The irony of KZfaq having a UN caption fact-checking this guy is hilarious.

I'm an engineer and definitely understand the Coriolis effect and vector math, etc. I think if you really want to simplify it down to the average person, you just need to say "The climate is more complex than they're making it out to be and Earth isn't magically going to turn into Venus."

"I prefer questions I cannot answer to answers I cannot question." - Dr. Phil What I have always found interesting as a guy who's been here a while; they took a cycle and started with readings at its lowest point and charted the normal upward temps trend of the cycle to scare us about global warming. The fun part and kicker is that these same people used the first part of that same cycle, as the temps were declining, to tell us we were starting a new ice age. When I was a child I was told a European folklore story about Chicken Little (also called Henny Penny in Europe) who thought the sky was falling. As a child I thought that was just a fairy tale, a fabrication, and yet here we are.

I asked in a poll on one of channels what the percentage of CO2 was in the earths atmosphere and by a landslide people thought it was 4%. If the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was 4%, we’d be in dire straits right now. Not many people, probably 3% or so got the right answer of 0.04% CO2. Trouble is not many people have the wherewithal to find out for themselves and follow like sheep. Let’s not forget that in the 70’s we were all going have frozen to death under miles ice by around this time in the 2020’s.

Really impressed how Jordan wrote down his question for later instead of interrupting. Take notes other debaters and listeners.

I saw Richard speak at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. He was measured, thoughtful, extremely rational, and realistic about what he, and we, know and understand about climate and what we do not. By contrast, many of those in the audience were students in the climate policy program at IIT. They were shrill, accusatory, dismissive and completely closed minded. I realized then that these young people have committed their lives and their parent's treasure to a very specific view of reality - and ANYTHING or anyone that questioned the veracity of that view was an enemy and a threat to them. This is not science.

I graduated from the University of Oklahoma, Norman, School of Meteorology, and I understand every word you said and you have done your homework!!! Weather changes every day. Climates stay about the same due to the earth and it rotation.

The only greenhouse gas that keeps the heat from the sun, thus keeping us at a livable temp around the clock, is water vapor. CO2 is plant food. Very important plant food. The more we have, the greener the planet gets. There's a reason greenhouses add it to their growing operations. Our food system depends on it.

I appreciate Jordan touching these taboo subjects. Rarely do you see two intellectuals talking about a complex subject where one person is honestly seeking to understand.

It’s funny his stating to pepper it with errors. It’s true, that works. I was a graphic artist in the Marine Corps. We created computer aided slides for military and governmental agencies’ presentations and schools. Whenever we did illustrations, however, we learned, no matter what, they would make changes. The changes often required a total redo. So, we built in distracting elements that could be easily deleted. For example, we’d give a person in the drawing, hairy hands. The jobs requester would say I love it, but can we get rid of the hairy hands (or whatever the intentionally distracting element was). It worked like a charm.

Indeed! As a past student of geology, this is spot-on, all else is financial scammimg and the subjugation of humanity! 😡GB

As a Mortarman from the ARMY (smart infantry) we have to use the coreolis effect because of the propulsion aspect of our mortars with such long hang-time. Even smart people are clueless when i start to explain to them what dynamics if the coreolis effect is.

I think the worring thing is that the general public are "educated" on a daily basis by tv presenters and pseudo intellectuals with very simplistic and errornus understanding of the climate system. It is refreshing to hear someone speak on the subject who has a deeper knowledge of how the earths weather systems actually work.

What would we do without Jordan's positive voice in the world?! So grateful for this man!

Congratulations on the "Context" box from the purveyors of pure truth.

I would like to see a complete list of who owns all the green stocks & any companies involved in climate change. That would explain a lot.

I think he actually said "If you tell a big enough lie, long enough the PEOPLE will take it as the truth". It will not BE truth, but the people who want to believe something will accept a big lie more easily than a small one.

Thank you Jordan for finding a way to not interrupt when you had something to say.

So tired of the lies and fear agenda! It's refreshing to hear this perspective.

