure some of them believe that what they're doing is right. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I have shit to do today and don't have time atm to compile links. But if you reply to this I'll save the notification and try to get some links when I have time
The most thought provoking answer to the debate came from a 16 yo girl who was interviewed by an environmental reporter with one of the most disgusting questions you could ask a young women.
Would she consider not having children to save the planet.
Her response was breathtaking.
"Yes, she said, I have considered that, but to take that action in isolation would be pointless"
"It would have to be done by all women, to be fair, and that would lead to the extinction of the human species".
"And if the human species did not exist, does the environment matter?."
Yes. If the human species doesn't exist the world continues to.
The human species is not anywhere close to extinction. You sleep at night knowing that there are less than 500 Bengal Tigers in the world, why are you troubled by there being less than 8 BILLION people? People that can travel, and use the Internet, can farm, and ship and fertilize in vitro
But less than 300 grey wolves is peachy.
You are being intellectually dishonest which is why you like this kind of drivel
That 16year old girl needs to be nominated for a Nobel prize,..for intelligence
So, she is saying relying on personal responsibility won't solve anything. 1 person not having children won't solve the problem (just like many things left to personal responsibility- guns, recycling, etc).
She isn't saying "let's go ahead and just keep making unlimited humans endlessly without consequence" either.
The practical message is to say "ok, families can only have X amount of children" not "everyone has zero children and the human species dies".
Brilliant.
Amazing that this 16yr old girl is so far In front of EVERY SINGLE climate activist that exists.
Dr.Peterson imo your dissolution from teaching at the university was 'manifest destiny' ; you're reaching far more people now, and doing an immeasurable service to a countless number of people. Your lectures and forums will continue to aid a world in need. Blessings to you.
That was a good decision by him. He definitely has a desirable and uncopyable product in his brain.
I'm tired of all this common sense. I'm going to stop using fossil fuels in order to live longer and have a more productive life. (satire)
@@waynet2165 Now that's comedy 🍷🗿
I don't have confidence in ANY prognostication of anyone who is in favour (yes I'm Canadian) of the reduction of fossil fuels. Along with that is the demonization of Nuclear FISSION. I worked at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and we kept (Still keep) ALL of the fuel bundles ON SITE since first reactor in 1971 and 7 more reactors followed, the last fully online around 1988-89. 500,000,000 watts each at full power. Match THAT with solar my friend !!
Was this conversation recorded in 2014? How is it possible that there is NO reference to the FACT that today, in 2023 solar when combined with battery storage is THE LEAST EXPENSIVE form of energy production?!?! And that the world more is threatened by DECLINING population than over population? I am totally with the JP on the side of humans, over "the environment" but ffs know the most recent data before having a conversation about it. A little research ahead of attacking an old strawman, would do wonders for credibility.
What Alex Epstein is saying in this discussion with Jordan B. Peterson reminds me very much of what Patrick Moore has been saying on several occasions about Greenpeace and the reasons he had for leaving this organisation after seven years. He tells us he found it impossible to remain an active supporter of Greenpeace when it became obvious that fewer and fewer Greenpeace activists had any training in the natural sciences and began to regard human beings as the ones that were destroying the planet.
Well, aren't humans destroying the planet? Because that's fact at this point based on a ton of metrics. Just look at species decline caused by mankind alone. Look at cities in the US before the EPA was created.
If it weren't for the environmentalists/ecologists, we would have no redwood forests, no clean water sources, no bald eagles, no forest management, no national parks, and we would all be full of lead and mercury even more than we are.
They went crazy and wants to kill humans to save the planet.
Maybe the Greempeace people knew the Truth and that the Quitter wanted to live in denial. Really, if by sacrificing 99% of 7 Billion People we could save the World, then we should go for it. JP's argument here is that if we can't save the World than just screw the World because it no longer matters. That doesn't seem like the Enlightened View to me. Yes, Humanity might have to make some Sacrifices. Jesus got Crucified. Maybe this is the Generation where we all get Crucified for the Sins of the World.
Patrick Moore is in the PR business and will sing any song you pay him to. The cheques from tho oil companies are good as you know
This video was hard to watch. Not because I didn’t believe the facts that were laid out, but because it made me realize that I am part of the problem despite the fact that I was lead (or allowed myself be lead) to believe my blind moral stance was the solution, and that my political ‘side’ wouldn’t present false information... Jesus, that is such an ignorant to think now that I say it out loud 😣. How is this information not more readily available? I am so thankful for this video so I can reevaluate my thoughts. This video makes me question what other core believes I hold that are based on deceit and lies…😢 watching was a wake up call for sure. Just one more positive change in my life thanks to Jordan Peterson.
It's not that you where lied to its that you where indoctrinated into the green movement. Most of us have been. We have come a long way from the pollution ways of the past, it's just now gone to far.
Truly appreciate your post. The section of the discussion that specifically deals with morality is intellectually priceless and relevant to most progressive issues our world currently face
Agree or disagree, having these kinds of discussions in an open and uncensored forum is absolutely vital for the future of humanity.
It is not what Klaus Schwab desires. Funny how this platform even tried to change the last name I typed above. The censorship will continue until just a few inhabit and control this planet!...
I can reply to Posts, yet if I post in the main thread I get censored... This is not uncensored...
💯
Absolutely !!!!..........…..........Erik
This is the most rigged conversation ever…
Anti Human is a perfect description of this criminal act being waged on us.
Anti-other humans. These people never just off themselves to save the planet.
Anytime the tech overlords put a disclaimer on a video or post, you know the truth is being spoken 💯
It has become an endorsement haha
So true, they are all frauds!
@@anthonyorafferty5632 100 percent, often putting disclaimers encourages more people to watch out of curiosity
You know it's true when the Silicon Fascists state it's dangerous.
Spoken like a smooth brained skinwalker 🤓
It’s deeply disappointing that the people calling for a cull of the human population never lead by example
No one is calling for a cull of the human population, they are simply pointing out the obvious that endless population growth with increasing resource needs can't continue indefinitely. Alex here incorrectly frames that as anti-human. It costs less to prepare and switch energy and food production to a sustainable model instead of whatever corporate interests guide us to.
No one has ever suggested a human population cull except for those who don't understand environmentalism or climate science. Ruin the planet and that will cause a population collapse, not a cull.
@@eulldog you’re clearly living in a bubble.
What part of "not a cull of the human population" is abortion or allowing people to freeze to death because the supply of fuel or food is cut off?
@@laurelpickens3364 abortion is someone's individual choice to not have a child, it's not part of some environmentalists scheme to cull the population. Besides Russia, no one is advocating cutting of supply of fuel or food to the point where people die.
I remember making this case to some 18 year old back in 2014. She thought I was a lunatic, told me to "educate myself", accused me of being an oil company shill. I asked her if the world is so ready to be destroyed what was she going to do about it? She looked at me with shocked, wide eyes. Would she give up all of her power consumption? The phone she was holding? Lights? Cars? Her only solution was to not change her ways but wonder why we can't use solar or some such other thing. Somebody else was supposed to do something while she pretended to be worried. It was PURELY about trying to sound/feel morally superior with ZERO actual effort to change something herself.
Probably why we don't see her anymore
Most people would rather be told what to think. Makes sense an open mind can be a miserable place.
Sounds like a close call you masterfully drove away by seeing and saying (Red Flags). Not wanting to address idiots' "ideas" is why humanity has landed where we are now.
@@paullambert6485
We pay for her and now for the immigrants = Pelosi servants as she fled to Italy and then voters to be groomed by puppet joe from Obama 3 and other....
So Sad.
The only absolute good is a good will.
-Kant, leading modern philosopher
01:20:10 As someone with a keen interest in natural forests I learned this lesson on my MSc course when we visited Tunisia and I met real poverty for the first time. The best way to use my talents as a Geoscientist was to work in the oil industry, to discover more fossil fuel, and thereby help to reduce the pressure on woodland destruction for basic fuel needs.
I guess you could make that argument 20 years ago, but you are ignoring the declining cost curves of the low-carbon tech. Today wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy in most parts of the planet and LFP batteries are now so cheap that grid storage with wind and solar is now competitive with electricity from fossil fuels. With future sodium ion batteries, wind/solar + grid storage is going to be far cheaper. Electric vehicles are already cheaper per mile than ICE vehicles, soon the selling price of EVs are going to be cheaper than ICE vehicles (and it already is in China).
