Opinion: Jordan Peterson has always been a crank

[Pontius Dilate]

This seems like such an an honest description of seeking understanding that I feel a need to complement you and comment on it. That out of the way, I see some real struggle ahead for me trying to clarify. The first thing I realize is that I a a person who acts on hunch and instinct, on whatever thoughts arise out of what I am experiencing. I could say that I am experimental or risk taking, that I put myself out there and am willing to experience ridicule. Part of how I can self justify doing so if that is what it this is, is that I believe the only harm I can do to people isn't real. We were wounded long ago as children, don't remember and do not want to know when told we are that way. The danger to myself and others is all the repressed rage we bottle up to keep from awakening expressing hopefully as attacks on me and not in the form of self harm which people to as payback for the pain they feel.

So I tell stories, reflect back to people what I think their game is confront deception with what I feel will reveal it, etc. In short I do not follow social etiquette or normal rules of politeness. My aim is to direct attention to unexamined assumptions buried maintained by popular belief. I am a outlier or an outsider in how I look at the wold, naturally, in my opinion. This is the result, in my opinion, not because I have esoteric truths that reflect my capacity, but because I don't know what others do, I died to my sacred beliefs, I did not really know what I thought I did.

On the one hand, this is an anonymous forum on the internet. There is a vast array of social behavior we can get away with here that could potentially have extremely negative and immediate consequences in a face-to-face social setting. Similarly, being on the receiving end of aggressive behavior here is pretty damn low stakes. I can tell Greenman that he's as useful as a jello dildo and if we were in the same room I would give him an atomic wedgie and flush his head down the toilet. He would likely tell me good luck with my butthurt and he doesn't care and that would be then end of that with no further thought by either of us. That being said the stakes are not zero for everyone all the time. You talking about everyone being wounded as children and then saying the only harm you can do to people isn't real seems like a contradiction. You are welcome to not follow social etiquette or normal rules of politeness, as are we all, but once again you may be just isolating yourself in the end when no one wants to treat with you.

But if you will observe what I do you may see that makes not the slightest difference because nobody cares to ask how I can justify using the term in the way I see Peterson intending. They scream in your face, shout you down, or drum over you attempt to explain, and pull the plug on your microphone. Such people are only interested in getting the attention Peterson has because some people are willing to listen, and they feel their hurts don't rank. They want to be the center of attention and outrageous behavior is their path to success. That's my opinion.

I suppose, but how would they ever know to ask? I didn't know to ask, you spontaneously told me what you meant by that. I'd never have picked that up from any available context. That's all I meant.

Are you telling me that my opinions aren't sacred cows that everybody should believe if they want to be happy.

What I am telling you is that your right to value your own opinion can be the same thing as worshiping it. What I am trying to tell you is that I don't value my opinions because I don't have any that are sacred. I have opinions about other people's opinion that they can't possibly know there is truth, sacredness, in them because there was no truth or sacredness in the ones I used to believe in. Owing to the presence of self hate and the need for am alternative substitute for it, we identify with and impute sacredness in programmed belief. I saw that in myself. My Mother told me to be honest much to her regret at times.

I still feel like you're just semantically putting yourself in a different category than most everyone else. Everyone else valuing their own opinion can be the same as worshipping it, holding it sacred. But you're different from everyone else, you don't value your opinion, you don't hold it sacred. Most everyone else is in a persistent state of what you used to be, still following the programming, reactive not proactive, asleep, blind, deaf. You can see the code now. Fine as far as that goes. But it's about you, it's your story. It's not everyone's story.

 

[Moonbeam]

On the one hand, this is an anonymous forum on the internet. There is a vast array of social behavior we can get away with here that could potentially have extremely negative and immediate consequences in a face-to-face social setting. Similarly, being on the receiving end of aggressive behavior here is pretty damn low stakes. I can tell Greenman that he's as useful as a jello dildo and if we were in the same room I would give him an atomic wedgie and flush his head down the toilet. He would likely tell me good luck with my butthurt and he doesn't care and that would be then end of that with no further thought by either of us. That being said the stakes are not zero for everyone all the time. You talking about everyone being wounded as children and then saying the only harm you can do to people isn't real seems like a contradiction. You are welcome to not follow social etiquette or normal rules of politeness, as are we all, but once again you may be just isolating yourself in the end when no one wants to treat with you.

This sounds like a fair description of you experience of me here. I think it is missing some relevant facts. People hate themselves. This is dangerous for the person who hates himself and the people around him. I am using the male pronoun for ease of application but all gender identifications would be the same. The danger happens when someone is suddenly forced to confront, as in losing the use of the effectiveness of their ego shield, and suddenly experiencing the hidden massiveness of their self hate. This is the danger of not knowing ourselves when by knowing what I mean is how we really feel. People can murder, commit suicide, have a psychotic break etc. It can set off PTSD, etc. But suppose you had been warned that such dangers await the truth seeker that warn him to turn back. Knowledge changes everything. What I think you have left out of your critique of me is that my purpose isn't to get you to see you hate yourself, but that it's a lie you believe. I am saying that the only thing wrong with anybody is that they believe there is so to deny that reality is to seal our prison. That's where the real harm is, in my opinion. The rest of it is the inevitability of denial. Our best friend, the ego has to die. Each step in that direction improves the quality of life, again as I see it.

I suppose, but how would they ever know to ask? I didn't know to ask, you spontaneously told me what you meant by that. I'd never have picked that up from any available context. That's all I meant.

I got that. I do post a bit and cover my points from multiple angles and I can't say everything at once or know where I have confused you if you don't tell me. You did. Most don't. They don't want me escaping the box they put me in raising any uncertainty about their beliefs. My opinion.

I still feel like you're just semantically putting yourself in a different category than most everyone else. Everyone else valuing their own opinion can be the same as worshipping it, holding it sacred. But you're different from everyone else, you don't value your opinion, you don't hold it sacred. Most everyone else is in a persistent state of what you used to be, still following the programming, reactive not proactive, asleep, blind, deaf. You can see the code now. Fine as far as that goes. But it's about you, it's your story. It's not everyone's story.

Why is it not? My claim is that there is a conscious state that people do experience that you can't share with other people just by talking about it. So all my words about being somehow different are empty. But I am perfectly aware that it sounds competative, boastful, perhaps even egomaniacal. All I reqally want to do is to tell you of an unknown restaurant that gets five stars from folk who have dined there and it's taking reservations in case you're tired of your usual diet.

