No, we won’t fix climate change…….

28 06 2019

Professor Jordan Peterson explains why the world won’t unite to solve the complex issue of climate change.


Actions

Information

38 responses

28 06 2019
Chris Harries

The interview doesn’t leave us with much except his brash fatalism and his admiration of Bjorn Lomborg.

Didn’t realize Peterson is so famous (albeit as a result of his own self promotion and blunt way of talking) but his message obviously gives meaning to many people. Probably doesn’t know a lot of climate physics… most of his messaging is how to mentally cope with our crazy era, and on that he’s got plenty of both supporters and professional detractors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Rules_for_Life

28 06 2019
mikestasse

I’d never even heard of him until this landed in my infeed…….

28 06 2019
Betty Serves

Oh no, not this dark pariah. As a progressive woman I find him utterly unbearable. So what does he think we ought to do apart from besmirching everyone else’s efforts?

28 06 2019
mikestasse

Actually, there’s nothing we can do….. the solution is actually not doing anything! As in not making things, not buying things,etc etc. I’ve reached the conclusion that our best shot is to turn farming around to regenerative, but I’m not holding my breath, because like every other ‘solution’, it needs to be done on an absolutely massive scale.

28 06 2019
wandering neone

as a “no designer” I have to agree Mike 😉 it’s only trough this kind of thinking I managed to reduce my footprint significantly.

Problem is and stays; most ppl think still the exact opposite, and I don’t see a massive scale of reconfiguration going …

28 06 2019
JohnDoyle (@JohnDoy66821587)

Not related to climate change, Jordan Peterson made a very pertinent comment about a UBI [universal basic income] versus a JG [Job Guarantee];

“I don’t care how open, how creative you are, without a routine people just fall apart. Money doesn’t give you a routine: a job does”

Well worth remembering!

28 06 2019
mikestasse

That’s all very well while lots of jobs are available, which is NOT the case in a limits to growth scenario….. and it’s only going to get a lot worse…….

28 06 2019
foodnstuff

He might be right, but I still can’t stand him!

28 06 2019
TG

What can I say … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mASjgJji_rg

Poor fellow, although he might be right …on a rigid level of intellect thinking and general behavior patterns accordingly …

I know it to be different, …but on a more general scale …he is probably right unfortunately, especially with that kind of attitude :/

Mvg, kind regards, wandering neone

Van: Damn the Matrix Verzonden: vrijdag 28 juni 2019 1:07 Aan: wanderingneone@gmail.com Onderwerp: [New post] No, we won’t fix climate change…….

mikestasse posted: ” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY&fbclid=IwAR2feAC-UkpgeY5yccEL69P_DrrCNJCoqR6MtWZ_z2rpdPNFYC_fmTFtnF4 Professor Jordan Peterson explains why the world won’t unite to solve the complex issue of climate change. Watch the full video at t”

28 06 2019
rabiddoomsayer

“I really like Bjorn Lomberg” He lost me there. Yes, Global Warming is not solvable, but to not even try is his suggestion. So humanity is going to crash and burn is the alternative we have chosen.

29 06 2019
Beth

Why does anyone give this vile person any platform?! Ugh.

29 06 2019
MargfromTassie

Agree with you 100% Beth!

2 07 2019
EnergyShifts.net

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
– Evelyn Beatrice Hall 🙂

4 07 2019
chrish618

Yes, we should defend a person right to democratic speech, but if you choose to give a suspect person a platform then you risk promoting their values.

4 07 2019
mikestasse

I’d never heard of him before this, but I like what he had to say about climate change…… I don’t know whether to regret putting this up or not now…

4 07 2019
MargfromTassie

Yes, aside from his other views, I agree with Jordanson (and Mike) about renewables not replacing fossil fuels. And to be honest, climate change is locked in anyway. Perhaps if we all adopted a simple, low energy and low consumer lifestyle, we might not get to 5 degrees warming or higher. (We probably won’t have the choice in the near future about low energy lifestyles given peak oil.)
I don’t trust nuclear energy, given all the assurances about its safety in the past. And the problem of waste still hasn’t been solved – and I sure don’t want waste from the US and elsewhere being shipped through Bass Strait north of Tasmania on its way to the South Australian desert. Anyway, it takes so long to get these things up and running. No, the ‘solution’ will be with Mother Nature – the decimation of the human population, before or soon after 2060 when it’s been estimated that we will reach 10 billion.

