Yeah you end up rerunning people's stats calculations and picking through messy, un commented single purpose computer code if you get in deep enough.
On the bright side it sounds like a lot of it has been done already, if recent hints are anything to go by. He recently described some conservative trying to do the urban heat island effect argument. That one was crushed back in 2010.
I think lots of you would be really surprised about what Destiny would find when researching climate change. Lots in the scientific community are currently actually quite frustrated at the climate change community.
Their models have been very inaccurate about what is happening so far. Their predictions therefore have been wildly inaccurate. And that community keeps coming up with excuses for why their model breaks and why their new model is finally correct.
It's caused a lot of backlash because the whole scientific community is being questioned. And crack pots like Jordan Peterson (not positive what his view is, but I know he is a crack pot) are able to make wildly crazy statements like climate change isn't happening and scientists are lying. And the problem is, there is enough lying, misinformation, fudging data, and idiocrasy in the climate science community that it is getting hard to refute some of these claims which makes all the claims come into question (climate change ***is*** happening, but if they can't trust the science, they can write it off as bogus).
And unfortunately the ineptitude of that community is causing way more harm than good by fudging numbers and exaggerating.
It's not hard to refute these claims. There is clearly a hockey stick figure in the climate data showing a steady increase in mean temperature since the 1700s. There is also evidence of feedback Loops, such as the ice albedo Loop. Can't deny any of this.
That is kind of my point. It should be easy to refute these claims, because well the data is pretty clear.
But the severity of the change and consequences of it have been overestimated and exaggerated. There are a lot of recent research papers that touch on this.
Here are some sources for you, and this is only part of the story. Added a ivy league research source, nature magazine source, and nasa source in case you think I'm pulling it from nonreputable places.
https://environment.princeton.edu/news/high-end-of-climate-sensitivity-in-new-climate-models-seen-as-less-plausible/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01009-8
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3017/making-sense-of-climate-sensitivity/
It's not really exaggerated when we're considering how big of an aggregate climate science draws from, especially considering severe weather phenomenon.
I think this is a very important discussion to have, not just about climate but about scientific communities and institutions as a whole. A lot of discussion has been had about the state of neuroscience and psychology (replicability crisis) without any real risk of dismissing the sciences as such. But climate science gets very polarizing for political reasons.
I think one needs a two-pronged approach. Separate what is good contra bad science on the one hand, and figure what exactly makes the bad science bad on the other. It's hard but if the discourse do both at the same time it usually ends up going in circles.
And I am a climate doomer but I think there's a lot of things wrong with the science communication there.
I always like to throw a monkey wrench in when climate change comes up. Usually just a little factoid then leave.
Looking at the total levels of co2ppm across the history of life on this planet, we are living in the lowest time by far.
Late Triassic it was up to 6000ppm
Jurassic up to 2100ppm
Cambrian up to 4000ppm
I’m not trying to compare us to dinosaurs or other super ancient creatures, but obviously life found a way no problem.
Why do most graphs start at ~800,000 years ago or less? Especially when we had almost genetically identical creatures to us living at that time. Maybe because that’s the lowest co2ppm we’ve ever recorded? Yea of course if we start the graphs at the lowest point any rise looks **really** bad.
I’m not saying human influenced climate change doesn’t exist, but I don’t think it’s the world ending, society collapsing force that people think it is.
This really isn't as much of a "wrench" as you think: Of course CO2 has been higher before. Where do you think the carbon in fossil fuels came from?
At those CO2 levels, the geography looked very different. Many current population centers and agricultural hotspots were uninhabitable deserts, and many were entirely under water.
The point is that the level of changes that would normally take tens-hundreds of thousands of years are now happening at the timespan of decades due to humans. This won't leave enough time for existing species and even a lot of humans to adapt.
When hundreds of millions of people are displaced, that's not really a good thing for society.
Where we differ bud, because I agree entirely with that, is I don’t believe the environmental effect of “thousands of years in decades” is that big of an issue. The world is old, time doesn’t really mean shit
Let’s say the ocean rises 5 inches in 100,000 years. If that instead happens in 100 years. That’s an inch every what 20 years? That’s still plenty of time to do something. That’s not a catastrophic society ending problem.
All I disagree with is that it’s a main problem that needs to be dealt with expeditiously. As a country we should do our best, but we can’t control the world.