I got word first from Zen that such a places existed and I got a glimps of what was inside. Now I am just a nobody who hopes you have an eight course dinner there.

 

[Pontius Dilate]

This sounds like a fair description of you experience of me here. I think it is missing some relevant facts. People hate themselves. This is dangerous for the person who hates himself and the people around him. I am using the male pronoun for ease of application but all gender identifications would be the same. The danger happens when someone is suddenly forced to confront, as in losing the use of the effectiveness of their ego shield, and suddenly experiencing the hidden massiveness of their self hate. This is the danger of not knowing ourselves when by knowing what I mean is how we really feel. People can murder, commit suicide, have a psychotic break etc. It can set off PTSD, etc. But suppose you had been warned that such dangers await the truth seeker that warn him to turn back. Knowledge changes everything. What I think you have left out of your critique of me is that my purpose isn't to get you to see you hate yourself, but that it's a lie you believe. I am saying that the only thing wrong with anybody is that they believe there is so to deny that reality is to seal our prison. That's where the real harm is, in my opinion. The rest of it is the inevitability of denial. Our best friend, the ego has to die. Each step in that direction improves the quality of life, again as I see it.

I think what I get out of this is that you believe you're just showing people the truth about themselves. Everyone is a truth seeker and you've warned them that it's dangerous. Therefore when you say things which are designed to trigger people, if they end up getting triggered that's on them. You're not responsible for the effects of anything you say. If someone gets hurt, it's because they hurt themselves. What if someone isn't seeking the truth about themselves? What if someone already knows the truth about themselves? What if they just want to talk about Jordan Peterson?

Why is it not? My claim is that there is a conscious state that people do experience that you can't share with other people just by talking about it. So all my words about being somehow different are empty. But I am perfectly aware that it sounds competative, boastful, perhaps even egomaniacal. All I reqally want to do is to tell you of an unknown restaurant that gets five stars from folk who have dined there and it's taking reservations in case you're tired of your usual diet.

I got word first from Zen that such a places existed and I got a glimps of what was inside. Now I am just a nobody who hopes you have an eight course dinner there.

I say it's not because it's not my story, therefore it's not everyone's story. It's your opinion. I understand you believe you're just trying to help people, but again what if people don't need your help? What if they don't want your help? What if they want to talk about Jordan Peterson, or the genocide in Gaza, or the dismantling of our social institutions, or the rife corruption in all branches of government? How long do you think you could go without turning the conversation around to psychoanalyze someone participating in good faith?

We are again circling the singularity, so back to Jordan Peterson. Another example, which is purely about what he says rather than how he goes about saying it, is from a conversation he had on Joe Rogan about climate change in January 2022. Rogan brings up climate change which he finds to be a difficult topic to sort out, and Jordan says, "That's because there's no such thing as climate. Climate and everything are the same word." He goes on to repeat that climate is about everything, but the climate models don't include everything, therefore the models aren't right. Which is ... stupendously dumb. Climate isn't everything, the only thing that's everything is everything. The idea that we can't successfully model complex systems because we can't model absolutely everything about that system is wildly unscientific. We can model the behaviors of a steel beam and a slab of concrete with a high degree of precision, but we can't model everything about each individual beam or slab. We're still able to successfully build enormous amounts of stuff with steel and concrete. The fact that the climate is an incredibly complex worldwide phenomenon means that our models are necessarily less complete and generate less accurate predictions the further into the future we predict. But it absolutely does not mean our models are wrong or that we can't use them to make valid predictions and come to valid conclusions. Peterson erected a strawman and burned it to the ground in record time. Does he really believe what he said? I honestly hope not for his sake. The fact that he has indicated repeatedly at various times that he thinks that the climate scientists who talk about man-made climate change and predict negative consequences are alarmist crackpots and grifters makes me think he knows what he told Rogan is bullshit, but maybe he fundamentally doesn't understand science.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think what I get out of this is that you believe you're just showing people the truth about themselves.

I would not say that exactly. I would say I am trying to show what has become apparent to me in from data externally acquired and internally verified regarding a teacher's claim that in fact I hate myself and would do anything to deny it and that this kind of denial the denial is the primary unconscious motivation to deny is our primary unconscious motivation. Additionally, in observing others, I believe we are all the same in this regard. Honesty will tell you who you are but people with self understanding can help you to know where to look. You can get in touch with your real feelings while noting your opinions of others. In a state of denial we project onto others our real feelings about ourselves.

A thief is forever suspicious others are out to rob him, a liar hears only lies, a cheater suspects others of cheating etc etc etc.ng that what we see in others are truths we hide from ourselves and project onto others.

Everyone is a truth seeker and you've warned them that it's dangerous.

I believe we are internally divided because we can use of language to divide the world into what is good and what is evil fundamentally rooted in the pleasure pain response. With words we can threaten children and make them feel shame and terror and before they have an ego that can protect them with one or another inculcated and fictitious good feeling about self as a member of this spectacular and generally exclusive club. Think of all the isms that people hold dear. I believe we are all unconsciously seeking to return to the garden where the self and the universe had not yet differentiated and that there are ways back home. Of course I don't just express that on faith. I experienced it.

Therefore when you say things which are designed to trigger people, if they end up getting triggered that's on them. You're not responsible for the effects of anything you say. If someone gets hurt, it's because they hurt themselves.

You are applying the concept of agency to me, that I am causing the pain. I said we are all unconsciously already suffering it. Do you want to stay asleep and suffer or do you want to wake up and heal. I asked myself; I already know the answer for most. What I also know is that to be run over by the semi of Grace you need to get out into the road. There is a deep truth to the expression seek and you will find. But self haters just don't feel such things can happen to them.

What if someone isn't seeking the truth about themselves? What if someone already knows the truth about themselves? What if they just want to talk about Jordan Peterson?

What if the world is upside down and inside out to reality? Why would anybody not seek the truth about themselves and who could make them seek if they do not want to? What's the problem? Where is the threat?
If someone knows the truth I can only hope I am humble enough to see it. I feel like I saw that in my teacher and he said he could help me.

I say it's not because it's not my story, therefore it's not everyone's story. It's your opinion. I understand you believe you're just trying to help people, but again what if people don't need your help? What if they don't want your help? What if they want to talk about Jordan Peterson, or the genocide in Gaza, or the dismantling of our social institutions, or the rife corruption in all branches of government? How long do you think you could go without turning the conversation around to psychoanalyze someone participating in good faith?

