De Canadese psycholoog Jordan Peterson is bekend geworden door zijn verzet tegen het verplichten van taalgebruik. Hij is ook de schrijver van enige boeken, die ik niet gelezen heb, en de maker van vele YouTube video’s, waarvan ik er heel wat gezien heb. Hij heeft een grote aanhang, een schare van fans, die soms ten onrechte worden geassocieerd met ‘alt-right’ (zie het artikel in de Volkskrant: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/jordan-peterson-de-held-van-alt-right-links-moet-inbinden-of-we-krijgen-een-catastrofe~b1488ab0/). In ieder geval veroorzaakt zijn optreden hevig beroering en is in Nieuw Zeeland zijn boek ’12 rules’ verbannen (zie https://nationalpost.com/news/world/jordan-petersons-popular-12-rules-book-banned-by-new-zealand-booksellers-because-of-christchurch-mosque-massacre).
Er zijn dus vele onduidelijkheden over en rond Jordan Peterson, maar wat wel duidelijk is, is dat hij succes heeft, zowel met zijn boeken als met zijn video’s en speeches, die hij nu over de hele wereld aan het houden is in het kielzog van het verschijnen van zijn boek ’12 Rules For Life. An Antidote to Chaos’ (zie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Rules_for_Life).
De ‘12 rules’ van Jordan Peterson zijn:
1. Stand up straight with your shoulders back
2. Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
3. Make friends with people who want the best for you
4. Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
5. Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
6. Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
7. Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
8. Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie
9. Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t
10. Be precise in your speech
11. Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
12. Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
Het klinkt allemaal niet bijzonder, maar kennelijk wordt het te weinig gezegd, dat er zo’n behoefte is aan is. Ook is er niets ‘alt-right’ aan, maar kennelijk zijn deze ‘rules’ bijzonder prikkelend voor de zogeheten ‘left’, eigenlijk de ‘alt-left’ van de radicale feministen, etc., die luidruchtig opduiken bij de komst van Peterson en met veel kabaal proberen zijn speeches te verhinderen.
Peterson is als psycholoog nogal geïnspireerd door Carl Jung, die veel gebruik maakt van mythen en symbolen.
Ik heb een aantal video’s opgenomen, die van alle kanten komen, overwegend sympathiek.
https://youtu.be/27dshxbbPlg (59:05) ‘Interview with Dr. Jordan B. Peterson | Free Speech & Social Justice’ van Lauren Chen, live gestreamd op 2 nov. 2016 (343.470 v; 2.315 r). Tekst: ‘In this very exciting stream, I interview University of Toronto professor Dr. Jordan Peterson about the controversy surrounding his opposition to Bill C-16, the importance of free speech, gender issues (including non-binary identities and pronouns), and the current prominence of social justice in academia. Dr. Peterson is a vocal critic of the social justice movement and PC culture, and I encourage you to check out his Youtube channel and his website.’ [Zie ook https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAQlleqDgbI (1:15:33) ‘2017/01/23: Social Justice/Freedom of Speech: Bill C16 Debate Queen’s Law School’ van Jordan B Peterson.]
https://youtu.be/PXJeghw-cRk (1:02:15) ‘Why Did Cathy Newman Lose to Jordan Peterson?’ Van Sargon of Akkad, gepubliceerd op 18 jan. 2018 (1.192.367 v; 11.045 r). Tekst: ‘The feminist problem with equal treatment is that they are being treated like men.’ Zie ook https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJMCQ94t98k (2:06:33) ‘Interviewing Dr Jordan Peterson’ van Sargon of Akkad Live
https://youtu.be/KHSTq1OStRk (13:31) ‘Jordan Peterson and Bettina Arndt discussing conjugal relationships and sexual consent in marriage’ van Dharmic Kshatriya, gepubliceerd op 11 mrt. 2018 (9.221 v; 63 r). Tekst: ‘Jordan Peterson and Bettina Arndt discussing conjugal relationships and sexual consent in marriage.’
https://youtu.be/SLnekV64gTM (30:01) ‘A Shocking Revelation for America!’ Van Jason A, gepubliceerd op 31 mrt. 2018 (497.839 v; 2.610 r). Tekst: ‘THE MOST EYE OPENING MESSAGE FOR OUR TIMES! jordan b peterson interview sweden fabio jason a world news 2018 2019.’
