Fantastic answer to climate-change question – Video

You gotta watch this video. It pretty much demolishes the climate-change ideology in just over six minutes.________________

“Here’s what Professor Jordan Peterson said to a naive snowflake when asked about global warming at a Cambridge Union debate,” says reader Jay Hope. “Love the expression on their stupid faces. It’s priceless when he shoots down their gullible ideology in just a few words.”

Event took place on November 2, 2018.

Thanks to Jay Hope and Jon Myles for this video


25 thoughts on “Fantastic answer to climate-change question – Video

  1. Jordan Peterson says …
    “Climate change is just low resolution thinking …”

    Yep! That could not be clearer!

  2. You can see a man actually passionate about actually doing something positive about the problems we face not some mealy mouthed scientist or politician clinging on to the latest trope for money.

    Visibly annoyed at the stupidity of people.

  3. He’s totally right and the audience simply did not appreciate any of the points he made before his speech – most will simply go home thinking he is a jerk and still believe in the mantra of global warming.

    All of the people who preach the “Save the Planet” nonsense still expect to have incomes, food and housing, the Internet and their iPhones or iPads but they don’t want to admit that without coal, oil and gas none of the above are even remotely possible for the seven + billion of us and the 1.5 – 3 billion of us who live miserable poor short lives – well they can simply rot and go away – no way will the west give them fossil fueled lifestyles and the students in the audience support this anti human behaviour.

    Here in Australia the Labor party is intending to commit to a 45% reduction in emissions based on some date in 2005 I think.

    If you believe Wikipedia then “only 18% of that total world energy was in the form of electricity. Most of the other 82% was used for heat and transportation.”

    This probobly reflects what Jordan Peterson said – too many of us are too poor when they needn’t be.

    Lets say in Australia electricity generation accounts for one third of energy use – ~33%. Australia is a large country with large transport distance, extensive mining and agriculture so I think 33% is reasonable.

    Labor aims to have 50% electricity from renewables by some fanciful year or other – I don’t care because this leaves a big problem.

    50% of 33% = ~16.5%.

    They intend to have 45% emissions reductions but the incredibly expensive electricity they intend to impose only reaches 16.5%.

    This leaves 28.5% which has to come from transport, both commercial and private, manufacturing, mining and agriculture.

    Now commercial transport, manufacturing, mining and agriculture are essential economic services.

    So how much of this 28.5% will private transport have to account for ?

    Will people just give up their cars ?

    The only mechanism available is the price of petrol – gas to Americans.

    $5 a liter ($20 a gallon) – $10 … what would force most people to really cut their driving ?

    And what happens to the motor vehicle section of the economy ?

    If you thought Australian politicians had lost their minds and done their best to destroy a once prosperous nation just wait until these idiots get elected and try to implement this nonsense !

    I can easily imagine banana republic consequences !

    • I haven’t had a TV for many years now I simply refuse to watch them. However I grew up on Attenborough’s nature programmes up to and including buying the accompanying books for my own children. I have seen a little in print but hadn’t realised he’d gone totally over the edge. In looking into it I a British TV programme from 2007 cropped up that even then criticised the whole concept so I thought I’d post a link for any interested parties. Apologies if it’s been posted before.

      https://youtu.be/oYhCQv5tNsQ

  4. His diagnosis is correct, but were global warming the biggest catastrophe, ignoring it because of disagreement would be the wrong way to go. You would prioritise finding specific solutions like:
    1) Storing solar and wind-generated energy for 24hrs to provide night-time baselines.
    2) Optimising housing technologies to minimise energy needs for homes.
    3) Organising organic waste breakdown in anaerobic digesters to generate 24/7 heat and some biogas.
    4) Optimising commercial building technologies to minimise energy needs in workplaces.
    5) Massively decentralising energy production to create an energy ‘Cloud’, using homes, office buildings etc etc as mini and micro power stations.

    Etc etc.

    • Or, do what Agenda 21 is aiming: Exterminate the Useless Eaters.

      By the way, if the UN is soooooo anti-Global Warming, as well as those lying Environmental Groups, then why do they demand that 1st World (European) countries take in millions upon millions of people that will only INCREASE C02 production?

      Explain that to me? Why does the UN want to bring in MILLIONS of 3rd World people into Europe? Just why?

