Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Jordan Peterson

Jump to new
Interesting juxtaposition between the objective and emotive arguments here.

I am considering adding to my aforementioned (some time ago on this forum) thesis.

So much material, so many patients. :laugh:
 
wayneL said:
Interesting juxtaposition between the objective and emotive arguments here.

I am considering adding to my aforementioned (some time ago on this forum) thesis.

So much material, so many patients. :laugh:
Click to expand...

He found a Market - Marketing101.

Add degree in Marketing (Business) to his list of qualifications. Smart Man!
 
kahuna1 said:
Peterson is the most featured person on the New Nazi FOX channel. His views, encourage the far right and whilst this numnuts, claims he is middle or somewhere n the middle, the sad reality is that we humans are not that far removed from animals and at times, with little encouragement we revert back to basics.

He has got some idiotic predefined notion of what is going on right now, when white collar crimes in the USA are down 95%, or I should say legal cases under Trump have fallen by 95%.

Head of most agencies now in the USA are ex Lobbyists against the very agency they now head. The NEW USA UN chief ? No qualifications, NONE ... if one doesn't count three husbands .... made Canadian Ambassador and all for her husbands 3 million donation as a coal baron to Trump.

A climate denier, the new UN head ... with NO qualifications now USA representative to the UN. Peterson has not any idea at all about HOW things for the people he now calls the LEFT are. They are asking for basic free medical cover in the USA ,,, shock horror .... Medicare that exists in 65 other nations .... a basic minimum wage ? on and on its goes and for a headline, Plonker PEtrson, Fox calls this cretin and he shows up to promote a right wing view which, he has not any idea about.

How any sane person can say there is more ice ... as I heard this dummy fobbing off the question and the left .... I just ask him to go back into the hole he skulked out of and spend some time, years, on under $10- an hour, without medical care and a medical system that costs 3 times what it does in Canada. He has the humanity of Trump, or lack of it, in large doses. Less I ever see of HIM or FOX news or SKY news, the less sick I will feel.

Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change. [109]


This is just ONE of his KOCH brothers inspired ideas.

Take the time and watch this ...



Jordon or should I call him stupid .... paid for shill ... under that ICE that Trump seems to claim is thicker ... in 2018 a CANADIAN ice breaker in 2018 was able to sail to the NORTH POLE ... at 13 knots ... an impossible thing at any time in the last 60 million years. GOOGLE it ...

But the climate models he is correct, BE skeptical of them .... BECAUSE they are WRONG ... not overstating issues but the very likely UNDERSTATING it ... simple reason being, ARCTIC ice, you just watched ... under it, permafrost ... frozen methane and organic material contains 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 and half of it likely CH4 .... Methane which is 26 times worse than CO2 ... PETERSON is WRONG in his denial and even MORE so as he is right not to believe the climate models. Why ?

Well for political reasons, NO allowance has been made for Arctic ICe melt and the underlying Permafrost. NONE. Its a debate, a depressing one, among experts as to how much is released between 2050 and 2100. I suspect its close to 20%, the other 80% between 2100 and 2150. The worlds experts on this are European and the Oxford and Cambridge ones paint an awful picture on this. Not a thing we can do mind you. NOTHING. Minimum 2100 temp rise, the lowest, is 4 degrees and the biggest is 12 plus.

Jordan knows everything about nothing ....

Oh here is the two favorite climate things that this wanker would never know

First the ICE and Permafrost expert ... Peter the go to guy from Cambridge is no different than the Oxford and 20 other leaders in the filed. ...




Oh and his basis Petersons on virtually every topic ... not just climate change has a stupid if not idiotic view on things, but his climate views are so absurd he actually believes the 10 things covered in this video ... despite scientifically being stupid.



As to his views about economics and even obvious things, he has NO idea. Well he does but it mirrors the far right view on things and thats stuff everyone else. He seems totally oblivious most Americans outside the top 20% see the doctor 20% of what Canadians in the lower 80% do ? No one sure can be that stupid ?

He isn't human is he ? Like Trump, lacks many things that make us humans.

I mention the Arctic Ice for a reason, its the DEAD canary of climate change. Jordan, knowing nothing about the science, is the one in a million who believes they know better, just like TRUMP .
Click to expand...