In other words, the best way to help the world's poor achieve a better standard of living is to transition to renewable energy and electric vehicles. There is other low-carbon tech like heat pumps which is still more expensive, but the more that the developed world invests in that tech, the cheaper that it will become and the more that the developing world will be able to afford it.
I am interested in forrests and animal population management. Since 1964 I've studied this carefully. In every instance I've been able to personally witness and make my own observations.
I have yet to see environmentalists and anti hunting groups get one thing right. They have thoroughly caused much more damage than improvement. Not because they don't have good intentions. But have idealistic ideas about how they wish things were. They typically believe that nature is static and left untouched will thrive. That's never been the case and never will be.
This is nearly 60 years of study and observations and the only definitive fact is we are extremely inept at understanding complex systems and controlling nature.
I'm not a climate scientist and don't presume to understand the complexity of that massive complex system. But when I hear people discuss climate change it becomes obvious that no one really understands enough about climate to even remotely predict or take any action that will turn out well.
@@amosbatto3051 Your comment is truly astonishing. All of the material assets you cite are mined, refined, fabricated and constructed by the prolific consumption of fossil fuels.
@@Bullittbl "we are extremely inept at understanding complex systems and controlling nature."
I totally agree. I have been studying geoscience for 50 years and am only now just able to start to make some small corrections to the egregious nonsense of "Climate Change".
Google "The Dust Planet Clarified" and also "The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth's Semi-Opaque Troposphere"
Wrong
This is my second time watching this because it is so fascinating to see the peeling away of the lies being propagated the climate nuts.
What about all the Climate related disasters? What about the rising sea level. What will happen when the Gulf Stream quits flowing? The Arctic Vortex Wobbles are now permanent. The Temperate Zone is now characterized as either being in state of Drought or state of Flood. WE CAN SEE IT HAPPENING BEFORE OUR OWN EYES, but you believe this IDEOLOGICAL CLAP TRAP, from a Psychologist who discovered that Talking Right Winger Trash was the Better Business Model for him to follow. You are what they call a 'Rube', a 'Sucker'.
JB for president! Lol
@@marylane3372 Who's "JB" and Jordan Peterson is Canadian and so he doesn't even count as Human as far as President is concerned.
Wtf is it every comment you have replied to? 😆 is this one of those howling at the moon idealogues?
There's no lies, Perterson is so keen to offer facts and data when talking about social science yet shuns the scientific consensus on climate change.. Wonder why that is?
One of the most remarkable events in my public state university education was being assigned Epstein's "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" in an Energy Economics class. For all the general failings of modern academia, I think back very fondly on my university for allowing a professor to present this book as a contrast to everything else we were discussing around climate change and fossil fuels. Been following the author ever since, and it makes me happy to see Jordan getting to know him.
Epstein deserves to be well known. So glad to see JP bringing him to light.
based professor
Check out Dr. Happer's work concerning climate. Game changing truths...
Maybe he can get an actual scientist on to discuss climate change ?
@@yahyahboy2 that would be nice, yes.
'If I can make you hungry and afraid I own you'..Voltaire, in a nut shell.
Even a 4-year-old can see what they're up to, but our pundits, "wise men" and leaders will debate and theorize forever over the mystery of the Lefts & Elites real motivations. Because being blunt and straightforward about it, and how obvious it is, just doesn't seem as authoritative and intellectually astute. No, we must persistently demonstrate our eternal eagerness to assign good, honest motives to those who demonstrate daily that honesty and our better interests are all simply out of the question.
I'm already growing sour on "conservatism". It seems what we most want to conserve is a "good guy" image, in spite of how much the Left already hates us, because heaven forbid the Left should think we don't like them, or that we don't respect their constant onslaught of ever-increasingly ridiculous & destructive logic, along with the obvious agenda behind it.
Or you created your henchman. Igor Stravinsky, the nutcracker
Temporarily. But people always rebel. People always seek freedom and wealth eventually.
@@micchaelsanders6286 I certainly hope so. The majority of people - particularly in the developed/Western world - have enjoyed the privilege of comparatively easy lives and never known struggle or suffering for basic necessitates.
Complacency is as effective a killer as corrupt leaders who would give us bread and circuses to make us unable to see the evil they sow.
@@zacharyshinder940 Unleash capitalism and individual rights and everyone gets rich relatively quickly.
Excellent talk and should be watched by people of the world.
Almost EVERYTHING in today's world is morally inverted... and it's NOT by accident. Outstanding conversation!
Precisely. If you want to overthrow a society, make that society's vices into your virtues and vice versa. Not a surprise what the modern left actively celebrates is almost verbatim the Seven Deadly Sins.
You are correct. Well stated.
Amen...
In “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections,” researchers from Harvard and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research show for the first time the accuracy of previously unreported forecasts created by company scientists from 1977 through 2003. The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees - a trend that has been proven largely accurate. 2023 Report.
@@rogerjamespaul5528 BS. In 200 years the temperature of earth has fluctuated 2 degrees. So, if you’re on board with the global warming crap, are you willing to eliminate YOUR carbon footprint ? You’re anti fossil fuels, of course not for yourself, you’ll continue to use your computer, your cellphone, your electricity, but are suggesting if not outright advocating “other” people do without. Who shall those other people be according to you? Who are the “undeserving “? Please do tell us.
We should feel no guilt in fully enjoying the free gift of life we have been given, just gratitude.
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp if someone is truly grateful, they normally don't have a desire to destroy the good thing that were gifted to us
No kidding my generation, millennials, were trained to believe that humans are a cancer. But it doesn't take much imagination to see that the trend of technological innovation and even the smallest amount of caring about the environment will eventually lead to humans preserving and saving life on a mass scale in the distant future when natural (not anthropomorphic) conditions lead to lesser habitability on this rock. To put it simply, we will do things the dinosaurs could not. Global Warming is a Doomsday Cult, and like all of these cults in history it is used as a tool to subjugate people and take away their rights and their wealth, to keep people poor, and to push them towards depopulation.
Yes, absolutely! "Life" in this home biosphere includes humanity, any argument of a "pre human" earth is absurd - on several levels. Does humanity need to crawl back under rocks?
Do we need a 'Bill Gates' styled Purge of 90%?
Or do we need to talk sense; honor the Creator for ALL of Life, that we are engaged with, and in.
This discussion is the cutting edge of truthful investigation!
Just make sure you make good choices in life.
It's hard to feel gratitude when they're emeregency butchering the dairy cattle.
You can tell Alex is loving this... in his mind he's going ahhhh someone that realllllyyyy can digest this and actually really contribute to my ideas here"
Very excited to have people eat his bullshit for sure.
Our young people are being taught to be afraid. I will share this discussion and can only hope that many others will do the same. Thank you!
Count me in if the club is inclusive and not exclusive but has degrees of dimensions in dynamics of harmonics and not just tape recordings of the village idiots HERALDING that which anti American
Wealth promotes .
They should be afraid of climate change. We can see the effects of it all over the world and they're only going to get worse.
they aren't taught to be afraid, they're taught the truth. It's more than likely for you to fear the unknown and what you don't understand.
@@Name.......... I'm sorry but I don't agree. I'm not thinking about myself as I won't be around for much longer. But I'm afraid for the generations coming up that have to live with this BS! And yes I do believe there is climate change but this craziness is beyond the pale. I think you need to do more research instead of letting the government decide for!
My old buddy who's now in the green energy industry constantly talks about humans as parasites. Alex is absolutely right about the anti-human green philosophy and it's disturbing to see in person.
Sounds like it falls inline with UN agenda21/2030. Rewilding and the restoration of keystone predators etc. All of which we have been working on.
Moving humans to cities is in there somewhere. Looks like the Netherlands has the jump on that one by taking out farmers. The agenda's are available for download.
@@mablesfatalfable6021 HUH?
My 9 year old told me today that there is too many people on earth and we need a purge. I guess he got the idea from school.
I have an easy response for those people. Save the planet and end yourself. They always have the same excuse. "I'm working towards making things better"
@@Chris-kp1bq that's why more kids are being home schooled. You need to take them out
I have listened to Alex Epstein’s videos before and I love his clarity of thought and the non-partisan approach to the energy conversation. He has provided a ton of data in his presentations and comes across as a well balanced thinker . I am glad that Dr.Peterson has invited him to his platform and given him wider exposure. Kudos to you Dr.JBP 😊
You think the founder of a for-profit think tank is non-partisan? Do you know which industry supplies that profit? Take a guess.