Do you feel I am a threat. Do you worry that I might somehow seduce you and break your heart? What is the worry? Almost everybody claims it's not their story and urn a deaf ear. I offer points of view most people will never get an opportunity to hear. I offer you what I see. Nobody is making you take it. As long as you want to question me about the things I say I will try to do my best to clarify what I can. I am a nobody. I am inconsiderate because if I were to take your worries under advisement they would only be my own delusions as to what you seek as me showing you self respect. My opinions are honest or they are not. The power of self delusion tells me I won't be able to really tell. So I try to do the best I can fully aware it might be a lie I don't want to see.

We are again circling the singularity, so back to Jordan Peterson. Another example, which is purely about what he says rather than how he goes about saying it, is from a conversation he had on Joe Rogan about climate change in January 2022. Rogan brings up climate change which he finds to be a difficult topic to sort out, and Jordan says, "That's because there's no such thing as climate. Climate and everything are the same word." He goes on to repeat that climate is about everything, but the climate models don't include everything, therefore the models aren't right. Which is ... stupendously dumb. Climate isn't everything, the only thing that's everything is everything. The idea that we can't successfully model complex systems because we can't model absolutely everything about that system is wildly unscientific. We can model the behaviors of a steel beam and a slab of concrete with a high degree of precision, but we can't model everything about each individual beam or slab. We're still able to successfully build enormous amounts of stuff with steel and concrete. The fact that the climate is an incredibly complex worldwide phenomenon means that our models are necessarily less complete and generate less accurate predictions the further into the future we predict. But it absolutely does not mean our models are wrong or that we can't use them to make valid predictions and come to valid conclusions. Peterson erected a strawman and burned it to the ground in record time. Does he really believe what he said? I honestly hope not for his sake. The fact that he has indicated repeatedly at various times that he thinks that the climate scientists who talk about man-made climate change and predict negative consequences are alarmist crackpots and grifters makes me think he knows what he told Rogan is bullshit, but maybe he fundamentally doesn't understand science.

I will see if i can find that video and have a look. Sounds to me that climate change is a bit far afield of his expertise.

I can tell you one thing I have heard unrelated to anything Peterson and that is that the scientific method has its origins in the East: The following will be my bastardized version of what I heard:

The truth is known through objective observation of phenomena, meaning observation that can be duplicated by others equipped to duplicate the experiment, the Western version.

The eye cannot see itself so what is observed is observed pretentiously in the West because it does not include the psychological state of the observes. Is that eye predisposed to see what it wants to see, etc? So science isn't just objective seeing it is also the science of being able to see objectively. The latter scientific specialization is pretty much unknown in the West. Enlightenment, for example, I would say, happens in a flash of insight that the eye with which you have habitually used to assess had a rose tint that colored your reality. That tint could possibly be what Peterson calls your everything environment. One color is not the full spectrum. Just a speculation so far and probably unlikely.

 

[Pontius Dilate]

I would not say that exactly. I would say I am trying to show what has become apparent to me in from data externally acquired and internally verified regarding a teacher's claim that in fact I hate myself and would do anything to deny it and that this kind of denial the denial is the primary unconscious motivation to deny is our primary unconscious motivation. Additionally, in observing others, I believe we are all the same in this regard. Honesty will tell you who you are but people with self understanding can help you to know where to look. You can get in touch with your real feelings while noting your opinions of others. In a state of denial we project onto others our real feelings about ourselves.

A thief is forever suspicious others are out to rob him, a liar hears only lies, a cheater suspects others of cheating etc etc etc.ng that what we see in others are truths we hide from ourselves and project onto others.

I believe we are internally divided because we can use of language to divide the world into what is good and what is evil fundamentally rooted in the pleasure pain response. With words we can threaten children and make them feel shame and terror and before they have an ego that can protect them with one or another inculcated and fictitious good feeling about self as a member of this spectacular and generally exclusive club. Think of all the isms that people hold dear. I believe we are all unconsciously seeking to return to the garden where the self and the universe had not yet differentiated and that there are ways back home. Of course I don't just express that on faith. I experienced it.

You are applying the concept of agency to me, that I am causing the pain. I said we are all unconsciously already suffering it. Do you want to stay asleep and suffer or do you want to wake up and heal. I asked myself; I already know the answer for most. What I also know is that to be run over by the semi of Grace you need to get out into the road. There is a deep truth to the expression seek and you will find. But self haters just don't feel such things can happen to them.

What if the world is upside down and inside out to reality? Why would anybody not seek the truth about themselves and who could make them seek if they do not want to? What's the problem? Where is the threat?
If someone knows the truth I can only hope I am humble enough to see it. I feel like I saw that in my teacher and he said he could help me.

Do you feel I am a threat. Do you worry that I might somehow seduce you and break your heart? What is the worry? Almost everybody claims it's not their story and urn a deaf ear. I offer points of view most people will never get an opportunity to hear. I offer you what I see. Nobody is making you take it. As long as you want to question me about the things I say I will try to do my best to clarify what I can. I am a nobody. I am inconsiderate because if I were to take your worries under advisement they would only be my own delusions as to what you seek as me showing you self respect. My opinions are honest or they are not. The power of self delusion tells me I won't be able to really tell. So I try to do the best I can fully aware it might be a lie I don't want to see.

I'll try to explain once more in a different way using a hyperbolic analogy. Say someone posts about the Trump administration putting the screws to Harvard University in a variety of ways, pulling science funding, deporting their international students, threatening legal action if they don't hand over private information. They ask if any of this is legal, note how the long-term consequences are likely to be disastrous, and opine how the members of the Trump administration are sick and demented to be doing this. I reply, "It's the Jews, you see. They killed Jesus, extinguished the light of the world 2000 years ago, and set all of this in motion. Every bad thing happening today is a result of that darkness. If only people saw the threat like I have." Someone replies to me, "What the fuck are you talking about? The Jews? How does that have anything to do with this?" I reply, "You're not consciously aware of what has happened to you. You have been brainwashed, drugged by the media, programmed to believe what the zionists want you to believe. You will reject what I say because of this programming, but if you open your heart you will find it to be true." Say I respond to various different topics in this way, pulling conversations around to the sinister Jews, telling people if they were able to wake up they'd begin to understand, but it's a hard road. People would rightly ask why I'm derailing every thread to steer conversations around to the Jews, why do I tell everyone they have been put to sleep by the Jews. I tell them I'm just trying to help. It's not me, it's them, don't get upset at me. If you don't want to wake up, you don't have to listen. A lot of people would see me as pretty deeply self-involved and anti-social.