Is there a certain video where he says this or an interview?
 
Darc Knight said:
He found a Market - Marketing101.

Add degree in Marketing (Business) to his list of qualifications. Smart Man!
Click to expand...
Everything is a market, my friend. Even for anti market ideologies such as marxism and postmodernism.

Jordans market was sitting there, waiting, ignored , and desperate for someone like Jordan to come along. But I feel that the cultural Warriors, such as yourself, are extremely jealous that he's managed to monetize it

On him I say, the wonders of capitalism . Meanwhile he is providing succor for those actually need what he has to provide.
Once again good on him.
 


Full video of the above.

Was there an article from " hug trees daily" or something he posted or said where he denied climate change?

Or more misrepresenting what he said?
 
wayneL said:
On him I say, the wonders of capitalism . Meanwhile he is providing succor for those actually need what he has to provide.
Once again good on him.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
He has helped a lot of people with his
"waffling" so good on him.
 
Darc Knight said:
56 years of age. Just a Conservative Ida thought. I agree with some of his common sense stuff. An Academic looking to get wealthy? All good experienced Uni Lecturers have that ability to make a Lecture like a performance, you love viewing it.
I'll wait awhile before spending (wasting) my time viewing his vids.
Click to expand...

I wasn't all that impressed by JP. I think he should stick to psychology and leave the political stuff to others.
 
Oh really ?

I have spent my whole life as an adult, building models. He in a single sentence dismisses it all. Dismissive, as time goes on, yes the error gets worse, but if ... IF he had read as he claims the papers, he would know the effect, MASSIVE that it is, the OCEAN as a heat sink was not allowed in any UN models. So too ARCTIC ice melt and permafrost, NOT allowed in UN Models. On and on I could go with things REMOVED from the models that make massive difference to the likely outcome and without fail, WITHOUT fail, they are conservative and remove quite scary things.

Peterson, IS NOT a scientist in the field, NOR I might add am I. I am however an expert they use to build and check models, predictive ones and Peterson, his background is a Psychologist.

There is virtually Zero debate on the science. Yet here we have, a person with no background in the first part dismisses the Ocean acidification when there is ZERO debate that the ocean over the last 30 years became 25% MORE acidic. NO debate, its scientifically proven. The cause, and impacts, well known and documented and easily seen via fossil records of Past events of CO2 rising to 200 PPM and above cause 95% in one case and 99% in the other of all life in the ocean to die.

If one drills there is a white barrier where Calcium carbonate and anything with a shell or a coral was dissolved 65 million years ago and here, this genius is not even able to answer the first guys question other than to go NO.

Sadly, by 2050 more than likely most corals will be gone.

By 2100 without much doubt. The rate at which the atmosphere can even deal with CH4, Methane has gone from 23 years, to 25 years to now 29 years it takes to break down into CO2 and H2O. These are simple chemical reactions. Peterson and his ilk, some much better than him and actually with scientific degrees all be it in unrelated fields, when examined, have all fallen well short of any impartial scientific peer review. As a scientist, IN the field he is dismissing, with 2 pages of qualifications in the field, ME ... his assertions about future modelling of things is in one way correct, YES as time goes on, the uncertainty increases. THAT would be if they actually had everything IN the models !!

NOT one little bit of ARCTIC ice melt and cascading issues of things NOT being WHITE and covered in snow, but now melted snow and them being BROWN and absorbing heat more rapidly was allowed into any UN funded model. NOR as I said the release of MORE CARBON emissions than humans have emitted to date the 1.8 trillion tons of it .... that is MORE THAN LIKELY if not assured to be released by 2150.

HE claims, that in the case of Germany it produced MORE CO2 ? by them using solar and wind ? The numbers certainly contradict that and if he KNEW anything, Germany relies on France and its Nuclear capacity to fill in the gaps. Whilst storage of Green energy is an issue, NOT using HYDRO when solar and wind are being used ... is what occurs along with the French nuclear stuff.

His views are absurd ... insulting and the Koch Brothers who run both coal and massive oil interests in the USA his views are strangely NOT scientific, uniformed, incorrect and identical to them. A solution is difficult and will be, but the point he misses, TOTALLY is that GREEN energy can and does compete with carbon emitting power and WITHOUT SUBSIDIES is actually cheaper. CHEAPER ...

