Jordan Peterson doesn't trust climate science because it's motivated by an “anti-capitalist ethos”
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июн 2020
- Jordan Peterson doesn't trust the climate science because it seems to him, that it's motivated by an anti-capitalist and anti-western ethos
I see where he is coming from now...
I've edited the clip and skipped the unrelevant part of Lomborg's response just for the sake of making the video shorter. nothing is taken out of context. You can check the original video here:
• How to make the world ...
#Climate_Change
#Jordan_Peterson
Is it really that hard to comprehend that some people actually do care about the climate itself and the future for other people? Obviously it's going to attract more liberal people. Just like other movements attract more conservative minds. Then there's some overlap.
It's such an sleazy tactic to just point to some abstract underlying motive in order not to have to deal with the main issue. You could do that with anything.
"Somebody wants to fill holes on the highway before someone gets injured"
"NOO they just want to take your tax money and undermine your capitalist lifestyle!"
"It's literally just about fixing a problem with the road"
"No they're planning something alright. I can sense it. It's all a facade..."
@@bers6666 Agree. The issue arises when pervading ideology attaches morality, virtue and public approval to questions that should remain strictly within the bounds of science. Unfortunately climate science has been infiltrated and corrupted by a morality policing the puts every research expenditure, every returned result, every analysis and data model under an extra criteria of political acceptability. Obviously this is not how science is ideally practiced although it's all too frequent in many fields.
The thing is it's important to push back when this take place and insist on proper procedure and accountability. Insist on it. It's important.
The plan should not be to restrict growth and freedom, but to innovate quickly and to find solutions like CO2 sequestration, fusion energy, cheap and long-lasting batteries.
And when actually found the sollution to long-lasting batteries, for example. You sure as hell gonna need a good strategy to come up with in order to take care of them in a sustainable way when they (as they all do) eventually brake down..
But the whole point of the global warming/climate change narrative is literally to restrict growth and freedom. Google the Great Reset
@@Mattened too much conspiracy theories
Even my pet dog has a better understanding than Jordan B Peterson
Ugh. Seriously?
Yup feelings and biased views don't care about climate change facts
@Agent 39 it'd be interesting to know your thoughts on flat earth theory.
@@BlandBloke it's bs
Couldn't find anything wrong with what he said.
I can point out many fallacies in how this video was titled and presented.
He said he found it hard to trust, not that he didn’t trust it.
I get not caring about climate degradation… if you don’t have children or loved ones younger than you. Jordon is a father 🤮
True, but he also know very much about the concequences of totalitarian systems, required to reach e.g.net zero until 2050 or energy powerty. Many more people will suffer and die from that goal as a matter of facts, than might perhaps be save by not restoring some of the carbon to where it came from. Thus he cares about his children and poor people in Africa and India, based on known facts wheras some believe they care about their children based on climate models and exaggerated scenarios created to satisfy the wet dreams of power hungry politicians who wants to save the planet, climate scientists, extememists, alarmists and entrepreneurs, while sentencing millions of poor people to starvation and energy poverty. It is a ridiculous idea that putting back a fraction of carbon that previously was in the atmosphere would be a direct threat or crisis. Consider the atmosphere as 10000 balls. 40 of them are blue and 4 are red. The rest are white. Adding one red ball is what it means to increase co2 from 400 to 500 ppm. In the spectrum outside that of what the blue (water), already absorb, the red (co2) will absorb some more heat, but only a small amount since we already have 420ppm. It will be slightly warmer, but not pose an existential threat. Most arctic ice might melt in 400 years. It does not increase sea level. There will be some sea level rise that takes very long time. A new Manhattan can be built in these time frames. There will be positve effects and negative effects and the planet will be greener and slightly wetter, in average. Not a change that comes very fast or is a threat nearly as dangerous as energy powerty or authoritarianism. But, to prove that I am right we must wait. In the mean time you should live your life according to what you believe. Stop using fossil energy today if you think that everybody else should do the same. Accept the sacrifices you must make for that. Then you can be a good example to other people near you and spread what you belive to be true to others.
Peterson is a brilliant thinker that has garnered the respect of many other brilliant thinkers for the last three decades. If you doubt this you need to offer up some plausible alternatives as to why he was headhunted to Harvard, why his published academic literature has been cited so generously, why he has become a social phenomenon and a polarising public intellectual, why he has ending up spearheading a movement in academia pushing back on post modernism, CRT, cancel culture etc etc etc.
If you have only personal ad hominem attacks and no structured argument then you are in the peanut gallery - not on the debate stage.
That said he is not a climate scientist but his claim is to his personal view of the trustworthiness of the science that public policy and the IPCC favor. His reasons for his questioning are valid - there is a great deal of political ideology associated with that organisation, there are qualified dissenting voices in the field that are not amplified, there are legitimate questions around the maturity of the scientific discipline of climate science and it's reliance on predictive models that some appropriately- credentialed sceptics question.
This is not to descend into a radicalised position claiming "it's all a hoax" or "climate scientists are communists" whatever, but maintaining a questioning scepticism when you see politics and ideology pervade a scientific debate is entirely congruent with true scientific enquiry.
A well informed channel where the science is discussed on the reputable facts with minimum confirmation bias is Mallen Baker's. ruclips.net/channel/UCZrXbiKCUkRNd0Dgn3sDXqw
I Don't know much about his psychology lessons or what he does as a professor at university, but almost everything else he has to say about politics & religion and other cultural problems is false. Just watch his debates with people like Slavoj Zizek and Matt Dillahunty or even Sam Harris to see how poorly his understanding of the world and the problem he talks about is.
And I don't think I can call someone like Jordan Peterson, who has been trying for a great deal of his academic career to tackle a philosophy like Marxism, without even reading the main book that Marx wrote, a real thinker.
And yes scientists can be biased, but this is not what Peterson is saying. He explicitly rejects the science behind climate change because it conflicts with his ideological beliefs, which is something that a dogmatic person does.
@@outo511 Pretty well everything you asserted about Peterson in that comment was inaccurate and sounds like you have formed your opinions based on what a small group of ideologues have said about Peterson rather than original sources.
As far as Marxism goes there is little that he has said that isn't factual. Marx was indeed a profound thinker but of course there is no escaping that every attempt to implement his philosophy into a political system has resulted in tyranny, famine and widespread human misery. This will never change.
Peterson is simply one of an army of academics, philosophers, poupblic intellectuals and others that warn against the dangers of that path. Since he approaches that problem from a behavioral psychology and personality based perspective he provides insights many political scientists, philosophers and commenters are incapable of.
The problem for Marxists is that he identify the critical failures of human behaviour that make their ideal impossible and this is intolerable. This explains a lot of the angst and cognitive dissonance rather than rational debate that characterises the arguments levelled against Peterson.
@@outo511 Read and watch more regarding Dr. Peterson - Your perception of him will most certainly be altered, if you pay attention.
@@prestonrutherford873 Na I don't think he is relevant anymore and worth listening to
@@outo511 you're obviously not listening to what he is saying.
You're allowed to not agree with what he is saying.
You're even allowed to not agree with him for no reason other than believing that he isn't relevant and worth listening to.
That doesn't mean you have listened to him and processed what he is saying.
It doesn't necessarily mean that you just disagree with him for the sake of disagreeing with him, and that you can't find flaws in his logic and thought process.
Well, JP is obviously correct here, and lomborg doesn't deny it.
The very idea that we need to do something about the climate opterates from the presupposition that the free market won't do anything about it, so the state must. Its an inherently authoritain-leftwing approach, so its not at all surprising that the corresponding movemnt is chock full of leftists, which also means all the corresponding radicals lets be generous and say 5% are all left wing political extremeists. People often try to soft-sell the anti-capitalist nature of the green movement by saying "oh it shouldn't be about political power" "oh its not about restricting the free market" but thats simply not the case and this is most clearly demonstrated when it's taken to its logical conclusion, implementation by policy makers. Weather its democrats like Obama and Biden obstructing the keystone pipeline or full on socaliats like Alexandra ocasio cortez, and their radical green policy which conviently results in power consolidation for them. As JP also says, it's climate radicals who suggest that humans are a cancer on nature and imply deserved extermination. Now, neither Jordan peterson, nor I and certainly not Lomborg are saying climate change isn't real, or that nothing should be done. But the idea that we should listen to these institutions and political actors and their schemes so obviously corrupted by anti-western, anti-capitalist ideologies, is folly.
Personally I find Lomborg'c climate analysis sensible and compelling. And factually the biggest reduction of greenhouse gasses in the US came because of the widespread use of fracking, because fracking made natural gas more available and gas emits about half the CO2 of coal.
Most climate change activists realize that what we need is innovation, but we haven’t seen innovation that includes ALL OF US in it. What I mean is that when you see the ideas of people like elon musk, his ideas and products aren’t made for the everyday person, but for people who can afford to buy what he’s selling (look at the price of his tesla cars). Another thing is that it’s not the consumer’s fault but the corporations that lobby for the continued use of fossil fuels. I hear you say “but other sources of energy are inefficient” which is true, but what we’re saying is that these other sources of energy would be more efficient if they received both attention and funding from the government in the first place and that if we do want to start changing things now we should do it sooner rather than later (and it can’t just happen without funding bc most scientists are kind of broke). Also most of us don’t think human beings are the cancer of this earth, I personally just don’t want to die because of preventable ecological disaster (it’s a lame way to die don’t you think?).
Also the free market is already restricted by labor laws because we can’t just let companies treat ppl like machines (because that’s not what they are). I just wanted to throw my ideas out there and I’m not actually sure if what I said would make any sense to you but I hope you have a nice day :)
> that the free market won't do anything about it
Petroleum giants spent around 70 years lying about their full knowledge of climate change. They, a product of 'the free market', clearly chose to do nothing. Choosing an extinction event because you view governments tackling the problem as 'authoritarian' is childish. "I'm not against vegetables, I just don't believe it's the place of mommy and daddy to make me eat them." If 'the free market(tm)' had tackled climate change, there'd be no need to push for government intervention. Shockingly the ability of people to make money by selling goods and services does not and cannot solve every problem under the sun, and the idea that it can is being pushed by the rich to try and vindicate the idea that they should be given free reign to continue to grow their personal wealth. Government intervention is the only reason your bread doesn't have brick dust in it anymore, or that your landlord can't have cheap asbestos insulation fitted in your home. There's such a thing as goverment overreach, tackling world-alterating safety issues is not one of them. If an asteroid was hurtling towards earth, decrying that goverments intervene and that we should just leave it up to Elon Musk is not going to improve the situation.
Yes, restricting growth would actually be a help and JP has no clue what he is talking about and he is a danger to the debate because he makes people believe stupid neoliberal poster slogans about selfresponsibility.
Just watch the debate with that australian women...
By restricting growth, you also restrict potentially new energy developements as they might don't get the needed investments. E.g. Tesla wouldn't have made it, as we already had enough car brands.
JP "there's no such thing as addiction"
Get's addicted to pills.