From 1824 to 1827 French mathematician and scientist Prof. Josef Fourier for the first time calculated the energy balance of the entire planet Earth and the result was that the Earth according to the calculation should be an ice planet with an AVERAGE temperature of minus 18 Deg. Centigrade. Due to perception, he noticed that the planet is obviously 32 degrees warmer than it should according to the energy balance. That effect was called the greenhouse effect. If Dr, Lindzen now suggests, that the current explanation of almost all scientists for global warming is wrong, it is insufficient to raise doubts about that view of science. Dr. Lindzen should also develop a satisfactory alternative explanation to explain the warming effect of 32 degrees. Only seeding doubt without giving any reason doesn't make any sense and is not helpful at all. The Coriolis force was discovered by French mathematician and scientist Marquis Pierre-Simon de Laplace in 1775 and is one of three physical inertia forces acknowledged by all scientists. But mentioning the Coriolis force in a statement doesn't make the statement more trustworthy.

I have been working in agriculture and habitat restoration for 20 years and I can tell you there is not even a reliable correlation between temperature changes of 1-5 degrees and loss of biodiversity. The so called "mass extinction" that is occurring now is by all evidence just a continuation of the ending of our current ice-age, which we are still on the tail end of. Had there been an astute observer with access to the data we have today living 500 years ago, they would have said "Oh that took longer than expected" rather than expressing alarm. The small impact humans are having on the overall climate cycle on the planet is well within the bounds of fluctuations which have been occurring for ~50,000 years. We are likely to see accelerated changes in weather patterns and dramatic changes in ocean currents over the coming 100-200 years however mostly due to the change in earths magnetic field which has just begun to accelerate and increased output from our sun. The most likely result is a wetter, warmer earth with extremely elevated plant growth. Assuming we don't poison ourselves or nuke ourselves to death, it will be a time of great abundance. The single largest contributor to direct harm to biodiversity and agriculture I see from human forces in examples from Ethiopia to New York is human chemical use. Pesticides, Herbicides, and chemicals used in industry, including solar panels and battery systems. Most of these chemicals are also totally optional and the benefits to crop yields shown by the use of industrial pesticides is also bad science, almost exclusively conducted by the industry itself. Forget carbon - carbon is life. Focus on the actual toxic chemicals we freely pump into the planet and ourselves.

It's honestly sad seeing this subject matter considered taboo by the mainstream media. And what I love about Dr. Jordan Peterson is how he actually seeks out the truth whenever possible, especially when he knows deep down that there's something missing about what he currently understands about reality.

At the poles. If its -60 degrees now, and you increase temps by one degree.... Its still -59 degrees and NOTHING MELTS. You gotta hit +33 degrees. People need perspective.

Lindzen, as a contrarian, also claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. Peterson was prescribed Clonazepam to treat anxiety disorders. He believed he was hooked on it and moved to Russia for medically induced coma treatments.

I really enjoy listening to Dr. Lindzen. Please have him back again. Thanks to the crazy greenies we have to become educated on climate!

The "deep water horizon" oil spill perturbed the system of the Gulf of Mexico. It was predicted that the GoM system was supposed to be ruined for decades. Wrong, the system dealt with the problem for more effectively than man could imagine or understand. We also learned that the oil is really just an organic product of earth.

So: 1. Questions the validity of the CO2/H2O greenhouse effect claim 2. Claims that this is true at the tropics (no data to support) 3. Claims that this is false outside the tropics (no data to support) 4. Claims that the Coriolis Effect dictates the temperature changes, namely hydrodynamics (no data to support)

All of this is fantastic, but he never explains how come that the rate at which the temperature is increasing nowadays is so rapid that has been never observed before in the history of earth.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste" if there's money to be made. If not, create one.

I don't know what to believe unless I see it with my own eyes. At my old job, I had receipts from that year and the prior. The physical records indicated that the current year was exceeding the prior by around 300%, meaning that my leadership was 3x more profitable for the company than the guy they had the prior year. My CEO, who didn't like me, said in our year in review meeting that there was no change in shipping, and yet I had the paperwork indicating that this was a lie. After my exit, the CEO gave a speech at the last year in review meeting that my year was the record year for the entire company's history. You can't trust anyone when money is at stake.

We can acknowledge that climate change is a very complicated issue and that it is also occurring very rapidly at the moment (in geographical historical scale). Notwithstanding the extreme complexity and lack of fine-tuned understanding, the available current observational data and rapid change in these measurable variables is frightening.

