Post by sandypine on May 12, 2024 8:44:33 GMT
wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/11/climate-change-an-appalling-scam-w-jordan-peterson/
How fossil fuels saved the planet
Transcript
I was going to say, this brings up a broader point because in the internet age, we are constantly being funneled information, but it feels like a mix of information and lies, and it’s hard to discern what’s true. So, I’m drinking this drink today, and it’s talking about how recent science shows that we’ve misunderstood sodium, you know. And maybe that’s true, but the point is, from little things to big things to religious things, when I’m online, I hear from different people who both look credentialed, both seem as passionate as the other, and they’re telling me something that’s conflicting.
Yeah, and I was listening to a fellow recently called John Eldridge, who’s an author, and he said that we’ve become disciples of the internet. In that, you know, we’re being tutored by the internet and not necessarily the content, but the means by which we use it, and it has led us to be weary, skeptical pragmatists. Do you get that? Because I meet people all the time who are so confident about political things, and I think, gosh, I wish I had your courage. I’d love to be that confident about things, but often, I don’t know how to be confident.
One of the things that happens when you start being exposed to a wide range of conflicting facts is you actually start to understand how unsettled, for example, even the basic science is in most situations. Like, most of what passes for the settled science is nothing of the sort. Okay, everywhere you look, if you’re a scientist, everywhere you look into any given question deeply, you run into conundrums and profound sources of disagreement, even about what’s hypothetically fundamental. I mean, the climate science is a good example of that; it’s an appalling scam.
Well, here’s the simplest way to look at it: we’re essentially in a carbon dioxide drought by historical standards. So if you look at the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last number of hundreds of millions of years, like a pretty whopping timeframe, we’re at a very low level. We dropped to about 350 parts per million by say, 1850 something like that. Plants start to die at 250, right? Because they need carbon dioxide. So, we were almost at the point where the plants were going to start to die. That’s how low the carbon dioxide levels are. Now, they have been increasing, why? Well, some of that’s probably man-made, you know, it’s not exactly settled, but we could give the devil his due and say some of that’s man-made. Okay, so now we’re up to something in the low 400s, and that’s been increasing, and perhaps because of industrial output.
So, what’s been the major consequence? The major consequence is that the planet is 20% greener than it was in the year 2000. 20%, this is NASA data. No one disputes this, by the way, the satellite imagery is absolutely clear. Okay, 20% greener, an area the size of the continental US has greened since the year 2000. So, the whole planet is 20% greener. That’s a big effect. Crop yield has gone up 13%, right? Okay, where’s the planet getting greener? Because you heard climate, global warming, the deserts are going to grow. Well, then it wasn’t global warming because that turned out to be a scam, then it was climate change. The deserts are going to grow, it’s like no, the deserts are shrinking. The deserts are shrinking because the planet is greening, because there’s more carbon dioxide. Okay, so why are the deserts shrinking? Well, because plants breathe, and they breathe through these pores called stomata, and when there isn’t much carbon dioxide, the stomata have to be open, and then the water evaporates. So if you increase the carbon dioxide, the stomata close, and that means plants don’t need as much water, so they can invade the semiarid areas around deserts, and that’s what’s happening.
So, I truly believe, I believe this to be the case. If you took a dispassionate look at the data, and you look at the effects of carbon dioxide, the biggest effect, clearly, clearly by likely an order of magnitude, is the greening effect. It’s like, well, is that good? Well, it’s the opposite of what was predicted, and the opposite was regarded as a catastrophe. Okay, so the opposite of a catastrophe is good. There’s more plants, and crops grow better. Okay, so what’s the problem exactly? Well, you could make the case that it’s still a very rapid rate of change, and any rapid rate of change has a destabilizing effect on let’s say a given ecosystem, and so that’s a fair objection.
But if you’re kind of fond of plants, 20% is a lot. Like, I’ve never heard anyone make a credible case against that particular perspective. So, I’ve talked to a lot of people now, a lot of very good scientists about climate change, and the last person I talked to was Patrick Moore, and he has been, he started Greenpeace and then he left it when it got corrupt. He’s outlined the data pertaining to the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over very long periods of time. What the climate apocalypse mongers do is they take a very small section of time, like an arbitrarily small section, and that’s a big problem because when you’re doing something like climate analysis, the timeframe matters. You can’t just pick the timeframe that’s suitable for your bloody hypothesis, that’s not reasonable. And so you can say, well, carbon dioxide has been increasing over the last 100 years. It’s like, okay, well, how about the last 500, how about the last thousand, 10,000, 100,000, 150,000, 2 million, 10 million? What’s your timeframe and why? Well, I picked the timeframe that’s convenient for my hypothesis. It’s like, no, you don’t get to do that. Like, you seriously don’t get to do that. And then if you combine that with the fact that we’re in a carbon dioxide drought, Patrick Moore actually believes that if we wouldn’t have started to burn fossil fuels, the plants would have started dying in about 500 years. So, he thinks that the fossil fuel revolution saved the planet.