https://youtu.be/4XMdT2cF-ZM (1:03:00) ‘Jordan Peterson Threatens Everything of Value In NZ’ van Jordan B Peterson, gepubliceerd op 14 feb. 2019 (303.474 v; 6.173 r). Tekst: ‘A couple of days ago (Feb 12, 2019) a group calling itself the Auckland Peace Action, objecting to my slated arrival in New Zealand in a couple of days (http://www.jordanbpeterson.com/events/) for my 12 Rules for Life Tour, produced a “press release” claiming that “Jordan Peterson Threatens Everything of Value in Our Society.” I thought that was a bit of an overstatement and so, apparently, did journalist Sean Plunket of New Zealand’s Magic Talk (http://bit.ly/2SSWHyb), who interviewed the writer/spokesperson for the Auckland Peace Action group, Iris Krzyzosiak. I think it is rather charitable to describe the results as distinctly unhelpful for the Peace Action group. In this video compilation, I read part of the original press release, then present Sean’s interview with Ms. Kryzosiak, so you can make up your own minds about the opinions of her group, and follow that with an extended interview, with an audience Q and A that I conducted with Sean a day later. Hope to see you in New Zealand: See www.jordanbpeterson.com for tickets remaining in the New Zealand venues: Wellington and Auckland, as well as Australia, later: Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.’
https://youtu.be/pOdm6Ijby0E (11:44) ‘Jordan Peterson is NOT Alt Right, You Idiots’ van The Thinkery, gepubliceerd op 15 mei 2018 (138.431 v; 2.239 r). Tekst: ‘I’m sick of hearing it. It’s like describing cows as a fruit.’
https://youtu.be/m4_WYWpZujc (23:07) ‘Jordan Peterson Appears to be a Man of Good Character’ van The Thinkery, gepubliceerd op 28 mei 2018 (155.899 v; 1.712 r). Tekst: ‘By your own words, so please stop printing hit pieces and address his arguments.’
https://youtu.be/fKJEfqVg6Ho (21:26) ‘The Social Justice War against Jordan Peterson’ van Sargon of Akkad, gepubliceerd op 21 mrt. 2017 (444.100 v; 3.848 r). Tekst: ‘A speech by Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto was disrupted and shut down by far left activists. Their handlers released a statement to explain why, and it’s worth exploring.’
https://youtu.be/nlgG8C1GydA (1:33:33) ‘Our Cultural Inflection Point and Higher Education: Jordan Peterson and Stephen Blackwood’ van Jordan B Peterson, gepubliceerd op 21 feb. 2019 (23.408 v; 723 r).
https://youtu.be/TmNSlF7lcaw (1:19:23) ‘Jordan Peterson Destroys Q&A | 25 February 2019’ van abcqanda, live gestreamd op 25 feb. 2019 (781.379 v; 10.897 r). Tekst: ‘Jordan Peterson join the live Q&A Panel with Alex Hawke, Terri Butler, Cathryn McGregor and Van Badham.’
https://youtu.be/_xjP4fMwdLY (34:31) ‘Commentaries on JB Peterson: Rebel Wisdom’ van Jordan B Peterson, gepubliceerd op 3 mrt. 2019 (30.177 v; 695 r). Tekst: ‘Rebel Wisdom (http://bit.ly/2T9ZnbD) has compiled a set of clips regarding my work from many of their interviewees, including Iain McGilchrist, Bret Weinstein, Jordan Greenhall, Akira the Don, Jamie Wheal, Tim Lott, Matthew Segall and Jesse Estrin, Doshin Nelson Roshi, Warren Farrell and Gabor Mate. The original upload can be found here: http://bit.ly/2SFIYqm. From their website: “In these times of change, we can no longer trust the traditional media to make sense of the world. The old gatekeepers are losing their power. A new counter culture is filling the void, driven by a great intellectual awakening. Facilitated by new technology, it’s made a new kind of conversation possible; more in-depth, more open and more democratic. Fuelled by social media, many have become trapped in reaction and ideology, yet big questions can only be explored with open-minded, self-reflective, grounded conversations.”
https://youtu.be/QQe3lKT3fAo (44:33) ‘JORDAN PETERSON taking calls! New Zealand interview – gender quotas and his representation in media!’ Van Popular Clips, gepubliceerd op 15 feb. 2019 (4.193 v; 24 r).