I will see if i can find that video and have a look. Sounds to me that climate change is a bit far afield of his expertise.

I can tell you one thing I have heard unrelated to anything Peterson and that is that the scientific method has its origins in the East: The following will be my bastardized version of what I heard:

The truth is known through objective observation of phenomena, meaning observation that can be duplicated by others equipped to duplicate the experiment, the Western version.

The eye cannot see itself so what is observed is observed pretentiously in the West because it does not include the psychological state of the observes. Is that eye predisposed to see what it wants to see, etc? So science isn't just objective seeing it is also the science of being able to see objectively. The latter scientific specialization is pretty much unknown in the West. Enlightenment, for example, I would say, happens in a flash of insight that the eye with which you have habitually used to assess had a rose tint that colored your reality. That tint could possibly be what Peterson calls your everything environment. One color is not the full spectrum. Just a speculation so far and probably unlikely.

I'm afraid I'm not following that. I don't believe the way science is done is substantially different between east and west. All scientists need to be able to see objectively, lest they consciously or unconsciously skew their results towards those they want to obtain. I would be very surprised if evidence showed that scientific outcomes in the west are consistently poorer than in the east. Peterson didn't appear to be speaking metaphysically or philosophically, he appeared to be making a logical argument. A fallacious logical argument. If he was trying to say something else, he should revisit rule 10 from 12 Rules for Life.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'll try to explain once more in a different way using a hyperbolic analogy. Say someone posts about the Trump administration putting the screws to Harvard University in a variety of ways, pulling science funding, deporting their international students, threatening legal action if they don't hand over private information. They ask if any of this is legal, note how the long-term consequences are likely to be disastrous, and opine how the members of the Trump administration are sick and demented to be doing this. I reply, "It's the Jews, you see. They killed Jesus, extinguished the light of the world 2000 years ago, and set all of this in motion. Every bad thing happening today is a result of that darkness. If only people saw the threat like I have." Someone replies to me, "What the fuck are you talking about? The Jews? How does that have anything to do with this?" I reply, "You're not consciously aware of what has happened to you. You have been brainwashed, drugged by the media, programmed to believe what the zionists want you to believe. You will reject what I say because of this programming, but if you open your heart you will find it to be true." Say I respond to various different topics in this way, pulling conversations around to the sinister Jews, telling people if they were able to wake up they'd begin to understand, but it's a hard road. People would rightly ask why I'm derailing every thread to steer conversations around to the Jews, why do I tell everyone they have been put to sleep by the Jews. I tell them I'm just trying to help. It's not me, it's them, don't get upset at me. If you don't want to wake up, you don't have to listen. A lot of people would see me as pretty deeply self-involved and anti-social.

I edited the first part of the post this post of yours refers back to hopefully making it more directly say what I intended. I have not done so with the rest of the post and I forgot to edit it before I clicked Post Reply Personally I can't see anything in that hyperbolic analogy that sounds anything like what I actually said and that, it seems to me has been our problem.

Your comments about the facts of the Harvard fiasco I share. As an easily triggered liberal full of leftist radical rage, I won't tell you what my instinctive reaction to this kind of thing is. What I am saying is that I know exactly what my sense of justice is aching to see and the insanity it requires to actually hoping to see it come to pass and all of it derived from self hate.

I'm afraid I'm not following that. I don't believe the way science is done is substantially different between east and west. All scientists need to be able to see objectively, lest they consciously or unconsciously skew their results towards those they want to obtain. I would be very surprised if evidence showed that scientific outcomes in the west are consistently poorer than in the east. Peterson didn't appear to be speaking metaphysically or philosophically, he appeared to be making a logical argument. A fallacious logical argument. If he was trying to say something else, he should revisit rule 10 from 12 Rules for Life.

I's OK. What we call science in the West is called these days science everywhere. The science I am talking about that originated in the East is almost now completely unknown. Nobody wants to know the color of Schrodinger's cat.

PS I found the Peterson Rogan climate is everything podcast, and got maybe two thirds the way through on an iPad and hit a button to rewind a bit which kicked me out of the video into never never land, But I found the discussion absolutely fascinating and I will soon go to all the effort to find it and reach the spot where I lost is so I can hear the whole thing.

One comment. What I saw when I heard Peterson make the spectacularly absurd claim that that the environment is everything is that it's the radical left that is turning the environment into everything, and how absurd they are for that reason. I am using radical left as a term to identify who we are talking about. I am not claiming the accuracy of the term. He was saying to be brief that a radical attempt to chart a carbon free world to stave off the greenhouse effect will lead to the death of millions of poor people. Peterson is a profoundly moral being who possesses profound intellectual reasoning skills. Sorry.

I know it's tough for holy rolling leftists to see their thinking means death but it's not so much of a problem for me as I am already aware of the monster within me.

 

[Moonbeam]

I edited the first part of the post this post of yours refers back to hopefully making it more directly say what I intended. I have not done so with the rest of the post and I forgot to edit it before I clicked Post Reply Personally I can't see anything in that hyperbolic analogy that sounds anything like what I actually said and that, it seems to me has been our problem.

Your comments about the facts of the Harvard fiasco I share. As an easily triggered liberal full of leftist radical rage, I won't tell you what my instinctive reaction to this kind of thing is. What I am saying is that I know exactly what my sense of justice is aching to see and the insanity it requires to actually hoping to see it come to pass and all of it derived from self hate.

I's OK. What we call science in the West is called these days science everywhere. The science I am talking about that originated in the East is almost now completely unknown. Nobody wants to know the color of Schrodinger's cat.

PS I found the Peterson Rogan climate is everything podcast, and got maybe two thirds the way through on an iPad and hit a button to rewind a bit which kicked me out of the video into never never land, But I found the discussion absolutely fascinating and I will soon go to all the effort to find it and reach the spot where I lost it is so I can hear the rest.

One comment on it. The way it looked to me is that the imbecilic stupidity of the idea that climate is everything is exactly the opposite of what he was actually saying. When he said climate is everything he was not talking about him believing that but it's climate catastrophers fixated only on global warming that turn reduction of CO2 as the be all and end all of everything as if that single issue were everything. He was saying to be brief that a radical attempt to end the use of fossil fuels before alternative cheap substitutes become available to the poor millions of them would die. This blindness on the left he says equates to murder. Peterson is a profoundly moral being who possesses profound intellectual reasoning skills and the podcast screams that. Sorry.

