Professor Jordan Peterson on climate change and climate policy at the Cambridge Union

Professor Jordan Peterson on climate change and climate policy at the Cambridge Union


drought flooding and ocean acidification unanticipated for 65 million years all result from climate change according to over 700 of your fellow scientists so I was wondering whether you thought climate change could be an issue that could unite us all or left and right moving us beyond debates about c16 to discussions at the UN Katowice next month where perhaps humanity might finally discover its global map of meaning No I mean those there’s a couple of reasons I mean the first reason is is that I spent a lot of time reading I worked for UN Committee for two years on sustainable economic and ecological development and read a very large amount during that period of time and learned a lot much of which made me much more optimistic than I have been before I read the relevant literature which was a real shock to me but the climate change issue is an absolutely catastrophic nightmarish mess and the idea that that will unite us is that’s that’s that’s not going to unite us I mean first of all it’s very difficult to separate the science from the politics and second even if the claims the more radical claims are true we have no idea what to do about it and so no and besides it’s even worse than that here’s though here’s one of the worst things about the whole masses so as you project outwards with regards to your climate change projections which are quite unreliable to begin with and the unreliability of the measurement magnifies as you move forward in time obviously because the errors accumulate and so if you go out 50 years the error bars around the projections are already so so wide that we won’t be able to measure the positive or negative effects of anything we do right now so how in the world are you going to solve a problem when you can’t even measure the consequence of your actions like how is that even possible and and besides that well what’s the solution what are we gonna do switch to wind and solar well good luck with that just try it and see what happens we can’t store the power Germany tried it they produce more carbon dioxide than they did when they started because they had to turn on their coal-fired plants again that wasn’t a very good plan well we don’t want nuclear it’s like okay what happens at night huh the Sun Goes Down well isn’t that something we shouldn’t have taken it that we should have taken into account are we gonna flip on the coal-fired plants well so it was a complete catastrophe and all that happened was the price of electricity shot up there’s like zero utility that’s that’s not a solution so what are we gonna do about it well we should cut back we can’t consume as much as we should as we as we are all consuming it’s like well maybe except the data that I’ve read indicate that if you can get the GDP of people up to about five thousand dollars a year then they start caring about the and the environment cleans up so you could make a perfectly strong case I think and a reasonable one perhaps even a humane one that the actual idea would be to get everybody in the world who’s poor desperately so out of poverty as fast as possible which would increase consumption in the short term because then they’d start to care about the environment and things would clean up it’s like okay well what are we gonna do about global warming well good luck figuring that out I don’t see a solution on the horizon I look at Bjorn long Berg’s work I really like Bjorn long Berg I think he’s a real genius you can look them up if you want he took the UN millennial goals there’s 200 of them that’s way too many goals if you’re serious about goals by the way because 200 goals isn’t a plan it’s a wish list you have to prioritize I’m serious you have to prioritize but they won’t prioritize because each of the goals has its constituents and if you prioritize then you irritate the constituents and but if you don’t prioritize then you can’t implement the plan so what Lumbergh did was gather a team of teams of economists multiple teams some of whom were Nobel prize-winning economists he had them assemble teams he had them rank order development goals in terms of the return on investment all of the teams then he averaged across the teams and came up with a final list and an addressing global warming wasn’t even on the list the most fundamental he wrote a book called how to spend seventy five billion dollars to make the world a better place and that’s not very much money on a global scale almost everything that he recommended had to do with increased child nutrition in developing in developing countries it’s like these things are complicated man these are complicated it’s like well let’s fix global warming it’s like okay well good luck with that first of all how are you going to do that and to think that will unite us but certainly not uniting us so far so no and it’s just it’s just it’s the kind of low resolution thinking that just gets us absolutely nowhere I like what Lumbergh did way better I think it’s way more intelligent so you know maybe if you if you increase child nutrition enough and you produce another I don’t know 10 million geniuses as a consequence of that and maybe one mo figure out what to do about global warming well I’m serious about that you know it’s not a bad thing to increase the total some of human brain power you know and so we pretreat these things so lightly well let’s fix the planet well we’re going to concentrate on global warming well why global warming well cuz everyone thinks that’s the biggest catastrophe well maybe it is but if you don’t have a solution well then what about all those other problems what are you gonna do about them well we’ll ignore them because we can feel good about you know being concerned about global warming it’s like I don’t I don’t you know one of the reasons there’s more trees in the northern hemisphere than there were a hundred years ago no one knows that but it’s true and by a substantial margin you know why in part because people burned coal instead of wood it’s like everyone says well we shouldn’t burn coal it’s like ok fair enough what do you want to do burn trees instead because that’s what poor people would have done it’s like coal isn’t good well it’s better than burning wood so these things are complicated so they’re unbelievably complicated and so no it’s not going to unite us and we’re not gonna do a damn thing about it either so it doesn’t really matter so well what are we gonna do you’re gonna stop like having heat you gonna stop having electricity you’re gonna stop driving your cars you’re gonna stop taking trains it’s like you’re not gonna stop using your iPhones you’re not going to do any of that and no wonder so so no thank you for thank you for that