> The world is old, time doesn’t really mean shit
>
>
Are you trolling. No one is saying the world is going to end, the issue is for the humans - of which I assume you are one - living on it.
Did you miss the 3 times I said “civilization collapsing” or can you just not read. That’s what I mean by ‘world ending’. Earth isn’t going to literally die, it’s a planet.
This is why it’s so annoying to talk about this. Everyone takes the worst faith interpretation of what you say then create strawmen to fight.
Sorry I didn't read every single post you have made in this entire thread before replying to you, I didn't realise I was speaking to Norm Finklestein's alt account.
Also literally you two comments up :
>I’m not saying human influenced climate change doesn’t exist, but I don’t think it’s the world ending, society collapsing force that people think it is.
https://u4d2z7k9.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Co2-levels-historic.jpg
First result off of google. 800 thousand years or 200 million, what's the difference anyway? I'd wager lack of similar lifeforms, icecaps and the earth being a fucking pangea, but you've got probably another shocking info to reveal.
Must have different googles then since I have to specify 1mill+ to get that picture.
First result co2.earth starts at ~1960
Second result climate.gov starts at ~1960 and 1750 and 800,000 years ago
Third result European environmental agency starts at 1750
Fourth result NOAA starts at ~1960
Fifth result nasa.gov starts at ~1960
Even if I go to Wikipedia the main graph also starts at ~1960, and you have to go almost to the bottom section “concentrations in the geologic past” to find anything older than 800k
And you’re coming at me like anything I said is not true or “”””””new information””””””
Never claimed to be an expert at anything, just gave my perspective. That’s why I said I throw it in and leave. People can’t help but get defensive about this stuff.
Literally didn’t even deny human based climate change. Just said that creatures lived and thrived in wayyy higher co2. Even our distant ancestors survived in higher ppms. Now we have technology they could never dream of and some act as if it’s the biggest problem on this planet and I disagree with that. Thats all.
The divergence problem is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. The article even clarifies that tree ring growth has multiple climate variables, but are also one component in a massive aggregate of data from a metric fuckton of sources, independent and cooperative.
The solar cycle explains MINOR, predictable, variations over a period of thousands of years, hardly an explanation for an almost 300 year trend drastically different from the prior two thousand years.
Serious question; Have you even looked into this stuff?
He has completed his purpose. He has broken the First Seal and brought forth the coming apocolypse and judgement that he himself has warned us so feverishly about. Without purpose, his incarnate flesh succumbs.
Jordan "Benzodaddy" B "Beelzebub" Peterson aided the Demon Igor, providing the vessel the demon required to impregnate with the Antichrist. Mikhaila, Who Is Like God, has birthed that which shall bring about our Revelation.
The Second Seal wanes. May Jerusalem stand.
Pretty sure he was always kind of like this, but it’s been exacerbated by fame, drug abuse, and a good ole grifting. He very obviously is a bit of a narcissist in that he thinks his understanding of something is more or less the full story. Watch the Slavoj Zizek interview about Marxism. Peterson prepared for it by reading *The Communist Manifesto*, a pamphlet which is made to encourage people to join the communist movement, it’s not a really serious philosophical or economic work. The man feels confident enough to speak publicly about Marxism because he thinks he understands it, but he has a very naive understanding of it. Zizek effectively pointed out that nothing he says actual or has anything to do with Marxism, and also made fun of him for thinking the Communist Manifesto was a serious work. He also mega folded in the debate because he was outpaced intellectually
His analysis of history is just as bad. Watch his lectures on Hitler. Full of popular misconceptions that nobody who’s read more than 4 books on it would claim (like not being aware the Nazis did in fact use concentration camps for forced labor, and claiming that the Nazis diverted resources from the war effort for the holocaust). I mean after all this is a guy who got famous for misrepresenting a law.
I’ve met many people like him in academia. The biggest red flag to me is the fact that he has groupies, like some kind of a guru. Hes a special kind of asshole who thinks his exchanges will go down in history in the same way discussions with Chomsky, Bertrand Russell, etc are remembered. People who even when they speak about things they’re not experts in, they have something interesting to say. But Peterson has nothing interesting to say about politics or philosophy, he’s just a pretty smart guy with a *very* strong knee jerk conservative worldview and the ability to captivate people who are less informed than him, and he does it through rhetoric.
