Jordan Peterson and Matt Fradd discuss global warming and climate change and dig into how more CO2 in the environment is actually making the planet greener, not more arid.
Watch Full Episode on LOCALS: https://mattfradd.locals.com/post/561…
🙏 Try Hallow: https://mattfradd.locals.com/post/561…
Jordan Peterson and Matt Fradd discuss global warming and climate change and dig into how more CO2 in the environment is actually making the planet greener, not more arid.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this video is meant as medical advice
🟣 Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT): https://mattfradd.locals.com/
🖥️ Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/
🟢 Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/pintswithaquinas
👕 Merch: https://shop.pintswithaquinas.com
🔵 Facebook: / mattfradd
📸 Instagram:/ mattfradd
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My petrol car, my diesel van, my oil-fired boiler, my wood-burner; I’m doing my best for the planet.
Make fossil fuel great again! 🙂
I have two SUVs and a 6.2l supercharged 8 cylinder. The plants love me.
“So, he thinks that the fossil fuel revolution saved the planet.”
No, only the comfortable (for us) version we live in, ‘the planet’ has had many hostile iterations in the past & more to come in the future … so enjoy it while you can & quit all the squabbling over land, power, money, control (I won’t hold my breath ).
Saver — I am unable to follow your point. Quit squabbling and do what? Consume what? Endure what? Permit what? I mean this: it is nice to be passionate about something, but it must be goal-directed. What are you chasing?
I don’t know, but perhaps he/she’s suggesting that our elected and unelected leaders stop squabbling over land, power, money, control and I could also add religion. I would agree (certainly not worth a dislike) except for the fact that it’s what Darwinian evolution dealt us, so it’s pretty pointless. We and our descendants are going to be living in various levels of global sh!tshows until we figure this one out. Descent out of this interglacial isn’t going to help.
And the developed countries are walking away from the responsibility and leaving it to China, India and a few others willing to do the heavy lifting.
So the “developed countries” as you put it aren’t walking away because they “believe it” en mas but those in power see it as a means to gain full control over their economies. I would posit that there are truly few at the top pushing these policies and restrictions who truly believe in their (man created) problem because if they were true believers they wouldn’t behave the way they do. China and India see it more realistically in that they are not willing to tank their progress and economies over a religion. But the “developed countries” see it more as a way to wrest control over financial institutions (more than they already have), wealth, land use, manufacturing, consumption, water use and distribution, electrical generation and consumption and food production – and I’m sure I missed a few. China also see a chance to supplant the US as the global leader of the free world by just allowing us to self implode with restrictive regulations that will destroy our nation.
The outcome of all what the UN and environmentalists want is to get rid of freedom and capitalism with command and control economies where you have to seek the government’s permission for anything you want to consume. Meat? Yeah, a little bit every month but mostly you have to eat bugs. Trip/travel by auto somewhere? Yeah, we’ll allow you a couple train trips every year if the trains and then EV busses service where you want to go, but you have to go through your local department of travel. Living? Yeah, I’d like to move to Florida. No, you have these three 15 minute zones you can live in. AC and Heating? I’d like to have the AC set at 72 and heat at 70, well we’ll set your programable thermostats at 78 in the summer and 67 in the winter… Well I’ll burn wood in my fireplace… no you won’t, there is a ban on wood burning and even cutting down trees d/t global warming. Well I’ll add propane heater, no you won’t, you’ll have to have a license to buy propane and use it as it will become a restricted regulated product. I’ll take my EV on a trip… yeah, not so much because what the auto manufacturers haven’t figured out yet is the government doesn’t want us in EVs anymore than they want us in ICE vehicles. The some auto manufacturers are just now becoming cognizant of this and those who’ve figured it out are hoping they’ll be the ones to survive this onslaught. I’ll take a plane, no not so much, you’re allowed two flights per lifetime and the reason has to be approved by the transportation agency – plan them judiciously.