100 thoughts on “Professor Jordan Peterson on climate change and climate policy at the Cambridge Union

  1. Anyone going to say anything about Geo engineering? Almost a daily occurrence of Chem trails in northern California pre-winds

  2. Although Peterson’s intelligence is very clear, it is unfortunate that high intelligence often comes with pessimism such as his with what he said. I’m glad he doesn’t dictate policy

  3. Thank you prof. Jordan for injecting Reality into the debate on unicorns and rainbows. Its long overdue. That was an epic bitch-slap…well done sir!

  4. Thank you prof. Jordan for injecting Reality into the debate on unicorns and rainbows. Its long overdue. That was an epic bitch-slap…well done sir!

  5. Peterson lives in Canada. They don't seem to have big forest fires there. They don't have hurricanes or tornados or much flooding. He isn't experiencing 113 degree summers as I have. Thus he can go the cynical negative route. The "no."

  6. They will not stop driving cars, unless they are rendered illegal, give them bicycles, you could start by making cars that only go 50Mph, that run on less than a litre of gas…could make a difference, could start making products last forever like we used to…legislation could be conceived, but why do it? over 99% of species are gone, so will we 🙂 the worst parasite that ever existed…no one will miss us…no one cares about us, we don't…

  7. His argument about projections is a straw man . We don't need to look at projections to know how the 1-2 degree Celcius increase since the mid 20th century (spiking around the 80s) has adversely affected ecosystems around the world. And I sincerely doubt western democracies could give less of a shit about helping 3rd world countries industrialize. I would sooner hedge my bets with our own technological innovation and green industries, and hope that our beneficial discoveries will proliferate to developing nations.

    These talking points all boil down to: The stars haven't aligned, so we should do nothing , make no effort, assume zero responsibility and IF we must act, we should pursue a completely different course of action. This is completely opposite to the arguments in his own damn book.

    I like Jordan Peterson's work, but the i-can-talk-really-fast-and-finish-all-of-my-arguments-without-taking-a-single-breath is uncharacteristic of him, and is really just a speaking tactic to convince stupid people of weak arguments, and muddy the waters around legit concerns. He's usually better than this.

  8. So to sum up Professor Peterson's long rant…. solving climate change is impossible because we can't solve humanity and human nature. We are going to get in the way of saving ourselves.

  9. Why just not to plant trees? This is the most efficient way to decrease co2 and
    More over converting it in o2, no other tecnology can do this, they only reduce the creation of co2 but don't annihilate it

  10. I presume he figures that when sea levels rise lobsters will thrive. His shallowness in argumentation really comes through very clearly. Talk about "low resolution thinking".

  11. yeah sure. i drive a 100% battery electric vehicle (tesla model 3) and i get 100% wind power from my utility provider (arcadian) and my average utility bill for the year is a whopping $120/month and that includes hvac/electricity/"fueling" up my car. Before I got my BEV I was spending more than that on gasoline alone. I still have a carbon footprint as a consumer of goods and concrete roads etc, but the majority of my carbon footprint is gone, and it cost me less money.

  12. Nuclear energy is the most realistic alternative to fossil fuels. Uneducated people though just hear the word "NUCLEAR" and immediately think they're atomic bomb factories or something and dismiss their energy output potential.

  13. The one thing that could have reduced carbon output for the past few decades, nuclear power, was stopped by leftists protesting it.

