3
0

CLIMATE CHANGE: Is it Real? Huge Fluctuations in Midwest Temperatures From Minus 21 to 73 Degrees! JORDAN PETERSON Responds to Question on Global Warming


 invite response                
2019 Feb 3, 2:56am   4,350 views  53 comments

by WillPowers   ➕follow (3)   💰tip   ignore  

Hey folks,

It’s not that I don’t think climate change isn't a real possibility, it's that I don’t trust the media or the science, when studies are funded by people with an agenda and an obvious bias, like George Soros, who want specific results for his money. The same I suppose can be said for other studies, saying global warming is not real, funded by right-wing think tanks with an agenda. Who are you to believe?

Guess you heard about the huge fluctuations in temperature across the midwest.

FROM NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/cold-weather-polar-vortex.html
QUOTE: "The difference in temperature that the Chicago region could experience by Monday: 73 degrees, from Thursday morning, when the city saw a low of minus 21, to Monday, when it may be 52.

“It’s fairly rare to see this much of a turnaround in temperature in this short of time,” said Todd Kluber, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service."

Caused by a polar vortex:

QUOTE: "The Midwest’s deep freeze was brought by the polar vortex, a mass of cold air that is normally contained above the North Pole but in recent weeks broke apart, sending a block of icy air toward the United States.”

But is this a sign of climate change?

Whether you think it is or not, you might be interested to hear what Professor Jordan Peterson has to say on this issue, because he moves the argument past the ‘Is it real or not,’ stage to finding solutions.

LISTEN to what PETERSON has to SAY:
www.youtube.com/embed/bQ1gqIAKdgA

What if it is real? What are you willing to do about it?

Do you think the world is going to end in 12 years as radical Democrat, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says? Are you ready to give up your car? Are willing to shut off your energy and stop watching the TV? No, so what’s your solution?

According to Jordan Peterson, who says he was on a UN committee for 2 years, the committee for Sustainable Economic and Ecological Development, and he studied the subject in depth.

He said the first problem is you can’t separate the science from the politics. Errors in the projections accumulate as you move forward in time and cause "the measure bars of error” to be “so wide” it is impossible “to measure the positive or negative effect of anything we do right now.” So how is it possible to measure the “consequences of our actions? How is that possible?”

He then asks the question, “What do you do about it” if it is true?

The problem with solar power is how do you store the energy and how do you accumulate energy at night? This was tried in Germany and failed, resulting in an increase in energy costs and the necessity of restarting the coal plants, raising the CO2 higher than if they never tried going solar.

READ about FAILED EFFORT in GERMANY for sustainable ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES: MIT Technology Review: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/


Peterson mentions nuclear power, but environmentalists don’t like that either because of the storage of nuclear waste problem and the horrific accidents that can ensue. And I say wind power mills are a blot on the landscape and they kill birds, and nobody wants them in their nice neighborhoods.

Peterson brings up Bjorn Lomborg’s work in reference to the 200 environmental goals set up by the UN.

BJORN LOMBORG: https://www.lomborg.com/

He called the 200 goals "a wish list” and said if they wanted to get anything done, they had to prioritize.

Lomborg assembled a number of Nobel prize winners, according to Peterson, and had them rank order in development goals in terms of return on investment, then took an average to come up with a final list of priorities and you know what was at the top of that list, “child nutrition”.

Apparently, raising the standard of living for people in undeveloped regions of the world would help most, because poor people would get richer and start caring about the world more and want to do something about global warming, because now they care about their environment. Also he pointed to increased brain power as a result of more well nourished minds at work.

Maybe he’s right. He says burning coal is better for the environment than burning wood. He said “It’s a complicated issue” “probably with no solution.”

What’s your solution? Are you willing to change your own living habits drastically to avoid the end of the world? Are you willing to pay through the roof for your energy. Consider what we have under Trump. Low energy costs and he made the US the highest producer of oil and gas in the world.

Now consider what the Green New Deal has in store for you:
The central goal of the proposed legislation by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is relying on nothing but renewable energy for electricity generation. That would mean wind, solar, biomass and geothermal are in, while coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power are completely out.

Which world do you want to live in?

A world of prosperity under President Trump?

Or a world of fear mongering, and saber rattling and failed socialist programs that leave us all poorer and worse off?

Will Powers

Comments 1 - 40 of 53       Last »     Search these comments

1   anonymous   2019 Feb 3, 6:16am  

WillPowers says
Low energy costs and he made the US the highest producer of oil and gas in the world.