I know it's tough for holy rolling leftists to see their thinking means death for the poor, but on which side of the political spectrum do you see the belief there are just too many people anyway. But it's not such a giant stretch for me to see hideous truth as I am already aware of the monster within me. That his real intent was not obvious to people I find simply amaqzing, except it's exactly what one would predict from people who hate themselves.

 

[Pontius Dilate]

I edited the first part of the post this post of yours refers back to hopefully making it more directly say what I intended. I have not done so with the rest of the post and I forgot to edit it before I clicked Post Reply Personally I can't see anything in that hyperbolic analogy that sounds anything like what I actually said and that, it seems to me has been our problem.

Your comments about the facts of the Harvard fiasco I share. As an easily triggered liberal full of leftist radical rage, I won't tell you what my instinctive reaction to this kind of thing is. What I am saying is that I know exactly what my sense of justice is aching to see and the insanity it requires to actually hoping to see it come to pass and all of it derived from self hate.

It looks like you last edited that post before I replied, so I was replying to your latest edit as far as I can tell. And that's fine if you don't see the relevance of my analogy.

I's OK. What we call science in the West is called these days science everywhere. The science I am talking about that originated in the East is almost now completely unknown. Nobody wants to know the color of Schrodinger's cat.

PS I found the Peterson Rogan climate is everything podcast, and got maybe two thirds the way through on an iPad and hit a button to rewind a bit which kicked me out of the video into never never land, But I found the discussion absolutely fascinating and I will soon go to all the effort to find it and reach the spot where I lost is so I can hear the whole thing.

One comment. What I saw when I heard Peterson make the spectacularly absurd claim that that the environment is everything is that it's the radical left that is turning the environment into everything, and how absurd they are for that reason. I am using radical left as a term to identify who we are talking about. I am not claiming the accuracy of the term. He was saying to be brief that a radical attempt to chart a carbon free world to stave off the greenhouse effect will lead to the death of millions of poor people. Peterson is a profoundly moral being who possesses profound intellectual reasoning skills. Sorry.

I know it's tough for holy rolling leftists to see their thinking means death but it's not so much of a problem for me as I am already aware of the monster within me.

I'd be interested to know about this unknown eastern science. Maybe you'll post about it.

That was my point about climate is everything, Peterson made that up, that's the strawman. He goes on to say that people who talk about the "climate apocalypse" say we have to change everything. What is everything? The environment. He says that the word environment means so much that it doesn't mean anything. So the climate is everything and the environment is everything and the "radical leftist" climate scientists say we have to change everything, but they're not modelling everything so they can't really predict anything out to the scales we'd need to in order to plan to change everything. He just made that all up. Climate scientists don't say that and don't mean that. He even goes on to talk about clean energy and over-fishing. Who does he think is promoting clean energy? Surprise, it's the radical leftists, it's not the right. Overfishing is definitely a problem, but ocean warming will kind of obviate that problem by killing orders of magnitude more marine life than we do. Maybe we need the climate scientists after all? And once again, he uses all this to handwave about the "error bars" in the modelling to say we can't model any of that anyway, so we shouldn't.

Peterson is not a profoundly moral being and he doesn't possess profound intellectual reasoning skills. Sorry not sorry.

Keep on monstering, Moonbeam.

Edit: I see what you mean, you tried editing your last reply but quoted it instead with the edit. Really doesn't change my response. Peterson made that all up, erected a strawman of the arguments made by scientists and torched that instead of addressing the actual arguments.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It looks like you last edited that post before I replied, so I was replying to your latest edit as far as I can tell. And that's fine if you don't see the relevance of my analogy.

I'd be interested to know about this unknown eastern science. Maybe you'll post about it.

That was my point about climate is everything, Peterson made that up, that's the strawman. He goes on to say that people who talk about the "climate apocalypse" say we have to change everything. What is everything? The environment. He says that the word environment means so much that it doesn't mean anything. So the climate is everything and the environment is everything and the "radical leftist" climate scientists say we have to change everything, but they're not modelling everything so they can't really predict anything out to the scales we'd need to in order to plan to change everything. He just made that all up. Climate scientists don't say that and don't mean that. He even goes on to talk about clean energy and over-fishing. Who does he think is promoting clean energy? Surprise, it's the radical leftists, it's not the right. Overfishing is definitely a problem, but ocean warming will kind of obviate that problem by killing orders of magnitude more marine life than we do. Maybe we need the climate scientists after all? And once again, he uses all this to handwave about the "error bars" in the modelling to say we can't model any of that anyway, so we shouldn't.

Peterson is not a profoundly moral being and he doesn't possess profound intellectual reasoning skills. Sorry not sorry.

Keep on monstering, Moonbeam.

Edit: I see what you mean, you tried editing your last reply but quoted it instead with the edit. Really doesn't change my response. Peterson made that all up, erected a strawman of the arguments made by scientists and torched that instead of addressing the actual arguments.

Petersons biggest selling point appears to be his appeal to tradition. Which IIRC is a trait of, *checks notes*, authoritarians. Huh, go figure.

 

[HomerJS]

How can I have free speech if you can prevent me from speaking. Would not my speech have to endanger you physically like yelling fire in a crowded building rather than you forcing me to call you a girl, for example, when gender is stripped of its traditional moorings and becomes a matter of personal opinion?

I give you a week to confess your belief in God and if you can’t I will have your head removed.

I could give a shit what gender you personally want to identify with. I could give a shit about the culture war started over this issue. I simple do not want to be legally dragged into it.

Like racism or any other form of bigotry the only way to end it is within yourself. Truth isn’t suddenly adopting to some new big moral trend, it’s the unlearning of everything you believe. I unlearned any belief I once might have had that being a man made me better. It’s other people who surrender their self dignity to grant me that status.

I do not regard your interest or anyone else’s worry about social status as being relevant or important. To acknowledge you exist categorically, that your real identity is tied to this that sacred belief, is to feed your insanity. No thanks.

Please don’t ask me to denigrate your absolute equality with me by forcing me to treat you special. Grow a pair or cut them off but leave me out of it. I have flowers to water.

State sponsored segregation was not ended waiting for states to end it within themselves.

 

[Moonbeam]

State sponsored segregation was not ended waiting for states to end it within themselves.

So was slavery. Also when I think pumpkin I think orange.