Yeah, I’m concerned that in the next two years either this religion will begin to be dismantled or it will become so entrenched that most of that will be implemented. And when it is finalized – which it will never be really finalized as they’ll always find new things they missed they need to control – I think those who’ve been sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting NAH, NAH, NAH like a child who doesn’t want to hear something, will wake and suddenly begin to see the monster that is eating them as well as everyone else and they’ll see that their fundamental freedoms are gone… FOREVER! Because they voted away their freedoms and leaving only one option to get them back. But China will be happy to step in and supplant dying governments.
Panem et circenses.
As long as the masses have their smart phones, they won’t care.
China had a trade surplus of £57.92bn ($72.4bn) in April 2024 and says thank you, all going to plan.
“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?”
WRONG
280 ppm, not 350
C3 plants are under 10% of normal biomass at 150 ppm They do not die below 250 ppm
C4 plants can survive with 10 ppm CO2 — they are about 20% of total vegetation
This is the most basic CO2 knowledge, but seems to be a mystery to some people.
No CORRECT.
Many plants stop growing at 250ppm
At 250ppm, their stomata are as widely spaced as they can possibly be.
For them it is like trying to survive on a slice of bread per day.
Why do you hate plant life so, so much that you want to see it starve.??
Only far-left anti-CO2 AGW scammers or closet CO2-hating lukewarmers want to do that.
In your haste to find fault you missed a very important point that was being made about plants and carbon dioxide. The critical word in the sentence is ‘start’ which clearly sailed way over your head.
It seems you have never learned (nor will never learn at the rate you are going) the importance of comprehension in everything. Your grey matter is clearly not getting the exercise it needs – and if you don’t use it you lose it but of course you are clearly experiencing that already.
Look Richard, you know Peterson is a social psychologist, don’t you? Correct the little error if you will, but don’t say nothing about the elephant-in-the -room main point! That is telling of you. It may not be an exaggeration to say that he is the only social psychologist in the world who is sceptical of crisis climate.
He comes from a different angle to scepticism. He has defined the Dark Side politico cabal for which Crisis Climate is only a front. You should check this guy out. He has 7.9 million subscribers to his U-tube podcast! He has 735 million hits on his videos – that’s almost 10% of of the world’s population (few would watch his hour long talks twice!). He has 4.5 million twitter followers, millions more have attended his world tour talks. An up and coming US tour has 52 venues… phew!
Let me echo Gary’s point.
It’s unfortunate that JP got the numbers wrong. I’m pretty sure RG missed an opportunity to nitpick on the percentage and timeline of greening as well. That gives the small-picture nitpickers something to narcissize on (yes I made up the word).
The relevant thing should be the conclusions drawn, which were all sound.
And we all know if a minor error occurs it disproves the entire thesis.
So Richard, I know it’s a forlorn hope, but you could have started out by affirming the big things that Jordan Peterson got right and then quietly said that unfortunately he got some facts wrong, to wit … blah blah blah.
But no. You remain the anti-marketing department for accurate climate data. Usually you’re right, but always you’re widely rejected for your annoying narcissistic tone.
You claim to do it to protect skepticism against being discredited. All you ever do is radicalize the people who refuse to be corrected by a nasty old crank. If you claimed that the earth’s atmosphere contains oxygen, bnice would feel obligated to put a plastic bag over his head to prove you wrong.
Nice work. You achieve what the ‘climate nutters’ want, to prevent climate realists from being united and effective.
Indeed. Some of Richard’s information is quite correct. But the tone and use of shouting (USING CAPITALS) in replies certainly does not help.
I do see him as the self-appointed ‘fact checker’ for every post on WUWT, (and no doubt other forums) I’m sure he has a fulltime job in ‘proofing’ so much information and ‘correcting’ any mistakes he believes have been made.
C3 plants have already evolved to use up to 1200 ppm CO2 in order to flourish. Why are you so interested in starving plants? Don’t you want utopia?
Ask any commercial producer of salad crops in a glasshouse. Maintain the atmosphere at 1000 ppm CO2 at least. Tomatoes love it. I used to regularly demonstrate this to students in my Plant Biology 101 classes.
Go back to the early 1700s and the ppm was over 400.