How fossil fuels saved the planet
Transcript
I was going to say, this brings up a broader point because in the internet age, we are constantly being funneled information, but it feels like a mix of information and lies, and it’s hard to discern what’s true. So, I’m drinking this drink today, and it’s talking about how recent science shows that we’ve misunderstood sodium, you know. And maybe that’s true, but the point is, from little things to big things to religious things, when I’m online, I hear from different people who both look credentialed, both seem as passionate as the other, and they’re telling me something that’s conflicting.
Yeah, and I was listening to a fellow recently called John Eldridge, who’s an author, and he said that we’ve become disciples of the internet. In that, you know, we’re being tutored by the internet and not necessarily the content, but the means by which we use it, and it has led us to be weary, skeptical pragmatists. Do you get that? Because I meet people all the time who are so confident about political things, and I think, gosh, I wish I had your courage. I’d love to be that confident about things, but often, I don’t know how to be confident.
One of the things that happens when you start being exposed to a wide range of conflicting facts is you actually start to understand how unsettled, for example, even the basic science is in most situations. Like, most of what passes for the settled science is nothing of the sort. Okay, everywhere you look, if you’re a scientist, everywhere you look into any given question deeply, you run into conundrums and profound sources of disagreement, even about what’s hypothetically fundamental. I mean, the climate science is a good example of that; it’s an appalling scam.
Well, here’s the simplest way to look at it: we’re essentially in a carbon dioxide drought by historical standards. So if you look at the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last number of hundreds of millions of years, like a pretty whopping timeframe, we’re at a very low level. We dropped to about 350 parts per million by say, 1850 something like that. Plants start to die at 250, right? Because they need carbon dioxide. So, we were almost at the point where the plants were going to start to die. That’s how low the carbon dioxide levels are. Now, they have been increasing, why? Well, some of that’s probably man-made, you know, it’s not exactly settled, but we could give the devil his due and say some of that’s man-made. Okay, so now we’re up to something in the low 400s, and that’s been increasing, and perhaps because of industrial output.
So, what’s been the major consequence? The major consequence is that the planet is 20% greener than it was in the year 2000. 20%, this is NASA data. No one disputes this, by the way, the satellite imagery is absolutely clear. Okay, 20% greener, an area the size of the continental US has greened since the year 2000. So, the whole planet is 20% greener. That’s a big effect. Crop yield has gone up 13%, right? Okay, where’s the planet getting greener? Because you heard climate, global warming, the deserts are going to grow. Well, then it wasn’t global warming because that turned out to be a scam, then it was climate change. The deserts are going to grow, it’s like no, the deserts are shrinking. The deserts are shrinking because the planet is greening, because there’s more carbon dioxide. Okay, so why are the deserts shrinking? Well, because plants breathe, and they breathe through these pores called stomata, and when there isn’t much carbon dioxide, the stomata have to be open, and then the water evaporates. So if you increase the carbon dioxide, the stomata close, and that means plants don’t need as much water, so they can invade the semiarid areas around deserts, and that’s what’s happening.
So, I truly believe, I believe this to be the case. If you took a dispassionate look at the data, and you look at the effects of carbon dioxide, the biggest effect, clearly, clearly by likely an order of magnitude, is the greening effect. It’s like, well, is that good? Well, it’s the opposite of what was predicted, and the opposite was regarded as a catastrophe. Okay, so the opposite of a catastrophe is good. There’s more plants, and crops grow better. Okay, so what’s the problem exactly? Well, you could make the case that it’s still a very rapid rate of change, and any rapid rate of change has a destabilizing effect on let’s say a given ecosystem, and so that’s a fair objection.
But if you’re kind of fond of plants, 20% is a lot. Like, I’ve never heard anyone make a credible case against that particular perspective. So, I’ve talked to a lot of people now, a lot of very good scientists about climate change, and the last person I talked to was Patrick Moore, and he has been, he started Greenpeace and then he left it when it got corrupt. He’s outlined the data pertaining to the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over very long periods of time. What the climate apocalypse mongers do is they take a very small section of time, like an arbitrarily small section, and that’s a big problem because when you’re doing something like climate analysis, the timeframe matters. You can’t just pick the timeframe that’s suitable for your bloody hypothesis, that’s not reasonable. And so you can say, well, carbon dioxide has been increasing over the last 100 years. It’s like, okay, well, how about the last 500, how about the last thousand, 10,000, 100,000, 150,000, 2 million, 10 million? What’s your timeframe and why? Well, I picked the timeframe that’s convenient for my hypothesis. It’s like, no, you don’t get to do that. Like, you seriously don’t get to do that. And then if you combine that with the fact that we’re in a carbon dioxide drought, Patrick Moore actually believes that if we wouldn’t have started to burn fossil fuels, the plants would have started dying in about 500 years. So, he thinks that the fossil fuel revolution saved the planet.