Hey climate crazies, what is the percentage of CO2 that makes-up the Earth's atmosphere? I'll give you a hint, its less than 1.00 percent. I'll give you another hint, it's less than 0.5 percent. I'll given you another hint, it's less than 0.09 percent. The correct answer is 0.04 percent.

Thanks for posting this. People are so quick to shame others when they don't agree with the current belief. From the late 50's to the early 80's almost all of the climate experts were predicting an ice age within the decade. You couldn't debate that either.

Fantastic to see Dr. Lindzen after about 15 years for me. He was in a 2007 documentary that debunked Al Gore's lies.

Smart people understand that this has become a political problem. One side of the spectrum believes A, the other side believes B. Who is correct? I would rely mostly on scientist educated in the field, not on anyone else.

I don't see the connection between the Coriolis effect 'breaking' the climate narrative. He spends half of the time talking about the Coriolis effect. Then at around 6:26 he says there is no basis for polar amplification of the greenhouse effect. But that is what we are seeing. We ARE seeing polar amplification especially in the Arctic regions. The physical reasons are due to feedbacks caused by decreasing ice and snow cover being replaced by the darker ocean which causes more warming becaue less sunlight is being reflect off the darker surface. As warm moist air is transported to the Arctic from the mid-latitudes, cloud cover increases as moist air condences, releasing more heat. The cloud cover causes a decrease in outgoing radiation reflecting more heat back towards the earth. With respect to the mere 1.5 degree warming, that is an average over the whole earth, most of which is covered by ocean. Land temperatures are much higher than over the oceans because the oceans have a higher thermal inertia. Just a few days ago Thailand (which is in the tropics) recorded temperatures above 52 degrees resulting in 61 heat-related deaths. 1.5 degrees is a global average. Actual local temperatures on land at a specific time and place vary by much more than that. 2023 was the hottest year globally averaged since over 100,000 years ago. Modern agriculture has only existed over the past 10,000 years when temperatures have been quite stable. Our food systems are set up for the current climate.

I remember back when i was in school all the talk was of the coming ice age. THEIR study done in the sixties at iron mountain in the usa called the iron mountain study, says that one of the things to keep populations in check is to have climate fears. And constant war was another.

Climate Science always looks for positive feedback mechanisms while ignoring negative feedback mechanisms. This leads to a world view of an inherently super unstable ready-to-collapse climate. But we have an embarrassing data point. We exist. If climate was so inherently unstable we wouldn't exist.

I dont think any of the actual climate scientists do not believe in uncertainty with their models. The thoughts around what to do about climate change includes both the hypothesis about what is happening and a risk assessment of what should be done based on the probabilities. What I've never heard from anyone who objects to the currently accepted climate change hypothesis is if they feel that we could put an unlimited amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and it would have literally zero effect. If they believe it would have some effect, then explain at what amount of CO2 it would start to have that effect and what that effect would be. I.e. do some actual science rather than just speaking theoretically about what you feel. The fundamental question is if all 8 billion of us are in some way, day after day, week after week, year after year, putting extra CO2 in the air is there an effect we should worry about. That is what must be answered.

Mature humans adapt. Immature humans panic.

Thank you, Jordan and Richard. The world needs to hear the truth once in awhile.

I love that Jordan lets the scientist fully explain his views without interrupting, even when some interruption may have been beneficial in clarifying what he was saying.

We never had a winter so warm. And rivers so full of water. And shrinking glaciers so quickly. No, its nothing.

I'm all for questioning things like this - but polar amplification is a well-known process, there are thousands of research papers explaining the process behind it. When he says that there's no physical basis for those claims, he's just wrong. Also, there is an overwhelming agreement among scientists that a 1.5C increase will be devastating BECAUSE of independent research done across the world all coming to the same conclusion. If scientists all across the world find the same thing independently of each other, that is a very good sign that they're correct.

I think the worst part about this ordeal is that there are parts of the world that do have environmental crises caused by humans distinct from the idea of climate change and the fact that there's an industry peddling bs is only distracting from the areas that really need our attention and diminishing the volume and credibility of the voices trying to help.

That suit Jordan is wearing is 10/10

Water vapor (clouds) have thousands of times more impact than CO2, and yet they don't even know if water vapor is a positive or negative feedback.