@@amazingbollweevilit doesn't change the fact that there is NOT crisis except in the minds of dullards like yourself. Even the IPCC isn't declaring a crisis just politicians, those hoping to profit from the panic andthose loo,ing to control us while they themselves will sacrifice nothing.
@@amazingbollweevil The reason I made that statement was because Alex doesn’t deny that renewable energy options such as wind and solar can be part of the energy mix. He is only saying that this radical, lopsided, ideology driven approach to phasing out fossil fuels completely is doomed to fail and will unleash catastrophic energy crisis across the world. This is because the green lobby completely ignores the benefits of fossil fuels to human flourishing and prosperity. Our ability to modernize agriculture and feed billions of people, build better and safer homes, deliver healthcare, build a growing economy and provide employment to people, the technologies we rely on for work and life and the myriad other benefits we consume without even batting an eyelid are all enabled by fossil fuel. It is preposterous to not look at the positives and only exaggerate the negatives.
Critical thinking 101 demands that you evaluate the positives and the negatives of an issue/solution under consideration, evaluate the positives and negatives of alternatives and then arrive at an informed decision. The green lobby, unfortunately is not doing that and instead bullying the world to bow down to their nihilistic demands. The current energy crisis is largely due to this ideological approach to climate change.
@@vigsbond I've always believed in wind and solar I just don't think we've sophisticated it enough to switch the world to it. I feel they push too fast. The only person I've seen successfully start implementing these this was Musk. Whom I gained alot of respect for when he stood for using our fossil fuels right now given the state of the world. He makes half his living developing electric powered things. But thought it was dumb to push for the end of fossil fuels this fast.
@@destinymayberry6217 if belief is what you use as a yardstick, then you won't get very far. Learn about energy and power density before making any silly statements like "believing" that wind and solar can have a role in supplying ENERGY for our society.
ENERGY, and not just electricity. Do you even know the difference?
Read "Fossil Future" and learn, it will be very much enlightening for you, I am sure.
These are ESSENTIAL conversations Dr. Peterson. My thanks for your hard work.
Excellent guests. Would certainly like to hear more from them.
This has been in my 'Watch Later' list, and I finally listened to it. I wish I'd done so yesterday as I was stuck with a climate loon in a café today.
How are you doing now?
I've loved hearing Alex's philosophical insights into environmentalism for close to two decades. I'm so glad Dr. Peterson chose to interview him.
Epstein speaks common sense and logic which is in short supply these days.
Amen!
Maybe he can get an actual scientist on to discuss climate change ?
Fossil fuels have served us well in the past, but they are no longer a path to a better future.
@@garysarela4431 because?
Brilliant! I'm so greatful to Jordan Peterson for spreading clarity on this issue, and promoting brilliant people like Alex Epstein and Richard Lindzen to his millions of followers.
Sadly he didn't argue or failed to recognize the extremely dumb idea of "a rise in temperature would mean a more tropical and lush world with more life", someone needs to explain to him the basics of farming. We'd lose so many different important food plants, trees and fauna that's crucial to our world.
Many plants can't survive harsh weather and would end up with shorter growth cycles or just drying up or shrinking.
Sorry but you completely lost the entire argument there. "Oh but you just need greenhouses then" well yeah, why not build more wind water and solar power plants too while you're at it? Spending a huge bunch of money in inefficient tech just to prove a stupid point.
Yes, the climate obsessed morons are worse, hinting towards decimating the human population just to live more in peace, it really shows they've never been to rural areas and they're just stuck in their cities, so much space for everyone away from the mega cities they live in, so much peace and contact with nature in simple towns.
I don't like the fact that you're just basically saying "let the world go to shit OUR WAY, because WE are right and you are wrong. You are both wrong in different ways. We do need to find a way to manipulate weather before it's too late, since our sun is an unstable giant ball of gas, which fluctuates between hotter and colder temps, messing with our climate even further.
Your LACK of knowledge and being a fan of Big Oil shills just proves how little you know about anything
When popular opinion can be so swayed by a media controlled by interests with their own agenda, voices like your own (those of reason) are SO refreshing to hear.
Since I discovered Alex last year, I honestly believe he’s one of the most important thinkers in the world right now. He’s fighting a hard battle to prevent the starvation and death of literally billions of people.
"Prevent the starvation and death of literally billions of people." You're talking about the guy who's advocating for the use of fossil fuels which kills millions of people each year!
The airpods in his ears make him look like a total tool though
I read discovered as divorced initially 😆
A M E N
I listen on Banned 6 days a week!
I am a student of energy engineering and this talk has really opened up my eyes to another perspective of the energy sector that is almost never spoken about in the academic circles. Thank you Dr Peterson and Alex.
Climate change is irrelevant. AI is the only real threat we face. We need to get ahead on it now and we need humanists like Dr. Peterson to realize this and get ahead of this.
AI will give us the power to deep freeze the planet within the timescale that climate change activists are worried that the planet will get too hot.
So as an engineer they teach you there is only one way to solve a problem? Theres only one way to engineering a solution? This means they are training the worst engineers in history if they are training them to think like this.
@@crzyruskie86big leap of faith! the commenter didn't imply any of what you said LOL!
Which is ?
In “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections,” researchers from Harvard and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research show for the first time the accuracy of previously unreported forecasts created by company scientists from 1977 through 2003. The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees - a trend that has been proven largely accurate. 2023 Report.
I’m 53 and the world has been ending my whole life. At this point I’m just annoyed it hasn’t.
I'm 36 and by my own count the world was supposed to end 6 times in my lifetime, so I can definitely feel your pain.
Same. 👍😁👍.
Some of us- many of us, in fact - do not feel any need whatsoever to "justify the crime of our existence," nor do we buy into any version or form of the confused and sick thinking that tries to make us feel that way!
Mr. Peterson. I truly enjoy listening to your discussions. The precision of evidence and genuine back and forth debate give me a sense of optmism. there might be more like you out there One can see the passion in your conviction. Thank you.
Thank you for having Alex on. He's been unwaivering in his Crusade to protect fossil fuels and speak truth to power about the 'climate' situation, for over a decade now. It's good to see him in the the light again and his statements previously about the environmentalists more or less being anti-human, rather than pro -Earth, is very apt and telling.
those are extremist views. Not doing anything won't change the problem.
@@suhaasvemuri7980 I am not persuaded that there’s a problem at all.
@@suhaasvemuri7980 there is no problem. The world is adjusting back to a more tropical climate as it was before the ice age. We know this by the animals found frozen in the poles with green grass in their mouth. Which is now covered in ice and co.plete Forestes are buried under the ice.
I absolutely loved this discussion! I believe that humans are capable of solving any problem environmental or otherwise that we are faced with. I recently toured an 18,000 square foot vertical agricultural facility that can produce on an annual basis the same amount of fodder (cattle feed) as one section (640 acres) of irrigated land using 90% less water!
Fascinating! Where was that?
Jacque fresco Venus project is the answer
@@thefoalingchannel6623 It was (past tense) a company called Groviv located on a large dairy farm in Elberta Utah. It has since gone broke. However, there are many new companies out there. Just do a search of youtube for indoor fodder systems or hydroponic fodder production. You will find dozens of them.
Absolutely correct: the energy sustaining the climate catastrophe faithful is the HATRED of human progress and flourishing. Cheap energy that allows common people to live lives with less pain and agony run against their ideology and hatred AGAINST the common person.
You got it , they said we are the last humans to live on this planet , they want us extinct but they will make some into cyborgs to live forever supposedly but they won’t live forever the way they think lol
We’re all just human livestock to them!
"human progress and flourishing" is not going to be the case if the temperature keeps warming up.
Working in 30 degrees celcius doesn't feel like flourishing progress.
@@SueMyChin please check the satellite date for the last 10 years. The avg temp is not increasing, in fact has cooled. How is this possible if CO2 is controlling the temp?
You are absolutely correct in saying -more CO2 will allow for a more lush,vegetation on the earth,as all plants need CO2 to flourish and produce their fruits ….👍🏻We as Humans have a “Symbiotic relationship “ with trees and plants …so it goes to say in a positive light we need the CO2👍🏻
Go outside and look at your trees.
What Epstein doesn't tell you is that while CO2 is good for plants up to a point, the extra heat that comes with it is not. According to Cornell University, crop yields since the 1960s have been 21% lower than they should have been, due solely to an increase CO2-driven heat, heatwaves, drought and extreme precipitation events.
Much of the "greening" that NASA satellites photographed, it turns out, was due to the mass planting of over 67 billion trees by China and an almost equal number by India. Billions of new trees and shrubs have also been planted along the Sahara border, in the Great Green Wall project, across Africa, as a means to hold back the ever-growing desertification there. The Sahel, just beneath the Sahara, also recently re-greened after suffering years of drought. It's important to view "greening" in context because little lies of omission by oil industry advocates are designed to mislead and skew perception.
There is no CO2 shortage keeping plants down. Instead we're trying to figure out how to deal with a summer of water rationing.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481Saharan Africa not China was mentioned, don't deflect. CO2 is greening the planet, much to your chagrin.
I'm sure most everyone is very thankful that your putting this out there to stop this mind twist. I am very thankful for this.
If the wisdom of man is foolish like the Bible says. How many of the world's problems will they solve?
Aagh Dr JP - you did it again - I am reading Bjorn Lomborg thanks to you- now thank you Alex - I will read your works. You both give me hope - what a refreshing world view...
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky.
Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years
Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
Bjorn Lomborg is not who you should be reading if you want an honest appraisal. it is proven that he cherry picks data to support his positions. He is quite dishonest.
@@jamesjackson8652 ok - who should I be reading? Alex Epstein ?
If you're looking for true effectual hope then you should read the Bible.
@@Project-pq1qh You are a bright one arent ya - your Mum must be so proud...
Open, frank, and honest discussion of challenges facing society is greatly needed to enlighten us all to situations facing us.
Not really. It is two ignoramuses attacking strawmen and confirming each other's biases. I posted my critique of their arguments in a different comment, but nobody will read it, and the right-wing echo chamber will continue. Get an actual expert to debate Peterson and Epstein and you will see how quickly their arguments fall apart, but Peterson isn't interested in debating actual experts.
@@amosbatto3051 Thank you for your opinion. Where is your critique? I would very much like to read/listen to it. Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to reply.
@@amosbatto3051As soon as you resort to shrill ad hominem attacks you've lost.
I live in a town which is on a tidal estuary beside the sea. I have observed daily water levels for over 50 years and have not seen even a 1 millimeter raise in sea level.
I have been told it is coming in the next ten years for over fifty years. Glad I didn't hold my breath..
I've followed Alex for years, read both of his books, listened to his podcasts and interviews with others. Very happy to see him on the Jordan Peterson Podcast. I hope that his message resonates with more and more people.
Did he give any indication in anything that you read that he thinks there might be a level of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations that we should avoid going beyond?
We are 50% above what it was two centuries ago. At the rate we are going, we will be at a level double the pre-industrial level of CO₂ within a very few decades.
The number of naked protons zipping around in the oceans is about 25% higher now than it was before we started dumping fossil carbon into the air.
Did you see any hint from Epstein as to what level of acidity in the oceans might motivate concern about possible adverse effects?
@@rc5466 A person who writes on the topic of fossil fuels might make a point to study the potential impact of their emissions, even outside of a formal academic degree program.
A philosopher or a citizen with no advanced degree can understand the Precautionary Principle.
A person who makes a name for himself by emphasizing the importance of honesty might occasionally say what he thinks would be a good policy for taking account of economic externalities, so prices will more honestly represent costs of production, including costs in terms of environmental degradation and lost opportunities for future generations.
I hate how the right-wing arguments against climate change always focus on the economics. At least Shellenberger acknowledges that climate change is a serious problem. Then he does the analysis of how the environmental movement affects the developing world. But aside from him, there's way too much backwards logic going on. "Fossil fuels have lifted billions of people out of poverty, therefore climate change isn't bad" is just a stupid argument.
@@DstnyCln I think, when we see those economic analyses, we should ask: Did the economic case in favor of some warming calculate an economic cost to increased rates of species extinction caused by climate instability? How is that done?
Did they factor in the consequence of 25%, 50% or 100% more naked protons zipping around in the oceans? (We've already reach about a 25% increase. I think this equals any variability in ocean pH that has occurred any time in the past tens of millions of years, but it is a more rapid change, and the change is continuing and can be expected to accelerate. When carbon dioxide and water get together, they make a baby called 'carbonic acid'.)
Peterson has said on numerous occasions that environmentalists who say that humans are like a cancer on the Earth show themselves to be genocidal, "because what do you do with a cancer? You destroy it". His comment could be a textbook example of over-extending a metaphor.
Peterson's vile comment shows that he has, for some reason, not considered the possibility that people who have likened humans to a cancer on the Earth may want a change in the rules we live by (analogous to a correction of the defect in the cancer cells that make them dysfunctional). IF we make prices honest, by charging substantial fees to industries when they pollute, extract resources or destroy wildlife habitat, then profits of industry will align with sustainable business practices.
If we share proceeds from environmental impact fees to all people equally, no one will live in abject poverty. The policy will provide a net benefit to those who buy relatively little, particularly those who by little in the way of the most environmentally-damaging goods and services.
For someone who has become famous as a person who gives voice to the idea that honesty is important, Peterson has remarkably little to say about the harm done by dishonest prices. He has even less to say about what efficient and fair policy could help to make the system operate more honestly.
@@JohnChampagne In my own reply to this podcast, I pointed out how AGW deniers always love to point out the flaws in the official IPCC models for being inadequately predictive. And yet they always seem entirely confident that there won't be any bad consequences that we weren't able to predict. Since we can't model the climate perfectly, the only sensible thing to do is to follow the precautionary principle and don't mess with things we don't fully understand. Unfortunately, taxing pollution has proven difficult because the world has so many different jurisdictions. But we'd certainly stand a better chance without all these charlatans spreading misinformation.
Another Great Program. Canadians need to hear more about this, especially those under the Climate delusion. You will not get these types of discussions on Canada's Legacy Media.
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky.
Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years
Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
Yeah, I called this an anti-human movement from day one, and it goes hand-in-hand with ZPG. I have even heard of people getting vasectomies to save the planet. This is an excellent conversation.
i met smart lovely lady. very sad she said she wasn't having kids because would be irresponsible to the planet. at the time i thought if anyone should have kids its her, her kids would be scientists and engineers. which is what we need more of to solve all the little problems.
@@nikitaw1982 I agree: if anyone should have children, it's people like them. Meanwhile, people in lower social classes who are unable to provide a decent future for their children, who are not well educated and whose kids will grow up in a home environment that shuns any form of mental achievement, and consequently will never enjoy higher education nor be able to contribute to bettering the planet, are the ones utterly unconcerned with having fewer kids to unburden the planet.
So we're letting the people who contribute to the problem contribute more, while the people who could contribute to the solution are too afraid to do so because they don't want to make things worse.
If you want to live in your deluged right-wing information bubble, that is your choice, but Peterson and Epstein are totally misrepresenting the position of climate scientists and climate activists by calling it "anti-human". They have no interest in debating the actual positions of their opponents and are just spreading misinformation about climate change and constructing strawman arguments that are easy to knock down. It is sad how many ignoramuses fall for their BS.
"I think of life as opportunity, not atonement." With that one statement, Alex completely nails it.
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.
A lot of crappy movies have won Oscars. Not much of a recommendation. Al Gore has made millions from his climate evangelism.
I've lived in rural Arkansas most of my life. There is more wildlife now than in the 60s. Deer herds in my area are easily 20+ in many areas and when I was a kid they were scarce. I used to spend days in the forest as they are typically lush except for an occasional dry season. Maybe these doomsayers need to get out of their city offices and do some camping or at least hiking to see what is really happening. I agree we need to protect our environment but their plans don't address the real issues.
Grew up in rural Arkansas until I moved north of the state border, still in a rural area. I totally agree with JP pointing out that people who live "in nature" tend not to glamorize it. Appreciate it, absolutely. But it's not somehow "perfect."
Thought experiment. Switch your 20 year old self experience with a person growing up scuba diving the Great Barrier Reef and seeing its rapidly accelerating bleaching and death of marine fauna. Neither the young you or the young scuba enthusiast is evidence for anything but there own experience of that small portion of time and space. The evidence that the natural world is depleting at a vastly accelerated rate is incontrovertible.
I’ve found the same thing where I live on the East coast of Australia. The fish seem more plentiful now in areas that I fished as a boy. I regularly see animals such as Dugong up estuaries where I never saw them as a kid. Similarly shark numbers seem greater as well. May have a bit to do with some good policies preventing commercial overfishing over the years. Even so, you would never know it if you only listened to the media here. Nothing but apocalyptic doom and gloom.
@@Andrew-zp7mc yes - incontrovertible. Incontrovertible.
Another superb discussion, thank you!
Many "important" people made bad predictions and because they can't face the shame of being wrong, they are changing humanity to fit their prediction.
This is maybe the most important topic and you guys are nailing it!
@@steven5054 Hitting all those commie talking points, brought to you by We're all gonna die Corp and The Walt Disney Corporation
There is no right and left in politics. They are the same agenda. Go back to the 1990s you divider.
This time last year I was dying for Jordan Peterson to talk about the depopulation agenda. No pun intended. I wondered if he ever would. We all wake up at different points. He’s not disappointing these days. Thanks JP.
Yeah, that Bill Gates speech is pretty scary. How someone can basically promote genocide with a smile on his face and be proud to do it is beyond me.
oh did you see his interview with Ben. Natanyahu?
You are the carbon they want to eliminate.
Depopulation agenda is made up. The effort has been mischaracterized by JP and his guest. Environmentalists are simply pointing out that an unimpeded human population growth with rapidly increasing resource needs cannot be sustained. We are hitting a wall and need to address this as a reality of a finite earth with finite resources. Sustainable practices need to be incorporated, which may include limiting human behavior in some respects.
@@eulldog Please elaborate on "limiting human behavior." I'm sure it'll apply to our elites.
I agree, the warming of the earth means we become greener and more abundant.
The Middle Ages backs that up, longer summers meant longer growing seasons, and humanity built more large buildings.
It’s also when the black plague happened. What I’m trying to say is, the good things double as well as the bad things will double.
The aerobic world survives and thrives in a warmer damp climate. So does fungus. Both can be beneficial too.
My best guess over the millions of years as different ecosystems raise and fall; cold, hot, humid, by either natural or extraterrestrial, we are always in a natural state of check.
With that in mind, humans have the ability to adjust. engineering our way out of possible disasters.
Depending on who is doing the modeling, (unfortunately sometimes politely motivated),with inadequate data often sku’d, we end up in constant apocalyptic stages.
An advantage for the left, fear has people flocking to leadership, government, for answers for the masses to make their decisions.
Maybe the left’s in charge see global warming prosperity as a threat to control.
The controls on energy & capital seem to be governed messaging; media. I don’t see that changing soon.
Civilization will end up starting over again like recent discovered cultures older than published thinking. To include unexplained technology; straight edges carved in stone let along leveraging 100’s of tons of stone moving them miles from there quarries.
When will the Aw ha moment happen, the earth really isn’t flat, and we move forward? Maybe focus on how to travel and live in different planetary system or terraforming.
A much better use, the gift of intelligence 🤷♂️
The sceptics promised we wouldn't need to do giant macro-engineering projects, that was all hysterical. Now they say it's our own fault for not doing enough macro-engineering projects.
Great Interview. Bravo. I'm definitely going to have to listen to that more than once.
It's of real concern to me, when in the UK the climate crisis narrative is so pervasive on both mainstream news outlets, social media, and TV ads that unless you educate yourself against it, you could quite easily believe that we (the general populace) are the harbingers of our own doom!
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky.
Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years
Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
Very true indeed
BBC shot themselves down in flames, when they couldn't explain the cold snap. Even reeled out a meteorologist, who couldn't make a climate change reason.
IT IS ALL AIMED AT DOMINATING SUBDUING US IN TO SLAVERY BY THE SO CALLED ELITE WE MUST GET RID OF THEM FAST
We ARE the harbinger of our own doom, but not because we burn fossil fuels. It is because we continue to believe the fear-porn being produced by those who openly hate us, and insist that we need to die for our own good. The only existential threat we face is from a small number of humans creating imaginary problems and then selling us imaginary solutions at a very high cost! The only power and wealth they have is that which we surrender to them. Just say NO!
Wow almost 6 million Subs! You helped soooo many ! Thank you! Please be proud and never feel overwhelmed!
6 million? What are you, some sort of psychopathic anonymous troll demon?
Oy
I heard that he only has 300k subs.
@@stephenpaccone8120🙄 loser! Are you aware his live talks and presentations get sold out over the entire world.
@@kenthhamner2641 i think he means the 6m jews in holocaust
This is a psychological war and Mr. J. P. Is a psychological expert; he Is highlighting what is actually going on in the world. He is opening awareness because of his expertise. Clamping down on him has only highlighted his gifts and talents in this battle for a better world and the need to escape world tyranny.
Psychological warfare by governments on their own people. And some still defend them. 😶
You asked what metrics we have to evaluate whether actions are beneficial. I recommend to the websites of NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC... all of which publish metrics that can evaluate the impacts of human activity on climate. It's called "living in the information age".
Your welcome.
You know you're having important conversations when CZcams slaps a 'context' disclaimer on your video. For the most part, every video I've seen in the last 3 years which receives such an honor is almost guaranteed to be discussing a truth which is inconvenient to those who would want such a label attached to a video in order to diminish its credibility.
Context box? uBlock Origin browser plugin has a feature that lets you pick and block elements. No more "we know better than you peasants" youtube notices....
How much more acidic do you believe we can make the oceans (by increasing their CO₂ content, and thereby their carbonic acid content) before we cause collapse of global fisheries.
Peterson has a profoundly important message. He also has a big blind spot. He does not apply his concern for truth to the economic system. As long as costs in terms of environmental impacts are NOT represented in prices, harmful practices will remain profitable to industry. This continued neglect of the problem of externalities is a crime that our society commits against the younger generation (and the larger community of life).
@@JohnChampagne And you activists need to be more careful about what information you consume. The idea that increased CO2 will collapse fisheries, by slightly reducing the alkalinity of the oceans, is absurd, though I note you are falling back on it as a topic they did not discuss. Worth bearing in mind that Great Barrier Reef coral is regrowing, and has been for a number of years, reaching multi decade highs in most places, but of course this is nor information that meets the "climate change crisis" narrative and so doesnt become media headlines. Ocean acidification could be a problem, but it's not a catastrophic one. The main problem is a doomsday narrative.
@@TheMastaRob What information source do you recommend to learn about the health of coral reefs? How did you learn about the "multi-decade highs"?
Do you expect that seawater alkalinity will continue to fall with a continued increase of carbonic acid, and do you recognize a connection between increased atmospheric CO₂ and increased carbonic acid in seawater? Or do you expect that carbonic acid concentrations will stabilize, even if we were to continue to increase atmospheric CO₂ concentrations at the current rate? (The current rate will double atmospheric carbon content in about 30 years)
Did you determine that increased acidity could be a problem, but is not catastrophic, and will not become catastrophic, regardless of how much we increase atmospheric CO₂ concentrations? Or can you cite your source?
@@JohnChampagne My guy, I'll give you the answer to the first question at least - the Australian Institute of Marine Science. It is trivial to find this information. The rest is more complex, I dont have time and I suspect you are not actually looking for answers.
Something more helpful to think about, perhaps. The narrative we are given on "catastrophic climate change" is mirrored in the stories a few years ago of "catastrophic coral bleaching". When people get swept up in the fear mongering, only to realise later that it was at the very least overhyped and biased, the tendency is to lose trust in the information sources. Overhyped disaster narratives then become inherently divisive, and people search for more credible sources, such as JBP and his discussions with Epstein, Lomborg etc. You might want to consider the implications of this in how you approach discussions, and the effects of wildly overstated claims in general.
1:04:45 I really appreciate Alex's point about one side getting the "stamp of 'science'" and his efforts to combat that with his own evidence. The ability of one side to swoop in with a moral claim of "Science!" to win every argument has been a hallmark of current politics, and it needs to stop if we're ever to get to the bottom of issues and decide what actions are best for our future.
I grew up loving biology, chemistry, meteorology, and other sciences, but now my views on things put me in the camp of the "deniers" on several issues.
Science is fact based. Anything that keep you from asking for all the evidence is definitionally not science. Also when exploring science beware of repeatable loaded experiments. Those can lead you to very bad conclusions.
Somebody ttell Alex the magician doesn't really saw the woman in half.
@@omegapointil5741hi troll bot!
Since a couple of years I began a denier even though I’m following and reading science since more than 40 years.
So if 'science' disagrees with your position on a scientific topic you can wear the 'anti-science' badge with pride - like a Christian fundamentalist?
