Fredi Otto, the new Greta Thunberg

[Rebel5soul]

There is no money in fighting climate change, only in denyng it.

Tons of money, all wasted.

 

[Politruk]

Tons of money, all wasted.

Even you should know better than to cite Jordan Peterson as a source for anything at all.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

Even you should know better than to cite Jordan Peterson as a source for anything at all.

Why? What exactly do you disagree with Mr. Peterson’s view of this topic. Be very specific for us.

 

[Politruk]

Why? What exactly do you disagree with Mr. Peterson’s view of this topic. Be very specific for us.

Global Warming:

Global warming[edit]​

[TR]
[TD]“”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. 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? 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.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]—Jordan Peterson, science and scientific models understander[164][/TD]
[/TR]


[TR]
[TD]“”The climate models can predict the past. Just like models of the stock market. I defy these "modellers" to predict one stock accurately for one year and to bet their own money on the outcome. And one stock is a lot less complex than "climate" particularly out a century.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]—Because if you study climate for decades, then surely you can lend your expertise to the totally unrelated field of stock predictions.[165][/TD]
[/TR]


[TR]
[TD]“”He's [Bjørn Lomborg] casually called a "climate change denier," for example, which 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.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]—Jordan Peterson[166][/TD]
[/TR]


[TR]
[TD]“”The "unlikely" part makes it thoroughly reassuring. So it'll only cost my right to teach (as opposed to biology denier Dr. Nicholas Matte).[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]—Jordan Peterson[167][/TD]
[/TR]


[TR]
[TD]“”Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from inevitable starvation & extinction due to CO2 [sic][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]—Jordan Peterson, quoting, without properly putting quotes or at least specifying it's a quote, from a denialist article[168][/TD]
[/TR]

Peterson retweeted global warming deniers including Anthony Watts,[169][170][171] Bjorn Lomborg,[172] Richard Lindzen,[173] and the Daily Mail.[174] Peterson claims that his retweets aren't endorsements, but it is irresponsible for him to share climate change denial links without critical examination or without critical commentary (climate change denial is complete rank pseudoscience), especially when his conservative audience is highly receptive to climate change denial. Even if his retweets aren't necessarily promoting pseudoscience, Peterson's regular tweets downplay global warming, consistent with his retweets. For example, one of his tweets links to a blog called "NoTricksZone" (a reference to the "trick" word in Climategate): "So it turns out that it was scientists who were sensitive to atmospheric CO2 level increases?"[175] On occasion, he supports the "global cooling"[171][176] as well as the "carbon-dioxide-is-good-for-plants" talking points.[166] This kind of self-contradicting vagueness that results from his denying that retweets are endorsements yet the regular tweeting's suggesting endorsements is another example of the obtuse manner Peterson presents his views.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]