A green house is a closed system. I don't understand why we use that term relative to the climate on our planet, which is not a closed system.

I must say , for a man that said it's complicated to explain he sure does it with grace and common sense !

Great content! It’s like a breath of fresh air to hear reasonable and honest people speak.

None of this negates conservatives love of pollution. Why did trump sign so many nrw regulations allowing companies to dump waste in rivers and such? Or allow so many trees to be removed? Or entire ecosystems gone for coal mining?

It'd be a wild guess that heating the Ionosphere with HAARP can't be a good thing.

Thank you for this clip. I remember this full interview and it's one of my favorites. I've written on Reddit discussions several times citing his experience with the climate narrative. Sharing this clip is going to be a lot easier than the full episode.

What he means is, the *premise*. They slid the premise past while everyone argued about minor errors. Everyone has accepted the *premise*, and now they’re just arguing details. It’s a classic head fake.

In theory everything is possible, everything. I live in a forest. I see with my own eyes everyday that climate change is happening, and has been happening my whole life. And it is not for the better for anyone living here. Jordan is one of these people surrounded by concrete and buying his food from the supermarket, working with words and opinions. In theory everything is possible, even the earth being flat.

The Sun is the number one reason our climate changes. Not carbon which is needed for life.

This guy is brilliant. He really nailed it. Everybody spends so much time arguing about temperature records and sea ice they simply ignore the basic fact that people who think they can control the weather belong in a mental institution.

Are there really so few honest men that actually understand this? I'm not a genius nor a climate scientist and didn't have the words to communicate this, but I already knew this as do many others. There has to be others like this guy that have the words.

The climate narrative is that 2023 was the hottest year on record, 2022, the second hottest, and so on, for the last decade. Several island nations are at risk of loosing their countries to the sea, Louisiana is loosing a football field of land per hour, and has done so for decades. We have just had the earliest category 4, and 5 hurricane on record. We have exceedingly hot temperatures all over the USA. At the beginning of last year, one third of Pakistan was under water after a storm. It is becoming near impossible to get insurance in both California and Florida. But yes, climate change is a hoax.....

This is nonsense. We have passed 1.5 degrees this past 12 months. Unless the whole scientific community is lying. Are we having more nights per year when it’s difficult to sleep because of the heat? Here in the UK a fan in the bedroom was needed perhaps one or two nights per year. It’s now become a permanent feature in the summer months

Thank you for one of the best explanations I've heard for why the UN and the Climate Alarmists have a 50 yr track record of failed climate predictions.

We are not being told the truth about climate changing claims. More functional explanations with an objective outlook , such as this, are needed for better understanding.

You know you are on to something when KZfaq puts a disclaimer under your video..

What puzzles me is that there is a simple thing most people could agree on, let’s stop unnessesary polution and waste. Concentrate on those two topics and you have a challenge that gives energy and focus and will 100% sure be benefical to all people to come. Climate is to complex for anyone to understand. Fact is that since the start of life there has been a temperature between 0 and 100 degrese, wich is necessary for most of the living beings we know. And our earth has gone through a lot and always managed to keep between these boundaries and support life.

Many years ago, I had a conversation with a man who thought of his self as being a staunch environmentalist. He said that HE would not accept advertising flyers in his mailbox, because they were unnecessary, and contributed to pollution. When I asked him if he cared that there were people depending on us for their financial incomes accepting those flyers in the mail, he said that he didn't care, and that they could find other jobs that would give them their sources of financial income. The bottom line is, we are all self-indulged polluters, and I suggest that that word "environmentalist" leaves everything to be "desired."

All the ignorance here makes me think that this guy is captaining a ship of fools.

I must remember this clever technique: 1 talk very slowly (makes you sound wise) 2 say it took you a long time to figure it out (implication: you, the listener, will probably not be able to) 3 make it all sound very complicated (gives the impression you know what you are talking about) 4 drop in technical language (eg le Chatelier, Coriolis force), but rely on the fact that the listener will not already understand them, so they have to take your explanation 5 give these concepts meaning which fit your narrative 6 you can now convince people black is white.

The co2 levels shown in ice core samples directly contradict the current narrative regarding co2. Gregg Braden (geologist) has some great stuff on it.