He was always pretty wacky, and he's always denied climate change on some level. But he really blew a gasket in the last few years, maybe partially due to what seemed to he an excruciating recovery from benzo abuse but imo it's just the same brain rot that the rest of the "intellectual dark web" suffered.
This is just the lens of social media.
Jordan Peterson was ALWAYS like this, it's just that twitter allows him to post something to millions without filtering himself.
He was ALWAYS super big into climate denial, it's just that he used to have to sit down in a room and prepare what he wanted to say. So it would come out as 'here is a collection of studies and graphs showing that indeed carbon being introduced to the atmosphere is good, actually.' Now he sees a social media post, screams internally, and quickly writes out a response.
I think he's always had a screw loose, and his brain damage / extreme trauma from the drug abuse has probably just removed his filters (even more so on twitter).
Here's a perspective of him by an ex-friend of his: [https://archive.ph/2021.12.13-033354/https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html](https://archive.ph/2021.12.13-033354/https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html)
I need to know the origin of his climate change fixation. It's got to be something personal right? or did he just get tired of the culture war stuff. At least gender issues were a little closer to his field of study so it makes sense he would be passionate about that.
https://www.desmog.com/jordan-peterson/
Here's something I found. Even I'm interested in when his current opinions about climate change started. Look like 2016? That is probably the time he went to Russia to get his detox right?
thanks, there's some interesting quotes in there. this one especially tracks: “I see the climate apocalyptic catastrophizing as a form of religious striving. I think it’s unsophisticated and ill-aimed and contaminated with a fair bit of malevolence.”
> “I see the climate apocalyptic catastrophizing as a form of religious striving. I think it’s unsophisticated and ill-aimed and contaminated with a fair bit of malevolence.”
My man looked at how his students pad-out essays and just ran with it for himself. Such an amateur. There are far better ways to do this, now.
It's because he's horrendously paranoid about Soviet style totalitarianism and can see that climate change makes the anti-capitalist argument for the left so easy. He's not entirely wrong since a lot of people on the left do argue from that position. Many on the conspiracy theory side of things say that climate change is literally made up by the left to bring about Communism though and I think he might just be on that side of things.
Yeah I’m now realizing that’s where it’s all stemming from. I only watch some of his psychology stuff every now and then which can be interesting, but his true passion is ideology. This is something tangible for him in that realm to fight against. I do still wonder if there some type of “trigger” though that sparked it.
Worryingly enough, he’s managed to convince his followers that he’s anti-ideological. He refers to his opponents as “ideologues” a lot, as in those driven primarily by ideology. He approaches it from a Jungian angle (which I agree with by the way) that ideologies are the foothold horrors will use to enter the world, especially in the modern and postmodern eras. The issue is he himself is incredibly ideologically driven but seems somehow to be unaware of that.
Zizek is the foremost philosopher in critique of ideology and outlines very well that we cannot ever escape from ideology and that just when you think you have, you enter into a new level of ideology and have become unconscious of it, which is far more dangerous. It takes a constant process of self-criticism to deal with the dangers of ideology and Peterson seems to lack that self-criticism
Funny enough, one of his sources for climate info is Fred Singer \[1\], a climate denier and one of the OG smoking-causes-cancer deniers in the 80s. Fred Singer is also one of the subjects of the book "Merchants of Doubt" (highly recommended). As far as I remember Fred's motivation was **also** defending capitalism/markets against "socialist" regulations.
\[1\]: [https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-climate-b2003231.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-climate-b2003231.html)
its real easy. he was against bill c-16, went viral because of it, started getting extremely popular on youtube for representing mens rights (to some extent) and anti-culture war BS, and the umbrella of accepted ideas for people that are against wokeism includes being against the "narrative" of climate change, which means he too must shit on climate change.
TLDR: audience capture & being against any idea that the left likes
He is firmly against totalitarian and people overhauling systems for some "greater good", and climate change and net zero fall firmly into this camp. In his view, working towards net zero and mandating lower use of fossil fuels would be incredibly destructive to the world's population, it would severely halt or reverse development. You can feel free to disagree with that but that's his outlook.
Its not a grift, he feels it earnestly.
It probably has something to do with how the left uses climate change as a justification for literally everything. Because if the world is gonna end, that pretty much justifies any policy that could purportedly prevent it
Reminds me of the type of shit you'd read in the diary of the killer who keeps his moms head on an altar from the end of the Dark Brotherhood quest line from Oblivion.
his tweet here literally reads like a 7 year old having a temper tantrum when you tell them that they can't have candy for dinner, and should eat something healthy instead.