Thank you for providing such a great dialog on this subject! I will offer here the same suggestion I offer to anyone I discuss this with and that is to jettison the use of the loaded and inherently biased misnomer "fossil fuels". The term is arguably not accurate with respect to the formation of crude oil. Those opposed to the continued use of this near miraculous perfect dense energy source are accorded an entirely unforced error point in the scoring of this debate which, given the stakes for all of humanity, I refuse to cede to them.
Thank you Jordan for describing the importance of fossil fuels ➡️ ammonia ➡️ fertilizer!!
I definitely didn’t come in with all the prerequisite knowledge on this subject, but I definitely wanna look more into Alex’s work, and that of Bjorn Lomborg! Such an important conversation, and so glad you guys touched on the moral ease and cheapness (the automatic “halo” one gets from a vague sentiment)! Thank you both so much for your work 🙏🏻
I have been noticing the dogma and religiosity inherent in climate activism and messaging for some time, and so I have been sceptical of this messaging.
This interview is really illuminating those concerns and presenting them with credence. Thank you for having this conversation.
@@kaivogel253 What dogma? Paid by billionaires? Wow, just wow. Please use logical arguments backed by facts next time.
@@kaivogel253 Bruh, you really calling centrists, cultists? Sad. And thanks for letting me know about the Wilks brothers. Will need to keep that fact in mind.
@@kaivogel253 Looks to me like you are stuck in a bubble. Peterson isn't a neonazzzi. He's clearly against it. All he talks about is improving your own life and psychology.
Secondly, Cultural Marxism isn't a conspiracy theory, there is too much proof for it. Search for "subversion of a culture" and you'll find several people talking about their real life stories. It was used by Russia in many countries. If you can see proof of Marxism, and even people nowadays proudly supporting communism and socialism, how can it be a conspiracy?
Look, the most important thing is to be factual and be a skeptic. Not label things as conspiracies. Look at both sides of the argument, and come to your own conclusion. Right now, given the amount of information on Marxism, one cannot deny it is happening. Whether it is on-purpose or intentional is unknown.
I heard you on the podcast version. Thank you for inviting Alex Epstein. I sent it to my two children (they are hesitant to bring children to ‚this world‘ 😢). I am grateful for your hard work. If I may bring some critic : it would have been optimal to let Alex talk more about his views.
I agree. This is one of the interviews where the interviewer talked too much.
Yes Jordan this conversation was definately necessary ,i once told someone …that solar,wind,and dams can be helpful to taper down the Over production of CO2,but i also sressed that trees need CO2,to give off their by product of O2 oxygen to US ..
Thank you because when they say zero carbon that means zero life for animals and humans and plants so I wish they would stop saying Co2 is bad , it is not unless you are trying for extinction, which they are that is the scary thing . They are lying to us while they are killing us and making money while they kill us , they are already destroying all natural foods and making us eat bugs and lab grown chicken and lab grown beef so we will die from lack of good nutrition and they will release more viruses, war and weather modification to kill us off . The WEF said they don’t need 90 to 95 percent of us anymore so they are lying to us and saying they are trying to save us but they are not they said we are the last humans who will exist on earth and after we are extinct they will be robots and live forever, they are evil and hate God and all humans and animals that God made . They want to be god and make humans and animals and the world the way they want it , even said that they are better than God and will make the world better than God did , I can’t listen to them talk , they hate humans and act as if because they are rich they are better than all of us and should be the only ones to live
There's no shortage of CO2 hindering plant growth. I can't release more CO2 on my garden to make up for the water rationing.
Fossil fuel is needed for all electrical things, when the wind is low and when there's no sun. Well said men.
Wrong. Denmark got 59.3% of its electricity from solar and wind in 2022, and had a significantly more stable grid the US. 80% of new power generation capacity in 2022 was renewable, both in the US and worldwide, because wind and solar are now cheaper than coal and gas in most of the world. Solar/wind plus grid storage using LFP batteries now costs the same as using coal/gas plus peaker plants in many parts of the world. See Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy v15 (2021). With sodium ion batteries (CATL and BYD are both starting production in 2023), grid storage is expected to become 30% cheaper in the future. At any rate, Denmark has shown that you can have a stable grid with out storage just by using energy trading over a large enough area and a smart grid with a price signal that varies demand according to supply.
@@amosbatto3051 When the wind stops and the sun don't shine! Good luck.
@@amosbatto3051 The wind turbines and solar panels r a disaster to the environment and there ugly too.
@@amosbatto3051 Everything needs replacing after 20 years too good luck with that.
You need fossil fuels to build solar panels and wind turbines... That won't change when the ones in place now reach the end of their lives....😮
It's absolutely shocking that there are people who claim they represent us, who want to stop this Man... not whilst I'm alive will this happen without demonstration of my disapproval
Or maybe Peterson and Epstein are misrepresenting the positions of the majority of climate activists and knocking down strawmen, rather than actually debating the environmental movement. Funny that Peterson never invites an actual climate activist to debate on his shows.
Your disapproval will stop them mighty flea!
I was once a member of the Greens and Greenpeace, and I left them both because I realised I had become profoundly anti-human. I avoided having children because I thought that was the best thing for the planet. I regret it so much now, but it's too late for me. I think the light bulb moment was reading Ishmael by Daniel Quinn and realising that we ARE nature. We're not above it or apart from it, we are nature. And it made no sense then to classify humans as bad for the planet or some fundamentally evil species. Yes, we have made and are making mistakes, but we have as much right to be on this planet as any other species and we have had a far more positive effect on the planet than negative. We have the potential to be a truly amazing and wonderful species, but instead we are becoming the most stupid and brainwashed.
It is understandable that you may have had concerns about climate change and the impact of human activity on the environment, and that you may have changed your perspective after reading "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. It is important to carefully consider and evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by any individual or group on any topic, including climate change.
It is true that humans are a part of nature and that we have the capacity to have both positive and negative impacts on the environment. However, the scientific consensus is that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are contributing to significant and potentially dangerous changes in the Earth's climate. This view is supported by a large body of evidence that has been carefully gathered and analyzed by scientists over many years.
The overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change, including those affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other reputable scientific organizations, agree that climate change is real and that it is largely caused by human activities. These scientists base their conclusions on a thorough review of the available evidence, and their views are supported by the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed research in the field.
While it is important to recognize the potential for humans to have a positive impact on the environment and to be mindful of our actions, it is also important to take the scientific consensus on climate change seriously and to consider the potential consequences of ignoring this issue.
@@tedzards509 Thanks for the lecture and the assumptions that I am too stupid to evaluate the existing evidence on both 'sides' (not that science has sides). Consensus is neither here nor there. If a million scientists, all with Nobel prizes, believe a hypothesis and a high school dropout produces evidence the hypothesis is wrong, it's wrong. That's how science works. There is an equally large body of evidence carefully gathered and analysed by scientists over many years that the sun is the main driver of climate change and that rising CO2 follows temperature increases. But these scientists tend to be de-funded, ridiculed and dismissed as 'deniers' for daring to question the prevailing dogma. Having read IPCC reports I would hardly call them a reputable scientific organisation. Their original charter was to 'prove anthropogenic global warming', which is anti-science. They are a political organisation pushing an ideology.
@@MsBiggles51 It is not accurate to say that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a political organization. The IPCC is a scientific body that was established by the United Nations in 1988 to provide objective and unbiased information about climate change. It is composed of thousands of scientists from around the world who review and assess the latest research on climate change and its impacts.
It is also not accurate to say that the IPCC was established with the goal of "proving" that human activity is causing global warming. The IPCC's mandate is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the state of the climate and the potential impacts of climate change based on the best available scientific evidence. The IPCC does not have a predetermined position on climate change and does not advocate for any particular policy or course of action.
The scientific evidence shows that the Earth's climate is changing and that human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are contributing to this change. There is a broad consensus among scientists that the Earth is warming and that human activities are a significant contributor to this warming. This consensus is based on a large and consistent body of scientific evidence, including observations of rising temperatures, melting glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels.
It is important to note that scientific debate and discussion are an essential part of the scientific process. Scientists are trained to be objective and to follow the evidence where it leads, and it is not uncommon for new evidence to emerge that challenges or contradicts previously accepted ideas. However, the scientific consensus on climate change is based on a large and consistent body of evidence, and it is not accurate to dismiss this consensus simply because it may not align with a particular viewpoint or ideology.
You sound like you have tried to educate yourself on these issues so can you tell me what the current percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is? Did you know that ice core sampling has revealed that prehistoric levels of CO2 were 14x greater than today?