One of the biggest food crops in the world is RICE, a C3 plant.
Maize (aka corn) is a C4 plant, but that will not be available as it will be needed to create “renewable biofuel.”
So, by your data, we can lose 80% of plants and that will be ok because the survivors are C4.
Story tip
Russia finds vast oil and gas reserves in British Antarctic territory. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/11/russia-uncovers-oil-and-gas-reserves-british-antarctic/
Ironically, they were looking for signs of intelligence.
What, in the British Antarctic Survey? 🙂
No, the entire empire.
The only people i know that fully support most of the green policies have the least understanding of what ‘the climate’ science actually means. Stronger, they are convinced BECAUSE of their ignorance. It is willful. Most of the other people i speak to are also low on understanding about the climate science but intuitively smell a rat. They are suspicious about green agendas and enforcement and they do relate economic downturn and higher taxes to green policies. And they really strongly DISLIKE politicians trying to ram their ideas down their throat and treat them as children who need to be taught a lesson.
They respond to green arrogance. This is i believe almost everywhere outside of relatively wealthy urban areas.
A person must be either really stupid and uneducated, or conversely “very well educated” to believe all the hokum that the media and “climate scientists” put out about “climate change” which was once AGW, then CAGW.
The “very well educated” but actually ignorant can make themselves believe just about anything.
It all started with “Global Warming”.
I believe it started with the global cooling crisis. When it started warming, it changed to global warming. When the warming paused, it changed to climate change so that they could cover the bases.
They even try to mix up cooling and warming..
Like this one.
Global warming is making the Himalayas colder ??
New Paper: Global Warming Leading To HIMALAYAN COOLING, Preventing Glacial Melt! (notrickszone.com)
Aside from it reversing the global cooling mini ice age threat in the 70s, one must also recall the “runaway greenhouse effect” that threated to turn earth into a toaster oven.
No we have tipping points and runaway climate change/crisis/apocalypse and Code Red and precipice as tunes to dance to.
Only something so ludicrous could be believed by “very well educated intellectuals”.
Don’t let a PhD dazzle you. Crisis climate has a contract with CrackerJack^тм to distribute them. Most folk prefer the company’s other prizes.
Most of the talking heads are in it for the celebrity status, power and control, and money.
Burning fossil fuels only returns the CO2 to the atmosphere that the plants that made the fossil fuels extracted in the first place.
Tangentially related, “Energy is not an input into the economy, IT IS THE ECONOMY. Humanity organizes its economic activities to ensure a steady growth in the extraction and exploitation of primary energy because energy is life, standards of living are defined by how much energy is available to be exploited, and all humans everywhere are perpetually seeking a higher standard of living.”
https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/atlas-wont-shrug
True.
Just like cow methane is merely returning to the atmosphere CO2 processed by the plants they eat.
They are on the right track, but need a little fact checking.
The earth has greened 5% since 2000, not 20%, 5%is.still nothing to be sneezed at, it certainly belies that we are entering a mass extinction.
And as was pointed out below pre 20th century CO2 was about 280, not 350.
But as for when plants start dying of co2 starvation, I personally am not worried about that. I’m worried about when they start becoming so unproductive they won’t support our current population, which is probably around 280-300.
Don’t worry about that. The left fanatics are planning on manufacturing everything humans need to eat in factories. They will try to outlaw natural food long before the CO2 level gets that low.
Funny that the same lunes that insist of “organic” produce will soon insist on the factory produced food.
Of course it is their political ideology that drives ALL of their ever changing NEW demands, all requiring US to do something that makes no sense and is continuously reducing FREEDOM.
Drake, a manufactured food has to be manufactured *out of something.* I think the choices are animal, vegetable and mineral, yes?
By the way, off topic, have you tried those new Soylent Green chips? They’re quite tasty.
I like mine with hot sauce.
Oh some clone is going to realize, once they have gotten over fossil fuel hatred syndrome, that these fossil plants and creatures are rich in energy ingredients for printing steaks and and French fries! At least men won’t be growing man boobs, prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction from elevated soya protein products.
Kazinski, from the 2016 Nature abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
“We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend,”
from NASA: greening, 1982 to 2015
“The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.(13% of global land area).”
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/
And now for the pièce de résistance!
“…as vegetation consumes some of the heat-trapping carbon dioxide it also performs evapotranspiration—a function similar to human sweating—which can have a cooling effect on the air. Scientists say that global greening since the early 1980s may have reduced global warming by as much as 0.2° to 0.25° Celsius”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146296/global-green-up-slows-warming
Yes, and they neglected to mention (or don’t know)that photosynthesis on the front end is an endothermic (cooling) process. Moreover, by fringing inwards to arid regions is an an exponential process. I’m convinced this CO2 cooling was enough to give us the almost 2 decades of the “Dreaded Pause” which had largely been erased by Global Warming Fiddlers.
Let’s restate this important finding, first adding in that phytoplankton are are also undergoing massive expansion in the ocean using the same cooling photosynthesis process: Rising CO2 greatly expands habitat and base food supply on land and ocean for diverse species including humans, and at the same time, modulates global warming, pushing Crisis Warming out of the picture.
Ive been pushing the Le Châtelier (LCP) Principle a lot to little effect. The above is only a part of the resistance an interactive system like the earth’s Climate-Ocean- Atmosphere-Biospere puts up against changes forced on it. My estimate of the total (LCP) effect from failed forecasts assuming the physics is roughly correct is that cli models should be multiplied by a coefficient of 0.33
I read somewhere it was 10% greening and another 15% greening and another 5% to 20% greening as it can only be an estimate. The density of the greening is important well beyond the land area coverage.
It also matters what kinds of plants.
No where in this is the estimates for algae and other sea plants.
The scam is an important factor but surely the most egregious part is the Putin method of coercion employed. Both the Russian Tsar and various governments in the democratic camp think nothing of scaring their electorate.y. Sacrificing free trade and honesty to get their own way. It’s hard to see whose methodology is the most egregious. One system asserts total control and feels free to invent a narrative to subjugate its peoples and Russia copies it.. Is there anything here that cannot be solved a by a free market economy? Even in today’s indoctrinated environment sphere some are buying EVs and using metering, wrapping themselves in car rugs of an evening out of a desire to do the right thing in an effort to comply with what they want to believe is something that sounds like a public good. For many,the right thing is too expensive and is retrograde no matter what the benefits of AGW referencing schemes are supposed to be, they are elusive, all too evidently benefit free. You can even spot the originators of these multivarious just on the understanding that cost is not seen as a barrier. A free market could demonstrate benefits, could engineer the products better, bring matters to a universally accepted reasonableness by the popular vote. The bit about actual benefits of many of the governmental proposition entail one accepting that your life is controlled, that which you want to engineer for yourself, given free will, has been taken away from you. The concept that you hypothecate your wages to the government, without choice is a nonsense sell. Like in Britain private companies were set up to provide competition with a view to price competitiveness in the energy market, now they are more like Quangos, Quasi autonomous governmental bodies who enforce the government narrative while force-feeding price hikes; it is not unknown for such bodies to inform their customers in payment disputes that things are reasonable because they, the companies, are saving the planet. Adam Smith would spin in his grave if he knew of commercial organisations not practising product improvement or cost competitiveness but by sermonising, transferring their responsibility on to some quasi-religious concept. The good natured have become turkeys. sensibilities have been misled, trashed, good equals gullible. The snake oil salesman will inherit the earth with your government’s help.
____________________________________________________________
And as far as I know, past CO2 levels are determined by examining stomata on the underside of current and fossil ginkgo biloba leaves. It’s an inverse relationship, more stomata, less CO2 in the air. After a very brief Google search it appears that there is no lack of studies trying to show that such is not the case.
In other words there are people who don’t like the claim that CO2 levels were much higher in the geological past than today.
Survival of the ‘best adapted” is very prevalent in plants. Those who don’t like the stomata proxy for CO2 could very well be right since fossilized leaves millions of years old are being compared to something growing today.