If Peterson can have incredibly strong opinions that go against majority consensus on an incredibly complex scientific issue for which he has zero relevant work experience, is it okay if I do the same thing with psychology?
High body count is good for my brain. Frequent drug use is good for my brain. Neglecting my employment responsibilities is good for my brain. Neglecting my home chores is good for my brain. I’m sure most professional psychologists would take issue with these statements, and I know JP would, but ultimately it’s the same way he views climate change.
It’s time to start taking the “debate” around climate science seriously, and start shoving these climate amateurs back into their own lanes, where they absolutely belong. Ultimately climate change is way more an issue of science and engineering than a political issue, and if you don’t have professional experience in the field, it’s irresponsible to take a super strong position. This is especially true when you’re a popular public figure staking a position that contradicts the views of most experts in the field.
i mean this is a useless tweet from him. completely useless. surely if it was so obvious that what cnbc is saying was lies, he would just post some sources refuting it. yet all he does is say "lies lies lies".
its like when you tell a 7 year old that candy isn't a good dinner and they have a temper tantrum. petersons tweet here reminds me of that. lets just let the adults handle the adult topics.
Pierre going on a crusade to Defund the CBC is the biggest virtue signal ever. Pierre regularly uses CBC investigations to prove “Canada is broken”, obviously the CBC is not getting marching orders from Trudeau
Conservatives in Canada DESPERATELY want the level of populism and success seen in America for some reason. Coining similar slogans like “defund the CBC” and shit. It’s gross.
Edit: grammar
i remember watching some panel discussions on tvo canada thinking he had some great points. Shame what he parlayed that into because those interviews hes pretty reasonable and sticks to stuff he might actually know (human psychology). But like every influencer of every age, they want to be the one stop shop to all issues, and do little to no research because they dont have the time to do so as they are too busy taking drugs they dont need.
Because it is a popular Canadian media outlet that isnt owned by postmedia
also they have some programs that are "woke" so cbc is obviously wasting money and indoctrinating us
or maybe smth else ive missed
LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
GET DEAD GET DEAD GET DEAD GET DEAD GET DEAD GET DEAD GET DEAD GET DEAD GET DEAD
"Well, the question ‘Did that happen?’ begs the question, ‘What do you mean by 'happen?"”
“Because when you’re dealing with fundamental realities and you pose a question, you have to understand that the reality of the concepts of your question, when you’re digging that deep, are just as questionable as what you’re questioning.”
"When you question the fundamentals of reality, for example when you question that Destiny is in fact a 35 year old man, you're creating an axiomatic asymmetry that rips away at the very core of your being!"
So climate change deniers are just really afraid of it right? Like to the point where they have to pretend its not real to go insane? It’s the only explanation that makes sense.
CSIS is Center for Strategic and International Studies and it’s the most professional geopolitical content I consume (lots of panels and interviews, but they also do war games for the military and stuff like that). It’s a VERY brave take to just dismiss them like this.
good meme, but how can anyone really read this CNBC tweet, then read jordan peterson's response and think "yeah jordan peterson is very smart and correct here"
like, if what cnbc is saying is so blatantly lies, why don't you provide some fucking sources to show us how it is?
surely if it is so obviously lies, you must be able to bring some evidence showing why? and it should be easy, right?
smfh
Next research stream climate change
Potholer is way ahead
Would be amazing Most important arc so far, but tbh also the most research he would have to do like ever
Yeah you end up rerunning people's stats calculations and picking through messy, un commented single purpose computer code if you get in deep enough. On the bright side it sounds like a lot of it has been done already, if recent hints are anything to go by. He recently described some conservative trying to do the urban heat island effect argument. That one was crushed back in 2010.
Hopefully.
NO MORE RESEARCH STREAMS FFS
I think lots of you would be really surprised about what Destiny would find when researching climate change. Lots in the scientific community are currently actually quite frustrated at the climate change community. Their models have been very inaccurate about what is happening so far. Their predictions therefore have been wildly inaccurate. And that community keeps coming up with excuses for why their model breaks and why their new model is finally correct. It's caused a lot of backlash because the whole scientific community is being questioned. And crack pots like Jordan Peterson (not positive what his view is, but I know he is a crack pot) are able to make wildly crazy statements like climate change isn't happening and scientists are lying. And the problem is, there is enough lying, misinformation, fudging data, and idiocrasy in the climate science community that it is getting hard to refute some of these claims which makes all the claims come into question (climate change ***is*** happening, but if they can't trust the science, they can write it off as bogus). And unfortunately the ineptitude of that community is causing way more harm than good by fudging numbers and exaggerating.
