Speaking on Joe Rogan’s podcast last year, Peterson
claimed the climate was too complex to be modelled
accurately, which was quickly shot down by scientists
who said his remarks were "ill-informed" and he
appeared to have "zero expertise" on climate change.

They described Peterson’s comments as "stunningly
ignorant" and said he had fundamentally misunderstood
the concept of climate modelling.

Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a climate scientist at the
University of New South Wales in Canberra, said
Peterson’s description of how climate models work
was "fundamentally wrong". While weather forecasts
do become less accurate the further out they go, this
was "a different process to climate modelling".

"He seems to think we model the future climate the
same way we do the weather. He sounds intelligent,
but he’s completely wrong", she said.

Professor John Abraham, a climate scientist at the
University of St Thomas in Minnesota, said the episode
was "a word salad of nonsense spoken by people
who have no sense when it comes to climate...
Peterson displays a near complete misunderstanding
of climate change, and the tools climate scientists
use to understand what is happening to our planet".

—Obviously, as suggested by many commentators,
   Peterson is a self-aggrandising buffoon who thinks    
   he knows a lot about everything, but in actuality
   knows little about nothing much.

So if the climate models are so good, why is it necessary for the IPCC to rely on averages across the models. CMIP6 are, like CMIP5 running too hot.

"Use of ‘too hot’ climate models exaggerates impacts of global warming"

"One study suggests Arctic rainfall will become dominant in the 2060s, decades earlier than expected. Another claims air pollution from forest fires in the western United States could triple by 2100. A third says a mass ocean extinction could arrive in just a few centuries.

All three studies, published in the past year, rely on projections of the future produced by some of the world’s next-generation climate models. But even the modelmakers acknowledge that many of these models have a glaring problem: predicting a future that gets too hot too fast. Although modelmakers are adapting to this reality, researchers who use the model projections to gauge the impacts of climate change have yet to follow suit. "

...

"Scientists need to get much choosier in how they use model results, a group of climate scientists argues in a commentary published today in Nature. Researchers should no longer simply use the average of all the climate model projections, which can result in global temperatures by 2100 up to 0.7°C warmer than an estimate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “We need to use a slightly different approach,” says Zeke Hausfather, climate research lead at payment services company Stripe and lead author of the commentary. “We must move away from the naïve idea of model democracy.” Instead, he and his colleagues call for a model meritocracy, prioritizing, at times, results from models known to have more realistic warming rates."

https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-i...

That girl could sell me the Brooklyn Bridge under water....

jordan probably shouldnt be that specific but he is correct in that we are not being told the truth.

here is the truth.

my 90 horse power tractor runs on fossil fuels.
1 horse can do the work of about 8 humans
so to replace that fossil fuel with human power would require 720 people (maybe white knight and 719 of his friends) to come  and work the fields. (as if that would ever happen)

fossil fuel is so amazing that our entire prosperity is built upon it.

if you want to reduce it, you have to accept a reduction in standard of living and a massive one

politicians need to come clean.


"hey citizens, you will be living in a 1 bedroom flat with your family, no air con, a shared car, no trips on the weekend, forget overseas travel, you will be eating simple locally produced foods.
clothing rationing, less travel for entertainment, energy rationing especially at night."


california is the most green state in the usa.
to recharge their EV's (which comprise less then 5 % of vehicles), they have to buy in power at night from ither states and that power is nearly all fossil fuel produced.

so their EV;s are being powered by....fossil fuel.


we will be using fossil fuel for a  long long time because NO politician is going to tell entitled westerners that they have to GREATLY reduce their standard of living

peterson is  irrelevant,

changing over to green energy is going to be an epic fail for the immediate future and the climate is not going to be saved by the sacrifice of people who dont know how to sacrifice

Peterson's pretty insightful when it comes to psychology and general social issues. He's got a pretty good handle on how resentment festers and causes all kinds of psychological and social issues.

Gordon wrote on Nov 9^th, 2023 at 4:26pm:

Mortdooley wrote on Nov 9^th, 2023 at 10:20pm:


You know Peterson makes his living from  right wing nut jobs, right? Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 9^th, 2023 at 9:12pm:


Peterson is resentment and psychological issues personified.