  5. Winter is Coming – Super Grand Solar Minimum

    “A Super Grand Solar Minimum would have four magnetic fields out of phase. There was about 40-60 years of cold weather 350 years ago. This was a Maunder Minimum of lower solar activity. The historical cold weather had two magnetic fields out of phase.

    Zharkova is predicting a cooling effect that is 2.5 to 4 times larger than the Maunder minimum. Zharkova’s analysis shows an 8 watts per square meter decrease in TSI (Total Solar Irradiance). A 2015 Nature study looked at 2 watts per square meter decrease causing a 0.13-degree celsius effect. A four times larger effect would be 0.5-degree celsius.”

    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/winter-is-coming-super-grand-solar-minimum.html

  6. saw it recently and yes hes succinct 😉
    the leadin to how she asked her question and the tone used…shows how shes indoctrinated and doing the same to any classes she would teach

  7. Most progressives rage whenever Jordan opens his mouth. They have this belief that he is alt-right. In fact, he is neither left nor right politically. He hates authoritarians of all stripes.

  8. Good response, just a bit lacking on the KNOWN BENEFITS of CO2 and how inaccurate the harm projections are NOW, let alone in 2100.

  9. Most people in the third world couldnt give a shit about the environment. And how could they, especially those many living in dire poverty whose daily concerns amount to bare minimum survival finding a few scraps to eat living in horribly unsanitary conditions. Walk by a river or stream running through a third world city and smell the festering putrid smell that comes off of it. Makes you wanna gag and cry. And then look at the people living along it with a few scrap pieces of would and plastic for shelter and ask yourself if these peolpe care about global warming.

    Peterson is right, the third world must first be lifted out of poverty and then people will start caring about nature.
    But im not sure if more people in the third world is the answer like peterson suggests. For every genius born, whose genius could potentially find solutions to the worlds problems, many thousands if not millons will also be born producing more mouths to feed and more problems to solve.
    Further population growth in the third world is not a solution to third worlds problems. There are plenty of geniuses already living among the masses.

    • Jordan doesn’t spell this out in detail, but I think he assumes that most people realize that when income is raised above the poverty level, education improves and birth rates decline.

  10. For those who support Abortion: Perhaps you will have more support if you took the original reasons for Abortion (Margaret Sanger’s writing will explain that, but your head might explode) for you way of determining who (what) should be aborted.

    Abort according to IQ, and with today’s genetic knowledge, it might be possible to determine the “nonviable tissue mass’s” IQ and then abort all those less than 100. Deal?

    • as a female I do happen to believe in the choice of the female having to carry a child to choose NOT to do so.
      and while i dont like sanger or the merrymob of misfits she and her friends were(theres a gene pool that could/should have been culled)
      there really IS an argument for either sterilising or offering safe contraception for free or cost price to those who really arent up to speed so the dont keep adding low IQ problems to the populace.
      Im including white black brown brindle races..poorly nourished mothers, dont produce healthy or intelligent kids
      neither do alcoholics(fetal alcohol syndrome proven) or drugfu*s sire healthy or smart kids, the added bonuses from all of those ..s/ is the high probability of ill health early as well as cancers and other serious disease risks making those kids lives a misery and shorter than they would have been with a decent start in life.
      the ghetto dwellers in chicago i see on clips who cant even speak english or string a coherent sentence are first world dwellers but remove the suburban backdrop n clothes and who could tell really?
      and NO i am not being “superior white priveledged” just brutally honest
      I chose not to have kids( in part) because i thought my familys gene pool wasn’t so great and it dropping out would be a good thing in general…and i was brainwashed at school by the green brigades who were Ehrlich devotees who scared a generation into thinking the world was in serious trouble..
      turns out my genetics arent bad(too late) but my sister who did have kids has one who will die before 40 of diabetes type 1, whos been ill since onset at 15, and her other sons kids are mentally not so functional.
      the Ehrlich influence on my life is WHY i now fight the same shit different day warmists so intensely.

  11. I doubt if 90% of those college “students” could even understand what he said.

    I’ll bet that metro beta zit has no clue that Peterson trashed he-she.

    That Cis-Trans-Ortho-Poly-+/- Spin (I’m reverting back to my Chemistry degree) non-Binary Undefined Gender Confused “Student” will soon seek a safe place when the sane people in the room laugh the next time they see this he-she sashaying across the campus lawn…….

Comments are closed.