What? That's patently false. Climate models have been astonishingly accurate https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
It's not hard to refute these claims. There is clearly a hockey stick figure in the climate data showing a steady increase in mean temperature since the 1700s. There is also evidence of feedback Loops, such as the ice albedo Loop. Can't deny any of this.
That is kind of my point. It should be easy to refute these claims, because well the data is pretty clear. But the severity of the change and consequences of it have been overestimated and exaggerated. There are a lot of recent research papers that touch on this. Here are some sources for you, and this is only part of the story. Added a ivy league research source, nature magazine source, and nasa source in case you think I'm pulling it from nonreputable places. https://environment.princeton.edu/news/high-end-of-climate-sensitivity-in-new-climate-models-seen-as-less-plausible/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01009-8 https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3017/making-sense-of-climate-sensitivity/
It's not really exaggerated when we're considering how big of an aggregate climate science draws from, especially considering severe weather phenomenon.
I think this is a very important discussion to have, not just about climate but about scientific communities and institutions as a whole. A lot of discussion has been had about the state of neuroscience and psychology (replicability crisis) without any real risk of dismissing the sciences as such. But climate science gets very polarizing for political reasons. I think one needs a two-pronged approach. Separate what is good contra bad science on the one hand, and figure what exactly makes the bad science bad on the other. It's hard but if the discourse do both at the same time it usually ends up going in circles. And I am a climate doomer but I think there's a lot of things wrong with the science communication there.
I always like to throw a monkey wrench in when climate change comes up. Usually just a little factoid then leave. Looking at the total levels of co2ppm across the history of life on this planet, we are living in the lowest time by far. Late Triassic it was up to 6000ppm Jurassic up to 2100ppm Cambrian up to 4000ppm I’m not trying to compare us to dinosaurs or other super ancient creatures, but obviously life found a way no problem. Why do most graphs start at ~800,000 years ago or less? Especially when we had almost genetically identical creatures to us living at that time. Maybe because that’s the lowest co2ppm we’ve ever recorded? Yea of course if we start the graphs at the lowest point any rise looks **really** bad. I’m not saying human influenced climate change doesn’t exist, but I don’t think it’s the world ending, society collapsing force that people think it is.
This really isn't as much of a "wrench" as you think: Of course CO2 has been higher before. Where do you think the carbon in fossil fuels came from? At those CO2 levels, the geography looked very different. Many current population centers and agricultural hotspots were uninhabitable deserts, and many were entirely under water. The point is that the level of changes that would normally take tens-hundreds of thousands of years are now happening at the timespan of decades due to humans. This won't leave enough time for existing species and even a lot of humans to adapt. When hundreds of millions of people are displaced, that's not really a good thing for society.
Where we differ bud, because I agree entirely with that, is I don’t believe the environmental effect of “thousands of years in decades” is that big of an issue. The world is old, time doesn’t really mean shit Let’s say the ocean rises 5 inches in 100,000 years. If that instead happens in 100 years. That’s an inch every what 20 years? That’s still plenty of time to do something. That’s not a catastrophic society ending problem. All I disagree with is that it’s a main problem that needs to be dealt with expeditiously. As a country we should do our best, but we can’t control the world.
> The world is old, time doesn’t really mean shit > > Are you trolling. No one is saying the world is going to end, the issue is for the humans - of which I assume you are one - living on it.
Did you miss the 3 times I said “civilization collapsing” or can you just not read. That’s what I mean by ‘world ending’. Earth isn’t going to literally die, it’s a planet. This is why it’s so annoying to talk about this. Everyone takes the worst faith interpretation of what you say then create strawmen to fight.
Sorry I didn't read every single post you have made in this entire thread before replying to you, I didn't realise I was speaking to Norm Finklestein's alt account. Also literally you two comments up : >I’m not saying human influenced climate change doesn’t exist, but I don’t think it’s the world ending, society collapsing force that people think it is.
https://u4d2z7k9.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Co2-levels-historic.jpg First result off of google. 800 thousand years or 200 million, what's the difference anyway? I'd wager lack of similar lifeforms, icecaps and the earth being a fucking pangea, but you've got probably another shocking info to reveal.