Where are those low energy costs? Lots of companies that are struggling to pay utility bills along with the rest of the population would like in on the secret.

As for the oil - America Is Producing the Wrong Kind of Oil

Refiners who invested billions to turn a profit from processing cheap low-quality crude are paying unheard of premiums to find the heavy-sour grades they need. The mismatch is better news for OPEC producers like Iraq and Saudi Arabia, who don’t produce much light-sweet, but pump plenty of the dirtier stuff.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-01/the-great-oil-paradox-too-many-good-crudes-not-enough-bad-ones

Translation - higher prices at the pump. Not all crude is the right crude.

And on a side note Delta is trying to dump the refinery they bought a few years ago on the East Coast - this will not be one of their better moves long term.
3   Goran_K   2019 Feb 3, 6:58am  

Booger says


Best post of the thread so far.
4   anonymous   2019 Feb 3, 11:36am  

Haven't talk to one person over the age of 50 who has not echoed the weather has definitely changed in my lifetime and not for the better....
5   🎂 Tenpoundbass   2019 Feb 3, 12:39pm  

Hmm huge spike in magnetic north activity last week a few days before the Polar Vortex.
I would like to see what kind of Sprite and Troll activity there was above the northern hemisphere during the magnetic pole shift, and before the Polar vortex.

Yes I think they are related. As I have said about Global Warming the Earth has ways to keep its self cool. Those Trolls and Sprites punch through to supper cooled space and supper cools the air in the upper atmosphere.
7   MrMagic   2019 Feb 3, 12:49pm  

Kakistocracy says
Haven't talk to one person over the age of 50 who has not echoed the weather has definitely changed in my lifetime and not for the better....


@Kakistocracy

I'm going to agree with you. It's definitely changed. I'm glad your Blue Team decided to rename it from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", as it's ALWAYS changing, and not for the better.

This is from a few nights ago, I'd really like some Global Warming, oops "Climate Change" right about now.




Even the dog ain't liking these new colder temperatures!
8   Onvacation   2019 Feb 3, 12:54pm  

Cold exposure kills more people than wetbulb.
9   WillPowers   2019 Feb 3, 10:17pm  

Kakistocracy says
Where are those low energy costs?


First of all I am referring to a comparison of what you are paying now and what you will be paying if the Green New Deal was to go into effect. They will take your car if it's not electric and wind and solar will be supplying all our energy which will result in shortages and higher prices. That'a a projection based on what happened in Germany:

The problem with solar power is how do you store the energy and how do you accumulate energy at night? This was tried in Germany and failed, resulting in an increase in energy costs and the necessity of restarting the coal plants, raising the CO2 higher than if they never tried going solar.

READ about FAILED EFFORT in GERMANY for sustainable ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES: MIT Technology Review: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
10   WillPowers   2019 Feb 3, 10:22pm  

Kakistocracy says
As for the oil - America Is Producing the Wrong Kind of Oil



I didn't know there was a wrong kind of oil. If you are referring to fracking then I agree, it's an agregous way to get the oil out of the ground, but once again, we are comparing Trump's economy with what AOC's economy would look like with zero production of oil and natural gas.

Given the two extremes, which world would you rather live in? A prosperous economy that produces maybe too much oil or a failing economy that strives for unrealistic goals that would destroy the energy sector and our economy?
11   rocketjoe79   2019 Feb 3, 10:43pm  

Kakistocracy says
Haven't talk to one person over the age of 50 who has not echoed the weather has definitely changed in my lifetime and not for the better....


Perhaps during our current lifetimes, weather was in a goldilocks period. Now we are seeing more dynamic weather. Historical records show the Thames freezing, Hans Christian Anderssen skating on frozen rivers in Denmark, and Washington crossing the Delaware River - on ice. There are also times when folks in Greenland were growing grapes for wine. And that's just our, say, 10,000 year history. Still a blink of an eye geologically.
12   Reality   2019 Feb 4, 1:31am  

1000 years ago. The Vikings were farming (not just ranching) in Greenland about 1000 years. 10,000 years ago, the Sahara Desert was a vast green pasture, due to climate cycles that are fundamentally driven by the earth's axial / orbital tilt and wobbles that last thousands to tens of thousands of years (Milankovitch Cycles).
13   Onvacation   2019 Feb 4, 6:15am  

Reality says
Milankovitch Cycles

We are going to wish for global warming for the next few decades.

