/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10231399
He seems to have a good hold on statistical reasoning at times. I think what he tends to do is talk to people and use that to boost his abilities.

I dunno about low resolution thinking, I think that means there's a lack of (obvious) praxis. Like high resolution stuff he talks about seems to mean asking for what you want to happen in the most exact/manifested terms possible. I think there's a point there, but he's behind the times a bit on that one.

>>10231399
What did they mean by the France thing?

>>10231439
>What did they mean by the France thing?
https://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-Jordan-Peterson-been-to-speak-in-France/answer/Michael-Barnard-14

>>10231437
Also I haven't seen the Union address yet. I asked someone who I believe saw it what it was like and they never got back to me.

Btw, like the conclusion he comes to is extremely poor, I forgot to properly finish my first point: that absolutely doesn't follow and I'm somewhat surprised he's claimed that. It's really only in the sense of Hume's problem of induction that we can be skeptical of anthropocentric climate change (how do we know anything follows from anything else?), so I assume he's spoken to someone who to him seems knowledgeable and has rebroadcast this from them without really understanding the subject. Shame. Or he's got a tumor?

>>10231440
thank you anon. I can't tell if this guy really hates him or is just being truthful. Or it could be both I guess but the way it was written was just weird.

>>10231399
He is right, though.
Maybe he noticed how politicized this thing become and that's why he prefers to stay away from it.

I mean, there's no fucking plastic bottles tax even though they are messing up our environment way faster than CO2.
Curious, huh?

>>10231468
Why wouldn't there be a tax for that if it does so much damage? Is there a big push to get them taxed?

>>10231479
>Why wouldn't there be a tax for that if it does so much damage?
republicans

>>10231399
>climate alarmist on suicide watch
Where is that brit bong accusing any downplay to be seen?

>Peterson said that climate change will not unite anyone, that focusing on climate change is “low-resolution thinking”, and there are other more important issues in the world.

Actually climate change is pretty high resolution thinking. The problem is the vast majority of people are either selfish, retarded or some shared variance of both.

But that's fine, if it takes millions or billions of people suffering or dying to finally have it recognized or accepted then so be it. Humans are a stubborn but resilient species and it wouldn't be the first time we had to crack our collective skull in the brick wall that is reality for us to get a clue about shit like this.

>>10231399
>He’s been adopted by the alt-right
Completely false, everyone there dislikes him a lot, Lügenpresse at it again.

>>10231439
Peterson likes to shit on the incomprehensible charlatans of 20th century French philosophy, for good enough reason but perhaps more often than is warranted.

jordan peterson's a nutter

>>10231468
It is politicized but like in the opposite way. So the technologies that are presented as solutions are extremely disruptive. Think about the position of Mr Burns in the Simpsons, he owns a traditional kind of centralized power generating facility where a large of amount of electrical energy is put into a system and transported to everyone. Every industry and person in Springfield is beholden to him for energy, and he gets a lot of power from that. Things like solar power and wind energy have an effect of decentralizing power generation, and also mostly benefit people in rural areas rather than urban.

As far as taxes go, it's more complicated to make a workable taxing regime than you might realize for carbon. One of the big issues atm is whether any costs or credits from such a system should be tied to an entity or be able to be passed on or traded. Another issue is that some industries use very little carbon on paper, but can lead to wider use of fossil fuels or depletion of natural resources (some of this is related to fracking, some to peat bogs too). There's probably going to be a variety of taxation and credit systems in the future depending on geography and industry. Some are already in place, but it's like beta testing atm.

>>10231399
Christ what a hitpiece. I don't even like this clown, I think he's a goofy money-grubbing fag, but I hate how people are now using alt-right like a jacket you can put on anyone you don't like to make their arguments irrelevant. This guy isn't even remotely alt-right, he's center-right at the most, and the whole thing of it is he DOES call students by their preferred pronouns, he just thinks that the state saying you HAVE to do it is absurd.

The anti-global warming thing is ENOUGH to attack him with, don't throw a bunch of spurious half-baked weasely accusation on the front end of your article, it makes you look so stupid.

Christ, stop making me defend this rambling pretentious faggot.

>>10231664
Where the hell do you morons come from? What NGO pays you to post stupid shit like this? Please just leave this board

>>10231682
Someone's ass frazzled...

>>10231587
Two outcomes
>world burns everyone dies
>alarmist eat their own hat
It's win win fa malan.

>>10231671
I dunno, the lobster thing was not the best example to bring up.

>>10231587
>There are other more important issues in the world.
>Actually climate change is pretty high resolution thinking.
No. The economics of the environment tells us we, as a society, should be more concerned over things like free parking, and the damage it causes to the environment, than climate change in general.
He's not wrong. There are more important issues which socially are in a more approachable and impactful scope than climate change.

This whole paper is a hit-piece though, so who cares.
OP is a faggot.

>>10231587
>calls people selfish and retarded

Yes but anthropogenic climate change promoters are bad at convincing people, and it's because they fall back on stuff like this instead of stepping up and getting better

>>10232160
what more do you want than the scientific consensus?

>>10231399
>“You can’t trust the data because too much ideology is involved”.
OP >HES SUCH A SHIT I HATE HIM
get some fucking self awareness

>>10232173
What more does Peterson even want? He cites non-reproducible psych and social research like it's infallible, and this is the research he questions? Jeez.

>>10231980
Ummmm....

>>10231399
awwwwwwwwwwwwwww
What about science? You know, facts?

>>10231651
Peterson is hack. Foucault was a genius

>>10232994
>all meat diet

Over 100 years climate change will slow the world GDP growth by one year. What we would get in the year 2120 we get the year 2121 instead. The new iPhone got delayed by a year, hardly a problem.

>>10231662
He makes some good points.

>>10232994
lol

>>10232911
Foucalt was a hack. Peterson is a self help guru who only eats beef.

>>10231468
What exactly makes it "politicized"? Because the solution requires political action that you disagree with? This is circular logic.

> there's no fucking plastic bottles tax even though they are messing up our environment way faster than CO2.
[citation needed]

he just couches literally every right wing talking point on social and economic issues in sophistry and ironically postmodern logic to make them sound profound and new.

>>10233102
there's also a pic of her naked butt btw but it's really gross

>>10233113
so what e-tabloid did you get that opinion from

>>10232186
>You can't trust the data because it disagrees with my ideology
ftfy

>>10233108
he thinks people who care about the environment want to destroy capitalism and that all climate scientists are deep ecologists

>>10233108
If it wasn't politisicized, both sides would come up with same solutions. There are plenty of problems where both the right and left land on the same solution. Not on climate change though, which makes it the presented solutions that much more suspicious.

>>10233113
Not really.

>>10233091
Even if that were true, there's something to be said for preserving ecosystems for its own sake.
They're precious, irreplaceable, and the only ones in the known universe.
We're losing biodiversity at record pace. If we stopped producing SUV tomorrow, we could start again any year we wanted as long as human civilization were still around. Meanwhile all our scientists and engineers put together can never produce something approaching the level of complexity of an ecosystem.
We should think hard about becoming the known in human history for squandering such an incredible gift for all those that come after us, just for the sake of cheap convenience.

>>10233091
Wrong.

https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php

>>10233126
>If it wasn't politisicized, both sides would come up with same solutions.
LOL so you just admitted it's backwards logic.

1. Anything one side denies is "politicized"
2. Therefore we can't trust any science which is inconvenient for a particular political ideology

It's the tail wagging the dog. In reality, what you can't trust is the ideologue who will deny anything that disagrees with his dogma! Scientific facts and non-facts are demonstrable regardless.

>>10233126
>suspect science not supported by ideology

Let me fix that for you:

>suspect ideology not supported by science

>>10233129
You are only corroborating to what I posted
>per capita
Let me read that map for you. Lot of poor people who don't contribute much to the total GDP lose on climate change, their per capita growth falls. Meanwhile it's countered by growth in wealthier areas. Results very little total GDP decrease ( not talking about GDP per capita)

>>10233153
GDP increases with population, so saying that climate change will only cause a decrease of 1% is extremely dishonest since the population will increase about 25% from now to 2100. You need to take GDP per capita to remove the effect of changing population to isolate the effect of climate change.

>>10231399
I just listened to him. He doesn’t deny anthropogenic climate change, he just doesn’t trust the solutions offered. I disagree with his handicapping of the risks involved, but he’s hardly someone going around claiming it’s chemtrails put in the sky by the jooz doing it.
The left needs to get better at telling the difference between conspiratards and charlatans like Alex Jones and skeptics or good faith disagreements.

>>10233166
When I say total GDP growth of course it contains the population changes. You just don't seem to understand that major part of the world GDP is mostly made out of GDP of the wealthy nations, some of which happen to even benefit from climate change. The poor fuckers in Africa, etc don't move the needle much, even if there is many of them.

>>10233177
you can disagree with carbon taxes without pushing propagandists that deliberately mislead people like bjorn lomborg and others

>if you don't want to impose global international communism, rob everyone off their wealth and dress your son in a skirt you are a climate change denier
I guess I am then

>>10233181
>When I say total GDP growth of course it contains the population changes.
So why are you claiming this is the effect of climate change and not the effect of climate change and population growth? You can't seem to respond to the fact that climate change will cause a 25% drop in the average individual's wealth so instead you cite irrelevant numbers. First you attempted to talk about global GDP and now you are trying to cut the data up into certain regions. There's no substantive point here, just red herrings.

>>10233200
you could be an ecofascist instead

he's only a climate change "skeptic" because it implicates western capitalism in the destruction of the environment and possibly humanity, while he pushes the significance of ocean pollution because most of it comes from asia

>>10233200
>if you don't want to let me spew crap into the atmosphere and fuck up everyone's shit then you must be a communist cross-dresser trying to rob everyone's wealth
I guess I am then

>>10232792
The typical cost of co2 emissions per person in the US is roughly around 50 bucks a year.
The costs associated to free parking, and the damages it does to the environment, is much larger than the 50 dollar estimate.
In fact, it's more in line with subsidies spent on medicare or national defense.
Donald Shoup, an economist from UCLA, was able to show the environmental cost of free parking in 2006.
In many cases, in the city at least, the price of parking is significantly over-priced and would do better if we were to use that space for wider walking lanes, or larger shops, or more bike paths, or whatever else you want to throw there - more greenery for example.

Global warming might be a grander issue, but that's not the point. The issue is -your contribution- to global warming vs your contribution to something like urban congestion.
And if you're the typical person to drive into the cities, the later will undoubtedly be more important than the former.
Even in the suburbs this is a problem with the amount of space used for parking lots.
So it's not ridiculous to think global warming isn't on many people's radar.

The costs for these individual activities don't just magically go away. Instead they simply get paid indirectly via our lives as consumers, investors, workers, residents, and taxpayers.
If we paid for these activities more directly, we would in fact start to CARE, and actually have an incentive, about these environmental issues.

The general rule is: We get bad outcomes when damaging the environment incurs no penalty AND when we see no reward in contributing to the improvement of it.
Just as there are too many cars, there are not enough buses.

It’s a fine thing to care whether you’re damaging the environment, but it’s also a fine thing to remember that our environment consists of more than just the air we breathe. It consists too of crowded sidewalks, vast empty parking lots, and much else that can’t be measured in parts per million.

>>10233246
>The typical cost of co2 emissions per person in the US is roughly around 50 bucks a year.
Cost to whom? Where is this number coming from?

>The costs associated to free parking, and the damages it does to the environment, is much larger than the 50 dollar estimate.
What are the costs?

Even if your numbers are accurate and you are not comparing apples to oranges, what is the point of the comparison? Is there a choice between solving one or the other?

>>10233262
>what is the point of the comparison? Is there a choice between solving one or the other?
i already told you.
it's not unreasonable to assume that people are more concerned over things which they have a realistic scope, rather than something so amorphous as global warming - which is what Peterson was talking about.
The point of the comparison is that you could be making the same types of comparisons with many other topics which contribute to the health of the environment (some which may be more or less serious than an individual contribution to global warming), and why those topics are more relatable to people than the topic of global warming. People tend to be concerned over their individual contribution rather than some grand narrative.
If you want to improve things, we need to recognize that people need to see individual tangible rewards in the effort to improving it as well as make sure people are directly aware of the damage they cause.

>>10233272
>it's not unreasonable to assume that people are more concerned over things which they have a realistic scope, rather than something so amorphous as global warming - which is what Peterson was talking about.
I don't think many people have a realistic scope of the cost of free parking. Certainly less than those who understand the costs of climate change.

>The point of the comparison is that you could be making the same types of comparisons with many other topics which contribute to the health of the environment (some which may be more or less serious than an individual contribution to global warming), and why those topics are more relatable to people than the topic of global warming.
I don't see you making such a comparison, you're just stating an arbitrary number for global warming and then saying free parking is worse. In order to actually compare the problems you would have to honestly try to understand them instead of dismissing them out of hand, which is what Peterson is doing.

>If you want to improve things, we need to recognize that people need to see individual tangible rewards in the effort to improving it as well as make sure people are directly aware of the damage they cause.
They don't, that's why we have governments making laws instead of just letting the market handle everything. The market is blind to the tragedy of the commons; the costs to everyone are quite real but you are not always going to be able to convince them that they exist and are worth acting upon.

>>10233246
>The typical cost of co2 emissions per person in the US is roughly around 50 bucks a year.
The atmosphere is a resource that the whole world is obligated to share (it's the equivalent of the biggest damn river that somehow flows both ways through every country) and use.

All the evidence shows that there exists significant anthropocentric climate change. It's good evidence. While it currently costs people very little, those costs will only increase and reversing it will gradually get harder or become completely impossible. We know this because runaway effects due to increased greenhouse gasses has happened before: the Permian–Triassic extinction event, or the great dying. An event that nearly killed all complex life on earth.

Think about that for a second: people talk about the economics of deflecting asteroids earlier rather than later. An asteroid is way way less of a threat than climate change. Same for nuclear war: it might kill all humans but probably wouldn't kill nearly all life on the planet.

Free parking on the other hand is a way for local governments to encourage people into urban centers. It usually costs a significant amount, and if there were a better way to do that then they'd take it. So presumably just the revenue generated from taxing local commerce outweighs the significant cost of subsidizing parking.

>>10233292
>I don't think many people have a realistic scope of the cost of free parking. Certainly less than those who understand the costs of climate change.
Sure I can agree with that, but the point is something like the issues with free parking is easily more approachable than global warming.

>I don't see you making such a comparison, you're just stating an arbitrary number for global warming and then saying free parking is worse.
It took me a while, but here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421504001028
>the marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions are unlikely to exceed $50/tC

If you're interest in reading up on the damages associated to free parking, just look up Donald Shoup free parking - he has a book on it.

>In order to actually compare the problems you would have to honestly try to understand them instead of dismissing them out of hand
I AM honestly trying to understand them. I know that people are more concerned over their individual contribution than anything else, and that the fundamental rule over externalties is that damages occur when people are unaware of the costs and also when they see no reward in getting it right.
No amount of screaming "the sky is falling!" is going to convey this.

>They don't, that's why we have governments making laws instead of just letting the market handle everything.
Sure! Absolutely. You can absolutely support something like a carbon tax (I do), but you have to realize why people might not and its fundamentally due to the fact that people individually don't feel a high cost due to global warming, and why they might be more open about something potentially more manageable.

>>10233315
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421504001028
Okay, do you need access to that paper? If you'd read beyond the abstract, even just the introduction, you'd have been much clearer on SOME of the limitations of that approach (the paper doesn't into more detail on limitations than it has to tbf, but it covers enough that you wouldn't be citing it in this way).

Just to be clear, carbon taxes and credits are WAY WAY more complicated than you and most people seem to realize and have to embody all sorts of costs which are not monetary, or even are monetary but not representative of eventual cost.

>>10233315
>>the marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions are unlikely to exceed $50/tC
Does this include all costs of carbon emissions? I doubt it. If you got as nitpicky and thorough as Dr. Shoup I'm sure this number would grow much much larger. If you can write a 600 page book about the effects of free parking imagine how large a similarly thorough analysis of carbon emissions would be. You're comparing apples to jumbo jets.

See https://news.stanford.edu/2015/01/12/emissions-social-costs-011215/ for an example of effects the typical models don't account for that multiply the cost by several factors.

>I AM honestly trying to understand them. I know that people are more concerned over their individual contribution than anything else, and that the fundamental rule over externalties is that damages occur when people are unaware of the costs and also when they see no reward in getting it right.
>No amount of screaming "the sky is falling!" is going to convey this.
It's not a matter of convincing the average person, it's a matter of convincing lawmakers who work with this type of problem all the time.

>Sure! Absolutely. You can absolutely support something like a carbon tax (I do), but you have to realize why people might not and its fundamentally due to the fact that people individually don't feel a high cost due to global warming, and why they might be more open about something potentially more manageable.
I already understand this.

>>10233315
Oh and I forgot to point out that this is $50 per ton and the average American emits 20 tons annually. So this says the price per year is $1000.

>>10231399
surprise surprise, bloated fucking consumers willing to rationalize their next feast with pretty much any retarded idea come from places other than the limousine sjw left. fuck this controlled opposition faggot

>>10233177
That's a nice straw-man you made, would be a shame if someone were to burn it down.

>>10233207
>climate change will cause a 25% drop in the average individual's wealth
ya or the effects of out of control population/economic growth (and the resulting resource depletion) will cause a 25% decrease in the average individuals wealth and you people are blaming it on climate change and using that as an excuse to tax more which youll need to do to maintain your standard of living

>>10233331
>You're comparing apples to jumbo jets.
I mean I'm not. I'm comparing individual costs here. this isn't a wild comparison, but sure you could assume the 220 figure, if you include econ growth rates (which are not as determined), but you're splitting hairs here. People would be more concerned over their driving habits, and the -individual- costs associated to them, than climate change, and the costs they face currently. Once things might become more expensive, people would find climate change a more pressing issue.

I mean i'm well aware of the growing concern and I do agree tackling the matter sooner rather than later is more reasonable.

I'm simply saying it's not unreasonable to assume people are not as concerned with global warming than they are for other issues regarding the environment precisely because the individual costs are low at present.
>It's not a matter of convincing the average person
No... it precisely IS about convincing the average person, since they are the ones who vote lawmakers into office.
No one gets to play dictator.

>>10233193
Then who is good?

>>10233367
>this isn't a wild comparison
It definitely is.

>No... it precisely IS about convincing the average person, since they are the ones who vote lawmakers into office.
That's somewhat-but-not-really-true in maybe the US, but again this is an international issue. Are we to convince the Chinese man on the street about this?

The reason why it's not really true is, yes, there are figure heads that are temporarily voted into a position of some power. There are vastly more people whose careers are in government and are not voted in and do not change from administration to administration. Civil servants are always there with their views giving advice and suggestions and whatever else to the total newbie that the public happened to want to vote for more. It's also not really an issue where there's any debate, it just has to happen everywhere, and in that sense you are trying to say "Okay, before we tackle climate change, let's finally sit down and work out the solution to this tragedy of the commons thing..."

>>10233373
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0

>>10231721
If you think the lobster analogy is fallacious then you don't understand it.

>>10233378
>It definitely is.
Again no. Its about -your contribution- to the problem. And your contribution to urban congestion is more costly at the moment than your contribution to climate change co2 emissions.
You may say "well what about future forecasts?" Well in the future it may still remain lower than other issues.
In other words, people might be willing to bet we'll find a resolution in the future - which is why they might be so "meh" about it in the present.

This still means you're open to argue that global warming is a bigger problem than alternative issues, and you might be right.

>It's also not really an issue where there's any debate, it just has to happen everywhere, and in that sense you are trying to say Okay, before we tackle climate change, let's finally sit down and work out the solution to this tragedy of the commons thing...
I don't think you get it... Global warming IS a tragedy of the commons thing.

>>10233409
>I don't think you get it... Global warming IS a tragedy of the commons thing.
Tragedy of the commons is a way people do not act in their own best interest. You're making an argument whereby you're going "people aren't monetarily incentivized to sort this out, how do we make them want to vote for it?", you don't at least not in those terms because that's the exact fundamental problem of tragedy of the commons: nobody wants to bear the cost of maintenance/repair because marginal benefits aren't high enough on an individual level. Unless you have a solution to tragedies of commons...

The typical solution has been in the US, as the other poster hinted at, is just to legislate. The acid test tends to be whether it fits Coase theorem or not, so they tend to allow market forces where they can.

>And your contribution to urban congestion is more costly at the moment than your contribution to climate change co2 emissions.
Hmmm. I think these aren't as separate as you might think in one sense. In another they're very different problems, and urban congestion is really kind of intractable as a problem, I think there are some interesting points to make even if the argument breaks down somewhat.

cont...

>>10233378
>It definitely is.
No it isnt

>>10233769
>>10233409
So urban congestion is not a small problem. It's certainly getting people legislating on it (the general European move to no diesel and all electric cars is part of this because of the direct problems of exhaust fumes on air quality in urban centers). I'd also say that for most people the two things aren't that separate, like electric cars = greener, even though they're really fuel agnostic. I think this is where Elon Musk has really caught the imagination of a lot of people - I'm not a massive fan and I think he's on the wrong side of being something like a bona fide narcissist, AND I think his business sense is lacking - he succeeds despite being a bit of a dip, he has like a master plan people can get behind with cars being powered by solar. There are people who never bought a luxury car in their lives, were initially hooked with the promise of a cheap model (haha) and now are still quite happy to pay luxury car prices in the end because that argument has been made that you can go completely green. Don't get me started on embodied carbon and whole-life analysis, I'm just getting to the point that consumer desires in this area have become fairly sophisticated fairly recently, and it just so happens that a bunch of politicians in Europe have got behind it because it sorts out their urban pollution targets, and in a lot of people's worldview congestion and pollution (including CO2) are tied up, some people get more votes, everyone's probably happy or something.

I'm trying to organize my thoughts about how this gets a little more interesting, so the main things I want to touch on are the "ideology" of mass car ownership, an ongoing problem of why urban centers inevitably get congested (it's a bit like people have confused a house with an investment opportunity), and there's one other thing but I've forgotten what it is. It'll probably come back to me.

cont...

>>10231606
I really don’t like he term (alt right).it should carry less weight now than it did two yeas ago..

>>10233408
The only thing that I learned from the lobster thing is that hierarchies are probably hardwired. Did I miss anything?

>>10233769
>>10233409
>>10233793
So the other thing was that internal combustion engines are sometimes, in terms or renewables/efficiency/CO2 emissions the best solution. You're running large woodlands producing and transporting lumber? Wood gas conversions all the way. You're a large supplier of food or anything that can make biogas with waste products? Do that. And ofc large industries are far more polluting than individuals in cars, just not generally in urban centers, and/or not in a way that particularly (haha) affects air quality. It's more than a little worrying that we're losing a lot of ICE infrastructure soonish for these reasons.

Car ownership is a little complicated. While it may be viewed as "capitalist", manufacturing cars and other vehicles was important for development/industrialization across the political spectrum. USSR went out of their way to get Ford to build factories there, Yugoslavia got Fiat in, Syria got their own in response to economic embargo. In a way they were the perfect post WWII product, they kept the wheels of industry turning, used a lot of skills from building war machines, and building lots of factories all over the world works which was lucky because capital flows were fucked for a while.

Where it changes is in this idea that EVERYONE needs to own a car, and it being tied to being even moderately successful. The costs of not running decent public transport are phenomenal in road maintenance alone, and increasing road traffic significantly degrades road surfaces a lot. If you've lived anywhere with middling levels of congestion, think potholes. It ties into an idea you get from certain neoclassical economists of people needing to learn to be good consumers, and how do you do that? Get them to own some shit, like a car or a house. This also happens to bring in more complex consumer debt instruments, like who even thinks about getting a loan on a new car now?

cont...

>>10231399
someone saying they are skeptical of models does not make then a denier you fucking idiot, aynone who isnt skeptical of climate models is retarded

>>10233830
>>10233769
>>10233409
>>10233793
Something interesting but also pretty shitty started happening in the 70s and 80s. You find in a lot of urban centers very rich people beginning to speculate on housing. Now if you run a sizeable business in an urban center, people are going to have to work for you (you supply a lot of jobs). If you buy up all the housing in the area, you can recoup some of the money you pay them through rent. This speculation then has the effect of increasing house prices and rents, people have to commute in sometimes from newly built areas further out (which again may be investments of the business owners), public transport may not be provided consistently from such areas, oh look you HAVE to own a car now. It also lead to middle class people joining in property speculation with buy to let/real estate investment being a thing, you may remember this was all great until about a decade ago. It's also something that badly affected Hong Kong during the Asian financial crisis, I'd recommend looking that side of it up although it's not a good obvious example of a screw up as they fared quite well, just not quite as well as they should have done. Oh, and of course the move away from social housing to home ownership under Thatcher and Reagan, that was oil on the fire imo.

What's a solution to this? Telecommuting, which is sort of barely starting to catch on. Doesn't benefit property owners though. Where you don't have that option, the move seems to be to develop more rural areas (which has its own set of problems), you get half assed versions of Cadbury's Borneville, which are boring places to live. Where's the fucking night life? Retail? In the main urban center.

Anyway, all the while you're still stuck with old infrastructure in places where everyone wants to travel to, everyone accepts the air is shit etc. And that's how come congestion is a shit and a bit of an intractable problem.

>>10231439
France is very intellectually insular, although the idea expressed in >>10231440 that France has "interesting public intellectuals" is somewhat dated and is a leftover from the 1960s when Jean-Paul Sartre, Raymond Aron, Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Jacques Lacan, and Michel Foucault were foremost thinkers in the French public arena.

>>10233910
>France is very intellectually insular
It's not, everywhere else can seem like that to the Anglosphere though.

>>10231439
It's most likely a reference to the book culture in France, everyone and their intellectual dog publishes a book over there and there's even a fairly widely known thing about how many reprints someone's had and how successful that makes them. Peterson would just be lost in the wash.

To give a little idea of how strong this is in the culture, their late night talk shows often have half to two thirds authors, a lot are doing the intellectual thing. Look up something like On n'est pas couché for a sense of it.

>>10233921
>It's not, everywhere else can seem like that to the Anglosphere though.

It really is.

It's the only country in which Maoism was actually a big thing among intellectuals, for example.

France exported post-structuralism to the Americas in the 1980s but never in return imported elements of analytic philosophy into her own intellectual life — heck, when Claudine Tiercelin was elevated to a professorship at the Collège de France in 2010, it caused a scandal because of an analytic philosopher being given such a post in the country of Derrida.

Even now the intellectual trends of English-speaking countries such as identity politics, intersectionalism, safe spaces, etc, have barely touched France, except for a fringe at the ENS, at Paris-VIII, and a few other places. As I'm not a huge fan of those, I'm not going to say that this is a bad thing, but it does exemplify France's insularity in these respects.

Furthermore, not only has the standard of French intellectual life decreased over the past half-century, but as French public debate has particularised itself around Francocentric concerns such as Republican values, integration of Muslim immigrants, the divide between urban and periurban France, etc, it no longer has the international reach and influence it formerly enjoyed.

>>10233953
>It's the only country in which Maoism was actually a big thing among intellectuals, for example.
China.

>>10233956
Ha, well played.

>>10233769
>Tragedy of the commons is a way people do not act in their own best interest.
No. The tragedy of the commons is when people don't act in the best interest of the group - NOT that they don't act in their own best interest.
People need to be incentivized into working together to resolve this sort of thing.

>nobody wants to bear the cost of maintenance/repair because marginal benefits aren't high enough on an individual level.
Correct: either individuals don't feel the cost, and we have a free-rider problem, or they don't feel the benefits from being a good Samaritan.
How do we fix this? Legislation (as I said), or in some cases the removal of it, or in others to segregate people with conflicting interests, or even further more to possibly remove a market entirely. If people are constantly blowing their leafs onto other people's lawns, then the best course of action might be to remove the leaf blowing market completely. The goal is to incentivize people into actually caring about this sort of thing, AND to actually solve these problems.

BOTH cases, urban congestion and global warming, are instances of market failure. People experience these market failures on an individual basis. It just so happens that, right now, urban congestion would be more on the radar of everyday people than global warming.
Again, you could absolutely argue that global warming is a bigger deal, but I'm simply stating that there might be a reason why people are not very receptive to it.

>urban congestion is really kind of intractable as a problem
No. It blatantly is not. Read the book. It's on his website.
>https://www.shoupdogg.com/

Why is the American right-wing such a hivemind?
No matter who the person is:
>engineer
>economist
>psychologist
>author
>surgeon
, if they are an American on the right, you just know they are going to be a climate change denier. Why?

>>10231399
>refusing to use the gender pronouns preferred by his students
This is false.

>>10231664
Yeah, the problem with climate change is that politically all solutions go against the tenants of all factions on the right and centre of the political spectrum.
But what can you do? The problems that caused climate change are in large part due to tenants of the right and centre being wrong.
I guess we will all have to roast to death.

>>10232173
We are fucked because for some reason people decided that scientists are not experts to be trusted anymore.
Also the Liberal ideology of our times pushed this retarded idea that ideally every individual should verify everything for themselves, which is obviously impossible in practice.

>>10233358
>ya or the effects of out of control population/economic growth (and the resulting resource depletion) will cause a 25% decrease in the average individuals wealth and you people are blaming it on climate change
No, the 25% number comes from looking at the effect of climate change only. Any other changes would be added on to that.

>and using that as an excuse to tax more which youll need to do to maintain your standard of living
Huh?

>>10233367
>I mean I'm not. I'm comparing individual costs here.
The methodologies for determining them are not equally thorough, so the comparison fails.

>I'm simply saying it's not unreasonable to assume people are not as concerned with global warming than they are for other issues regarding the environment precisely because the individual costs are low at present.
The costs aren't low, they're just hidden, same as free parking costs.

>No... it precisely IS about convincing the average person, since they are the ones who vote lawmakers into office.
People aren't single issue voters and votes aren't rationally determined by which candidate will minimize costs to the voter anyway. Working from the bottom up on this particular issue is a waste of time. Ideology prevents people from digesting scientific information. On the other hand, going from the top down is already working as most governments are already doing something and collaborating on further mitigation.

>>10233834
He hasn't even looked at the models, this is just a common excuse deniers use. Skeptics examine the evidence and come to a conclusion. Deniers come to a conclusion and ignore the evidence.

>>10234525
>The methodologies for determining them are not equally thorough, so the comparison fails.
what the literal fuck are you talking about. You haven't even read the fucking book - nor do you fundamentally understand market failures, how they function, and how we can resolve them.
You sound like a person who watched a documentary once, and it scared you into political action - which is great! We need more people willing to address global warming, but you have to realize there are equally as many people who want to address other topics as well.
One of which I brought up: Urban Congestion.

Look, I'm simply saying there are so many other equally pressing matters to the world - many of them exclusively within the realm of the environment many of which does not directly involve global warming.
Instead of babbling on over topics like it's a new religion, you instead need to recognize there are MANY issues in the world and we only have a scarce amount of resources to tackle them all.
So it's not unreasonable to think WHY someone might not think global warming is such a pressing matter when there are other issues they might find to me more important. AGAIN: you are free to be the type of person who thinks the world is going to end if we don't deal with global warming NOW. BUT: you have to recognize there are ALSO people out there who think the same thing as you, but for OTHER issues. Some relating to the environment, and others not - like curing cancer, or world hunger, or population size, or adoption rates, or the list goes on.

>The costs aren't low, they're just hidden, same as free parking costs.
No you moron. Those ARE the hidden costs we are talking about. They ARE the costs not being accounted for.

>On the other hand, going from the top down is already working as most governments are already doing something and collaborating on further mitigation.
My god i don't have time for this. You're a dictator - i get it. I don't think you have the ability to get it

>>10234525
>Working from the bottom up on this particular issue is a waste of time. Ideology prevents people from digesting scientific information.

You said it. Viewing things through the lens of economics is doomed to produce thinking that is antithetical to basic science.

Economics is the philosophy/religion that people believe in to rationalize their consumerism/greed/gluttony.

>>10234317
>politically all solutions go against the tenants of all factions on the right and centre of the political spectrum.
Fee and dividend doesn't seem to be too far from the center at least. The most recent attempt in the US (from under a month ago) is bipartisan. And it looks like they didn't fuck it up by using the money for anything other than paying everyone back. If they can just spin it as punishing China and illegals (since payout is based on having an SSN), Trump might even go along with it.

>>10231480
This. It's like these retards don't understand that shills are bi-partisan.

I was hoping that when that whole nu-conservative movement popped up in 2016, that more conservative folks would reconsider some of what they thought but with this climate denial shit still so sticky in their minds it was just them screaming it at the top of their lungs and not really a face heel turn like they might have thought.

This is damn near on par with denying dinosaurs exist.

>>10231399

Put yourself in his place - if you were on 100% carnivore diet you certainly wouldn't want the beef prices to go up, now would you?

>>10234865
>if you were on 100% carnivore diet
What the fuck? This person just gets crazier the more I read about him.

>>10234221
because they're stubborn potato-people who like to work backwards from their conclusions. Amazingly non-deniers on the right do exist, but, they're usually some kind of scientist

Prediction is much harder than observation. Much harder.

The people who act like this issue is as simple as throwing more money at the problem and willing it to resolve itself are more ridiculous than people who refuse to consider if it's changing at all.

The United States should make an effort to clean up its emissions for the sake of the environment and potentially the climate but one has to accept that 1. The climate may be changing regardless of whatever we try to do to change it 2. Fundamentally reversing or stopping "climate change" may be impossible, either due to natural trends, or the fact that the world has to unite in consensus and stop producing emissions. A very tall task as India and China are backwards, cheating shitters.

When Peterson says it's "low resolution thinking" for someone to make climate change a primary issue he's alluding to the fact that there are many serious, tangible issues one can prioritize in their own community or nation while "global climate change" is a poorly understood phenomenon with no 100% verifiable solution should it even be possible due to the complexity of the issue and the complexity of the only available options.

>>10234221

Because we understand that the issue of "climate change" is being leveraged and weaponized by special interests groups who want to use that hysteria to bully and strip their enemies (ie the classic greens vs. the eternal bad guy fossil fuels lobby), as well as cut deals on alt fuel investments.

They want to neuter and shackle parts of the economy, increase government micromanagement and interventionism, and "climate change" is the means to the end.

It isn't really "denial" as much as skepticism as this isn't the first time hyperbolic doomsdayers have sold an idea for ulterior motives.

>>10234936
You understand precisely nothing. Good job being an eternal brainlet.

>>10233348
Resorting to pointing out alleged fallacies is the last resort of the pseud

>>10234887
>Amazingly non-deniers on the right do exist, but, they're usually some kind of scientist
or nazi lol ;)

>>10234863
Google Niskanen. They did.

>>10234936
By definition, doomsayers can only be right once. I suppose the people who thought it was a bad idea to not start a nuclear war with Russia were just doomsaying hippies who just wanted to destroy the eternal military industrial complex bad guy, right?

>>10234987
>Niskanen
>The Niskanen Center, which launched operations in January 2015, is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) think tank that works to promote an open society: a social order that is open to political, cultural, and social change; open to free inquiry; open to individual autonomy; open to the poor and marginalized; open to commerce and trade; open to people who may wish to come or go; open to different beliefs and cultures; open to the search for truth; and a government that protects these freedoms while advancing the cause of open societies around the world.
They aren't conservative, no way.

>>10234956

Cool

>>10234992

Well, everyone did rail against nuclear weapons saying it was certain doom for the world, but now we have MAD fostering the most peaceful planet in world history. The thing that investing and betting have taught me is that prediction and probability are strange creatures.

I respect that scientists are the best at observing and rationalizing what we have now, but I don't consider their predictive abilities to be gospel. Universities are kind of politicized as is and I think there is a lot of pressure to fall in line, nod your head and say climate change is impending and will spell doom for the world. In general I don't trust these appeals to authority with "overwhelming consensus", 99% of top economists tout open free trade, 99% of scientists tout climate change, 99% of political scientists think Hilary Clinton will win the election, etc..

Prediction is way harder than retroactive observation, and we don't punish "authorities" enough for being wrong in those. We're expected to listen anyway.

I'm fine with moving towards alt energy and cleaning up our emissions situation in general but I'm not going to listen to doomsayers and support radical change like handing China money and shackling our own economy arbitrarily.

>>10234324
I think it goes a bit beyond that. Science is good, but the modern system doesn't necessarily favour good science. It favours 'science' that generates clicks. There's basically 0 monetary value in double checking existing papers but the value for humanity is priceless. I unironically think the task of masters students should be entirely dedicated to verifying existing research. Null results are important!!!

>>10235040
>In general I don't trust these appeals to authority with "overwhelming consensus", 99% of top economists tout open free trade, 99% of scientists tout climate change, 99% of political scientists think Hilary Clinton will win the election, etc..
I believe 99% also agree that Earth is a geoid that orbits the Sun.

>>10235040
>investing and betting
i wonder why you doubt climate change is bad.

>>10233815
Thats his point. Lots of social scientists try to make an argument that hierarchies are entirely tyrannical social constructs designed to oppress people. Peterson's point is that they are not socially constructed and are in fact so ingrained in our evolution that our distant relatives also have a hierarchies that operate on similar mechanisms. His point has never been that we should organize our societies like lobsters or that lobsters prove that we need to have a patriarchy.

>>10234868
Stop reading about him and start listening to him. The left has a massive axe to grind because he is one of their most rational and popular opponents. If you actually listen to what he talks about you will never find anything particularly objectionable.
For example, his "all beef diet" is his way of dealing with a familial autoimmune disease, he doesn't like it or recommend it, but he does it to keep him mentally healthy.

>>10235052

You are stating a present observation, not making a 10 to 50 to 100 year prediction involving a million to a billion variables.

>>10235053

What is that supposed to mean? Or are you just being cliche.

>>10233118
Really? Haha, can you post it. Wanna see how gross it is, haha

>>10234783
>what the literal fuck are you talking about.
Shoup's method for calculating the cost of free parking is much more thorough than the method you presented for calculating the cost of carbon emissions. I already said this but you ignored that part of my post so I repeated it. If you were as thorough in calculating the costs of carbon emissions they would be exponentially larger.

>You haven't even read the fucking book - nor do you fundamentally understand market failures, how they function, and how we can resolve them.
Of course I haven't read the book, it's 600 pages. I'm not even arguing against the book, I'm arguing against your automatic dismissal of the costs of emissions.

>You sound like a person who watched a documentary once, and it scared you into political action - which is great!
I haven't seen any documentaries about climate change.

>We need more people willing to address global warming, but you have to realize there are equally as many people who want to address other topics as well.
>One of which I brought up: Urban Congestion.
Yeah I got that, I just don't see how it's relevant to the topic of this thread. It just seems like you are trying to distract from the topic.

>So it's not unreasonable to think WHY someone might not think global warming is such a pressing matter when there are other issues they might find to me more important.
Then compare them honestly. If you are willing to listen to Shoup then you should be willing to listen to the most thorough, detailed accounting of the cost of carbon emissions. For some reason you aren't.

>AGAIN: you are free to be the type of person who thinks the world is going to end if we don't deal with global warming NOW.
I don't.

>No you moron. Those ARE the hidden costs we are talking about. They ARE the costs not being accounted for.
I don't see how this responds to what I said.

>>10233956
>intellectuals
Yeah except they executed them

>>10235287
coulda sworn there was a pic with her ass visible but this is the best i could find

>>10234928
It's not. We understand the problem and we know the solution. We simply lack the will. You and Peterson are in denial of this because this is inconvenient for your preconceived political ideology. It's as simple as that.

>>10235684
i don't even think it's inconsistent with his political ideology. he's just mad at environmentalists because there is a minuscule amount of crazy ones who think we should kill people for the sake of the environment

>>10233128
this

>>10235706
no no politicians/economists and their pet consumers are having too much FUN feasting. nothing will be preserved but fossils for eons on a dead planet.

>>10233102

wow his daughter is literally a thot.

>>10235862
ex-thot, apparently.

Jordan Peterson is not a scientist and everytime he talked about science I cringed. He come from a Psychology Department, which is a soft science humanities department where most people struggle to do basic linear algebra and matrix multiplication. At best he's just a motivational speaker and clinical psychologist. Just to criticize some of his memery, let's consider his lobster analogy.

>In 12 Rules, Peterson mentions the difference between the brain chemistry of a lobster winner vs. a lobster loser. “A lobster loser’s brain chemistry differs importantly from that of a lobster winner. This is reflected in their relative postures. Whether a lobster is confident or cringing depends on the ratio of two chemicals that modulate communication between lobster neurons: serotonin and octopamine. Winning increases the ratio of the former to the latter.”
That is the classic textbook of "naturalistic fallacy" in thinking that everything in nature is good. Why pick lobsters? Well he did because lobster behavior just happen to match his belief in apologizing for hierarchial society. Anthropods and humans are separated through hundreds of millions of evolutionary history. We're just as related to lobsters as we are to the prying mantis, and the female prying mantis eat and murder the male while the male is trying to have sex with her. This gives the female prying mantis advantage in term of resources to compete in nature. Does that mean it is justified for human female to murder and rob human male who had sex with her to gain a leg up in society?