https://youtu.be/TVYDdZWUWlE (1:39:10) ‘Conversations with John Anderson: Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin’ van Jordan B Peterson, gepubliceerd op 5 mrt. 2019 (45.003 v; 556 r). Tekst: ‘Jordan and Dave joined John Anderson at this private forum event to further examine their diagnoses of and prescriptions for our contemporary challenges. A conversation recorded in Sydney, February 2019.’
https://youtu.be/oJ6T9dOHgLw (2:40:12) ‘Jordan Peterson – **IMPROVED AUDIO VERSION** – Iceland Tour 2018 – Lecture 1’ van Streets of Vancouver, gepubliceerd op 11 aug. 2018 (11.743 v; 16 r). Tekst: ‘I’ve used a compressor and then EQ’ed the voices for optimum clarity and listening pleasure. Here are Dr. Peterson’s notes for this video: “There are two videos from Iceland, covering different material. This is the first. The second is at (TBA). I have been touring since January, discussing my books, 12 Rules for Life and, to a lesser extent, Maps of Meaning (see www.jordanbpeterson.com/events for details, including upcoming tour dates and cities. I was in Iceland in June and gave two lectures (June 04, Lecture 1; June 05, Lecture 2), followed by a Q and A. I was hosted by Gunnlaugur Jonsson, who also introduced both talks. I’ve been using the lectures as an opportunity to extend, develop and publicly test the ideas I presented in 12 Rules and Maps of Meaning. My wife Tammy and I had a remarkable and memorable trip to Iceland. My mother and aunt also came for the adventure, and were treated with exceptional care by Gunnlaugur and his crew. We are looking forward to returning to Iceland in 2019. Thank you very much to Halldór Fannar Kristjánsson (Sigurgeirsson) for the video recording and editing.’
https://youtu.be/9oK7pxTXuO0 (40:10) ‘Jordan Peterson DESTROYS Sam Harris’ van Mr Reagan, gepubliceerd op 18 sep. 2018 (100.578 v; 2.719 r). Tekst: ‘Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris’ London debate analysis. These two legends of the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) finally culminates in a productive debate about religion.’ Zie ook https://youtu.be/zIpBEjJCgqA (59:54) ‘Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and Douglas Murray : Dublin Debate REACTION’ van Mr Reagan, gepubliceerd op 3 sep. 2018 (33.174 v; 740 r). Tekst: ‘An analysis of the Dublin debate. My mic inexplicably stopped recording about 2/3rds of the way through my recording. I apologize for the poor quality of the audio after that.’ [Voor de hele discussie, zie de video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZI-FwSQRn8 (1:58:18) ‘AC Harris/Murray/Peterson Discussion: Dublin’ van Jordan B Peterson.]
https://youtu.be/TfdvTO6vfyM (1:01:04) ‘Jordan Peterson vs Sam Harris Night 2 REACTION’ van Mr Reagan, gepubliceerd op 29 aug. 2018 (13.776 v; 714 r). Tekst: ‘An even better debate than Night 1, Peterson and Harris clash on the possibility of developing a secular set of ethics without religion, and the system of motivations to enforce those ethics.’
https://youtu.be/xKdgDnrSy3o (18:58) ‘Kabbalah, Occultism, Freemasonry and Jordan Peterson – Stop Being Silly’ van Jonathan Pageau, gepubliceerd op 1 apr. 2019 (21.004 v; 644 r). Tekst: ‘In the wake of many attacks on Jordan Peterson, I look at the danger of reducing symbolic structures to their historical association with groups, schools of thinking and occult personalities.’
https://youtu.be/aDepoPl1oEM (1:09:07) ‘Jordan B. Peterson – Liberty University’ van Liberty University, gepubliceerd op 29 mrt. 2019 (351.210 v). Tekst: ‘On March 29, 2019, at Convocation, North America’s largest weekly gathering of Christian students, University of Toronto professor and author Jordan B. Peterson shared principles from his book “12 Rules for Life.” Convocation is North America’s largest weekly gathering of Christian students, and each year it plays host to more than 80 guest speakers of national significance from every sphere of society.’
https://youtu.be/m_O-cg4UtQ8 (11:51) ‘Jordan Peterson: Defender of Men’ van Laurel, gepubliceerd op 3 apr. 2019 (746 v; 56 r). Tekst: ‘Jordan Peterson’s book was banned by the largest bookseller in New Zealand and his fellowship at Cambridge University was cancelled. Both because he helps men who need and deserve to be helped. He should be praised for helping men, not ostracized.’ Met links.
https://youtu.be/dOmJx8mTnm8 (45:59) ‘Dr. Jordan B. Peterson On The Impact Of the Radical Left’ van The Heritage Foundation, gepubliceerd op 4 apr. 2019 (64.277 v; 710 r). Tekst: ‘Clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan B. Peterson has given lectures all over the world—drawing massive audiences with a message that empowers and challenges them to find meaning in their lives through personal responsibility. He shared his wisdom with hundreds of Heritage Foundation supporters in New York City in this captivating conversation with Genevieve Wood.’
https://youtu.be/wLoG9zBvvLQ (43:47) ‘Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism | Jordan B Peterson’ van Ruminate, gepubliceerd op 6 jul. 2017 (662.202 v; 3.472 r). Tekst: ‘Jordan Peterson, Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, speaks with The Epoch Times about Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism.’
Er is ook een heftige ‘right wing’ anti-Peterson video, zie https://youtu.be/WXYuqrO8LLo (30:58) ‘Jordan Peterson Dismantled’ van Resurrection Europa, gepubliceerd op 24 jan. 2019 (266.298 v; 10.847 r). Tekst: ‘A documentary exposing Jordan Peterson’s agenda to subvert and destroy the rising political right wing, and neutralize European nationalism. This video completely exposes Peterson’s anti-White agenda and his strategy for implementing it. Any Peterson fans who are not beyond saving will be deprogrammed by watching this video. Jordan Peterson’s primary goal is to neutralize the political right and White identity. He does not care about the Marxist take-over of our nations, in fact he was hired by the United Nations to help usher it along. Peterson’s only reason for stepping into the limelight was because he saw a massive right wing backlash fomenting, and realized it was going to destroy the left. His job is to implement “plan B”, to steer the rising tide of nationalism into an impotent cul-de-sac of centrist individualism, giving our enemies just enough time to tip the demographic balance of our countries so that our destruction is sealed. Peterson is explicitly targeting young White males for indoctrination with an insidious political ideology he calls radical individualism. He has created a pseudo-religion self-help cult; he is delivering his ideology to the disaffected youth by combining it with a self-help regimen wrapped in empty religious metaphor. While our enemies are working tirelessly to destroy our nations in a ruthlessly calculated and organized fashion, Jordan Peterson is brainwashing a generation of young White men to be atomized individuals who perceive group cooperation based on ethnic identity and nationality as the height of evil. And in the process of doing so, Peterson and his friends are making untold millions of dollars.’
Jordan Peterson with a fan (foto Laurel)
‘Why does Jordan Peterson deny climate change, given that he seems to respect scientific empiricism?’ (https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Jordan-Peterson-deny-climate-change-given-that-he-seems-to-respect-scientific-empiricism).
Robert Gorcik (https://www.quora.com/profile/Robert-Gorcik), Adjunct Community College Adjunct Professor (2007-present), Answered Dec 25 2018 (https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Jordan-Peterson-deny-climate-change-given-that-he-seems-to-respect-scientific-empiricism/answer/Robert-Gorcik)
I’ll take a crack at this.
I’m actually currently reading “12 rules for life” and I respect Jordan Peterson a lot. However, he is certainly NOT above criticism. He is rather provocative, says things that are out in left field, and can be criticized for making the too oft mistake many academics make – that “because I am successful academic researcher in one field – I can transfer that and add something significant in other fields”, which is not always the case.
Personally, I try to tease out the grains of truth from the things he says, which are very profound. 12 rules has certainly I think been good for me personally.
I am a community college adjunct physical geography and earth science [professor and spend a couple class sessions going over climate change, and I will point out what Peterson is talking about when he talks about “the data is corrupted by ideology” (or whatever he said).
First off, I’ll briefly address the area where he supposedly champions empiricism. With his harsh critique against postmodernism impacting social sciences. I’m not an expert on postmodernism, but postmodernism does cause me a fair amount of personal stress in today’s era, as it is the predominant approach to address issues of social justice and righting the wrongs of the past. But that’s a totally different issue for another time. Suffice to say, I believe we CAN help groups that have been historically marginalized through objective, empirical means, and I think it would be better for everyone. Personally postmodernism creates a world where nothing makes sense to me, and I am glad to see so many academics including Jonathan Haidt and others standing up against “concept creep” and redefining words that have traditionally been used to define truly repugnant beliefs. I also believe that is something to think about, that current trendy far left circles have the capacity for authoritarianism and fanaticism that can lead to oppression similar to communist governments during the Cold War, and that it would be good for some to take a hard look at themselves and what they are capable of getting too involved in.
Now, on to addressing how Jordan Peterson addresses climate change and how ideology has says how impacted it the issue.
I will share a story:
Back in 2007, shortly after I graduated from grad school, and about a year after “An Inconvenient Truth” came out in theaters and (two years after mention hurricane katrina) and put the issue of climate change on the forefront of the mainstream, I went to a public presentation/program of an activist group that was about climate change, one that was referred to a woman I recently met at the time. This presentation stood out to me to this day unlike any similar presentation on climate change in a way that planted a grain of criticism about the way that climate change was talked about from that point onward.
This guy, clearly had little interest in learning science for the sake of science, proclaimed like a secular preacher that “Climate change is NOT an environmental issue!! Its a social justice issue!! And we’re not going to be able to “technofix” our way out of this. Hybrids are not the answer! We are going to have to fundamentally change our economy/society! (Forgot exactly what word he said, but I think you get it. The program involved people breaking out into groups designing posters drawing the idealized image of their carbon neutral city would look like.
From then on, I started thinking that “Things like this presentation will only serve to alienate, and encourage a backlash from those who are prone to imagining there is some kind of Marxist conspiracy behind climate change solutions.” “Where is the basic demonstration of understanding of atmospheric science?” “Where is the talk of exciting new projects making renewable energy more economically competitive with fossil fuels?” Over the years the rhetoric became increasingly more common and intense. That somehow, a deeper understanding of climate change somehow doesn’t require the equivalent of a basic undergraduate understanding of atmospheric sciences, doesn’t require the understanding of the economics of energy resources, Probably the second most memorable moment of this movement towards thinking that “climate change is a social justice issue, and not one that will be fixed primarily through technological innovation” is when I stumbled upon author Naomi Klein who has apparently written multiple books about how capitalism is incompatible with climate change solutions. And considering she seems to be another one of those who are well off – “yeah, that’s not going to win over anyone”
Fast forward 10 years I feel more convinced than ever that the issue of climate change HAS been dominated more by ideology by the majority of those greatly concerned about it, and this in turns only fuels the backlash. Every now and then, I come across students and others, who are trying to convince me, that actually analyzing graphs, timelines, and maps are not necessary to understand climate change because they assume its self evident that climate change is happening because it supposedly self evident, that natural disasters have become more common and worse. Well maybe that might be true – but this is why you are in a science class! If you think it’s just self evident, because it’s obvious to everyone and you don’t need to look at graphs, maps, and timelines, well . . . then, that’s not science! That is “seeing and believing!” And “seeing and believing” or “listening and believing” is a sign of a non-theistic religion.
Yes, social justice is certainly a major reason why one works to solve global environmental issues, of course because the poor are much more vulnerable and have fewer resources to adapt to any changes, but the wealthy are also affected by climate change, because in many places, the wealthy have oceanfront property, and large homes located in wildland-urban interface prone to wildfires. So, no – social justice does not need to be central to why we should address climate change. And while of course, political action, as well as individual lifestyle changes are absolutely essential, technological innovation in green energy and carbon sequestration is even MORE essential. And innovation is hindered when you don’t have some free market competition. At the same time, government investment into a “Green new deal” is also important to accelerate this kind of innovation and mass infrastructure replacement.
If anyone REALLY wants to become truly educated on climate change both in understanding the science, refuting challenges to climate changes skeptics, and being convinced of the solutions that are already underway, I can’t recommend enough the YouTube channel: “potholer54” Potholer54 is a British geologist who worked as a science reporter who has been making videos on climate change for the past 10 years. If everyone who is concerned about the issue checked out his videos, and learned a new way to talk about the issue from him, you can win over opponents in the climate change debate in an EMPIRICAL fashion.
So to conclude, I think Peterson could follow some of his own advice when understanding climate change and its solutions, he has a point that should be addressed, and hopefully I successfully analyzed this here in this post.
Salar (Updated Feb 12, 2019, https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Jordan-Peterson-deny-climate-change-given-that-he-seems-to-respect-scientific-empiricism/answer/Salar-19): Because man made climate change is pseudoscience
Let me explain. Throwing a few fancy scientific words into a hypothesis does not make it scientific, but there are rules for it. Rules that help you distinguish between science and pseudoscience
The very basis of science is empirical experiment and observation. This experiment must be reproducable, non exclusive and controlled. Meaning you should be able to modify or delete variables in order to test each one of them and you or anyone else must be able to repeat it at any time. The role of empirical experiment in science is to falsify a hypothesis, not to prove it right. Nothing is ever proven in science. Therefore if a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it’s not scientific. There are three crucial elements required here. And if a hypothesis does not have even one of them, it’s not scientific
A. A scientific theory provides a constant rule of order. So basically, a scientific theory must be able to start with “always”, “never”, “each” and “every”. For instance: Heat will always increase the speed of chemical reactions. This is well described by Karl Popper in ‘The Logic of Scientifc Discovery’. I’ll explain why this is a crucial element.
B. Prediction value: a scientific theory must be able to provide a precise and specific prediction of the future of an event. Therefore if the prediction didn’t occur, it would be falsified this way. This is when the importance of element A shows up. If a prediction doesn’t come with an “always”, it can’t falsify the theory. For example if I say event A might lead to event B or not, or if I say it might lead to B-Z based on circumstances, there is no way you can falsify this prediction, because it can’t fail.
And I hope people understand that statistics is a branch of mathematics, not science. And statistical evaluations are not scientific theories
Scientific hypothesis make precise predictions that can be checked against future observation. Pseudoscientific accounts make vague predictions that are consistent with prior observations but never make predictions specific enough to permit clear refutation
This is the same as what we see in climate science today. As some climatologists now claim that a rise in CO2 can result in both warming and cooling periods. Therefore cooling periods can’t refute this hypothesis. Nothing can. As they’ve already managed to provide an excuse for the cooling periods. Also they’re saying that earth is overall warming because of CO2 emissions. This is nothing more than a vague claim.
First of all, what does “overall” mean? Ten, a hundred, a thousand, a million, ten million or 100 million years? Since different cutting points will result in different views about change and one can simply pick a preferred overall period to push their narrative, which is what they’re doing and is another manifestation of pseudoscience. Whenever you hear these vague, subjective words in an objective field like science, your bullshit detector must go off. Second, predictions need to be precise, in other words, they have to provide specific numbers. And if the future results don’t match the numbers, it is refuted. They did this in the computer models and they failed, but didn’t accept defeat and switched to vague assumptions, aka pseudoscience. You don’t need to be a scientist to realize how simplistic their view of climate is.
C. A scientific theory must forbid certain events to occur in the future. This is another way to falsify a hypothesis. For example if I say that heat will always speed up a chemical reaction, it is impossible for this not happening under controlled conditions. So if CO2 will rise global temperature, it is impossible for global temperatures to fall while CO2 is rising.
What if we say rising global temperatures always come with rising CO2 levels? Well first, that points out a correlation and you need a controlled scientific experiment to show causation (which can’t happen in climate) and second, we know that CO2 is gonna rise in the future. So any change in climate will correlate with a rise in CO2 levels. Therefore the assumed “causation” can’t be refuted. Therefore it’s not scientific but a form of pseudoscience. It’s all a trick.
Now you might say “but climate can’t be a controlled condition” and bravo! It’s not and it cannot be. This is the flaw of climate science that not only cannot make controlled observation of climate, but also cannot make specific or precise predictions of the future. Therefore it’s not scientific. It’s just a vague guess.
And of course some would argue that the impossibility is to show if CO2 doesn’t trap heat when temperature rises. But these people are simply changing their hypothesis to avoid science. The argument is not if CO2 can trap heat, but if this heat trapping characteristic going from a 0.03% to a 0.04% concentration can change temperature on a global scale. And there is no empirical “experiment” done to show if this can happen.
It’s one thing to say if a match will heat up when you light it up, and it’s a whole other argument to say if it is the cause of warming of a huge room, specially when there are many more factors affecting the temperature of that room along with many dark parts in this room that we don’t know about. Just like we don’t “fully” understand climate and what’s affecting it yet, and if anyone claims they do, they’re a fool. This is a bridge you can’t simply just cross.
It’s possible that scientists 100 years from now will be laughing at how simplistic we were in our views of the climate.
