Jordan Peterson and climate change

What we have all come to expect and love/detest from our employees that ignore us
Post Reply
User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1129
Joined: Tue, 29 Mar 16, 03:55 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

#1 Jordan Peterson and climate change

Post by bernomatic »

For any who do not know him, Dr. Jordan B Peterson is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, a clinical psychologist, author and a public speaker who makes liberal, especially progressive liberals, heads figuratively explode by the use of logic, facts, knowledge and wisdom.

In this clip of a part of his talk at the Cambridge Union, he goes into why "Climate Change" isn't going to be solved. What is so unique about this discussion is that he doesn't deny climate change (nor does he come right out and accept it), he starts by using data to expound upon the basic flaws of the theory, then undermines the ability of man to really change anything, while ending with the best way to overcome the problem is to embrace things the climate change people are against (coal power energy). While he is not saying we should ignore climate change, he is a pragmatist who calls out the fear mongering on this topic which certain individuals use to gain power.

Chief Cook -n- bottle washer
User avatar
luke strawwalker
Space Admiral
Space Admiral
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu, 07 Apr 16, 04:45 am

#2 Re: Jordan Peterson and climate change

Post by luke strawwalker »

Probably the most "realist" point of view I've heard from an "academic". Absolutely spot-on.

He's right-- what are people REALLY going to do? His answer is right, too-- "nothing". Nothing of any real consequence... Oh, people protest and make lots of noise, say they want change and want to conserve, install all CFL lights and lobby the gubmint for the same, elect nutjobs that want to outlaw coal (when we already KNOW how to clean up coal power and can do it, it's just a matter of economics, plus, we have about 10,000 years of known coal reserves, versus oil reserves of about maybe 50 years...) They don't want nuclear, can't have that... despite the fact that we already know how to produce thorium reactors and breeder reactors that produce more fuel and energy than they consume to produce electricity... but because we're stuck with pressurized water reactor designs that originate in the 1950's, ie "first generation" reactor designs, when we've spent the last 50 years or so developing up to what, now, FIFTH or SIXTH generation reactors, but NONE have been adapted and built commercially, because of the anti-nuclear bias and of course, the "powers that be", IE, "THE SYSTEM", which so long as it is viable will continue to do what it has been doing, until *something* MUST change and FORCES that change to occur... (IOW, the existing power generation and petrochemical driven transportation and production systems will continue to operate "as-is" until lack of economically viable resources or gradual technological change, or unforeseen massive short-term changes, FORCE the change to occur (ie war, worldwide depression, etc). There's too much money invested and too much money to be made in the existing system.

While the noisemakers and protesters lobby for "change", the "system" is SO complex that the changes they demand have side-effects and unintended consequences that cause MORE problems than they solve, in many cases... As he said, the Germans tried "going green" with solar and wind and ended up producing more carbon dioxide than they did before. Same thing with a lot of this "green" stuff that they are foisting on everyone... Reduce electricity use via CFL bulbs and outlawing incandescent bulbs... more pollution due to more complicated production of CFL's, more mining, and more pollution from heavy metals (mercury) from the spent bulbs. Same thing with electric cars-- more pollution created to produce the batteries for an electric car than a regular car will produce during its normal service life... nevermind the pollution problem of having to dispose of the electric cars toxic batteries afterwards... There's a LOT of this sort of nonsense, but MOST people are completely incapable of understanding it. They picket and protest for whatever latest fad comes down the pike, or protest pipelines or other infrastructure, while enjoying their hot mochachino lattes produced from materials transported from around the world, riding to the protests in warm gasoline powered vehicles (or electric vehicles made from tons of heavy metals mined and processed that produced tons of pollution to create) and go home to their bright electrically-lit and heated homes and look for themselves on reports on their electricity-gobbling big screen TV's...

Human history has developed the way it has because of an incalculable number of REASONS that drove innovation and change. NOBODY set out to hunt whales to extinction, but they wanted clean-burning oil for bright (relatively speaking) oil-fired lamps for their homes before electricity was invented. The expansion of the population and increasing wealth drove increased demand, which drove up prices as supply fell with less whales, driving innovators to come up with drilled petroleum oil, which was then refined into a suitable replacement, kerosene. Whale oil for lighting fell by the wayside as cheap, readily available kerosene took its place. Gasoline, at that time, was a dangerous by-product of kerosene distillation, and was usually burned or flared to get rid of it. Nobody set out to bury New York City under 8 feet of horse manure, but as the city grew, that's what forward-thinking analysts were projecting 20 years in the future, in the late 1800's. The automobile changed all that, eliminating the need for all those horses and using that dangerous by-product of kerosene production as fuel. Electricity came on the scene and did away with the need for massive amounts of kerosene for lighting, and gas-light street lights. Nobody set out to create tons of pollution and ruin the environment... new materials and technologies came about because of the growth of humankind and depletion of existing resources. Nobody WANTED to go into the damp, dank mines to mine coal in England in the early 1800's, but they didn't want to freeze to death for lack of heat in the winter, either, and there were too many people for EVERYBODY to be able to cut enough wood to burn through the winter. The need to mine coal for heat, and to deal with pumping water out of mines, led to innovations like the Watt steam engine, which led to improvements in transportation via the railroads and steam ships fired by coal, and the industrial revolution that sprang out of that. Nobody was upset when Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin that could separate a pound of cotton from its seeds in a minute, versus the 8 hours of intense hand labor required to perform that feat before it... He didn't intend to drive the part of the industrial revolution and cotton boom that were side-effects of that invention, either, nor the sociological and economic changes that reinvigorated the plantation slavery system that led, in part, to the US Civil War, but it happened. Alfred Nobel didn't invent trinitrotoluene with the intention of killing millions of people in modern war, but that's what happened.

History is all about unintended consequences... right now I'm watching "The Great War" with Indy Neidell on YouTube... it's an abject lesson in "unintended consequences". SO will it be with the current state of the world, and whatever changes that happen next... good things will come of it, and bad things. It's just how the world works. No matter WHAT we do, some good things will happen, and some bad things will happen... there is no "magic bullet" to solve these problems, because every possible solution is FRAUGHT with good and bad and UNINTENDED consequences...

Later! OL J R :)
Post Reply