How many degrees must the temperature drop before the alarmists give up?

Oh yeah, it's climate change, NOT global warming.
14   zzyzzx   2019 Feb 4, 8:39am  

Kakistocracy says
Haven't talk to one person over the age of 50 who has not echoed the weather has definitely changed in my lifetime and not for the better....


I'm over 50, and I see no change in the weather over my lifetime.
15   MrMagic   2019 Feb 4, 8:54am  

zzyzzx says
Kakistocracy says
Haven't talk to one person over the age of 50 who has not echoed the weather has definitely changed in my lifetime and not for the better....


I'm over 50, and I see no change in the weather over my lifetime.


Me too, it's been the same.

Interesting, every year it gets hot during the Summer and cold in the Winter. Every year. Just how does that happen?

Plus, the temperatures can swing over 90+ degrees during that time period. Yet, the "Alarmists" want us to be so concerned about their claim that the planet warmed 1.2 degrees over the last 130 years?

Really?
16   Bd6r   2019 Feb 4, 9:07am  

Kakistocracy says
Haven't talk to one person over the age of 50 who has not echoed the weather has definitely changed in my lifetime and not for the better...

I have seen change in weather...how do I know what is responsible for it? And even more importantly, what to do about change? Solution can not be giving Al Gore a billion so he can enlarge his 10000000 sq ft home that consumes as much electricity as 100 hillbilly houses
17   kt1652   2019 Feb 4, 10:20am  

From memory, the part of the atmosphere that affects life on earth is in the lower portion. A few hundred miles from the ocean surface. All weather takes place in the atmosphere, most of it in the lower atmosphere. It is much more fragile than we imagined.
The thickness of it would be proportional to a saran wrap on a basketball.
I am not on the fence wrt man-made climate change, I am not sure how bad, how close we are to the point of no return.
I also recognize my knowledge is too limited in this very complex issue to anticipate all the consequences.
If one were to say, there are what seems like extreme lows in temperatures in certain regions this winter, it does not prove anything
Just like stocks, the more volatile a stock becomes the larger the channel of highs and lows. In controls, when a system is becoming more unstable we will have higher highs and lower lows. It is the underlying trend that matter, (I drew purple channel lines in the temperature chart).
With positive feedback the system will becoming more unstable, leading quickly to failure. Once the positive f-b exceed critical damping, it goes out of control. Picture the Tacoma Narrows bridge failure.
There are ominous signs of a number of positive feedback loops at of near that state.
The canaries-in-the-mine in the ice covered poles. Melting permafrost. Some had been frozen for 10000 years or more. Cracks in vast ice plates, retreating glaciers. Methane release from the ice melting in ever spreading regions. Once flourishing coral reefs dying off Australia. Bees and insects population decimated. On and on. They do not act in isolation on the ecosystem. Nature has a way with exponential response, not linear where things progress incrementally, as in the CO2 chart. If we wait until the signs are all flashing red, it will be too late to do anything.
It gets depressing for me some days and I am by no means alone.

18   Shaman   2019 Feb 4, 11:02am  

New colder temperatures are bringing much rain to California, putting a nail in the coffin of the never ending drought.

As for the OP, I’ve lived in ILLINOIS, and temperatures swing WILDLY there. One day there’s a blizzard and the next the Gulf Stream blows in and melts it all to nothing. They get extreme weather. It’s just the confluence of different factors that all sort of intersect over Lake Michigan. Nothing to be alarmed about!
19   Onvacation   2019 Feb 4, 11:06am  

kt1652 says



So you deny the medieval warm period and the little ice age?
20   Onvacation   2019 Feb 4, 11:12am  

Do you think Mann will ever release his hockey stick data? Not that it matters as time has shown his theory on co2 related global warming has not matched observations.
21   kt1652   2019 Feb 4, 11:33am  

Quigley says
New colder temperatures are bringing much rain to California, putting a nail in the coffin of the never ending drought.

As for the OP, I’ve lived in ILLINOIS, and temperatures swing WILDLY there. One day there’s a blizzard and the next the Gulf Stream blows in and melts it all to nothing. They get extreme weather. It’s just the confluence of different factors that all sort of intersect over Lake Michigan. Nothing to be alarmed about!

