Jordan Peterson knows psychology, including ‘global warming’ groupthink: News: The Independent Institute

Five days before the recent snowstorm shook the Mid-Atlantic region, the ECMWF weather model predicted over 30 inches for parts of Delaware, coastal Maryland and southern New Jersey. The model had overestimated snowfall by up to a factor of three.

My critique of the model probably won’t piss off many in the political arena. Why not? Because, as we are often told, weather is not climate. The weather is very difficult to predict because it is highly variable, and weather models can and often do make poor predictions, especially for long-range forecasts, because model errors increase over time. On the other hand, apparently, the climate is very easy to predict, and therefore the gloomy prognoses made by climate models cannot be questioned. (Never mind those dates that activists often set for climate “tipping points” to pass uneventfully.)

Jordan Peterson just got schooled on that difference. As the Guardian noted, Peterson Recount Joe Rogan that “the climate was too complex to be modeled accurately”. Thus, prominent climatologists have lined up to ridicule and criticize Peterson, who, it has been dutifully noted, is not a climatologist but a “controversial Canadian psychologist.”

Peterson, according to critics, showed he was “incredibly ignorant” when he argued that the climate was a complex problem and that models could not include all the variables that affected it. One such leading climatologist, Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick of the University of New South Wales in Canberra, Australia, is quoted as saying that although weather forecasts become less accurate over time, “there This was a different process than climate modelling.”

Thus, climate models become Following accurate as their time horizons expand? Does that make any sense?

If you don’t understand this, it’s because you don’t understand the purpose of climate modeling. Climate models have almost nothing to do with science; but they have everything to do with perception. Climate activists, using the divination patterns, claim that our future will be plagued by increased droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and all other weather disasters. These models and their results cannot be questioned, and if you dare to suggest that the climate is extremely complex or that our understanding of it is incomplete, you are a climate denier, or worse.

The point is that Peterson was relaying truthful information raised by many leading climatologists who disagree with the supposed scientific consensus. Peterson quoted the esteemed and late S. Fred Singer (I was co-author of the book that Peterson quoted) who argued that climate has always changed and that while humans can and do affect our climate, change human-caused climate is not the existential threat envisaged by radical environmentalists. Singer was also one of the principal authors of the five volumes of the Climate change reconsidered series, the most authoritative and comprehensive series of reports available offering a counterpoint to the claims of the UN IPCC. Because Singer’s view (and that of many other prominent climatologists who agree with him) does not embrace the bleak and doomsday climate scenario, it has been reviled by environmental radicals. And now Jordan Peterson too.

Most of the attacks on Peterson follow the same modus operandi which has been used for years to stifle anyone critical of the radical environmental agenda. the Guardian called Peterson’s appearance on the podcast a “salad of nonsense words,” and other outlets were less generous, saying the science Peterson embraced was funded by ExxonMobil, Charles Koch, and other oil and gas interests. harmful gases. These are lies that are repeated over and over; the fact is that huge funds go to environmental activists to spread their propaganda which directly benefits interest groups. Pushing environmental disaster is very lucrative.

Many of those who attacked Peterson mockingly criticized him for not staying in his lane. But Peterson spoke clearly about his expertise. As an internationally recognized psychologist, he is very familiar with groupthink, as well as the psychological characteristics of propaganda, the appeal to feelings rather than reason, and ad hominem attacks. I have long argued that climate science is no longer about science, as practiced by many so-called climatologists who know little about Earth’s climate but have an agenda to push forward. Peterson understands this far better than most.

Comments are closed.