5 07 2019
EnergyShifts.net

You did the right thing by putting it up, Mike. I visit your site to (eagerly) disagree with some of the content as much as to like to agree with some of it too sometimes. Either way it makes me think and I come here to engage with the content intellectually, not for Twitter gossip (!). I’d rather you publish even more ‘controversial’ content than turn DTM into an echo chamber moderated by Smartphone junkies…. 😉

5 07 2019
EnergyShifts.net

…and what exactly makes a person ‘suspect”? Slander? And on that basis we should all be deprived from being able to read his views and come to our own conclusions? I’m sorry, mate that’s just illiberal.

5 07 2019
chrish618

Well I defend the right of the rugby player, Israel Folau, to express his highly prejudicial views but I wouldn’t go out of my way to give him a megaphone. That’s all I’m saying. We also have a democratic right to criticise.

5 07 2019
EnergyShifts.net

How about rather playing the ball instead of the player? Playing mostly the player means that the ball gets hardly played at all. Perhaps he’s ‘triggering’ everyone just with his presence because he’s pro-nuclear. And what if nuclear energy becomes an important topic of discussion in the near future? It’s bound to come up. Should it not be discussed at all because many people find the idea distasteful? I’m not pro-nuclear (at all), but I would certainly be interested in debates around the subject. It’s inevitable that some countries are going to go that way.

5 07 2019
chrish618

By all means discuss nuclear energy. I’ve done it for about 50 years. Look, mate, I don’t mind at all that Mike chose to put up this story (even if probably a little unknowingly). Knowing his reputation I personally wouldn’t do so. That would be my democratic choice. There are many more rational, less prejudiced people who write about nuclear and energy issues.

5 07 2019
EnergyShifts.net

More innuendo. What exactly is his ‘reputation’? On what basis is he prejudiced? On the basis of Marge’s fake list written (misconstrued and taken out of context) by the person who originally posted it, rather than copying his actual tweets? On who does that reflect?

How boring. Look, he’s a highly qualified, trained and experienced clinical psychologist with an excellent track record so he’s highly unlikely to say anything he cannot back up clinically. So if you claim he’s ‘prejudiced’ or ‘suspect’ you need to substantiate it when you say it, not just let it hang in the air – at least from a credibility point of view.

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the discussion at hand – it is off topic and borders on trolling behaviour – which is of course your democratic right, but it spoils a otherwise potential good debate about the issues. I’ll leave it there, but I hope Mike won’t allow himself to be browbeaten.

5 07 2019
chrish618

Mike isn”t browbeaten, we aren’t trolling, we are just having a blog discussion about a post. There’s no need to infer negativity on our part. If you like the author, go ahead and like him. I don’t have an opinion about Mike putting the story up. That’s his choice. I wouldn’t have chosen to, for reasons stated.

5 07 2019
M KKrupp

“…he’s a highly qualified, trained and experienced clinical psychologist with an excellent track record so he’s unlikely to say anything he cannot back up clinically.”
(Like Freud and Jung, for instance?) As we know, even in the medical specialist world ,and certainly in fields like psychiatry and psychology, there is a great variation in professional integrity, in ability and the ‘correctness ‘ of views and approaches. There are many highly esteemed academics and intellectuals who don’t think much of Jordan Peterson. Sometimes people who are brash and overconfident and who sound authoritative can get into high positions (look at the White House). Also, just because a person has ability in one area, doesn’t make them an authority in a completely different area.
“So if you claim he’s ‘prejudiced’ or ‘suspect’ you need to substantiate it when you say it …”
The more you study his writings and videos, you will see that prejudice. On the issue at hand, Climate Change, I have personally seen a Twitter from him, where he displayed a NASA graph which showed a decline over time in average annual temperatures. The trouble is he showed only (an earlier) part of the overall graph, the majority of which showed a steady increase in temperatures. Cherry picking from graphs, statistics and research is common with Peterson. This particular instance was blatant intellectual dishonesty.

6 07 2019
EnergyShifts.net

Could you please post it here – I would like to see it – and if true I will factor it in and adjust my point of view accordingly.

6 07 2019
EnergyShifts.net

I will, however, analyse it carefully before jumping to any conclusions you can be sure of that.