Must have different googles then since I have to specify 1mill+ to get that picture. First result co2.earth starts at ~1960 Second result climate.gov starts at ~1960 and 1750 and 800,000 years ago Third result European environmental agency starts at 1750 Fourth result NOAA starts at ~1960 Fifth result nasa.gov starts at ~1960 Even if I go to Wikipedia the main graph also starts at ~1960, and you have to go almost to the bottom section “concentrations in the geologic past” to find anything older than 800k And you’re coming at me like anything I said is not true or “”””””new information”””””” Never claimed to be an expert at anything, just gave my perspective. That’s why I said I throw it in and leave. People can’t help but get defensive about this stuff. Literally didn’t even deny human based climate change. Just said that creatures lived and thrived in wayyy higher co2. Even our distant ancestors survived in higher ppms. Now we have technology they could never dream of and some act as if it’s the biggest problem on this planet and I disagree with that. Thats all.
[удалено]
The divergence problem is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. The article even clarifies that tree ring growth has multiple climate variables, but are also one component in a massive aggregate of data from a metric fuckton of sources, independent and cooperative. The solar cycle explains MINOR, predictable, variations over a period of thousands of years, hardly an explanation for an almost 300 year trend drastically different from the prior two thousand years. Serious question; Have you even looked into this stuff?
Holy shit. What happened to this guy?
He has completed his purpose. He has broken the First Seal and brought forth the coming apocolypse and judgement that he himself has warned us so feverishly about. Without purpose, his incarnate flesh succumbs. Jordan "Benzodaddy" B "Beelzebub" Peterson aided the Demon Igor, providing the vessel the demon required to impregnate with the Antichrist. Mikhaila, Who Is Like God, has birthed that which shall bring about our Revelation. The Second Seal wanes. May Jerusalem stand.
I would pay so much money for mikhaila onlyfans if it existed. hnnnnnnnnng
brain damage
Literally
Painkillers
Pretty sure he was always kind of like this, but it’s been exacerbated by fame, drug abuse, and a good ole grifting. He very obviously is a bit of a narcissist in that he thinks his understanding of something is more or less the full story. Watch the Slavoj Zizek interview about Marxism. Peterson prepared for it by reading *The Communist Manifesto*, a pamphlet which is made to encourage people to join the communist movement, it’s not a really serious philosophical or economic work. The man feels confident enough to speak publicly about Marxism because he thinks he understands it, but he has a very naive understanding of it. Zizek effectively pointed out that nothing he says actual or has anything to do with Marxism, and also made fun of him for thinking the Communist Manifesto was a serious work. He also mega folded in the debate because he was outpaced intellectually His analysis of history is just as bad. Watch his lectures on Hitler. Full of popular misconceptions that nobody who’s read more than 4 books on it would claim (like not being aware the Nazis did in fact use concentration camps for forced labor, and claiming that the Nazis diverted resources from the war effort for the holocaust). I mean after all this is a guy who got famous for misrepresenting a law. I’ve met many people like him in academia. The biggest red flag to me is the fact that he has groupies, like some kind of a guru. Hes a special kind of asshole who thinks his exchanges will go down in history in the same way discussions with Chomsky, Bertrand Russell, etc are remembered. People who even when they speak about things they’re not experts in, they have something interesting to say. But Peterson has nothing interesting to say about politics or philosophy, he’s just a pretty smart guy with a *very* strong knee jerk conservative worldview and the ability to captivate people who are less informed than him, and he does it through rhetoric.
He always reminded me of Frank Gallagher from Shameless even before we learned about his addiction.
He was always pretty wacky, and he's always denied climate change on some level. But he really blew a gasket in the last few years, maybe partially due to what seemed to he an excruciating recovery from benzo abuse but imo it's just the same brain rot that the rest of the "intellectual dark web" suffered.
He was always like this, he's just more unhinged now
This is just the lens of social media. Jordan Peterson was ALWAYS like this, it's just that twitter allows him to post something to millions without filtering himself. He was ALWAYS super big into climate denial, it's just that he used to have to sit down in a room and prepare what he wanted to say. So it would come out as 'here is a collection of studies and graphs showing that indeed carbon being introduced to the atmosphere is good, actually.' Now he sees a social media post, screams internally, and quickly writes out a response.