 

[Kaido]

nm

 

[Moonbeam]

It looks like you last edited that post before I replied, so I was replying to your latest edit as far as I can tell. And that's fine if you don't see the relevance of my analogy.

We can forget it. I was trying to fix what I thought I had done a bad job saying.

I'd be interested to know about this unknown eastern science. Maybe you'll post about it.

So we have a problem. The secret protects itself owing to rationalizations and the most obviously and easiest to fall back on and persuade one's self of is the question 'why would anybody believe in a wisdom that you can't demonstrate to me?' I believe that is where we will be headed if I say there is a hidden science you most likely know little about and that the very idea of me saying it is in fact secret will result for you in deep suspicion such wisdom exists.

There is a story about this in Zen. A man comes to a Zen master and asks to be taught this secret mystical experience some call enlightenment. The master serves the man a cup of tea and keeps pouring until he jumps to his feet exasperatedly proclaiming the cup is full and can hold no more. The master says to him.' unless you empty your tea cup no tea can be poured in.

That was my point about climate is everything, Peterson made that up, that's the strawman. He goes on to say that people who talk about the "climate apocalypse" say we have to change everything. What is everything? The environment. He says that the word environment means so much that it doesn't mean anything.

Again you simply seem to cling to what I am saying is something he is not saying. He is saying that radical liberals who will let millions die to legislate their belief that the environment is so everything that we will all die if we don't cease to use fossil fuels which, again, will make the poorest among us who can barely survive now unable to survive at all. He makes other comments about how far out models are accurate to counter the climate isn't the everything liberals claim it is. He is not critiquing the usefulness of models but the flaws that accrue in them the farther out they try to predict. ETC.

So the climate is everything and the environment is everything and the "radical leftist" climate scientists say we have to change everything, but they're not modelling everything so they can't really predict anything out to the scales we'd need to in order to plan to change everything. He just made that all up. Climate scientists don't say that and don't mean that. He even goes on to talk about clean energy and over-fishing. Who does he think is promoting clean energy? Surprise, it's the radical leftists, it's not the right. Overfishing is definitely a problem, but ocean warming will kind of obviate that problem by killing orders of magnitude more marine life than we do. Maybe we need the climate scientists after all? And once again, he uses all this to handwave about the "error bars" in the modelling to say we can't model any of that anyway, so we shouldn't.

Jesus. He doesn't say we shouldn't he doesn't say that the warming of the planet must not be addressed. Just the opposite. And all this panic and frothing of the mouth and targeting with ridicule somebody you are dreaming is opposed to solutions is screaming climate is everything. We could end this right here. Does a society have to have a balance between stability and chaos for a society to be driven and actually able to change? of chaos for change to happen? Would outlawing fossil precipitously before cheap energy replacing it as progress is made keep millions from experiencing conditions they can't survive. fuels before

O what do we do? That was my point about climate is everything, Peterson made that up, that's the strawman. He goes on to say that people who talk about the "climate apocalypse" say we have to change everything. What is everything? The environment. He says that the word environment means so much that it doesn't mean anything. So the climate is everything and the environment is everything and the "radical leftist" climate scientists say we have to change everything, but they're not modelling everything so they can't really predict anything out to the scales we'd need to in order to plan to change everything. He just made that all up. Climate scientists don't say that and don't mean that. He even goes on to talk about clean energy and over-fishing. Who does he think is promoting clean energy? Surprise, it's the radical leftists, it's not the right. Overfishing is definitely a problem, but ocean warming will kind of obviate that problem by killing orders of magnitude more marine life than we do. Maybe we need the climate scientists after all? And once again, he uses all this to handwave about the "error bars" in the modelling to say we can't model any of that anyway, so we shouldn't.

Everything is the belief that no matter how many people have to die we must eliminate the burning of fossil fuels. That is all we have to do. That's everything right there. Your insistence that it Peterson who is making climate change everything so offends your moral beliefs you seem not to be able to listen or think. You have targeted someone who is more liberal than you are as as an enemy. Meanwhile, all over the world there are people struggling to find ways to create cheap clean energy, clean water and a healthy sustainable food supply.

Peterson is not a profoundly moral being and he doesn't possess profound intellectual reasoning skills. Sorry not sorry.

Keep on monstering, Moonbeam.

Edit: I see what you mean, you tried editing your last reply but quoted it instead with the edit. Really doesn't change my response. Peterson made that all up, erected a strawman of the arguments made by scientists and torched that instead of addressing the actual arguments.

Probably you don't believe then, that anything that increases to poverty of the poor doesn't cause millions to die, that without a mechanism for redistributing wealthy one person will eventually own everything, or society will rip itself apart. Maybe you don't believe that if social order collapses we're all fucked. Maybe you don't believe that the world wide standard of living has remarkably improved in the last 100 years. So please don't listen to any arguments that support such moral beliefs. Don't be sorry.


Buy the way did you know that Jordan Peterson hates himself and doesn't know it. He made that clear to me in one of his videos. Self hate is everything I've been told. I must be a radical leftist 🙂

 

[ch33zw1z]

Peterson on global greening, and how nothings settled except when he says its settled, lol.

Also science: https://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-is-getting-greener-thanks-to-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels

While peterson maintains that global warming and climate change arent real, science disagrees with him.

This guy peterson is a very emotional debater. Im not entirely sure he even pays attention to his own words.

 

[Moonbeam]

Petersons biggest selling point appears to be his appeal to tradition. Which IIRC is a trait of, *checks notes*, authoritarians. Huh, go figure.

But 3,4,and 5 have deep evolutionary roots in my opinion and are in many ways instinctive because they have huge survival for essentially for per-selfaware primates. You can take the cave man out of the cave but not the caveman mentality out of the person. So these are not hall marks of authoritarians but traits that our direct ancestors had in quantities sufficient to qualify as such. In the past the preponderance of authorities must have earned their stripes or we would not be here, and what passes for authorities today may well end us.

 

[ch33zw1z]

But 3,4,and 5 have deep evolutionary roots in my opinion and are in many ways instinctive because they have huge survival for essentially for per-selfaware primates. You can take the cave man out of the cave but not the caveman mentality out of the person. So these are not hall marks of authoritarians but traits that our direct ancestors had in quantities sufficient to qualify as such. In the past the preponderance of authorities must have earned their stripes or we would not be here, and what passes for authorities today may well end us.

Fix your post.

 

[Moonbeam]

Peterson on global greening, and how nothings settled except when he says its settled, lol.

Also science: https://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-is-getting-greener-thanks-to-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels

While peterson maintains that global warming and climate change arent real, science disagrees with him.