I don’t use Twitter at all, don’t have an account and have no interest in it, but Twitter wars, scandals and gossip are increasingly contaminating other platforms. The nonchalant confidence with which people share and reference fake news on Twitter and pass it of as fact is more than disconcerting. I generally assume automatically that whatever happens on Twitter is automatically out of context, because there’s no space for context in the first place, hence everything published on it can always be misunderstood since virtually everything would need further clarification. Why people bother with Twitter I have no idea, except if it is exactly the potential for drama creation (and getting attention) that appeals… and I include Peterson in that analysis.

6 07 2019
MargfromTassie

I don’t have a Twitter account either and I certainly don’t believe everything I read on the Net. I agree with you that there is so much distorted news, selective reporting and ( uninformed) bias. As it is, I spend way too much time on the Net trying to establish the truth of things and cross reading.
I can’t find the actual tweet that a friend showed me but I’ve just managed to find a discussion ( see below) of how JP, on another tweet, referred to a YouTube video in which a shortened climate change graph was apparently featured. ( I have not watched this video myself).
JP apparently now concedes that climate change is happening (although not to any serious extent) whereas not so long ago, he was a complete denier. I do agree with him that nothing much will be done about it ( not least because of human nature and a lack of willingness to bite the bullet and change lifestyles.)
https://mobile.twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1024930748908924928
Three more articles you may wish to read, which reveal JP’s anti science attitudes. You’ll also see that he also doesn’t believe that we will run out of fossil fuels and that he doesn’t believe that the world is overpopulated.
Imo, he should stick to self help books. But I guess the more he criticises demographers, climate scientists, environmentalists, feminists, the non religious, critics of inequality and capitalism, the more the monetary donations flow from his conservative and alt right fan base. This is my last entry on this man.
https://cliscep.com/2018/11/08/jordan-peterson-on-climate-change/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

View at Medium.com

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/20/jordan-b-peterson-climate-change-denier-faux-lover-of-science/

8 07 2019
EnergyShifts.net

Thanks for the links.

I get the feeling that for Peterson this is the crux of the matter:
“The problem I have, fundamentally, isn’t really a climate change issue. It’s that I find it very difficult to distinguish valid environmental claims from environmental claims that are made as a secondary anti-capitalist front, so it’s so politicised that it’s very difficult to parse out the data from the politicisation.”

Perhaps his thinking goes something like this: If we end up with BAU combined with socialism, instead of BAU combined with capitalism, it’s still BAU. BAU = industrialisation / high energy use / urbanisation, etc. Socialism is not less energy intensive, the profits would just be redistributed and collected differently. I understand why he would want to be cautious.

He makes another good point here about the implications of scaling down on climate warming activities:

“It’s partly a reason… coal generated plants stop people from starving, so yes its partly a reason, and it’s certainly the case that making energy more expensive obviously makes things more difficult for poor people, so yes it’s definitely an issue. And I would say it’s a conundrum for those on the left, what’s it going to be, clean air or hungry people?”

He is right – because those of us who are concerned about climate change because of emissions need to realise that either way there are going to be casualties, so its not a clear moral issue. Being a psychologist and being concerned with human welfare (first – in the short run), I would imagine would explain his soft stance on the action that needs to be taken.

He actually explains his position too: ”
This is the problem I have with much of the environmentalist movement, there’s a powerful stream of anti-human sentiment that motivates it, masquerading under the guise of virtue on a planetary scale…” Does he have a point? Maybe.

Unfortunately this does still translate to denial – by claiming that we are not going to run out of fossil fuels and that there’s no overpopulation.

These two statements alone puts him firmly in the denial camp, he would rather deny the basic principles of LTG (resource/energy vs population & planet size), than having to deal with the potential logical conclusion, i.e. a lot of people will have to die to save the planet, so who is it going to be, us or the planet? He still has a point, because neither you nor I am prepared to stop eating to save the planet.

So he has decided to rather go the idealistic route – to consider the possibility of future tech solutions, new fossil fuel discoveries, somehow the rising temperatures having less catastrophic effects than projected, etc, ect. In other words: a slow death (suicide), rather than a fast one – with the potential of escaping death in the end altogether due to future discoveries and unknown solutions. This does not make him “a dark pariah” in my mind – in fact his ‘climate denial’ is rather moderate, but yes, he does deny science – and this is evident and unfortunate (but, perhaps , also understandable).