I dont mind my view being called Alarmist.
We are in that stage warning alarms should be going off.
There are 3 outcomes:
1. Nothing to worry about. Just thousands of credible scientists all over the world colluding for self gain. In this case, we as humans still gain by shifting our way of life to a more sustainable and for many, more economical life style as energy is a huge component of our existence. We do know oil is getting more costly as the easy stuff will be soon depleted, as in 100-200 years. Economics.
2. It is getting bad, and the warning signs are there. We must act as a specie to unite and fight for the future of our children, future generations. Imagine a "Land on the moon in a decade" type of goal for all mankind.
3. It is already too late. We will have to plan for a least-bad outcome and bid for more time. We must still try even if there is only 5% chance of success. But 1st, we must recognize there is a problem.
22   kt1652   2019 Feb 4, 11:42am  

Onvacation says
Do you think Mann will ever release his hockey stick data? Not that it matters as time has shown his theory on co2 related global warming has not matched observations.

They were not man created and the powerful positive feedback loops were not present.

There is a maximum carry limit on the earth's resources, we are way past that.
To ask 5 billions of the world's underclass to restrict their consumption while the 2 billions or so of the upper class continue in our wanton way is unrealistic. We cant exterminate half the population to act quick enough. If anything it'd be better "ROI" to kill off 1st world consumers. lol.
23   Onvacation   2019 Feb 4, 12:05pm  

kt1652 says
Onvacation says
Do you think Mann will ever release his hockey stick data? Not that it matters as time has shown his theory on co2 related global warming has not matched observations.

They were not man created

Michael Mann created. Not man created. Michael Mann, you know, the creator of the hockey stick graph that won't release his data.kt1652 says

There is a maximum carry limit on the earth's resources, we are way past that.
To ask 5 billions of the world's underclass to restrict their consumption while the 2 billions or so of the upper class continue in our wanton way is unrealistic. We cant exterminate half the population to act quick enough. If anything it'd be better "ROI" to kill off 1st world consumers. lol.

And there you go. The real reason behind global warming climate change is population control
24   Heraclitusstudent   2019 Feb 4, 1:01pm  

WillPowers says
He said the first problem is you can’t separate the science from the politics. Errors in the projections accumulate as you move forward in time and cause "the measure bars of error” to be “so wide” it is impossible “to measure the positive or negative effect of anything we do right now.” So how is it possible to measure the “consequences of our actions? How is that possible?”


Public discourse is never science and is always politics. Doesn't change the science.

Peterson is a psychologists whose definition of "truth" includes such things as "Jungian archetypes".

But a phenomena like global warming that is backed by thousands of empirical measures of different aspects of reality: temperatures land, temperatures in the atmosphere at different elevations, ocean surface temperatures, ocean heat content, polar ice sheets extent, thickness, glaciers, sea level rise, CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 rejected by humans, radiation outgoing the atmosphere, radiation reflected downward by the atmosphere, historical temperatures, historical CO2 concentrations, etc, etc....

... Way too much "measure errors" according to Peterson. But Jungian archetypes... yeah that's obvious.
25   Heraclitusstudent   2019 Feb 4, 1:05pm  

This post kind of shows the kind of cherry picking that has to go on to maintain a possible level of doubt on global warming:
- polar vortex... blah blah blah.... (as if polar vortex moving that way had any influence on global temperatures)
- Psychologist Peterson said.... blah blah blah

26   Shaman   2019 Feb 4, 1:15pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
Peterson is a psychologists whose definition of "truth" includes such things as "Jungian archetypes".


So a doctor of psychology can’t speak truth because his work involves a measure of speculation.
I guess a student of philosophy is REALLY just full of shit, then. Right?
*snicker*
27   Heraclitusstudent   2019 Feb 4, 1:20pm  

If you bring him up specifically because he says one thing which you happen to think is true - while you dismiss what most scientific studying the matter are saying - that's the text book definition of confirmation bias.
28   Shaman   2019 Feb 4, 1:23pm  

Peterson has shown a remarkable love for speaking the truth as he sees it, rather than endless political wavering as most public figures do these days. He has a respect for facts and the truth where others regard these things as “inconvenient.” (See what I did there? Hehe)
29   kt1652   2019 Feb 4, 1:29pm  

kt1652 says
Onvacation says
Do you think Mann will ever release his hockey stick data? Not that it matters as time has shown his theory on co2 related global warming has not matched observations.

...

I am not trying to change your mind.
The speed of change is indicative of man's industrial byproduct. True that human population is the key driver.
I don't waste my time talking about things that we cannot affect. We can't reduce # humans on earth fast enough in any acceptable manner, so why talk about it? It is not a solution.
30   HeadSet   2019 Feb 4, 1:47pm  

We can't reduce # humans on earth fast enough in any acceptable manner, so why talk about it? It is not a solution.