  14. Ahh Jordan Peterson the drug addled tool shares his quack philosophy explaining why we should listen to him over actual scientists.

  15. If solar and wind power is fed into a grid doesn't that reduce the amount coal that needs to be burnt, quite regardless of whether it is night or a still day.

  16. Christians should take Genisis more serious
    DO NOT KILL, be a fruitarian!!! Respect creation. Respect life on Earth!!!

  17. Shouldn't we try still? Despite everything Dr Peterson has said about the complexity of the issue and how grim the reality of the climate situation is, I still think that we have to try. We have to make an effort to save the world. Climate change is quickly becoming the planet's most existential threat. Simply saying "NO!" like Peterson did isn't taking any meaningful action.

  18. ANY WORDS ABOUT CHEMTRAILS, HAARP, OR THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH????ITs FLAT 100% ZERO CURVATURE….CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX…THEY CONTROL THE WEATHER SINCE WW2…

  19. Maybe we should get on with our lives and throw the political global warming gurus out the window! CO2 is good for the ecology, at least the plants and tree think so. There would be no such thing as global warming if it wasn't for the elite wanting to control we little sheep to our deaths and believe me they do, fluoridated water, poison GMO food, abortions, chemical trail criss crossing every inch of the skies globally, geoengineering tornado's and earthquakes, harmful vaccines, 5G technology to radiate us 100 times more than 4G technology, killing us with pharmaceuticals (definition of pharmacy in the Greek; witchcraft) and you wonder why there are no cures for anything, and last but not least attaching the time bombs on our homes called Smart Meters. If we had just 10% of the population waking up and smelling the coffee we might have a chance for survival. But then again the boys behind the doors would just poison our coffee!

  20. peterson should stick to psychology.. how is he qualified to speak about politics and science in general ? hes being put forward as another mesiah figure simply because of his image.

  21. To increase overall brain ower globally we need more videos like this involving critical analysis, far less crap on social media, proper journalism and reading more well-written books + peer-review scientific journal articles. 👍

  22. Eventually it's just a psychologist who worth being listened to when talking about psychology…talking about physics, which he apparently doesn't really understand.

    A natural scientists thinking would be: if climate change will destroy civilization, it's the only problem worth solving, because without solving it, solutions for all other problems will go down the drain anyway.
    A psychologists thinking is shaped by the object of his profession, the human mind and when considering a persons psychological problems, you always start with a small problem and move to the bigger one later.

    i very much like the example with the UN development goals being assessed by economists.
    Economy is about the markets and hasn't the market done a wonderful job of protecting common goods, e.g. the environment?
    Or non-marketable goods, like social stability?
    Oh, wait….

  23. Am I the only one shaking my head and thinking what an idiot? What kind of reasoning is "it's so complicated so I'm just going to endorse inaction and negatively"? Climate change is already uniting millions of people all around the world and the solution is painfully simple- reduce CO2 emissions. No amount of arrogant, academic dithering is going to help us achieve that.

  24. CO2 truths, by a geologist for a change (14,500 viewings in 6 months) …

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332245803_27_bullet_points_prove_global_warming_by_the_sun_not_CO2_by_a_GEOLOGIST_for_a_change

  25. Most people don't got the time to map the complexity of a branched network of consequences a global decision creates.
    As Jordan said, the climatechange issue is a "total-catastrophic-nightmareish-mess".

    Some politicians try to solve a problem that we do not understand with scarce tools and hidden consequences of the act. Its like buy a pig in a poke.

  26. Well, there is only one solution: kill as much people as you can and keep a small amount left and they will obey to THE NEW WORLD ORDER. That is the plan and it will be executed very soon…
    I wonder if he dares to speak that out, because he knows about it. He is going to be depressed…because he knows what is going to come..

  27. Didn't the false data about climate change come from Cambridge University? If you think CO2 is the problem then watch this,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zrejG-WI3U&t=7s

  28. GWPF claims that 'Professor Jordan Peterson explains why the world won't unite to solve the complex issue of climate change.' GWPF is full of crap and so is Peterson. 180+ countries signed the Paris Accord to fight climate change. Also climate change is a science issue, so why would anyone invite JP to speak on science? He is no scientist. His escapades into science, politics, and philosophy are an embarrassment to the field of psychology.

  29. Greta is not my  PROUDEST fap, I mean, the tears made it better, the whining not so much, stealing dreams was just a bonus, but I can say, without a doubt, Jordan Peterson IS my proudest fap after that answer.  LOL 😀

  30. Greta getta grip! Prof. Jordan Peterson is correct. In a Regulated, ever improving World, there is no catastrophe! We will never get to the Jetsons by restricting our advance to only the use of Incapable, Costly GREEN!

  31. The assertion that we have more trees now than in the past is true. However, someone well-versed in environmental science would realize that this comes at a cost to biodiversity. A human planted forest is not the same as a natural and mature forest. The destruction of the habitat of wild animals driven by the human need for cheap beef will bring with it incredible and irreversible consequences.
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/

  32. Climate change is a hoax!! Man created free energy years ago but it is being suppressed from the elites,zionists!!the whole world is a stage

  33. This man is as honest as you can be! Best answer I have heard so far about climate change. Just the truth, nothing else.

  34. "The actual science says it isn't enough of a big deal to enact any expensive sweeping changes."
    left: HERETIC!
    globalists: but how else can we enact draconian laws that deprive people of national sovereignty? I know we'll find an autistic 16 year old.

  35. Sadly this is the first JP interview that has truly dissapointed. Whilst I agree with his answer that the road to global co-operation around climate change will be a difficult one, I do not agree with his reasoning which entirely avoids the psychological factors (his area of expertise). He also entirely misses the point that even should a wide margin for error exist within some of the prediction models, the impact of the bad to worse case scenarios would be catastrophic. It's like wearing a seatbelt whilst driving, most of the time you're not going to need your seatbelt but the argument for that time when you do need your seatbelt is still very strong. Climate change, we all know it is happening. The combination of incomplete global data combined with new models and impacts still being researched and developed leaves a large area of uncertainty in the "when" aspect of this timeline. That it will happen, can no longer be denied. And that should be enough. If we were a more moral species, well then a bio-diversity argument might also be enough. If we were a more humane society, perhaps then global social pressure for family planning would be enough. If we were a more ethical global economy then Triple Bottom Line thinking might be our accounting standard. But collectively we're none of those things. At least not yet. What it might take to shift the psychology of our global collective society towards these things would be something I'd like to hear JP speak on. Thus far religion, massive inequality and political attempts at ideology have failed to do so. Perhaps the answer to those questions will be more than simply a "No". We can do better.

  36. Well we fixed the hole in the ozonlayer. We can decrease Co2 but we need to be creative about it. Doing nothing is no option. We need to try. Answer: NO. haha Well I say YES. Better try failing then not even try. There are some good devolpments and some set backs. But this is true all down history.

  37. THE AUDIENCE LOOKED LIKE THEY’VE JUST REALIZED THEIR ACTIVIST PROFESSORS AND MEDIA HAVE BEEN PROPAGANDIZING THEM… DOH!

  38. Brilliant minds are taking over things that were meant to distract us and I love it!

    We would have never ever heard of such views from mainstream but we are thankful to the internet and youtube

  39. Bravo, splendid show, what!? .. Why are people getting confused about warmer vs colder climates, like it's a reflection of political left and right parties? The climate is swinging ever more erratically from hot to freezing everywhere around the globe, like every living body does in a fever, while learning to identify and rid itself of the exact thing that threatens it!

    Personal observation and receptivity is key to knowing.

  40. CO2 is plant food Lol … If a plant's leaves and veins are coated with all forms of pollution, or/and hindered by lack of other forms of nutrition due to all kinds of other environmental conditions, then how can it breath efficiently at all??! An argument in deed. Though, for instance, people who aren't fully experienced gardeners, should never talk plants

  41. Yeah, Jordan got his head on straight, he fully understands that people are hypocrites, those left wind radicals and environmentalists are just getting rich off the whole hype of global warming, no one is willing to give up anything

  42. So he is a climate scientist. No
    Any science degree. No
    Geography… eh no
    Ah so you are a fisherman, farmer, even backyard gardener? No
    You like saying no and people think you are smart because you say no? No..yes

  43. Climate change will unite us!
    How?
    Well, because it's your fault you're going to stop doing all the things you enjoy, be less productive, give me your wealth and let my country catch up with you because it's your fault that my country actually pollutes more than you. So give me everything you have as your punishment for me being worse than you and in hopes that I'll do better. And if you don't then I'll invade you with mass migration and destroy your culture…but I'll probably do that anyway.

  44. Did he just suggest that the way to fix global warming is to give food aid to the 3rd world so they'll produce more and maybe produce a genius? lmfao wut?

  45. i came to the same conclusion as Peterson, years ago (also); global warming wasn't just a catastrophe, but difficult, if not impossible to solve…they didn't even define the problem. the problem really is pollution, and human over population.
    but, they don't know all of the available technology, like a well informed engineer does.
    i didn't give into pessimism that way.
    the way forward is geothermal energy extraction via advances in material sciences and processes.
    building up of the hydrogen-highway, and helium harvesting via 30+ km high towers – think blimps that stay aloft i.e. Sky Captain. art-deco.
    the pollution / garbage has to be shipped to Antarctica. very large ships with double hulls.
    nuclear weapons have to be banned – nations that sign on, must be willing to commit military might to fight nuclear weapons manufacturers – there must be a real United Nations…
    Islam has to be removed – it is the most toxic political ideology created by mankind, without exception; the purpose of Islam is simply Jihad.
    Russia and China need to convert to quasi-democracies (voting based on the amount of tax you pay: y = square root of x)…not full democracies. e.g. look how they impeach Trump for making a phone call, that is described as 'quid pro quo'…when, it was an investigation into 'quid pro quo (Biden & son).

  46. 2:49 Also works for piracy, if you improve the lives of your citzens they will start to acquire media through legal means.

  47. what a joker…
    sure. we can multitask on many issues. not a problem.
    there are 7.5 billion people in the world. put them to work.
    only 200 issues ?
    ——
    Peterson should explain why the USA, Canada, Russia generate 16 tons of CO2 per person per year.
    many European nations generate 9 tons per person.
    China 8 tons. ( a lot of coal, but a lot of renewable too)
    Spain, UK, Denmark, Italy down to 6 tons.
    World average is 4 tons per person.
    Everyone needs to get down to less than one ton person quickly.
    —–
    it seems that nations are finding ways to reduce CO2 emissions.
    how come it is working in Spain but not the USA. different technology in Spain ?
    it seems that the more advanced the economy, the dirtier is becomes CO2-wise.
    no hope in more development making the world cleaner.
    —–
    So why are USA, Canada, and Russia "leaders" in CO2 emissions ?
    because they are also leaders in fossil fuel production. pretty simply. why rock the boat.
    —–
    In the USA, corporate america has an outsized influence in politics.
    most corporations have looked at climate change and determined that it will be profitable.
    climate damage will cause floods, droughts, wildfires, heavy rains, cat 5 hurricanes, changing shorelines, etc.
    a lot of damage that will need to be fixed.
    new drywall from Lowes, new appliances from Walmart, new furniture, new cars, new everything, etc.
    it's a gift that keeps on giving… don't stop it.
    who pays ?
    the consumer, taxpayer, and the insurance premium payers.
    —–
    any questions ?
    yeah… I am old and wise and a bit jaded. 🙂

  48. His point doesn‘t make sense. Lifting the GDP won‘t do anything. That is not how capitalism works, look at countries like the US and Germany, they have a very high GDP and they are responsible for a lot of the pollution and emissions.

  49. how do we know its all a scam? easy…The world largest producer of global warming is the US Military and its 700 bases around the world…the entire military industrial complex uses so much energy produces so much waste and destroys so many natural resources…yet no one says anything about it…..ask greta how much fossil fuel goes into the logistic to operate all the US military trucks tanks planes helicopters jeeps by products of manufacturing nuclear fuel…? people dont realize all nuclear power plants vent radiation…they have too and its goes out into the air you breath……

  50. Facts backed up with common sense in my opinion is always welcomed,let's not beat about the bush most of these so called scholars need to wake up.Jordan Peterson makes some great points,hopefully a few might sink in…But I doubt it.

  51. Peterson is a liar.
    A self promoting click bait promulagtor.
    And this speech is full of it.
    Hes a psychologist!
    He knows how to manipulate minds and he does it to sell books.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *