Peterson doesn't seem to understand the difference between "climate" and "weather". He erroneously suggests that climate scientists use the term "climate" as a stand in for a vague "everything", when really the term describes the equilibrium within which localized fluctuations in weather patterns exist. To understand the implications this has for mathematical modelling: it's essentially the difference between following a straight line on a graph, and following a bunch of haphazard zigzags. The latter is inherently erratic and therefore difficult to model; the former is not.
I think we saw the same part where he said "climate pretty much means everything, but the data doesn't cover everything" which means you got it backwards. Climate scientists don't use the term for a vague everything. They use it for what is pretty much human factors on the environment and that's about it because it's directed at things humans can do so that policies can be enacted to change human behavior through government intervention. At that point, the climate scientists are using climate and weather interchangeably. It's not the weather changes and Jordan wants them to record every change in every place, it's that he wants the data to be less woo-woo and more valid. Attribute more factors that are outside of the human factor, but there's no political advocacy to try to properly understand rotation or the spin of the Earth around the sun or even the status of the sun because these are things outside of our ability to control as governments(for now).
For some reason I'm not allowed to quote or reply to Hagfish, but if you read this, my response to you is this:
1. People like Peterson are not for the corruption of either side. He's a liberal and he's centerist, while also being environmentally conservative, because a centrist can have any trait of any side as long as they don't embrace a majority of the main tenents of either. Saying that somehow Peterson is sided with the people who pocket money to circumvent environmental protocols is such a bad strawman. I have no idea where you got this idea. Is it because he points out the corruption but isn't a politician who can fight against it? What does a person have to do to NOT be accused of siding with the corrupt people of the other side?
2. The west doesn't HAVE to be the bottom bitch of Saudi Arabia or Russia. The US was producing a vast amount of oil with Canada and then Biden took that away because it was making Saudi Arabia threaten to make gas too cheap by flooding the market, and then the oil barrons shook Biden awake from his nap to get that taken care of and reinforce our reliance on them. Personally I would be more than happy to have the US just make its own oil so that we have a pipeline instead of a bunch of oil tankers spilling it all over the ocean and wasting oil to carry it. I think we're on the same page with this one: we shouldn't be giving dependance and power to countries that want our heads on a chopping block. Good, let's make policies to get that fixed then instead of giving policies that put more power into the hands of these angry and totalitarian people.
3. 1 life is too much to waste on the oil war nonsense, which is why it's so stupid for the US to reduce its own production instead of being the producer. Again, there's no reason to give more money and more power to these people, but government corruption doesn't care because it puts more money in the pockets of the global mega corporations anyway and benefits the politican who lobbies or does insider trading.
4. I totally agree that we should be more eco-focused, but this is different than saying we should punish the US, stifle its production required to advance to the next stage, and then give more power to the unregulated countries just because they make corporations happy. This is why the climate data is to be questioned, which is why Jordan questions it, because the scientists seem to think that the US has to make up for the pollution of other countries, but they don't think those highly polluting countries should be regulated. To say trust the science when the science is only focused on one side of the world and not the other makes me not trust the science. Because it's not science at that point, it's just scientism.
5. I don't think we as are vulnerable to climate as much as you think. Or at least, not in the way that you think. Your reasoning seems to be that because people don't like a tax designed by lobbiests that somehow that makes them hate hippies. No, we hate hippies because the hippies are the reason we are given the CO2 tax in the first place. They gave the power to corporation, they gave in to the consumerist nonsense, they caused the jobs to leave the US and go to China and India because they wanted more wage for less work. The hippies were and always have been LARPing as "tree-huggers" when they are just virtue signaling dirtbags who made the mess we are in now. It's the same thing as when a boomer complains about inflation or how college costs too much. Well, you caused that problem(the boomer, not you personally), so what did you expect?
6. Yeah, speaking of bitcoin, it's crazy how energy dependant our currencies have been since the digital age began and will further increase to even crazier amounts since crypto puts the power plants of the countries that produce it on full throttle. This means that all of these unregulated coutries are going to have more energy demands and that means other countries are going to give energy to them(yes, it's possible, this happens all the time), and this means the US is still going to have the tax payers foot the bill, but now it's globally. So further punishment for the west because Kazakhstan isn't able to keep its shit together and we can't trust their people with nuclear energy.
7. I don't think we will rely on oil forever, just how we don't rely on the horse anymore. But the example I like to use is that we need horses to create enough cars so that those cars can create the cars that follow. We need coal power to create enough alternatives so that those alternatives can create more alternatives and advance them to where they are more cost efficient. One thing that might wow you is that we are working on artificial photosynthesis and if you haven't heard of it then that might relate to the way the media mishandles the clilmate discussion. We should be putting more money into this because it literally has devices absorb sunlight to create energy and hydrogen. Run the place with solar during the day and hydrogen during the night. Boom, you have yourself the ultimate power plant based on an actual plant. But no, we can't do this because of government corruption AND because nobody wants to use the energy to R&D such a thing.
8. I don't see how he's an environmental centrist. He clearly said the environment is important and we should fix it, and the way the government is trying to do it doesn't solve the issue, it just moves it to different countries. That's not centerist, that's very conservative in relation to the environment. As for push for a solution of his own, he doesn't have to. He doesn't intend to. He's not a Greta Thurnburg. If I see a robbery and I'm putting the energy to call the police as a consideration for other people, it's not my responsibility to then go to see the robber and dedicate more time to fix his life personally. And if you don't do that then you're a centerist? Okay, if that's what it takes to be a centerist then pretty much everyone is a centerist on this matter unless they virtue signal with worse ideas or tell everyone to return to monkey. It's just saying anyone who isn't radical is a centerist and that's not how this works. As for fixing the hundreds of small solutions that require more drastic measures, sure. Let's talk about those and sus out the bad ideas and work on the things that benefit us through reasonable means of execution. If it's possible, it fixes the environment, and it's required to save the world, then why not do it? But you have to prove it's required to save the world, and that's the issue. Climate data doesn't do that outside of the fear mongering from scientists who get paid to fear monger so corporations get more money and more power.
9. I don't know where you got the idea that I compared modern medicine with bloodletting. I said the current climate data is the same as bloodletting, not modern medicine. We look into practically everything for modern medicine and intend to because not doing that means people die. Science will always advance and evolve. The issue is that climate change data claims to be the "be all end all" of the possible factors and data, and then when someone looks into other factors outside of that, they are silenced. THAT is the issue, and THAT is like if someone said "hey, I found a way to prevent polio, but it requires a belief in that viruses exist and they are the cause of the disease", but then people are paid to shush that because too many people are making money in the leech industry. THAT is the comparison.
10. Nobody is talking about trusting the outlier. That's what Flat Earthers do. What is said is that there is a difference between science, scientist, scientism, what a scientist says scientifically, and what a scientist says in general. This is why there is the argument from authority fallacy. An authority can say whatever they want and it doesn't make it correct. BUT, what is correct is what is logical, reasonable, proven through evidence, and challenged in a way that is also logical, reasonable, and proven through evidence. But when we're not allowed to challenge something with logic, reason, and evidence, then what the hell is that other than some kind of fascist political agenda?
