This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

He found a Market - Marketing101.

Add degree in Marketing (Business) to his list of qualifications. Smart Man!
 

Is there a certain video where he says this or an interview?
 

Here is one here. Hardly a denier. Just seems to be talking about options.
 
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.
 

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.
 
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 !!
 
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 !!
 
This guy here.
 
He is in line with Jordans argument. From the minuscule amount I have read, he isn't denying climate change.
 
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 ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...