NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: I would agree, on this subject Peterson comes off half cocked. But the point about how to respond to global warming, given the reliability of models in predicting out future impacts is poor, is valid. also, actually getting countries, business, people to shift towards a solution is complex - especially given the political nonsense - and unlikely to occur, at least to rectify the more catastrophic predictions. Not that this should leave us to throw up our hands, and ask to pass the coal. A cleaner, less polluted world is a better world. A world that offers cheap, clean, efficient energy is a better world, especially for the global poor.
ps.,peterson is often mischaracterized by the media, often viewed as a rightwing nutjob.
I've obviously been in a bit of a bubble, as I had never heard of Jordan Peterson (and now done a cursory background read and only partly impressed).
Don't know about the rest of his writing, but based on this video alone, the guy immediately comes across as an up-his-own-arse intellectual, belittling the efforts of others to make himself look good.
He is factually incorrect on a number of counts, particularly where Germany is concerned. Germany did not shut down its nuclear power program to counter global warming as he implies but in response to domestic political pressure and the impact of Fukushima. Ergo the rise in CO2 production post-Nuklearausstieg had nothing to do with the Energiewende (shift to renewable energies) per se but is a direct consequence of Fukushima The Energiewende in Germany has been a remarkable success: Solar and wind have reached commercial grid parity (i.e. without subsidies) Many coal-fired plants have been shut down as a consequence (contrary to what peterson suggests) and new investment is certainly headed towards renewables More here if you can read German (or run it through Google translate) but basically, German CO2 production has fallen 31% 1990 to 2018 and by 6% in 2018 alone. Germany's energy mix over time
Worse, Peterson suggests that the goals of reducing CO2 emissions and pursuing programs at eradicating poverty and raising education levels are somehow mutually exclusive or at least, your money is better spent on the latter than the former. This is a strawman argument that can be blown apart by his own admission, that it would only take a paltry investment on a global scale to achieve the latter. The fact that eradicating poverty is money better spent therefore doesn't imply we should not pursue the former (reducing global warming) at the same time. He basically claims we should do nothing because an interconnected world is "incredibly complex".
Well, doh, so is calculating the trajectory of a ball in flight, but we still play sport. The guy is a dork, at least on this point.
Beware of frozen pathogens, like spores and viruses coming out. 'The plague', or anthrax among other things might show again, revived through mammals' mummies thawing, and live deer feeding around such locations... we're in for some surprises, as it seems.
With its relatively high property values, the U.S. topped the list of countries financially impacted by climate change, incurring $60 billion in damages. Much of that was caused by an unusually heavy Atlantic hurricane season. Altogether, the 30 named storms caused at least $41 billion in damages and displaced an estimated 200,000 people across the U.S., as well as Central America and the Caribbean.
November was close to 0.8° Celsius above the average temperature between 1981 to 2010, and 0.1°C above the previous warmest Novembers in 2016 and 2019, according to a monthly report by Europeâs Earth observation agency, Copernicus. Temperatures were most above average in Northern Europe, Siberia, and the Arctic.