30 06 2019
UnhingedBecauseLucid

😉 … the angst of having just recently come to the realization that your ideology brought us the dead end not only fast & furious but packaged and shipped so the consumer can have a transcendent unboxing experience is so palpable !!
——————–
That being said, he at least seems to be on the cusp of making a roughly adequate diagnosis and revealing his ‘work in progress’ at that event must have disturbed a few ‘safe spaces’ … which is always good to be honest.

30 06 2019
UnhingedBecauseLucid

… it certainly disturbed a few of his most clueless and indoctrinated fans if the YouTube comment section is any indication.

30 06 2019
M KKrupp

I can’t stand this man. I am very familiar with his views. He has stated in the past that he doesn’t believe in climate change. He doesn’t believe that the world is overpopulated and believes that “contraception shall be the downfall of civilisation”. He is clearly a misogynist and has said that “women who decide not to have children are failing in their moral responsibility”, that men and women working together is problematic and that “socially enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence.” He believes in social hierarchy because even lobsters have hierachies. His socially conservative, anti science, anti environment and anti women views are quite worrying given his large media exposure and explain why he receives huge support from alt right men and Trump supporters. It’s been estimated that he receives between $80,000- $100,000 a month from citizen donors in his Patreon account.

1 07 2019
Chris Harries

Thanks for that brief. He’s professionally listed as a clinical psychologist but comes across as a brash American, as we know of in folklore.

2 07 2019
UnhingedBecauseLucid

I’ll concede “overpopulation denier” is pretty up there on the list of dumb unsubstantiated claims …

2 07 2019
EnergyShifts.net

M KKrupp – what a rant! Can you actually cite specifically where he stated any of this, or are you just interpreting it in a biased way (twisting it basically), because you don’t like him personally?

I personally feel that he’s ambiguous views on climate action are unhelpful and are in stark contrast with his general view that people must be more responsible in general, which he often emphasises.

However, just because I don’t agree with him on this matter (and some others) I can also appreciate that he does a lot of good work for bringing psychology back the masses and popularising it – and there are many thousands of people who have benefited from his work – just read the comments below his videos online.

Unfortunately a lot of people unhappy with his style of delivery – or with some of the uncomfortable truths he takes head on, simply revert to character assassination (there is psychological term for that).

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
– Evelyn Beatrice Hall (on Voltaire)

3 07 2019
MargfromTassie

Hi Evelyn, It’s only a ‘rant’ if you’re a fan. Believe me, I have watched over 20 of his YouTube presentations (all at least a year ago) and looked in detail at his older web site (now completely replaced. It used to say things like -“The male is the divine individual, the female is the divine mother and child”, “the male is order, the female is chaos”). When watching the YouTube videos, I actually wrote down the things I mentioned. I regret now that I didn’t record all the actual links and the specific dates and times where he made these remarks. (Although I note that someone else has listed the anti feminist and anti female comments he has made on Twitter)

It is true that many young, white men have been helped by Peterson’s book and his promotion of self responsibility, of tidying up after oneself, of accepting that life isn’t all fun and games. In this respect, his advice is no different to M. Scott Peck’s “The Road Less Travelled” and other self help books.
I could mention many other comments JP has made in support of traditional patriarchal and hierarchical societies, but there’s no space here. You might want to google it. Also, I could list a number of instances where Jordanson has cherry picked data – to me that is not the sign of a true intellectual.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/jordan-peterson-enforced-monogamy-the-cure-for-misogynist-rage-20180523-p4zh0u.html
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/20/jordan-b-peterson-climate-change-denier-faux-lover-of-science/

4 07 2019
chrish618

I believe Peterson’s objection to renewable energy is mainly driven by his support for nuclear energy, not by a belief that our world is grossly overcooked. In that respect he would be similar to Professor James Hensen. It’s a valid world view if you believe in nuclear energy as an acceptable fix.

Where a person is coming from is a vital part of their message. He has a platform on this site because he says we can’t fix climate change with renewable energy (ok) but the rest of his story says everything else.

10 07 2019
lemmiwinks

Very long (but largely worthwhile) read:

http://www.catherineingram.com/facingextinction/

10 07 2019
MargfromTassie

Very sobering indeed. Smell the roses while you can.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s