This guy peterson is a very emotional debater. Im not entirely sure he even pays attention to his own words.

Fix your post.

Thanks

 

[ch33zw1z]

Thanks

😵 - its not fixed. Did Pontius quote me and respond there? Because your quote of his quote makes it seem that way. Slow down bro

 

[Moonbeam]

Peterson on global greening, and how nothings settled except when he says its settled, lol.

Also science: https://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-is-getting-greener-thanks-to-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels

In the clip Peterson says that satellite data says proves the world is greening owing to increased CO2 in the atmosphere while maintaining elsewhere that scientist themselves debate things. Peterson, in taking the scientific data to be factual is stating that greening is factual and part of the explanation for that is that warmer environments increase the fixation of CO2 as green biomass. In short he must believe the planet is warming and seems to admit as much, taking issue only with the assumption that warming is a disaster and global climate change is a huge disaster when in fact it means what was it 14% more food.

On the other hand, as he said about science generally but did not apply to greening he stated there is disagreement on lots scientific issues and you offered one in the second link, that long term factors may negatively impact greening. But personally I do believe that the science has it right that the planet's climate is being affected by industrialization, agriculture, forest destruction etc and I don't see Peterson saying otherwise. So to me your second link is an affirmation of Peterson's claims, that CO2 is greening the planet and that leads to so very good things.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-is-getting-greener-thanks-to-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels

While peterson maintains that global warming and climate change arent real, science disagrees with him.

I think he does not claim that

This guy peterson is a very emotional debater. Im not entirely sure he even pays attention to his own words.

I think you are confusing determination not to head off a mad rush to stop the use of fossil fuels which he feels would kill millions of poor people is worth fighting for irrational emotionalism.

The greening thingi is news to me. What do you think about the theory that industrial etc CO2 emissions is preventing the extinction of plants? What if turning everything hated into the existence of conservatives can produce sufficient blind rage to kill yourself? We become what we fear

Fix your post.

 

[ch33zw1z]

In the clip Peterson says that satellite data says proves the world is greening owing to increased CO2 in the atmosphere while maintaining elsewhere that scientist themselves debate things. Peterson, in taking the scientific data to be factual is stating that greening is factual and part of the explanation for that is that warmer environments increase the fixation of CO2 as green biomass. In short he must believe the planet is warming and seems to admit as much, taking issue only with the assumption that warming is a disaster and global climate change is a huge disaster when in fact it means what was it 14% more food.

On the other hand, as he said about science generally but did not apply to greening he stated there is disagreement on lots scientific issues and you offered one in the second link, that long term factors may negatively impact greening. But personally I do believe that the science has it right that the planet's climate is being affected by industrialization, agriculture, forest destruction etc and I don't see Peterson saying otherwise. So to me your second link is an affirmation of Peterson's claims, that CO2 is greening the planet and that leads to so very good things.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-is-getting-greener-thanks-to-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels

I think he does not claim that

I think you are confusing determination not to head off a mad rush to stop the use of fossil fuels which he feels would kill millions of poor people is worth fighting for irrational emotionalism.

The greening thingi is news to me. What do you think about the theory that industrial etc CO2 emissions is preventing the extinction of plants? What if turning everything hated into the existence of conservatives can produce sufficient blind rage to kill yourself? We become what we fear

What seems clear is that we continue to impact the earth in ways that we dont expect, but that scientific data can verify and create accurate predictions using that verifiable data.

Whether or not increased CO2 prevents plant life extinction remains to be seen. TMK climate change alarm hasnt beem concerned with that, as we all regularly acknowledge the durability of the earth itself, but not humans survivability as we progress

You dont think he claims that? Dont believe your lying eyes, lol. Im not sure you've really brushed up on JP’s stances.

Im not interested in the weird hypothetical at the end of your post. Were all humans and how we choose to use or abuse the earth affects us all.

One thing I can note about the religious conservatives that raised me, they didnt care one bit if they fucked up the earth, their hubris dictated that since their god gave them dominion over the earth, they could do what they wanted with it.

 

[Moonbeam]

About to fix. After some confusion I realized that I read what I have seen people post many many times, "fixed your post for you" I just bought a core i5 14600KF because I didn't see the F and read discrete graphics and paid more for it than they want for the 14600K instead or discreet graphics required. Now I have to do a return. I don't see words so I also can't spell I hear them but when I see a word I have to look at it closely and not hear what I think I see which I do all of the time when I go by the shape of a word and not the letters themselves. I don't know what it is but I could not really read until the 4th grade. I think it's some kind of dyslexia that is either mild, or I have compensated for some how.

 

[ch33zw1z]

About to fix. After some confusion I realized that I read what I have seen people post many many times, "fixed your post for you" I just bought a core i5 14600KF because I didn't see the F and read discrete graphics and paid more for it than they want for the 14600K instead or discreet graphics required. Now I have to do a return. I don't see words so I also can't spell I hear them but when I see a word I have to look at it closely and not hear what I think I see which I do all of the time when I go by the shape of a word and not the letters themselves. I don't know what it is but I could not really read until the 4th grade. I think it's some kind of dyslexia that is either mild, or I have compensated for some how.

It could be a form of dyslexia (often ADHD is associated), it can also be physical eye problems, or eye muscle problems. Either way, get it checked out fr man. When im reading, i regularly will read it out loud to kinda make sure i am reading it correctly. No shame there dude, were all human. Fwiw, i have had to work with my kids thru stuff like this so IMXP its worth at least getting looked at

 

[Moonbeam]

It could be a form of dyslexia (often ADHD is associated), it can also be physical eye problems, or eye muscle problems. Either way, get it checked out fr man. When im reading, i regularly will read it out loud to kinda make sure i am reading it correctly. No shame there dude, were all human. Fwiw, i have had to work with my kids thru stuff like this so IMXP its worth at least getting looked at

I don't really worry. I just live with the mistakes. Reading aloud and doing so competently used to cause me fear of being stupid but it is still hard to do in some ways. I have to get myself set up to change how I read, typically one word at a time, to read and hear in my head what I just read and say it out loud while read further ahead. I have to do the same thing to dictate posts which I don't do unless I can't get close enough for auto correction to figure out what word I mean. It's too much to think talk and listen all at the same time.

At any rate I have lots of self confidence in one thing. When I listen to Jordan Peterson, unlike what I mostly observe in others, I actually hear what he is saying. I'm probably just more deaf to preconceptions.....