I started out to be sort of informational, as stating what the level of CO2 was millions of years ago is sort of taken for granted. So I searched with a “How do we know that?” question. What I found was in addition to what I started out to find. There were other ways to determine ancient CO2 levels, but ginkgo leaves seemed to lead the pack.
Jordan advances the non-crisis aspects quite nicely….but we must remember he is no expert on climate….once having intelligent things to say about human philosophy, he has gone down the path of talking outside his expertise for the sake of internet “likes ‘n’ clicks”.
But we thank him for his rational approach despite a couple of minor hype errors in his statements.
Jordan is not perfect, blind Mr. Greene. Nor does he need Internet “likes ‘n’ clicks,” DM.
He well-educated and experienced in working with people, people of all sorts, from the greatest to the least. He has critically reviewed more scientific papers than most of us here, and he has a strong grasp of experimental design. He deeply interviews experts in many fields. He is especially gifted in distilling basic truths and discerning their interrelatedness. He is also able to detect error and articulate why. As a result, he can speak sensibly about many issues, from manhood to climate.
Among other things, as we have learned after many years of the climate wars here at WUWT, the battle is NOT about the climate or global warming. That is just one proxy in the bigger war of ideas and culture, of power and pride, of the blindness and rebellion of the soul. Jordan has much to say that can be worthwhile to those who will listen.
For my next lecture on climate and environmental stewardship, I am contemplating playing about 10-15 minutes of JP speaking bluntly about climate and earth worshippers.
Science is never “settled”, as new and improved information and analysis is always available to build a better understanding.
Yet, the thing with “climate science” is that what is presented as “science” is not science, but is instead theology or ideology. All theology and ideology proceed from a fundamental assumption that “we already know the answers, so any heresy or dispute with that knowledge is inherently evil and must be stamped out.”
The self-proclaimed “climate scientists” ignore vast amounts of scientific data and understanding that conflicts with their theory that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the sole “control knob” of climatic performance. Which is notably simple minded and definitely non-scientific.
True science is always willing to admit that most natural systems – which is what the Earthian climate is – are in fact complex, affected by numerous processes and characteristics and forces that interact together to produce a given (stable or unstable) equilibrium of performance. Some of which processes we understand well, some of which we understand only to a limited degree, and some of which processes we don’t understand at all, or even know they exist. The old “there are knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns” formulation that is applicable to just about everything in life and in the universe.
Only a simpleton believes that the Earth’s climate is controlled by only one thing, and one thing only. Which is what modern “climate scientists” (aka climate alarmists, warmunists, etc.) claim to be true.
Much like the admonition from the Wizard of Oz to Dorothy, the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion … to “ignore the man behind the curtain”.
They depend upon us being utterly credulous (aka “stupid”) and therefore not look at what the man behind the curtain is actually doing.
Part of the problem, perhaps the lion’s share, is the IPCC itself. The summary report for policy makers is written for and edited by a panel of politicians from most of the countries on the planet. If even 1 disagrees with the placement of a common, the report is edited until the politicians unanimously concur. One other salient process is that if the science reports disagree with the policy summary, the science reports are changed. No internal disagreement is allowed to escape into the public.
The long and short of it is, the science is forced to follow the dictates of the politicians.
Consider then the scientists who objected and left the climate mafia and have been abused for disagreeing.
Peterson has the audience, he could get the message out but it needs to be:
A. ‘The global government’s unproven climate control projects are killing elderly and poor in cities, decreasing the food supply and killing millions in impoverished countries.
B. ‘Wind turbine farms are killing whales at sea, killing tens of thousands of birds on land, and lose hundreds of millions of dollars every year.’
C. ‘Global climate control plans (netzero) only help the rich people get richer, taxing the middle class, are endangering and killing the poor and are destroying the global environment.’
What must be appealed to here is ‘the peoples’ sense of humanity, decency, fairness and justice. These points have to be brought out into the public, and folks like peterson have the platform to do it. Rational arguments about ‘the science’ do not have a useful effect.
And do not use the perverted language of the warmanistas, the crazed liberal, the mainstream media or the ruling class.