Thanks Dr's, well said! I prefer sensible, thoughtful people over hysterical, politically or socially driven fools.

Sure, the climate will return to normal after being perturbed by fossil-fuel burning, but the return will take thousands of years for 85% return, and hundreds of thousands for complete return.

The irony of KZfaq of posting the narrative that these intellectuals are discussing and know more than anyone at KZfaq.

The world seems to be full of negative feedback systems that nobody ever talks about. All positive feedback loops would’ve made life on earth completely uninhabitable almost immediately.

This explains why we can't let them close down the open debate which teases out the truth.

At 1:00 to 1:22 Richard Lindzen states his opinion that ice & snow reflect exactly the same sunshine as ocean water, vegetation & soil or else ocean & vegetation are more reflective than ice & snow and dampen the warming per Le Chatelier's Principle. Lindzen is incorrect about that science because I've seen ice & snow and they are actually MORE reflective than tree tops with leaves. I was a bit taken aback that a professional scientist, even an extremely old one, didn't know that snow reflects more.

G-d bless Jordan B Peterson. He is fearless in pursuit of truth.He is never shy about delving into controversy, because he believes that to accept a lie is to sell your soul. He is right. Never surrender to evil.

I’m from Australia and recently the weather maps we’re being shown of Australia are coloured red and orange and black, which very obviously are the colours of fire, to make us believe Australia is significantly heating up. However, the temperatures we actually see each day are normal for Australia. Sometimes really, really hot and we have fires. Other times drenching downpours and they can lead to floods. Sure that happens, but it’s always happened in Australia, it’s called the land of flood and fire for a reason. Initially I came from the UK and migrated here in 1988. A few years on Australia was in a drought which lasted a decade. Last year NSW was covered by floodwaters, people’s homes and lives were devastated, and that’s terrible - but it’s not new! All the high temperatures they show us are often followed by a 10 degree drop in a day or two. It really is propaganda. If it’s seems extra hot this year, chances are next year it’s going to be colder. It’s wise to remember that. In the Bible God tells us that the earth will endure forever. For all the talk about nuclear war, aliens, climate change, the only thing that’s ever really changed is the fiscal position many of us now face where the costs of daily essentials like food, electricity & gas, and a roof over our heads are becoming astronomical! As for the weather, it comes, it goes, it’s cyclical, nothing has really changed despite the orange weather maps I see every day in my news feed. I trust in God, I don’t believe he will ever allow a nuclear war to kill the earth, or allow the earth to heat up so much that we cannot survive it, God made everything, so he won’t let it die or kill us. Ignore the climate change doomsayers, their agenda is to promote electric cars and new “planet-saving” technology. Not terrible things in themselves, but I doubt the earth will did if we don’t have them.

People are easy to control when they are scared, and it seems that certain people have made it their main job to scare people, and making money out of it.

I noted that the feed was interrupted several times in/during this interview. At least on my end. I guess someone did not like what was being said. I am not against improving the environment and/or stabilizing it, just the poop faced panic that is being perpetrated for social political economic advantage.

Sources? What is the effect called that is hinted at in the title? The arguments are inconclusive as they are vague without any rigor. As shallow as previous attempts by JBP to discredit established science. Lindzen was funded by Big Oil (ExxonMobil).

The overall death rate for natural disasters is down 95% since the 1920's, this includes meteorological and geological climate events, drought, storms, flooding and wild fires. The average life expectancy has doubled around the world in the last century. With the slight rise in Co2 corn yields are up 500% over the last century and wheat yields have tripled. Malnutrition has dropped sharply from 3/4ths of the world’s population living in poverty 100 years ago to 10% today. The same holds true for the illiteracy rate from 80% 100 years ago to 10% now. Satellite imagery from NASA shows the planet is greener now than it was 50 years ago.-Tony Heller

If anyone on the team happens to read this, just a quick note to say that the photo of Dr. Peterson in the thumbnail is an old one, taken when he was ill, and a better choice for a publicity photo like this one might be a more recent photo, in which he is healthy and has bright eyes and color in his face. This photo in the thumbnail shows sick and despairing JBP and he isn’t in that dark place any longer, thank God again and again.