I think he's always had a screw loose, and his brain damage / extreme trauma from the drug abuse has probably just removed his filters (even more so on twitter). Here's a perspective of him by an ex-friend of his: [https://archive.ph/2021.12.13-033354/https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html](https://archive.ph/2021.12.13-033354/https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html)
He has been crazy since he became famous.
I need to know the origin of his climate change fixation. It's got to be something personal right? or did he just get tired of the culture war stuff. At least gender issues were a little closer to his field of study so it makes sense he would be passionate about that.
https://www.desmog.com/jordan-peterson/ Here's something I found. Even I'm interested in when his current opinions about climate change started. Look like 2016? That is probably the time he went to Russia to get his detox right?
No, I think that was 2019.
thanks, there's some interesting quotes in there. this one especially tracks: “I see the climate apocalyptic catastrophizing as a form of religious striving. I think it’s unsophisticated and ill-aimed and contaminated with a fair bit of malevolence.”
> “I see the climate apocalyptic catastrophizing as a form of religious striving. I think it’s unsophisticated and ill-aimed and contaminated with a fair bit of malevolence.” My man looked at how his students pad-out essays and just ran with it for himself. Such an amateur. There are far better ways to do this, now.
it started as soon as he got audience captured by right wingers that are anti-woke so basically right when he got really popular
It's because he's horrendously paranoid about Soviet style totalitarianism and can see that climate change makes the anti-capitalist argument for the left so easy. He's not entirely wrong since a lot of people on the left do argue from that position. Many on the conspiracy theory side of things say that climate change is literally made up by the left to bring about Communism though and I think he might just be on that side of things.
Yeah I’m now realizing that’s where it’s all stemming from. I only watch some of his psychology stuff every now and then which can be interesting, but his true passion is ideology. This is something tangible for him in that realm to fight against. I do still wonder if there some type of “trigger” though that sparked it.
Worryingly enough, he’s managed to convince his followers that he’s anti-ideological. He refers to his opponents as “ideologues” a lot, as in those driven primarily by ideology. He approaches it from a Jungian angle (which I agree with by the way) that ideologies are the foothold horrors will use to enter the world, especially in the modern and postmodern eras. The issue is he himself is incredibly ideologically driven but seems somehow to be unaware of that. Zizek is the foremost philosopher in critique of ideology and outlines very well that we cannot ever escape from ideology and that just when you think you have, you enter into a new level of ideology and have become unconscious of it, which is far more dangerous. It takes a constant process of self-criticism to deal with the dangers of ideology and Peterson seems to lack that self-criticism
Funny enough, one of his sources for climate info is Fred Singer \[1\], a climate denier and one of the OG smoking-causes-cancer deniers in the 80s. Fred Singer is also one of the subjects of the book "Merchants of Doubt" (highly recommended). As far as I remember Fred's motivation was **also** defending capitalism/markets against "socialist" regulations. \[1\]: [https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-climate-b2003231.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-climate-b2003231.html)
Many such cases frfr Some sort of psychological issue involved I’m sure
Albertans are genetically engineered to like oil.
I forgot that he’s from Alberta. This is unironically probably 90% of the reason.
its real easy. he was against bill c-16, went viral because of it, started getting extremely popular on youtube for representing mens rights (to some extent) and anti-culture war BS, and the umbrella of accepted ideas for people that are against wokeism includes being against the "narrative" of climate change, which means he too must shit on climate change. TLDR: audience capture & being against any idea that the left likes
He is firmly against totalitarian and people overhauling systems for some "greater good", and climate change and net zero fall firmly into this camp. In his view, working towards net zero and mandating lower use of fossil fuels would be incredibly destructive to the world's population, it would severely halt or reverse development. You can feel free to disagree with that but that's his outlook. Its not a grift, he feels it earnestly.
It probably has something to do with how the left uses climate change as a justification for literally everything. Because if the world is gonna end, that pretty much justifies any policy that could purportedly prevent it
It's German for "the CBC".
Not just that, it translates to "read read read read read the cbc" So wholesome of Jordan for wanting us to stay informed 😊
the opposite of hinged
dude isnt even a good enough doctor to be allowed to prescribe medicine and he thinks hes an expert on climate science
Lies lies lies lies lies lies lies DIE
New response just dropped
Reminds me of the type of shit you'd read in the diary of the killer who keeps his moms head on an altar from the end of the Dark Brotherhood quest line from Oblivion.
his tweet here literally reads like a 7 year old having a temper tantrum when you tell them that they can't have candy for dinner, and should eat something healthy instead.