It is not the number of humans that is the issue. It is the number of humans living a first world lifestyle.

Halting immigration from 3rd world to 1st world and letting the natural declining rate of 1st world societies play out is a great start.
31   Onvacation   2019 Feb 4, 1:48pm  

kt1652 says
The speed of change is indicative of man's industrial byproduct. True that human population is the key driver.

You do know the temperature has been falling for a couple years?

Don'tcha?
32   kt1652   2019 Feb 4, 2:44pm  

What temperature?
Go back to what I said about the behavior or oscillating reaponse, esp if the feedback is increasing. Like a stock, oscillation could be an indication of instability. In natural systems, it may indicate amplification, resonance.
As I said, I know I will never know enough to be certain of the outcome.
I've never personally experienced cancer from smoking, but I still believe the data there is a indesputable link. I've never been on the moon, I still believe from credible info, we've done that. It is not scientific to say, I don't know anything about a complex topic, but I am so sure I am right. Long short of it, I will not engage in pointless debate, like 2 frogs in a well, about things way beyond our competency.
As Einstein said, simple solution is better but not too simple.
33   MrMagic   2019 Feb 4, 3:45pm  

kt1652 says
As I said, I know I will never know enough to be certain of the outcome.


OK, so why do you call yourself an "Alarmist" then.

Since you don't know enough, you could just as easy be a "Denier".

Why pick sides if you don't know?
34   kt1652   2019 Feb 4, 6:03pm  

In science, even more so in engineering, if you try to be 100% certain, you will aim, aim, aim ...never pull the trigger. And you dont have to as individuals, it is the critical mass that is important. Lets say we decide air travel is bad, one person flying or not wont make any difference.
Some problems and opportunities don't allow one to take forever. Analysis paralysis. Miss the window, you lose. Good enough is good enough - like i said, the trend and rate of change is more impotant to the scientist. If we wait for confirmation without a doubt, humanity will all be dead, in my case 2 and case 3..
35   marcus   2019 Feb 4, 6:23pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
... Way too much "measure errors" according to Peterson


Did you listen all the way ?

He's not denying global warming as much as he is questioning what we can do about it.

I like him a lot, but in this instance he does seem to be trying a little too hard to find a middle position that is okay with both points of view on this subject.

On the other hand, he has a point I guess. He's a proponent of long form discussions of the IDW on podcasts. I would love to see some long and thorough public discussions on this topic.

Why the hell aren't we moving forward with third or fourth generation nuclear power ? Possibly thorium ?

Instead of a wall, why don't we invest 50 billion in a few thorium nuclear power plants ?

(WE should continue to beef up border and port security as we have for more than a decade - but there are so many better things to spend 50 billion on).
36   FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut   2019 Feb 4, 6:40pm  

Not true. You don’t test hypothesis on life without being sure. I know my science, chem major originally.

kt1652 says
In science, even more so in engineering, if you try to be 100% certain, you will aim, aim, aim ...never pull the trigger. And you dont have to as individuals, it is the critical mass that is important. Lets say we decide air travel is bad, one person flying or not wont make any difference.
Some problems and opportunities don't allow one to take forever. Analysis paralysis. Miss the window, you lose. Good enough is good enough - like i said, the trend and rate of change is more impotant to the scientist. If we wait for confirmation without a doubt, humanity will all be dead, in my case 2 and case 3..
37   kt1652   2019 Feb 4, 8:47pm  

Where we differ is the sense of urgency.
As far as the world's leading scientific body, 97% is close enough concensus for me. Anyone is free to hold and express a different opinion.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://opr.ca.gov/facts/scientific-consensus.html
38   rocketjoe79   2019 Feb 4, 10:45pm  

kt1652 says
Where we differ is the sense of urgency.
As far as the world's leading scientific body, 97% is close enough concensus for me. Anyone is free to hold and express a different opinion.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://opr.ca.gov/facts/scientific-consensus.html


The 97% number has been widely debunked. More propaganda. But you choose to believe what you believe.....
39   kt1652   2019 Feb 4, 11:00pm  

link? What is widely debunked?
40   REpro   2019 Feb 4, 11:17pm  

Onvacation says
kt1652 says



So you deny the medieval warm period and the little ice age?

Comments 1 - 40 of 53       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions