How does he think climate change affects children?
Jordan Peterson thinks talking about climate change is very bad for children. I wonder what he thinks escalating climate change is going to be for them.
He explained about climate change on Joe Rogan’s chat show a few months ago. Word is his explanation wasn’t all that correct.
Leading climate scientists have ridiculed and criticised comments made by controversial Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson during an interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast.
During a new four-hour interview on Spotify’s most popular podcast, Peterson – who is not an expert on climate change – claimed that models used to forecast the future state of the climate couldn’t be relied on.
Ok so he’s not an expert on climate change but he is the smartest human who’s ever lived, so it comes to the same thing.
But climate scientists have described Peterson’s comments as “stunningly ignorant” and said he had fundamentally misunderstood the concept of climate modelling.
Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales Canberra, said Peterson’s description of how climate models work was fundamentally wrong. While weather forecasts do become less accurate the further out they go, this was a different process to climate modelling. He seems to think we model the future climate the same way we do the weather. He sounds intelligent, but he’s completely wrong.”
He can’t be. He was on the Joe Rogan podcast. Obviously he can’t be wrong.
Prof Christian Jakob, a climate modelling expert at Monash University, said Peterson’s comments were “ill-informed” and that he’d “mixed up weather prediction with climate projections.
“People are entitled to their opinions, but science and climate modelling isn’t about opinion. If you’re not well informed about how something is done then it’s not right to make comments about it on a large platform.”
Especially when the something is as urgent as climate change. Peterson is like a guy telling people to walk in front of a moving locomotive.
It’s very like the Tucker Carlson situation. These guys do their performances for ratings and fame and $$$, and they don’t care if the world burns.
He’s worried about the effect of “endless apocalyptic catastrophizing” on children? Where the hell was this guy back in the 1980’s when every second word out of the mouths of the talking heads had something to do with nuclear holocaust?
As it is with racism, talking about climate change is worse than climate change itself. Worse still is to suggest doing something to stop it.
Yeah, but preventing nuclear war wasn’t going to play nearly as much havoc with stock options and shareholder value across the entire economy. Not that rising sea levels and increased desertification is going to do them any favours either, but still.
Well obviously the answer to climate change is to eat an all meat diet, which is what he and his daughter (not to mention Joe Rogan) have been advocating. Let’s just ignore how devastating animal farming is for the environment. To hell with the science, and let’s keep our children in the dark by all means. Don’t want them making informed decisions or anything, that could lead to anarchy. :P
It is sort of amazing that someone who almost managed to kill himself simply by adhering to a truly moronic diet still has any kind of audience.
Most people do. Jim Inhofe and his snowball come to mind. But most people don’t have a huge platform to wax stupid on.
One of the first things I teach my students before we discuss climate change is the difference between weather and climate. They struggle with it, as evidence by the assignment I give on it, but they do better than most of their peers who haven’t been taught the difference.
People you shouldn’t be taking as the last word on climate change: Psychologists. Economists. Politicians. The guy down at the local bar. Your brother (unless he’s a climate scientist). Me (I know what it is, and how it works, but I am not a climate scientist. I can explain how they do their work; they can do it.)
If you’re careful, you don’t really need a huge platform to wax stupid on. A modest garage or porch should suffice.
I would think that kids would be far more demoralised by, oh, I don’t know – living through a pandemic, maybe? Losing friends and family, and/or family of friends?
Oh, and not climate change per se, but the fact that the adults in charge aren’t doing enough to mitigate it?
To paraphrase a climate activist in my country from a few years back, it’s not the facts of climate scientists that keep me awake at night, nor is it the efforts of activists to sound the alarm (the “endless apocalyptic catastrophizing”), it’s the apathy and indifference of almost everyone else.
Maybe, but I wouldn’t underestimate the power of ideology, tribalism, cognitive dissonance, justification spirals, or even just sticking it to the detested lefties and liberals.
“Everything’s all right yes, everything’s fine.” No problems to solve, nothing to do but sit back, relax, and make fun of larger swimsuit models on the cover of Sports Illustrated.
https://twitter.com/malegauze/status/1526402586777100290
There’s a world of wrong, here, isn’t there?
First, the Swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated, is really just kind of fifties exploitation with nothing related to sports. They offer nods to “inclusion,” in the form of burkini-clad models to show they are cool with (some sects of) Muslim suppression of women’s public appearance, and to body postivity, but that’s just to make their liberal readers feel good about panting over the other women in the spread. I am sure that there will be a “passing” transwomen soon on their cover. Now there is a body positivity model to display on the cover.
Good boys, SI, good boys. You don’t limit yourself to thin ones and make big girls feel bad!
But, Peterson goes after her personally and tells her she’s not attractive. Can’t keep it to himself, can he? Why do these guys need to be so forthcoming about what they don’t find attractive? We always have the option to swipe left with no comment. But not only does he tell the world that she’s unattractive (not that he finds her unattractive, but that she’s objectively not attractive,) he blames the woke bugaboo for even putting her on the cover, but he uses the bigger words “authoritarian tolerance.”
This illustrates my problem with overuse of the word “woke.” It’s replaced the phrase “political correctness” on the right as a slam against nearly anything that they can paint as being a “lib” thing. Yes, there are some loony things that the liberals promote, and you write about and we comment about them here. There are some very damaging things that come from the left.
But, not everything is “woke,” not everything is “authoritarian tolerance.” And no one is forcing Jordan Peterson, Psychologist who Won’t Eat his Peas and Won’t Use Trans Pronouns, to look at a larger women in a bikini. It is, however, convenient for a RW that supported a coup last year, to paint the left as authoritarianly woke.
I was recently assured by a GC tweeter that I follow that I should read Peterson, that he’s a friend to women. But he talks male grievance a lot, and he tweeted this, and to be frank I just don’t see it. And he talks as an expert out of his field on climate, and people listen to him. There are times I wish we could just cut back on the prominence of these grifters a little bit, but they keep on getting amplified, and that head that bangs against the wall gets no relief. I can’t find a safe time to stop.
Actually Tucker Carlson, Jordan Peterson, Donald Trump and a horde of other members of The Ostrich School of Climatology have probably taken out options on real estate in Greenland (Trump wanted to buy the whole thing) and Patagonia; just to cover the bases.
Mike, excellent comment. I just wish to add that there was already a trans model on the SI cover: Leyna Bloom, last year.
Re climate ostriches: there is a meme going around saying that the Earth’s average temperature has risen “only” 1.4° since 1880. “I really need to go back to sleep. I’m starting to look up random facts about hot topics that aren’t really a big problem.”
I am having a tough time figuring out if it’s sincere or sarcastic. My initial interpretation was as sarcasm, because a 1.4° increase in average temperature is quite large, and the last sentence seems to lampoon people who think their ignorant web searches are somehow more relevant than the efforts of people who spend lifetimes studying and investigating these things. But it is being shared as if it is sincere, by people who seem to think that yes, these “random facts” are accurate and thorough and well understood.
Also, just coincidentally and completely unrelated to high concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-61242341
Good one Mike. I used to find JP interesting as a skilled debater and lecturer, and I agree with his position on compelled speech and some of his ideas about personal responsibility, but he’s really lacked objectivity in the past few years, however good he’s been as an educator previously. I don’t think he’s a friend to women either. Seeing what’s wrong with pronouns and disagreeing with the trans agenda doesn’t by itself support feminism, GC or otherwise. As far as him thinking a Rubenesque woman isn’t beautiful, I could care less about his juvenile opinions about women who are being objectified.
@Sackbut, #12
Oh frabulous. Can’t think how missed that. Now everyone of those AGP boys gets an excuse to think they pass.