Jordan Peterson and Matt Fradd discuss global warming and climate change, and explore how more CO2 in the environment actually makes the planet greener, not drier.
Watch the full episode on LOCALS: https://mattfradd.locals.com/post/561…
🙏 Try Mass: https://mattfradd.locals.com/post/561…
Jordan Peterson and Matt Fradd discuss global warming and climate change, and explore how more CO2 in the environment actually makes the planet greener, not drier.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this video is intended as medical advice
🟣 Join us on Locals (before we got banned on YT): https://mattfradd.locals.com/
🖥️ Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/
🟢 Noisy: https://rumble.com/c/pintswithaquinas
👕 Goods: https://shop.pintswithaquinas.com
🔵Facebook: /mattfradd
📸Instagram:/mattfradd
Transcript
I was going to say, this gives a broader perspective because in the internet age, we’re constantly bombarded with information, but it’s like a combination of information and lies, and it’s hard to tell the difference. where is the truth. So today I’m having this drink, and it’s about how recent science shows how misunderstood we are about sodium, you know. And maybe that’s true, but the thing is, from small things to big things to religious things, when I’m online, I hear from different people, both of whom seem to have degrees , both seemed as passionate as the other and they were telling me something was conflicting.
Yes, and I heard someone recently named John Eldridge, an author, say that we have become disciples of the Internet. In that respect, you know, we’re being guided by the Internet and not necessarily the content but the medium in which we consume it, and it makes us jaded, cynical pragmatists. Have you received it yet? Because I always meet people who are very confident about political issues, and I think, God, I wish I had your courage. I really want to be confident about everything but often I don’t know how to be confident.
One of the things that happens when you start being exposed to a lot of conflicting facts is that you really start to understand how unstable even basic science is in most situations. Like, most of what is considered settled science does not fall into this category. Okay, everywhere you look, if you’re a scientist, everywhere you look deeply into any particular question, you’ll encounter conundrums and deep sources of disagreement. , even about what is considered basic. I mean, climate science is a good example of that; It’s a horrible 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 rate of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last hundred million years, like a pretty large time frame, we’re at very low levels. For example, we got down to about 350 parts per million, in 1850, something like that. Trees start dying at 250 years old, right? Because they need carbon dioxide. So we’re almost at the point where the trees start to die. That’s how low carbon dioxide levels are. Now, they have increased, why? Well, some of it is probably man-made, you know, it’s not exactly resolved, but we can avenge the devil and say some of it is man-made . Okay, now we’re getting to the low 400s, and that number is going up, and probably because of industrial output.
So what are the main consequences? The main consequence is that the planet is 20% greener than in 2000. 20%, this is NASA data. By the way, no one disputes this, satellite images are absolutely clear. Okay, 20% greener, an area the size of the continental United States has been greened since 2000. So the entire planet is 20% greener. That’s a big effect. Crop yields have increased by 13%, right? Okay, where is the planet getting greener? Because you’ve heard about climate, global warming, deserts will develop. Well, it wasn’t global warming because it turned out to be a scam, but climate change. Deserts will grow, it seems unlikely, deserts are shrinking. Deserts are shrinking because the planet is getting greener, because there is more carbon dioxide. Okay, so why is the desert shrinking? Because plants breathe, and they breathe through these holes called stomata, and when there’s not a lot of carbon dioxide, the stomata have to open, and then the water evaporates. So if you increase carbon dioxide, the stomata close, and that means plants don’t need as much water, so they can colonize semi-arid areas around deserts, and that’s what’s happening. happen.
So I really believe, I believe this is the case. If you look at the data objectively and look at the impact of carbon dioxide, the biggest impact, clearly, clearly by an order of magnitude, is the green effect. It’s like, is that good? Well, it was the opposite of what was predicted, and the opposite was considered a disaster. Okay, the opposite of disaster is good. There are more crops and the crops grow better. Okay, so what exactly is the problem? Well, you can show that it still has a very rapid rate of change, and any rapid rate of change has a destabilizing effect on a given ecosystem, and that’s a legitimate objection. physical.
But if you’re someone who likes plants, 20% is a lot. Like, I’ve never heard anyone make a credible argument against that particular view. So now I’ve talked to a lot of people, a lot of good scientists about climate change, and the last person I talked to was Patrick Moore, and he founded Greenpeace and then left it. when it happens. corruption. He outlined data regarding carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere over a very long period of time. What climate apocalypse people do is they take a very small amount of time, like an arbitrary fraction, and that’s a big deal because when you do something like climate analysis After all, the time frame is very important. You can’t just pick the timeframe that fits your damn hypothesis, that doesn’t make sense. And you could say, carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years. It’s like, okay, what about the last 500, what about the last 1000, 10,000, 100,000, 150,000, 2 million, 10 million? What is your time frame and why? Well, I chose a convenient time frame for my hypothesis. Like, no, you can’t do that. Like, you can’t really do that. And if you combine that with the fact that we’re in a carbon dioxide drought, Patrick Moore actually believes that if we don’t start burning fossil fuels, plants will start dying in about 500 years. . So he argues that the fossil fuel revolution saved the planet.
Related