Lindzen's comments about Le Chatelier's Principle are just ridiculous. Lindzen tries to use it to question whether the greenhouse effect of water vapour in the atmosphere would increase as temperature increases. His argument is ludicrous. Firstly, there is no doubt that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere HAS increased as average global temperatures have increased. That has been measured. NASA reports, "Data from satellites, weather balloons, and ground measurements confirm the amount of atmospheric water vapor is increasing as the climate warms. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report states total atmospheric water vapor is increasing 1 to 2% per decade.)" Secondly, Lindzen misapplies Le Chatelier's Principle because he compares the apples of increasing atmospheric temperature with the oranges of the greenhouse effect due to water vapour. Le Chatelier's Principle applies to systems in equilibrium, but it does so ONLY in respect of the physical parameters in equilibrium - and the greenhouse effect of water vapour is NOT one of those parameters. The way in which Le Chatelier's Principle DOES apply to a warming atmosphere is within the equilibrium between water in the liquid phase (as oceans/lakes/wetlands etc) and water as water vapour in the atmosphere, and the WAY in which L.C's principle works as the temperature increases is to cause MORE EVAPORATION of liquid water, ie to increase water vapour in the atmosphere. WHY? Because evaporation causes COOLING. THAT is the correct application of Le Chatelier's Principle: the liquid water/water vapour system reacts to warming by doing something (increasing evaporation) which causes COOLING, ie it acts to nullify the initial warming. The fact that the increased water vapour causes an increased greenhouse effect is INCIDENTAL to and detached from the liquid water/water vapour equilibrium upon which L.C.' principle applies. And, of course, Jordan Peterson doesn't have sufficient knowledge and understanding of physics to call out Lindzen for his ludicrous error. What is really sad is that this kind of misinformation is being pumped to countless numbers of people who also don't understand what nonsense it is, and so will continue to resist the need to change.

The so-called Coriolis Force was ‘discovered’ by Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis in 1832. By the end of the nineteenth century, the Coriolis effect/illusion had become a common phrase in meteorological literature. Coriolis force is classified as a fictitious force that is applied to objects that are in rotation. When applied to perception, this occurs when a person's head is moved out of alignment during a spin. If individuals are spinning to the left along their y-axis and then push their head forward, That will bring their heads out of alignment and make it subject to the so-called ‘Coriolis force’ and resultant effect. The manifestation of this effect is that individuals will feel like their heads are tilting to their left. This can cause nausea, disorientation, and motion sickness. These feelings of discomfort arise in the body when the signals being sent by the vestibular system and visual system are not in agreement, i.e. the eyes may be telling the body that it’s not moving, but the vestibular systems’ fine-tuned senses are depicting the opposite.

As James Randi put it: "People argue about how many angels fit on the head of a pin when they should be discussing whether angels exist."

Lindzen has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, ice ages and seasonal atmospheric effects. His main contribution to the academic literature on anthropogenic climate change is his proposal of the iris hypothesis in 2001, with co-authors Ming-Dah Chou and Arthur Y. Hou..wiki

Here's some fact about climate that can be checked. 1. The climate has been changing since the beginning of time. 2. When we first started using fossil fuels, the CO2 levels were 260ppm. 3. The CO2 levels today are 400ppm. 4. Plants suffocate at levels of 150ppm and lower. 5. Plants thrive at levels of 1000ppm to 2000ppm CO2 6. If plants suffocate, we suffocate! 7. Satellite imagery shows the planet is 15% greener today than 50 years ago. Is CO2 a problem?