He seems not to even know about tidal power, or SOLAR thermal plants that operate in California and even Whyalla in Australia and they produce POWER ... even when its dark as the sun heats the salts solution and its able to retain heat and drive turbines long after the sun goes down. He ... leaves me speechless this thing ... his dismissive nature is beyond belief. Much like Trump, he has a hunch, its all wrong !!

Peterson does not even know that subsidies globally for green side is less than 100 billion and tax breaks and subsidies for Coal and Oil and polluters is close to 1 trillion. Nothing like buying the vote in the USA and then getting subsidies. much like Amazons tax bill on 11.8 billion profit in the USA last year it got a refund, YEP ... refund of 250 million and paid NO tax. Previous year, 5.6 billion, NO tax paid ....

If your actually interested in the topic, google and read wide and far and make your own mind up.
There is a solution and it involves NOT planting tree's whilst a positive, when we emit so much, their simply is not enough land to even take 5% of it out we emit each year. There are however other ways to capture Co2 in massive amounts and what this plonker and most deniers miss is that the first Co2 event 265 million years ago and the last one 65 million years ago ended and we KNOW why !!

We know exactly why they ended. A massive capture of CO2 occurred naturally. It took the last time the 67 million year ago event, it took CO2 levels 200,000 years to rise from 250 PPM to 2,000 PPM. Well by 2100, the conservative estimate ignoring ARCTIC permafrost melt of the frozen ... FROZEN captured CO2 up there in the permafrost frozen vegetation and methane, IGNORING that, at current population and estimate with HIGH confidence it tops 10 billion by 2060, or 150% of here, we will be at 1,000 PPM WITHOUT the Arctic melting.

UN climate model ignores 50% MORE people ... than NOW.

WITHOUT .... its impossible to stop, its impossible to NOT see corals all gone by 2100, Ocean Acidificcation a simple chemical reaction which has occurred time and time again, will go on.

SO, if I do actually put in even very conservative warming for ARCTIC and melting of 20% of the permafrost, by 2100, I and over 1,000 other scientific types including 40 Nobel prize winners, come up with numbers that are 1,500 PLUS PPM CO2 by 2100. Most are quietly calling temperature change of 6 degrees C and the top end 14.

But back to WHY I know and every dummy who is a scientific type KNOWS what stopped the last events was carbon capture on a grand scale. Peterson doesn't know .... he sickens me even listening to his self righteous drivel and he quotes an economist who, well, makes even him look smart.

Coal was made up HOW ? OIL is made up HOW ?

ITs is massive buried deposits of CARBON CAPTURING trees or ALGAE and under an electron microscope in the case of oil .... you can see some things this twat seems not to even know.

Humans in their wisdom, and greed, greed NOW we know there is a problem, dug up the very things that were buried and trapped CO2 in the past. Coal and OIL.

Do some research is all I will say. I will be long gone prior to the bigger impacts, but when we are talking about basic chemical reactions, that done 1 million times produce the same result .... YEP deny deny deny ..

Have fun a few links ... these dummies are mostly being paid by oil companies ... the one Peterson quotes .... a real schmuc kkkkkk like Peterson.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

A few others
https://www.desmogblog.com/2015/03/...cites-debunked-science-defend-willie-soon-wsj

and another
https://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/e...c-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/
 
Last edited:
Cyclone Oma was modelled to wipe out Brisbane.

How did that turn out bro?

Additionally, I think you'll find his point was about how anything we do might affect the outcome.
 
kahuna1 said:
Oh really ?

I have spent my whole life as an adult, building models. He in a single sentence dismisses it all. Dismissive, as time goes on, yes the error gets worse, but if ... IF he had read as he claims the papers, he would know the effect, MASSIVE that it is, the OCEAN as a heat sink was not allowed in any UN models. So too ARCTIC ice melt and permafrost, NOT allowed in UN Models. On and on I could go with things REMOVED from the models that make massive difference to the likely outcome and without fail, WITHOUT fail, they are conservative and remove quite scary things.

Peterson, IS NOT a scientist in the field, NOR I might add am I. I am however an expert they use to build and check models, predictive ones and Peterson, his background is a Psychologist.