And incidentally, those CO2 figures come from proxy data not ice core samples. There has been no ice at the poles through most of the Earth's history. The ice core samples are only from the current ice age.
It very interesting to listen to someone dismantle a narrative with such logic that it makes the issue moot !
Another very interesting piece of science says that as the earth greens due to increasing CO2, the high altitude Gobi Plain in China and Mongolia greens as well. That new vegetation cover reduces dust generation from that plain to arctic ice sheets. Without a covering of dust the ice reflects a greater amount solar radiation thereby causing the ice to melt more slowly and to advance as it has at least 45 times that we know of during the current ice age we find ourselves in. It is theorized that given this system, rising CO2 actually indirectly cools the earth not the opposite as is so widely suggested. There is more to it of course. Reference: Ellis-Palmer - Modulation of Ice Ages via Precession and Dust-Albedo Feedbacks
Logically with critical thought. I love it. Salutations and Merry Christmas .
Maybe he can get an actual scientist on to discuss climate change ?
J's don't celebrate christmas.
@@yahyahboy2 So long as they invite PhDs scientists from the 3% of skeptics. Without them it's not science. Same with any field of study.
@@yahyahboy2 Where is one on CZcams? And one where the comments are not turned off! We also need AOC to come on and debate climate too! Bankers, politicians and paid scientists! What could go wrong?
@@derp8575 it's not science, it's an interview
Fossil Future. Bought the book and read it twice a few months ago Alex. A thorough and well argued tour de force. Bravo Alex.
thαnks fσr wαtchíng..
mαkє α nσtє tσ єnσs kєnt rєgαrdíng crчptσ ínvєstmєnt вtc/єth skílls…
🈂️ᗩ ᑎᗝ丅ᗴ Ƴᗝᑌ ᗯᕼᗴᖇᗴ ᖇᗴᖴᗴᖇᖇᗴᗪ ᗷƳ ᗰᗴ
丅ᗴxт▪️🔘◼ Ŵ𝒉ạťʂ𝑨ƤƤ
🌀±𝟏𝟗𝟕𝟏𝟑𝟕𝟔𝟒𝟔𝟖𝟔✔💯⚡️🤍
ᑎOTIᖴY ᕼIᗰ TᕼᗩT I ᖇEᖴEᖇᖇEᗪ YOᑌ.........
The first 2.5 minutes were awesome. I can only imagine how good the video will get.
Great guest!
can't wait to listen to this
Long waited interview. Thanks Dr. Peterson!
Amazing conversation and crucial to know information... Thanks to you both for your time and energy.
In the 1950s the Sierra Club was a conversation organization. But now it is focused on getting people to put up solar and wind generators without recognizing the damage being done to the environment.
Can Video makers cut the music overdubbing? I have difficulty hearing the spoken words when it’s competing with music.
That you, Jordan, for at long last showcasing the ideas of Alex Epstein, in my view the deepest, most profound thinker we have on this topic.
Maybe he can get an actual scientist on to discuss climate change ?
@@yahyahboy2 once again the “argument from authority”; you do not need to be a fireman to know that burning house is likely to claim a life or two, you need a real argument, not an expert opinion, and you do need to trust your own eyes!!
@@yahyahboy2 you mean the scientists, who academic career and funding is dependant upon towing the party line of catastrophic climate change.... or do you mean the scientists that have been ostracized as being climate deniers for following independent lines of inquiry and reaching different conclusions.
@@yahyahboy2 So long as they invite PhDs scientists from the 3% of skeptics. Without them it's not science. Same with any field of study.
@@derp8575 how is that balanced, I would describe this space as an echo chamber. if anything, 3% of his guests should be supportive of his views but so far it's 100% - it's blatant bias
“Opportunity not atonement” . Incredible . This conversation was amazing.
Yes!!
Read Ayn Rand. She conveys this benevolent universe premise about the potential for mans happiness and achievement, contrasted to Jordan Peterson's view that life is suffering.
There also has not been a debate about the destruction from lithium mining, or solar panel polluting the earth, or the fires lithium batteries are causing
Selling fears is a management skills for Big-Govt and Great Reset ... if they failed to make you fear, ... they will use their administrative power to isolate you ... the stories are depicted in a movie of 1984 ...
I think it's hard to self-help yourself away from 30 degrees celsius.
wow, a real eye opener. Ashamed to admit I thought I had a handle on this issue and I was firmly in the camp of reducing fossil fuels. At the least this discussion has inspired me to explore the facts on this issue and gain a more balanced view. Thank you Jordan Petersen for bringing us this discussion with Alex Epstein...
The elites solutions to global warming is global euthanasia.
" I was firmly in the camp of reducing fossil fuels" we will reduce them anyway a we ever reach the peak oil (same for a lot of raw materials) 😅
@@indigogogo5444 of course, we will.need to reduce them. The issue is the rate we reduce them and the damage we do to human suffering if we get it wrong which very much looks like we are right now.
@@gazzap6664 I agree
We won’t reduce hydrocarbon use. How can you watch this discussion and miss that key point?! As more people in developing nations demand inexpensive, reliable energy, that energy must come from somewhere. About 20-30% may come from solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear eventually, but 70-80% will come from hydrocarbons. These are simple facts about the energy mix. It leaves out all of the other products, not the least of which are plastics, that come from hydrocarbons. So as the world develops, we will need more hydrocarbons by volume, not less. By artificially inflating the price through carbon taxes, choking off investment, driving out skilled workers, and preventing exploration and production, anti-hydrocarbon zealots will cause future hardship, poverty, and death. It’s inevitable.
I am a geologist who lived on Mt. Pinotobo on Luzon 10 years before erupted. This created a drop of 3.5 degrees centograde in world-wide temperure! I was flying over Mt. St. He
lens during the first small eruptions. I have been numerous active volcanos. Climate is real, however it depends on the Sun and ocean current as well as volcanos. It has been going for aleast 4 billion years! By the tropical rain forests "scub" some CO2
from the air, I believe far more is removed by the tropical seas between the 70 degree isotherm (north & south) where massive CaCO3 limestone deposits are forming!
Don’t forget the moon and it’s affects on the planet
I could listen to Jordan forever. Such a brilliant mind.
Thank you, Jordan and Alex. This interview is essential viewing, given everything happening in the world today.
What makes you think Jordan is qualified to talk about climate? He’s pandering towards his audience for patreon $$
@@damnationdan5253 What makes anyone think you are qualified to comment on JP and his views? Damnation Dan says it all.
@@grahamguest6506 Everyone is. Even school children can expose an impostor as stupid as Peterson.
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 your comment is a mere projection and it’s highly unlikely you will ever realise it. But for your sake I hope you do
I am amused that so many people think "watching this" will change minds or, more important, policy.
Policy is still being dictated by government employees and consultants in the pocket of the energy industry which is of course a huge source of tax income. Giving up carbon means government moving to a non-fossil future where different approaches to taxation prevail.
I've read both the books discussed in this interview by Alex Epstein. As a person who regularly finds myself discussing climate change in online forums, I can say they have both been instrumental in arming myself with the best approach to this issue: Highlighting the positives that fossil fuels have brought to our lives. When you start discussing this, you will find 9 times out of 10 the opposition you'll encounter has rarely even considered the issue in these terms. He, and I'll credit Lomborg for this as well, do an excellent job of specifically identifying all of the modern wonders we have and enjoy because of fossil fuels. Even simple stuff like refrigeration, or air conditioning, and the incredible life saving measures these technologies have produced. Access to energy is the number one determining factor in quality of life, and I encourage everyone to read Alex's work on the subject. The future of the species might just depend on it!
how is that remotely relevant to climate sustainability. like yes obviously fossil fuels made our lives cushy. tf does that have to do with if their destroying the planet or not
@@jonasdamion1627 Climate sustainability is directly linked to our ability to master climate. Mastering climate is impossible without fossil fuels. It's pretty simple.
What do you mean by 'destroying the planet'? The earth is more habitable, greener, and safer today than at any point in human history. Please, explain.
@@evbbjones7 "Mastering climate is impossible without fossil fuels."
Simply untrue. Or if true, we're fucked as fossil fuels are not an infinite resource. Guess we'll no longer be able to master the climate in another hundred years...
"The earth is more habitable, greener, and safer today than at any point in human history."
By what metric? How do you define habitability, safety and greenness?
@@1kwerty7 '
"Simply untrue."
Afraid not. Can you name a single piece of heavy equipment that can be run on renewables?