This is just one among many example. Peterson had dabbled in quantum woo, diet fads, and climate change denier - he's an absolute charlatan in term of /sci/ and needs to be laughed at. This is expected coming from a guy whose concept of "truth" is so broad that he consider a guy turning water into wine, practically alchemy to be "truth" because it contains metaphorical truth.

tldr, Peterson is a low IQ pseudo intellectual

>>10234213
>The tragedy of the commons is when people don't act in the best interest of the group - NOT that they don't act in their own best interest.
This confused me for a bit. They absolutely aren't acting in their own best interests, and the best interests of the group and the individuals align. The resource is ultimately destroyed, and it's a resource that everyone wants to keep/continue to use. However, individuals are acting in their own SELF interest. Say something that's easily confused with something else and talking past one another is bound to happen at some point so eh, maybe something for me to be a little more mindful of in the future.

>or in others to segregate people with conflicting interests
I'll briefly say that that interests me, the issue that comes up a lot is interests align between groups but not within groups. People like to align themselves to others with similar beliefs, but the connection between beliefs and actions is tenuous at the best of times.

>BOTH cases, urban congestion and global warming, are instances of market failure. People experience these market failures on an individual basis. It just so happens that, right now, urban congestion would be more on the radar of everyday people than global warming.
Not convinced by this. There is to some degree a difference in how they're experienced, it's maybe harder to definitively qualify what is the day to day experience of global warming although most people are aware of it, roughly how it works, and have some feeling for having different pests where they weren't before as well as some of the effects on food prices and such. If anything the range of things it affects is broadened, including increased "flooding" and as said before urban particulate pollution (although its related).

Congestion is easier to qualify, but I think the common person more typically puts it into a number of related problems (road parking, retail/agora life, consumerism, poor quality of public transport).

>>10234928
>When Peterson says it's "low resolution thinking" for someone to make climate change a primary issue he's alluding to the fact that there are many serious, tangible issues one can prioritize in their own community or nation while "global climate change" is a poorly understood phenomenon with no 100% verifiable solution should it even be possible due to the complexity of the issue and the complexity of the only available options.

This is a fallacy because a lot of real life, solvable problem like malaria, worm based diseases in Africa (schistosomiasis) etc are exacerbated by climate change. So solving malaria and climate change is not mutually exclusive.

This is all but diversion, and he's not even grinding against real solvable problem with obvious eradicable like malaria, schistosomiasis, polio, or Guinea worm. Nope, he prefer to instead waste his time raging the culture war, and do his climate science nuance trolling (we can't do anything, low res thinking) as a way to further wage the culture war against the lefties who are in this case correct in identifying climate change as serious existential issue to society.

>>10234213
>>urban congestion is really kind of intractable as a problem
>No. It blatantly is not. Read the book. It's on his website.
>>https://www.shoupdogg.com/
Finally, sure I'll read it, but I feel compelled to point out that a number of people one way or another "solve" these sorts of problems, so one could equally say something like "read Piketty". Every thinker I know of that tackles this sort of thing requires large change (and a couple do something like claim the change is small when it isn't, and/or come up with something that wouldn't work). Maybe this is different somehow, but my hopes are limited.

>>10231399

>>10231399
>There are greenhouse gases and non-greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
>From the greenhouse gases, carbon is the most important
>We are producing many times more carbon every year than at any time in earth's history
>This somehow will not have any effect on climate

I mean I can see when somebody argues that we don't know the net effects of the climate change or saying that the change isnt going to be all that catastrophic but flat out denying that 7 billion humans burning trillions of tons of fossil fuels while also chopping down most of the earths woods will have no effect whatsoever is insane.

>>10234928
>A very tall task as India and China are backwards, cheating shitters.
Both could benefit from just moving straight to renewables, especially India. They have brownouts all the fucking time with a traditional infrastructure, the easiest way to solve that is with something more decentralized.

I wonder if this people will ever snap out of it. Maybe one day they will realize they are raving lunatics.

>>10237508
>I mean I can see when somebody argues that we don't know the net effects of the climate change or saying that the change isnt going to be all that catastrophic but flat out denying that 7 billion humans burning trillions of tons of fossil fuels while also chopping down most of the earths woods will have no effect whatsoever is insane.

Yeah cultural marxism tho...
Peterson is the true low res thinker

>>10237535
he's never mentioned cultural marxism. sounds like you fill your head with garbage from tabloids anon.

>>10237577
He used the term post-modernist and cultural marxist interchangeably. Go and listen to any of his ramblings on youtube. Here's one for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-s241kDLA0

>>10237599
give me a timestamp in that video where he uses the term 'cultural marxism', because he's literally never used it, and he even says that the frankfurt school isn't very influential compared to postmodernists (who he describes as kind of neo-marxists following the work of philosopher stephen hicks). you just assume he uses the term becasue retards reupload shit from him and put that term on it.

>>10237481
urban congestion is good for the economy.

It forces consumers to consume more goods and services than would otherwise be the case.
It creates conditions that drive greater competition and therefor leads to innovation
The greater the congestion the more likely it will produce conditions necessary for economies of scale to take effect, thereby reducing per capita consumption.

Economists actually *believe* this and even toddlers can see that that just isn't right. Its pretty much along the lines of believing the son of god walked on water and turned water into wine. Economics is a religion.

>but muh broken window fallacy
Oh cool some guy has an opinion but forgot to take into account that most of the bloated fucking consumers that make up contemporary society get a great deal of satisfaction from breaking windows.

>>10237634
What is the difference between neo-marxist and cultural marxist? The term are used interchangeably

>>10237658
>What is the difference between neo-marxist and cultural marxist?
no one gives a fuck but artsy autists.
and jordan peterson is a fucking moron

>>10237658
cultural marxism refers to a kind of ideology that beings with the frankfurt school specifically (e.g. german thinkers like adorno, horkheimer, marcuse) while peterson uses neo-marxist to describe certain postmodernists who follow the works of french thinkers (like derrida, lacan, and foucault)

>>10237662
you mean people who care about the state of academia and modern society you sperg

it's alway funny when people who attack peterson don't even know the difference between critical theory and postmodernism

>>10237662
Yeah so we agree he's a moron. He can seethe with his pretentious vocabulary about post modernist, neo marxist, etc, but it's all part of low IQ culture war to defend muh Jesus

>>10237658
>>10237669
>>10237675
not science or math
you don't belong on this board

>>10237669
>you mean people who care about the state of academia and modern society you sperg
Lobster good
Jesus good

neo Marxist bad
feminist bad

>>10237458
Congrats on outing yourself as someone who never actually read or listened to him. You're arguing against a strawman built by his critics.
His point wasn't that hierarchies are good, his point is that they are natural and unavoidable as opposed to socially constructed. You seem to have an issue with reading comprehension, it appears Peterson isn't the only one with interdisciplinary difficulty.

>>10237483
Peterson only discusses climate change when people ask him about it. It isn't his forte or his discipline. You're getting mad that a psychologist isn't trying to solve climate change. It isn't his fucking job.