There is virtually Zero debate on the science. Yet here we have, a person with no background in the first part dismisses the Ocean acidification when there is ZERO debate that the ocean over the last 30 years became 25% MORE acidic. NO debate, its scientifically proven. The cause, and impacts, well known and documented and easily seen via fossil records of Past events of CO2 rising to 200 PPM and above cause 95% in one case and 99% in the other of all life in the ocean to die.

If one drills there is a white barrier where Calcium carbonate and anything with a shell or a coral was dissolved 65 million years ago and here, this genius is not even able to answer the first guys question other than to go NO.

Sadly, by 2050 more than likely most corals will be gone.

By 2100 without much doubt. The rate at which the atmosphere can even deal with CH4, Methane has gone from 23 years, to 25 years to now 29 years it takes to break down into CO2 and H2O. These are simple chemical reactions. Peterson and his ilk, some much better than him and actually with scientific degrees all be it in unrelated fields, when examined, have all fallen well short of any impartial scientific peer review. As a scientist, IN the field he is dismissing, with 2 pages of qualifications in the field, ME ... his assertions about future modelling of things is in one way correct, YES as time goes on, the uncertainty increases. THAT would be if they actually had everything IN the models !!

NOT one little bit of ARCTIC ice melt and cascading issues of things NOT being WHITE and covered in snow, but now melted snow and them being BROWN and absorbing heat more rapidly was allowed into any UN funded model. NOR as I said the release of MORE CARBON emissions than humans have emitted to date the 1.8 trillion tons of it .... that is MORE THAN LIKELY if not assured to be released by 2150.

HE claims, that in the case of Germany it produced MORE CO2 ? by them using solar and wind ? The numbers certainly contradict that and if he KNEW anything, Germany relies on France and its Nuclear capacity to fill in the gaps. Whilst storage of Green energy is an issue, NOT using HYDRO when solar and wind are being used ... is what occurs along with the French nuclear stuff.

His views are absurd ... insulting and the Koch Brothers who run both coal and massive oil interests in the USA his views are strangely NOT scientific, uniformed, incorrect and identical to them. A solution is difficult and will be, but the point he misses, TOTALLY is that GREEN energy can and does compete with carbon emitting power and WITHOUT SUBSIDIES is actually cheaper. CHEAPER ...

He seems not to even know about tidal power, or SOLAR thermal plants that operate in California and even Whyalla in Australia and they produce POWER ... even when its dark as the sun heats the salts solution and its able to retain heat and drive turbines long after the sun goes down. He ... leaves me speechless this thing ... his dismissive nature is beyond belief. Much like Trump, he has a hunch, its all wrong !!

Peterson does not even know that subsidies globally for green side is less than 100 billion and tax breaks and subsidies for Coal and Oil and polluters is close to 1 trillion. Nothing like buying the vote in the USA and then getting subsidies. much like Amazons tax bill on 11.8 billion profit in the USA last year it got a refund, YEP ... refund of 250 million and paid NO tax. Previous year, 5.6 billion, NO tax paid ....

If your actually interested in the topic, google and read wide and far and make your own mind up.
There is a solution and it involves NOT planting tree's whilst a positive, when we emit so much, their simply is not enough land to even take 5% of it out we emit each year. There are however other ways to capture Co2 in massive amounts and what this plonker and most deniers miss is that the first Co2 event 265 million years ago and the last one 65 million years ago ended and we KNOW why !!

We know exactly why they ended. A massive capture of CO2 occurred naturally. It took the last time the 67 million year ago event, it took CO2 levels 200,000 years to rise from 250 PPM to 2,000 PPM. Well by 2100, the conservative estimate ignoring ARCTIC permafrost melt of the frozen ... FROZEN captured CO2 up there in the permafrost frozen vegetation and methane, IGNORING that, at current population and estimate with HIGH confidence it tops 10 billion by 2060, or 150% of here, we will be at 1,000 PPM WITHOUT the Arctic melting.

UN climate model ignores 50% MORE people ... than NOW.

WITHOUT .... its impossible to stop, its impossible to NOT see corals all gone by 2100, Ocean Acidificcation a simple chemical reaction which has occurred time and time again, will go on.

SO, if I do actually put in even very conservative warming for ARCTIC and melting of 20% of the permafrost, by 2100, I and over 1,000 other scientific types including 40 Nobel prize winners, come up with numbers that are 1,500 PLUS PPM CO2 by 2100. Most are quietly calling temperature change of 6 degrees C and the top end 14.

But back to WHY I know and every dummy who is a scientific type KNOWS what stopped the last events was carbon capture on a grand scale. Peterson doesn't know .... he sickens me even listening to his self righteous drivel and he quotes an economist who, well, makes even him look smart.

Coal was made up HOW ? OIL is made up HOW ?

ITs is massive buried deposits of CARBON CAPTURING trees or ALGAE and under an electron microscope in the case of oil .... you can see some things this twat seems not to even know.

Humans in their wisdom, and greed, greed NOW we know there is a problem, dug up the very things that were buried and trapped CO2 in the past. Coal and OIL.

Do some research is all I will say. I will be long gone prior to the bigger impacts, but when we are talking about basic chemical reactions, that done 1 million times produce the same result .... YEP deny deny deny ..

Have fun a few links ... these dummies are mostly being paid by oil companies ... the one Peterson quotes .... a real schmuc kkkkkk like Peterson.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

A few others
https://www.desmogblog.com/2015/03/...cites-debunked-science-defend-willie-soon-wsj

and another
https://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/e...c-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/
Click to expand...
No, where did he dismiss it?
He said the bands widened the further out in time he went on some model. But he wasn't dismissing the science from the above video.

And thats why I asked: Is there a link to a post or video that he made, or interview where the words come out of his mouth that indicates he is against the science.

I don't want links from sjw.com or marxist weekly.
 
wayneL said:
Cyclone Oma was modelled to wipe out Brisbane.

How did that turn out bro?

Additionally, I think you'll find his point was about how anything we do might affect the outcome.
Click to expand...

Huh? When was Oma modelled to wipe out Brissy? It was predicted to turn North West towards Bundy etc not hit Brissy? I kept a very close eye it the whole time.

Back on topic: I'll stick to @Skate 's Dump it here thread for my source of wisdom rather than Jordan Petersen:)
 
If you cant listen to even a Utube of him speaking, DRIVEL ..AGAINST THE SCIENCE . as he does claiming that Germany emits more CO2 for going green, to him in one word ... DISMISSING possibly the most undeniable of climate change issues, Ocean Acifidification then ... your not ever going to believe anything because your denying his OWN words.

Far out ,... even the stupid if they were to believe his utterance about German Solar stuff, IF solar only worked 25% of the time .... and Wind 50% .... doesn't that mean that ... Fossil fuel burning things may be TURNED off !! Such a stupid statement buried as a true shrink can in drivel. As I said Germany relies heavily on French Nuclear plants to fill in gaps for now. Thats what this twat said .... you just swallowed it ...

Is this the nutter he just quoted who believes CO 2 is falling ?
http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/

Since I did post the NASA data and satellite ... Peterson denies and dismisses quite clearly all and any climate change issues. His words .... NO ... its all political and in that I may agree BUT ... from the opposite side. You obviously DID NOT bother to listen to the Cambridge guy, or anything else in your rushed defense of this twwat ....

Sad ... Demand CO2 in hospital its got 2 Oxygen atoms it must be twice as good !!
 
kahuna1 said:
If you cant listen to even a Utube of him speaking, DRIVEL ... as he does claiming that Germany emits more CO2 for going green, to him in one word ... DISMISSING possibly the most undeniable of climate change issues, Ocean Acifidification then ... your not ever going to believe anything because your denying his OWN words.

Is this the nutter he just quoted who believes CO 2 is falling ?
http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/

Since I did post the NASA data and satellite ... Peterson denies and dismisses quite clearly all and any climate change issues. His words .... NO ... its all political and in that I may agree BUT ... from the opposite side. You obviously DID NOT bother to listen to the Cambridge guy, or anything else in your rushed defense of this twwat ....

Sad ... Demand CO2 in hospital its got 2 Oxygen atoms it must be twice as good !!
Click to expand...
I actually support the science that the climate is changing.

I don't support misrepresentation.

He did not "dismiss" the science. He argued we don't have a forward action plan, that the issue is infinitely complex and there are unintended consequences.

I'm asking for a link so I can judge the man with something factual
 
Jordan B Peterson on Twitter: "[Climate denial] is an appallingly treacherous term of criticism, used to denigrate someone personally by associating them with Holocaust deniers. The ethics of anyone who employs it should be instantly questioned." (Said while defending Bjorn Lomborg)


Now Peterson quoted this person ... he is not in the area .... he quoted HIM to debunk the persons question on the Utube and Who is Lomborg ?

He is a political scientist ... NOTHING to do with climate change. NOT in the field ...

  • Ph.D., Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen (1994). [1]
  • M.A., political science (1991). [1]
https://www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg

Whilst one idiot quotes another ... both with NO background in the field ... NONE and your asking for evidence about PEtersons views ? He quoted this guy .... NOT me ... he dismissed based upon a political science major who scientifically HAD AND HAS no peer reviewed papers in any field related to it. NONE>

Hilarious .... this tosser claims there are massive benifits to climate change !!

Peterson backs him ? His words not mine .... HIM your FOX scull Mr PEterson ...

https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/top-10-climate-denier

Oh boy ,,,, give me the CO2 !!

Your seriously still asking for something to judge Peterson by ? Did you not post the U tube of him speaking ? Or was it someone else ? Either way ... I have covered his drivel and it IS DRIVEL this FOX News idiot favorite drivels out of his hole. Imagine quoting a political science person ... is that even a science ?

BOTH are jokes, sadly ... an idiot quoting another. Heaven help the planet !!
 
kahuna1 said:
Jordan B Peterson on Twitter: "[Climate denial] is an appallingly treacherous term of criticism, used to denigrate someone personally by associating them with Holocaust deniers. The ethics of anyone who employs it should be instantly questioned." (Said while defending Bjorn Lomborg)


Now Peterson quoted this person ... he is not in the area .... he quoted HIM to debunk the persons question on the Utube and Who is Lomborg ?

He is a political scientist ... NOTHING to do with climate change. NOT in the field ...

  • Ph.D., Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen (1994). [1]
  • M.A., political science (1991). [1]
https://www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg

Whilst one idiot quotes another ... both with NO background in the field ... NONE and your asking for evidence about PEtersons views ? He quoted this guy .... NOT me ... he dismissed based upon a political science major who scientifically HAD AND HAS no peer reviewed papers in any field related to it. NONE>

Hilarious .... this tosser claims there are massive benifits to climate change !!

Peterson backs him ? His words not mine .... HIM your FOX scull Mr PEterson ...

https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/top-10-climate-denier

Oh boy ,,,, give me the CO2 !!

Your seriously still asking for something to judge Peterson by ? Did you not post the U tube of him speaking ? Or was it someone else ? Either way ... I have covered his drivel and it IS DRIVEL this FOX News idiot favorite drivels out of his hole. Imagine quoting a political science person ... is that even a science ?

BOTH are jokes, sadly ... an idiot quoting another. Heaven help the planet !!
Click to expand...
In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".[2] While Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, he argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions. His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change. He is a strong advocate for focusing attention and resources on what he perceives as far more pressing world problems, such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition.[3][4] In his critique of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Lomborg stated: "Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat."[5] In 2011, and 2012, Lomborg was named a Top 100 Global Thinker by Foreign Policy "for looking more right than ever on the politics of climate change".[6]
Click to expand...
This guy here.
 
He is in line with Jordans argument. From the minuscule amount I have read, he isn't denying climate change.
 
Darc Knight said:
"Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change.[115] Peterson has said he is "very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change".[116] He has also said, "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved".[117]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson#Climate_change
Click to expand...
The citation for 117 is the sydney morning herald. Click on it.
I'm curious where it has actually come from. Not if its someone else interpretation of what they think he said.
 
I am quoting his actual WORDS from U tube !! I give up.

His source ... he is skeptical clearly on the right, DENIAL SIDE ...in fact TOTAL denial side of the equation. I shared, SHARED the world leader in Arctic Ice and permafrost and he is a professor at Cambridge University with 3 PHD's I believe and 50 years on the topic and YOU state. despite him clearly denying it, quoting drivel, quoting a drivel source .... he is in same way NOT denying it ?


Golly .. gee ...
 
Top