"Or if true, we're fucked as fossil fuels are not an infinite resource."
Wait, in your very last sentence you declared it was 'simply untrue', now you're unclear whether or not it is?
"Guess we'll no longer be able to master the climate in another hundred years...'
Why would you think that? History certainly suggests otherwise.
'By what metric? How do you define habitability, safety and greenness?'
Access to housing and climate control(Air conditioning, modern construction methods) , life expectancy (Increased by 15+ years on average worldwide), access to food(2/3rds of people use to have to be farmers on four times as much land), the amount of people who are no longer dying to climate( down by 95%+!), the average GDP(Records never before seen in human history), the number of people who fall below the immense poverty line(Decreased by billions over the last hundred years), by comparing our records from the past to our records from the present(There's a plot of land worldwide the size of the US that is now green that did not use to be). Fossil Fuels are responsible for all of it, because access to energy is the number one determining factor in quality of life.
@@evbbjones7 Heavy equipment powered by renewables already exists. Anything that can be powered with electricity can be powered with renewables.
My point with the ,"Or if true, we're fucked, as fossil fuels are not an infinite resource" was that we will run out now them eventually, and so if fossil fuels are necessary for human existence then human
existence will be over in a century or two.
The last part of your comment is true, due to all the countries that have developed over that time period. Modern technology, science, and the spread of these ideas to new places have absolutely improved peoples lives. And yes, almost all of our technology was and is fueled with fossil fuels.
However, there's no reason renewables can't replace fossil fuels, at least in part (and they NEED to be able to, as fossil fuels are a finite resource and cause environmental problems.) Uruguay uses 95% renewables, with low energy prices as well. Many European countries get about half their energy from renewables.
Obviously it's going to be a big shift and it would be disastrous to instantly stop using all fossil fuels. However, as we are already seeing the affects of climate change, we do need to start switching more sooner than later...
Excellent discussion. Amazing common sense pro human information. Thank you!
Off the first website on the loathsome Google - "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D. when global temperatures were apparently somewhat warmer than at present. Its effects were evident in Europe where grain crops flourished, alpine tree lines rose, many new cities arose, and the population more than doubled."
The problem, from my point of view, is that actual wages levels have been decimated by encouraged immigration, which has brought skilled people from countries with low wages her, which means they will work for less. Indigenous workers in the UK have really suffered here, despite constant denials that this is happening the whole time.
I hear you from Australia. We have a housing shortage, the government just announced they are bringing in 900 000 people.
At least your government pretends they are refugees, our government invites them. And it doesn't matter who you vote for, both the major parties do it. I believe like climate policies it's another plan to make the west worse than the third world.
"Life as opportunity and not as atonement." Well said Alex.
I just need to know how the water rationing is an opportunity.
@@SusCalvin Sell some water.
The question of perception of poverty that was asked in the UK (mentioned around the 30:00 mark)...worldwide it has got better but in the UK poverty HAS got worse and the gap between the rich and the poor has worsened. As someone who has been one of those with their finger in the dike for the last 13 years the change has been remarkable. Malnutrition here is up, rickets made a "come-back", reliance on food banks has now reached levels where the charities cannot supply enough (a particular rise in the working poor). The UK-wide impact has been so severe that many of the students questioned will be aware of it (and could well be affected by it personally) and that will colour their perception.
41:12 Mark Shepard and his book(restoration agriculture) and belief in Restoration Agriculture talks about how we can go back the way nature was intended to be cultivated with no inputs just plant and let nature naturally select for the best genetics of that specific vegetation you planted to be able to survive in that environment(temperature, local soil acidity, resistance to the common diseases, water availability) highly recommend checking this book and mark Shepard a videos. this book is awesome even just reading the first 70pg will give you the idea behind this theory of restoration Ag and why it will be better for so many different reasons(the environment, economically, nutritionally etc…) 41:12 Mark Shepard and his book and belief in Restoration Agriculture talks about how we can go back the way nature was intended to be cultivated with no inputs just plant and let nature naturally select for the best genetics of that specific vegetation you planted to be able to survive in that environment(temperature, local soil acidity, resistance to the common diseases, water availability) please this book is awesome even just reading the first 70pg will give you the idea behind this theory of restoration Ag and why it will be better for so many different reasons(the environment, economically, nutritionally etc…)
Back in '94 I read an article about how a large group of scientists said that we are headed to an ice age due to warming that throws the balance off within earth.
You are mistaken if you think that single article represented climate science consensus in any way
And I read the same thing in 1970 then, when the evidence didn't jibe with the theory, they changed it to warming. Then, about 9 years ago, when the satellite data showed warming was much slower and less severe than claimed, it was no longer global warming but "climate change". They do this all the time. Liars, that's all there is to it.
I love every second of hearing Dr. Jordan formulate his thoughts on a topic and the added bonus of the guests that come on to discuss the topics. I think one of the fundamental issues of this topic is the issue of how the people who have obtained the moral high ground continue to use it to there advantage. It's a problem of what is politically profitable. It's hard to get elected or re elected on something that your opponent has deemed or label immoral. So how do we regain the moral high ground and make it less politically profitable for the opposing side/ arguments ??
Maybe he can get an actual scientist on to discuss climate change ?
Rock, Paper, Scissors. 🤺
@@yahyahboy2 So long as they invite PhDs scientists from the 3% of skeptics. Without them it's not science. Same with any field of study.
@@yahyahboy2 Why? 97% of those 'scientists' have been proven wrong - over the last 20 years - haven't they! Of course fossil fuel positivity deniers still want those 97% 'scientists' to stay, because they fit their evil agenda. You didn't actually watch very much of this - did you? ;-)
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky.
Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years
Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
This was a great and very fascinating discussion to listen to, especially as someone who is more left-leaning and "environmentally conscious". They made some great points that I believe all environmentalists should listen to, however, some points need to take into consideration. When we burn fossil fuels we need to remember that carbon monoxide is very bad for human health and studies are showing that a lot of now common health issues in humans are directly linked to poor air quality which is directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels whether that be in the industrial sector or the private sector with the enormous amount of cars and other private vehicles that are on the roads all over the world. And another point is that now that our earth is warming which is great for a more lush planet, countries and cities around the world are shrinking significantly to the point that countries in the Pacific especially might not even be around by the end of the century. So even though this discussion did have great and valid points in terms of energy there are so many more options to turn to instead of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind energy. Private companies can now convert energy from human waste as well as human trash and garbage into energy just to name two alternatives out of the many new and innovative ideas that are finally reaching the surface. So in my personal opinion, fossil fuels will get us to where we need to get to in the next 10-30 years but they should not be our future.
I have cars and tractors that have been in my family for over 50 years. They work fine and my children hope to inherit them. They run on gas and diesel. While I have converted the gas 1949 bulldozer to an electric vehicle (far more powerful now) it actually costs more to run now than when it was gas. The problem is that we use vehicles for far longer than they want to let us use them. Who do they think is going to pay to replace perfectly good trucks and tractors?
Think that’s the point
Wow, I sincerely appreciate both of you fellows. I really gravitate towards Alex’s simple explanations and perspectives, particularly his thoughts about life being an incredible opportunity. I grew very tired of constantly being accused of guilt by convoluted intellectual reasoning many years ago, guilt implied simply because of fact that I was alive and had ears to hear. Sometimes a short parable is far easier to grasp then a long lecture, and if it has punch line so much the better. Thank you Mr. Peterson and Mr. Epstein you do us a great service!
What both Mr. Peterson and Epstein fail to mention is that our government is using Geoengineering to cool the planet to mask the severity of the overall warming. This of course is horrible because it is poisoning all life with the elements like Aluminum they put into the sky.
Google geoengineering solar radiation management and know that it has been fully deployed for 70 years
Watch the documentary the "dimming" on youtube. I think it will help you understand how the elites are using weather manipulation to further their agendas.
Dr. Peterson - I know you cannot see all comments posted to your videos, but I wanted to tell you that my father is having a transplant surgery today. Watching your videos about standing up solidly for your family and being a man that can be relied upon in difficult situations has prepared me for this moment. Thank you, and God Bless
Much love to your father and family, from Italy
God bless your family
@@leonorpimenta4118 thank you very much
@@swesleyc7 thank you for the kind words
@@AFringedGentian Thank you! Everything went well and he returned home yesterday. Modern medicine is truly a miracle!
This is an interesting guest- Jordan Peterson. Alex should invite him more often! 🤗
Great interview.