 

[ch33zw1z]

I don't really worry. I just live with the mistakes. Reading aloud and doing so competently used to cause me fear of being stupid but it is still hard to do in some ways. I have to get myself set up to change how I read, typically one word at a time, to read and hear in my head what I just read and say it out loud while read further ahead. I have to do the same thing to dictate posts which I don't do unless I can't get close enough for auto correction to figure out what word I mean. It's too much to think talk and listen all at the same time.

At any rate I have lots of self confidence in one thing. When I listen to Jordan Peterson, unlike what I mostly observe in others, I actually hear what he is saying. I'm probably just more deaf to preconceptions.....

I think you hear what you want to hear, what you accuse others of.

 

[Pontius Dilate]

So we have a problem. The secret protects itself owing to rationalizations and the most obviously and easiest to fall back on and persuade one's self of is the question 'why would anybody believe in a wisdom that you can't demonstrate to me?' I believe that is where we will be headed if I say there is a hidden science you most likely know little about and that the very idea of me saying it is in fact secret will result for you in deep suspicion such wisdom exists.

Well that's a shame. The secret of eastern science protects itself from being discovered, and you won't talk about it in case anyone misunderstands it or doesn't believe it. Oh well.

Again you simply seem to cling to what I am saying is something he is not saying. He is saying that radical liberals who will let millions die to legislate their belief that the environment is so everything that we will all die if we don't cease to use fossil fuels which, again, will make the poorest among us who can barely survive now unable to survive at all. He makes other comments about how far out models are accurate to counter the climate isn't the everything liberals claim it is. He is not critiquing the usefulness of models but the flaws that accrue in them the farther out they try to predict. ETC.

Jesus. He doesn't say we shouldn't he doesn't say that the warming of the planet must not be addressed. Just the opposite. And all this panic and frothing of the mouth and targeting with ridicule somebody you are dreaming is opposed to solutions is screaming climate is everything. We could end this right here. Does a society have to have a balance between stability and chaos for a society to be driven and actually able to change? of chaos for change to happen? Would outlawing fossil precipitously before cheap energy replacing it as progress is made keep millions from experiencing conditions they can't survive. fuels before

Everything is the belief that no matter how many people have to die we must eliminate the burning of fossil fuels. That is all we have to do. That's everything right there. Your insistence that it Peterson who is making climate change everything so offends your moral beliefs you seem not to be able to listen or think. You have targeted someone who is more liberal than you are as as an enemy. Meanwhile, all over the world there are people struggling to find ways to create cheap clean energy, clean water and a healthy sustainable food supply.

Let's go to the transcript:

Rogan: it's hard to sort out the climate change one is a weird one.

Peterson: Well that's because there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word. And that's what bothers me about the climate change types. It's like, this is something that bothers me about it technically. It's like, climate is about everything. So, okay. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables, which are everything, to that set. Well, how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation if it's about everything? And that's not just a criticism. That's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

Rogan: What do you mean by everything when you say models?

Peterson: Well, that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim in some sense. We have to change everything. It's like, everything, eh? Okay, what... and it's the same with the word environment. That word doesn't mean... it means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Like, when you say everything, in a sense, that's meaningless, right? Because, well, what are you pointing to? Well, I'm pointing to everything. Well, what's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's no difference. So this is a crisis of everything? It's like, no, it's not. Or if it is, well, if it really is, then we're done, because we can't fix everything. Well, we have to.

Rogan: What they mean specifically is the human, what human beings are doing that's causing the earth to warm.

Peterson: Right, right. But you have to include all these factors in the models to determine that, all these factors. Well, what can you not include? Well, then by deciding what you don't include, you decide which set of variables are cardinal. And you have to make that decision in some sense before you even generate the models. This is a big problem. It's partly, it's not the only reason, but there's another reason that, another problem that bedevils climate modeling too too which is that as you stretch out the models across time the errors increase radically and so maybe you can predict out a week or three weeks or a month or a year but the farther out you predict the more your model's in error and that's a huge problem when you're trying to model over 100 years because the errors compound just like interest. And so at some point, it's all error. In fact, it's already the case that even if the climate models are right, the error bars are so wide by 100 years out that we'll never be able to measure the effects of the changes we're making now. We'll never know if the changes we're making to save the climate actually worked. We can't measure it. The errors are too large 100 years out.

Peterson has a little dialogue with the 'climate types' that he made up in his head where they tell him climate is everything, the environment is everything, and we have to change everything. He says that's what they say 'in some sense.' Then he accepts this pretend argument as true for the purposes of actual climate modeling, which doesn't include everything, therefore the modeling isn't right and our predictions grow to 100% error bars out to an arbitrary time in the future. His argument then goes to making poor people as rich as possible as fast as we can using the cheapest available energy.

There's nothing about what we can model, about the predictions from what we have modeled having been validated or proven wrong, no nuance about climate science at all, just 'these climate people are crazy and stupid and demand the impossible, and the hypocrite radical leftists are killing poor people.' There's no distinction between the climate apocalypse types and climate science as it is being done, no indication that anyone other than the apocalypse types are modeling the climate in any way. Rogan tries to bring him back to the specific argument being made about addressing man-made factors affecting the climate, and he says well but what data do you include, and you have to decide what to include and what not to include. Well yeah, no shit, that's true of all modeling and all science, but it's just a big problem for climate science. And then he just drops that for the error bars, also a big problem for climate science that also happens to be a component of all other scientific modeling and predictions.

Later on Rogan tries to bring him back again to the climate science and shouldn't we be trying to reduce CO2 emissions in addition to particulate emissions, that CO2 emissions have some kind of impact and we can reduce that impact, and Peterson says, "Well, that's not so certain." Then he immediately pivots to not having enough minerals for batteries for electric cars and then to Nuclear energy, ultimately never addressing CO2 emissions at all. He just handwaves and starts talking about something else.

Probably you don't believe then, that anything that increases to poverty of the poor doesn't cause millions to die, that without a mechanism for redistributing wealthy one person will eventually own everything, or society will rip itself apart. Maybe you don't believe that if social order collapses we're all fucked. Maybe you don't believe that the world wide standard of living has remarkably improved in the last 100 years. So please don't listen to any arguments that support such moral beliefs. Don't be sorry.

Hahahaha, okay Moonbeam! You caught me! Good stuff on what I probably maybe don't believe, and if you tell me not to listen to arguments that support such moral beliefs, who am I to tell you no?