The hydro-dynamics apply MORE to the poles, where there is less sunlight. The greenhouse effect is much more, because what used to be dry arctic air, has become (relatively) moist arctic air, which is a powerful GHG. The N pole heated by 7'C when the equator saw 1'C (5 years ago). That also leads to the temperature difference between pole and equator becoming less, so there is less energy to drive those Coriolis forces, less energy to drive the polar vortex, which has slowed down, and now meanders over a bigger area. Like a tightened spring, being relaxed, that is a negative feedback, absorbing some of the change, keeping us closer to the middle. Where we live does not feel so hot, because the Arctic air keeps up cool. But that is now another, newer factor to worry about. It is not all plain averages, there will be increased bad days. Extreme cold, extreme heat. The jetstream meander patters, will matter more. When there is less sun, the power of the sun is MORE important, not LESS. Mid-summer has a huge heating effect, which currently is absorbed, by the Arctic ice melting (and refreezing 6 months later). The amount of ice melting and freezing each year, is a bigger swing than the amount of ice left. That means there is a day, when you can go out, and see as much there, as thaws each year. And it wont be a small amount. GOOGLE and plot data for PIOMAS Dismissing GHG and sunlight is fanciful nonsense. The earth receives heat from the sun, as higher-light-frequencies. The warmth of the earth emits IR (lower frequencies, we are not as hot as the sun). A lot of light is reflected, so is never "received", but the totals, in both directions matter. The amount of light the earth emits (and reflects), MUST equal the amount it receives, otherwise there is an energy imbalance. The feedback system, is that a warmer earth, emits more IR, and the same amount gets out to space. That is the new equilibrium temperature. At that time the increase stops, except we are below equilibrium, and we are accumulating heat. The full force of sunlight, must be radiated out to space, or else heating (or cooling) happens. OK you divide Sahara sun levels by 4 because day/night and because face-on-equator, side-on-pole, and you spread over a year, or decade, but heat in and heat out must match, or temperatures will move. Greenhouse gasses, absorb IR, which were headed out for space, and re-emit IR (IR is warmth heat as light, 99% of the heat you feel from sitting close to a fire is IR, unless you are actually in the hot air). That random direction, is 1/6 back down to the ground. 1/6 less up to space (of that which was absorbed and re-emitted, a lot still goes through un-paused. Currently cities are heating up, then thankfully rain happens. That washes the heat down to the oceans, which are SLOWLY heating everything up. But you probably feel that there is not a problem, because the equilibrium temperature has not been reached. Then there is the "it is something like 20'C outside. One or two degrees difference will mean nothing". The ice age was only 4'C colder than 100 years ago, but it came with 2 mile ice. That was not 15'C, compared to 20'C, that was consistently below zero. A completely different local situation (one that accumulates 3km of ice, when you expect it to grow the grass that feeds the cattle, whilst you dont eat the wheat, which will also be absent). We are dozens of thousands of years away from the next ice age, and the point is in the opposite direction. A few extra degrees, wont means the difference between 20 and 25, it will mean only equatorial forests will be habitable, and they sustain 1 person every km2, not the billions who currently enjoy being sustained. It wont be a hot afternoon, it will be a desert bowl, and the worlds most powerful munitions, keeping its population under authoritarianism.

We took a break for 2 years, and the himalayas were visible from new delhi for the first time in several decades, while water became clean enough in venice for dolphins to be spotted swimming in it. Beijing saw blue skies, and almost every animal population saw a statistically significant rise in numbers. Show me an area of nature that didn't benefit or was hurt by humanity being forced to slow down a bit, or tell me where this slow-down didn't have a positive effect for nature. Even assuming it's not the fossil fuels, even assuming it's not manufacturing and power plants, there is *something* that humanity is doing that's negatively affecting the environment we depend on, and it is our duty as beings of higher intelligence to not actively cut the branch we're sitting on.

What a breath of fresh air with knowledge not political polemics.

God, not Richard Lindzen. He used to be an author on some of the IPCC reports until he developed opinions that were not supported by the science. He and Yong-Sang Choi published a paper in 2009, LC09, "On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications". They estimated the Earth-climate sensitivity due to anthropogenic climate change as only +0.5 degrees. However, the paper was subject to immense criticism and scrutiny which Lindzen himself admitted was fair, valid and he felt silly after publishing the paper. An expanded paper was sent for publication in 2011 that "addressed" the concerns and criticisms but failed to address the contradictions within the paper and did not address a lot of the criticism. It was rejected for publication until those issues were corrected. While contradictory models and evidence shouldn't be ignored, the paper was extremely flawed. Lindzen and Choy suggested that climate had a strong negative feedback using flawed data. They use monthly averaged values for the Earth-radiation budget from tropical areas only and provided no criterion for selecting these timescales or the endpoints of their intervals. In fact, a quick look at the paper will show that those endpoints are rather weird and sporadic. If you shift the endpoints by even a month and try to replicate their results you lose their so called "relationship" entirely. (Trenberth K, Fasullo J, O'Dell C & Wong T 2010, Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation, Geophysical letters). Also, in the paper, LC09, Lindzen and Choi completely disregard the El-Nino Southern oscillation as a source for their variability despite it being THE source for the variability in radiative flux in the tropics. So for all this guy's talk of "a well known effect" like the Coriolis, he sure has a vast history of ignoring well known effects to say what he likes in a paper. I don't recall exactly what else was wrong with the paper but I found enough to talk about in my 5000 word critical analysis of this and one other paper (Phosphene gas in the cloud decks of venus) during my university study, both of which were chosen for their pseudoscientific approaches. In other words guys and gals, don't believe everything (or even anything) you see on Jordan Peterson's channel.

At kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gc5zfrynqrq9dJc.htmlsi=ZmaPz1Jb4s2zKVoc&t=420 , the guy states the temperatures are going up with 1.5 degrees Celsius for everybody. Yes, that is the point. That means melting poles and massive climate changes. Period. Le Châtelier's principle may apply. Typically it is applied to chemistry laboratory systems, but ok. The principle says that a system in equilibrium will resist a change in that equilibrium, but it will do so by shifting the equilibrium state in the direction of the perturbation. So if the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase due to enormous burning of fossil carbon, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere goes up permanently. By the way, Le Châtelier's principle does not apply well to phase transitions. So if the tundras melt, (ice to water phase transition), start to rot and this rotting causes more CO2 and methane in the atmosphere, Le Châtelier's principle has a very limited mitigating effect. The story of the Coriolis effect is incomprehensible. It looks like the argument is that air of different latitudes mix. So what?

Professor Richard Lindzen is probably the greatest Meteorologist alive today followed very closely by Professor Will Happer. Thank heaven for somebody who speaks the truth on Climate Change.

Jordan Peterson is a voice of reason which isn't that rare during normalcy, but during these times of insanity that surround us his voice is a rock.

Jordan, if you don’t know what questions to ask, or you’re asking questions to support your belief, then the answers become a self fulfilling prophecy based on your and your interviewee. Where is the big picture glacial or ocean discussions? This is an academic argument over a small aspect of a hugely interactive world. 😊

As a Born Again Believer in Christ Jesus I learned that just one of Gods Characters is that he doesn't do dumb things. Example; People have asked me, "Is God so powerful that He could create something so big He couldn't lift it?" My answer would be the same, Why would God do something that is out of His Character? Not withstanding that He did create Lucifer but there was a reason for that. Pertaining to this subject I have to say this, 'would God create a planet that couldn't contain itself?' No, it is not in His Character. God did create a planet that could last and sustain civilization for a Billion years but God tells us that first He will Himself, destroy 1/4 of the planet, then what's left will destroy 1/3 and then again will destroy 1/3 of what's left. God then tells us that he will recreate a NEW Earth.

is richard lindzen really in his 80's as per wikipedia? he looks outstanding for being in his 80s. i would have guessed he is in his mid 60s.

I liked his point about pock marking a theory with errors. It has the effect of getting people engaged in debate. As long as their is debate it lends credibility to the overall hypothesis. Most people will then assume the truth lies between the two extremes. Disinterest is a killer.

It's important to remember that Jordon is a grifter and not remotely a climate scientist. He knows what his base wants to hear, and he likes money and pats on the back. I bet every night he dreams of walking through a crowd and everyone is patting him on the back.

Normally, the way to resolve a technical difference of opinions is to make predictions, and observe what happens. That's hard to do at this scale, so the only other way is to break it down into regional models, adjust the models, and compare with regional observations. That's what climatologists do, and their results are overwhelmingly in support of a significant climate change, driven by human activity. Globalized (not just regional) results also point in the same direction, so it is very likely this guy is mistaken, and giving (perhaps unwittingly) cover to economic interests that would be harmed by global policies to limit the warming process.

Carbon tax is the scam that gets me. Paying more to big corporations so you can "offset" your carbon footprint so that they will maybe plant a tree or two on a small piece of land somewhere, whilst still destroying huge swarths of land for profit. Like building an entire housing estate on farmland but ensuring that three trees are planted. Also the phrase "Carbon footprint" was created by BP Oil.