Greg Steele (https://www.quora.com/profile/Greg-Steele-14), B.S. Earth Science & Hydrogeology, Pennsylvania State University (1993), Answered Dec 12, 2018 (https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Jordan-Peterson-deny-climate-change-given-that-he-seems-to-respect-scientific-empiricism/answer/Greg-Steele-14)
It’s hard to speak for someone else, but I’d guess he’s looked at the empirical evidence and found it wanting.
Now, before we can discuss climate change, we have to define what we mean by “denial”. I’m sure Peterson doesn’t deny that the climate has and will change over time. The geologic evidence shows clearly that it does. The question is “Is climate changing to a significantly greater degree now due to co2 being emitted by human activities?” The current evidence for that is dubious and almost entirely founded in climate models that are programmed with the assumption that it does. As of now, exactly none of the dire predictions from these models has come true. Skeptically thinking, otherwise known as scientifically thinking, that is cause to doubt the veriacity of both the models and the underlying assumptions.
The fact that the climate science community is not openly discussing these problems, but is instead labeling anyone questioning the evidence and methods as “climate deniers”, a slur meant to envoke the emotions attached to Holocaust denial, is clear evidence that they are more concerned with politics than science.
Shelby Moore III (https://www.quora.com/profile/Shelby-Moore-III), Updated Mar 8, 2019 (https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Jordan-Peterson-deny-climate-change-given-that-he-seems-to-respect-scientific-empiricism/answer/Shelby-Moore-III)
The answer is that Jordan Peterson denies junk, politicized “science” and respects actual science. So the premise of your question is incorrect.
Now if you’d actually like for me to explain why anthropogenic global warming (recently changed by the propagandists to “climate change” because we’re entering a Maunder Minimum with intense global cooling) is junk science, then you need to ask that question.
The skinny is that man can impact the environment, but not climate. Our climate runs on a cycle governed predominately by the changes in activity of the sun.
Our current problem is we’re headed into severe global cooling and we’re not going to be prepared because of the propaganda that was foisted on humanity so the fat cats could continue to line their pockets with the politicization process and for example a global carbon tax they can use to further take more for themselves and less for the rest of the fools who are fooled into believing junk, politicized “science”.
It is really pitiful actually.
Dale Ruff (https://www.quora.com/profile/Dale-Ruff), former Amateur Writer, Answered Dec 13, 2018 (https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Jordan-Peterson-deny-climate-change-given-that-he-seems-to-respect-scientific-empiricism/answer/Dale-Ruff)
Peterson, whose field is psychology and with zero background in climate science, presumes, while offering no evidence, that he knows better than the world’s 10,000 climate scientists. Why would a man do that?
The only possible answer is a combination of attention-seeking and unhinged hubris. For a person with zero background in a subject to pretend to know more than the people who spend their entire lives studying the subject, is like a man with no training in mechanics claiming that all the world’s diesel mechanics are wrong because they have “too much ideology” in their thinking.
He is an ignoramus in a field in which he has no training or experience at all, but you can get more attention denying science than embracing it. The real question is why anyone would take a person with no qualifications at all seriously. And now, I am not talking about Trump!
Roger Fjellstad Olsen (https://www.quora.com/profile/Roger-Fjellstad-Olsen), Knows the peer reviewed climate science, Answered Dec 6, 2018 (https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Jordan-Peterson-deny-climate-change-given-that-he-seems-to-respect-scientific-empiricism/answer/Roger-Fjellstad-Olsen)
Just read this brilliant answer:
Michael Barnard’s answer to Why does Jordan Peterson deny climate change, given that he seems to respect scientific empiricism? (https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Jordan-Peterson-deny-climate-change-given-that-he-seems-to-respect-scientific-empiricism/answer/Michael-Barnard-14?ch=10&share=8b6101c6&srid=O6Mzh)
Jordan Peterson has degenerated into conspiracy theories, pseudo science and eerie conservatism and is thus a perfect propaganda troll for climate deniers, polluters industries and the whole War on science movement.
His recycling of creepy crawly PragerU propaganda and denier think tank nonsense really says it all.
Jordan Petersons Climate Denial Tweet
Roger Fjellstad Olsen’s answer to Can someone offer a rebuttal of the PragerU video about climate models? (https://www.quora.com/Can-someone-offer-a-rebuttal-of-the-PragerU-video-about-climate-models/answer/Roger-Fjellstad-Olsen?ch=10&share=8ba5546d&srid=O6Mzh)
Jordan Peterson (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson#Global_warming) – RationalWiki https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson#Global_warming