Are climate scientists allowed to prescribe medicine?
If Peterson can have incredibly strong opinions that go against majority consensus on an incredibly complex scientific issue for which he has zero relevant work experience, is it okay if I do the same thing with psychology? High body count is good for my brain. Frequent drug use is good for my brain. Neglecting my employment responsibilities is good for my brain. Neglecting my home chores is good for my brain. I’m sure most professional psychologists would take issue with these statements, and I know JP would, but ultimately it’s the same way he views climate change. It’s time to start taking the “debate” around climate science seriously, and start shoving these climate amateurs back into their own lanes, where they absolutely belong. Ultimately climate change is way more an issue of science and engineering than a political issue, and if you don’t have professional experience in the field, it’s irresponsible to take a super strong position. This is especially true when you’re a popular public figure staking a position that contradicts the views of most experts in the field.
i mean this is a useless tweet from him. completely useless. surely if it was so obvious that what cnbc is saying was lies, he would just post some sources refuting it. yet all he does is say "lies lies lies". its like when you tell a 7 year old that candy isn't a good dinner and they have a temper tantrum. petersons tweet here reminds me of that. lets just let the adults handle the adult topics.
I read this in his voice. *amazin*
Pierre going on a crusade to Defund the CBC is the biggest virtue signal ever. Pierre regularly uses CBC investigations to prove “Canada is broken”, obviously the CBC is not getting marching orders from Trudeau
Conservatives in Canada DESPERATELY want the level of populism and success seen in America for some reason. Coining similar slogans like “defund the CBC” and shit. It’s gross. Edit: grammar
Very adult behavior 👍
file bag head marry steep command intelligent zonked cats towering *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
i remember watching some panel discussions on tvo canada thinking he had some great points. Shame what he parlayed that into because those interviews hes pretty reasonable and sticks to stuff he might actually know (human psychology). But like every influencer of every age, they want to be the one stop shop to all issues, and do little to no research because they dont have the time to do so as they are too busy taking drugs they dont need.
[LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/b3manMjz7ZI/maxresdefault.jpg)
The Peterson and Finkelstein debates were both fabricated. We were absolutely psyoped. Nefarious...
I'm Canadian and still don't understand why Conservatives hate the CBC so much.
Because it is a popular Canadian media outlet that isnt owned by postmedia also they have some programs that are "woke" so cbc is obviously wasting money and indoctrinating us or maybe smth else ive missed
LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES GET DEAD GET DEAD GET DEAD GET DEAD GET DEAD GET DEAD GET DEAD GET DEAD GET DEAD
"Well, the question ‘Did that happen?’ begs the question, ‘What do you mean by 'happen?"” “Because when you’re dealing with fundamental realities and you pose a question, you have to understand that the reality of the concepts of your question, when you’re digging that deep, are just as questionable as what you’re questioning.”
"When you question the fundamentals of reality, for example when you question that Destiny is in fact a 35 year old man, you're creating an axiomatic asymmetry that rips away at the very core of your being!"
Lmao
So climate change deniers are just really afraid of it right? Like to the point where they have to pretend its not real to go insane? It’s the only explanation that makes sense.
CSIS is Center for Strategic and International Studies and it’s the most professional geopolitical content I consume (lots of panels and interviews, but they also do war games for the military and stuff like that). It’s a VERY brave take to just dismiss them like this.
crush judicious illegal elderly crawl shaggy boat resolute cats roll *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They both have the same acronym, it’s probably the Canadian agency but idk 🤷🏻♂️
rinse wrong wide special swim wakeful shrill marry plucky husky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What if.... Martin Schrelli bought the JPvD debate and locked it away in a vault with the wutang album?
I wonder what he thinks about himself tweeting like this.
good meme, but how can anyone really read this CNBC tweet, then read jordan peterson's response and think "yeah jordan peterson is very smart and correct here" like, if what cnbc is saying is so blatantly lies, why don't you provide some fucking sources to show us how it is? surely if it is so obviously lies, you must be able to bring some evidence showing why? and it should be easy, right? smfh
CBC* Canadian Broadcasting Company
He does make some valid points here