>>10237681
all of these things are bad imo especially the lobsters

>>10237688
not true, he sometimes posts stuff on twitter about it

>>10237458
>Jordan Peterson is not a scientist
lol already literally wrong in the first six words of your posts

>>10237700
Go ahead make a thread on /sci/ that you're psych major and get laughed at. Some people here think that computer science is not science.

>>10237719
>The /sci/ autists are the authorities of academia
Nice

>>10237727
psych major is soft science at best. The repeatability on study results in Psychology are embarrassing and drag down the whole field of science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology_replication_rates

>>10237738
>Study replication rates were 23% for JPSP, 38% for JEP:LMC, and 38% for PSCI. Studies in the field of cognitive psychology had a higher replication rate (50%) than studies in the field of social psychology (25%).

Psychology is not science lmao

>>10231443
Here is the relevant section. His position on this topic is embarrassing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY

>>10237773
>His position on this topic is embarrassing.

His positions on evolutionary biology (lobsters lmao) is embarrassing.

His position on quantum physics is embarassing. Quote
>Now you may know that there's an interpretation in quantum physics, for example, called the Copenhagen interpretation, and not everybody agrees with it, but according to the Copenhagen interpretation no event is an actualized event until it's perceived. And the person who formulated that hypothesis, John Wheeler, is one of the most renowned physicists of the 20th century and he believed, before he died, quite firmly that whatever consciousness is played an integral role in Being. Now it seems to me after studying this for a very long period of time that the entirety of Western civilization is predicated on the idea that there's something divine about individual consciousness and after studying that for such a lengthy period of time and trying to figure out what it meant, I think I found out what it meant. I think I found out that the reason that our archaic stories say that human beings, men and women, are made in the image of God is because consciousness plays a central role in Being itself. Modern people think the world is somehow simply made out of objects and then they look at the world and then they think about the world and then they evaluate it and then they act, but let me tell you as a neuroscientist [...] that is wrong. There's no debate about it, it's just wrong. [...] The facts of the matter seem to be something more like this: the world is actually made of potential, and that potential is actualized by consciousness.

>The facts of the matter seem to be something more like this: the world is actually made of potential, and that potential is actualized by consciousness.

That's Deepak Chopra tier memery.

His position on all things hard science related is embarassing, which is expected coming from a person with soft science background trying to talk big

>>10237784
>His positions on evolutionary biology (lobsters lmao) is embarrassing.

at least explain why he's wrong about that you spastic. i can think of a very simple reason he might be. can you?

also he doesn't directly relate quantum mechanics to consciousness in that quote.

>>10237806
See >>10237458

Comparing human hierarchy to lobster is retarded because we're separated by at least 400 millions of evolution. Might as well compare us to prying mantis

>>10237806
>he doesn't directly relate quantum mechanics to consciousness in that quote
He clearly does, that the reason behind the babble before he said quote "the world is actually made of potential, and that potential is actualized by consciousness."

Bunch of big words babble that amount to Deepak Chopra quantum woo worthy of motivational speaker

>>10231606
The establishment accuses anyone who opposes them of being alt right. Or they try to smear them as a champion of the alt right.
It's tiresome.

>>10237685
>His point wasn't that hierarchies are good, his point is that they are natural and unavoidable as opposed to socially constructed.

Why pick lobster? Bonobos actual human relatives live without hierarchy. Chimps on the other hand do live with social hierarchy. Orangutans doesn't. Why pick lobster?

He's clearly out of his league in term of hard science, and try to pick and choose whichever part of hard science (either the double slit experiment in quantum mechanics emphasizing the importance of the observer to the result of the experiment or lobster social hierarchy) in pushing his agenda while disregrarding other examples

>>10237847
>The establishment accuses anyone who opposes them of being alt right
Noam Chomsky has been railing against the establishment US empire for 50 years and never got smeared as alt right

>>10237856
Noam Chomsky gets signal-boosted by wealthy Anglo-American philanthropic foundations. It's one wing of the establishment targeting the other. If he was really a threat to anyone he wouldn't be employed at MIT.

>>10237652
>It forces consumers to consume more goods and services than would otherwise be the case.
You've reversed cause and effect I think. If you're making a Friedman-tears-up argument where you romanticize ships and haulage and general transport of capital, that's a manifestation of increased flow of capital. It doesn't cause increased flow of capital, which is stuff like consumption of goods and services, industry etc etc. I'm sure some economists do this. If Milton Friedman were alive he'd probably give a fairly weasly answer that would clarify dick.

I don't like the broken window fallacy, and I mostly see people claim it where it isn't a broken window fallacy. As far as I could ever see it's really trying to attack a misinterpretation of Keynesian economics where just decreasing Balance of Payments is mistaken to be good (real world example would be the Irish Free State: credit was made easy, people spent on luxuries in the crazy priced post war market, it screwed the economy pretty bad). I've heard supposedly educated people misunderstand Keynesianism in that sense, thinking that sensible government spending isn't a part of it.

>>10237868
>Noam Chomsky gets signal-boosted by wealthy Anglo-American philanthropic foundations

Sure this is why they don't want him in mainstream US media and he had to go to RT or shitty youtubers interview to get his voice out. Do you really think it is more valuable to fill the airtime with Fox News bimbo, democrat landwhale or race hustler like Shaun King than asking Chomsky to be one of the panel? Why don't the most liberal establishment show like Bill Maher and late night comedians invite Chomsky?

Him being at MIT is because he's the most important linguist in 21st century, completely unrelated to his social critique. He himself has acknowledged that he's at MIT because he's a white male jew with privilege while his less privileged brothers and sisters in the black panther movement and Vietnam era hippies who share his social critiques were getting shot at and crushed by the police.

I just watched his short talk about the climate problem that I think this article is based on and it's not even clear that he denies it.

https://youtu.be/pBbvehbomrY

It's not an unreasonable opinion even if it is pessimistic.

>>10237908
See >>10237483
He's creating an Bjorn Loborg strawman that solving "more pressing issues" such as malaria and climate change is mutually exclusive.

It is also hypocritical because he's not even trying to solve the more pressing issues, he's waging an irrelevant culture war in the western world about trannies and gender pronouns.

>>10237920
In other words,
>climate change is low res thinking because there are more pressing issues
>however trannies and gender pronoun is high res thinking as if there are no other more pressing issues

See the hypocrisy there?

>>10237926
Well put.

Pretty sure the "low res thinking" comment was in regards to climate change uniting humanity. Whatever that means.

So sci hates these meme degrees until they start supporting Incels right

>>10237964
>So sci hates these meme degrees until they start supporting Incels right
Nah meme degrees can wage meme war against themselves. We care about science and experimental methods, not soft science like psychology and humanities

>>10237850
Because they're well known and are distantly related, meaning that hierarchies are a synapomorphy of all animals.
>Bonobo's don't live in hierarchies
Yes they do. Different kinds of hierarchies, but hierarchies all the same.

>>10237926
He's a clinical psychologist not an ecologist. He deals with the areas for which he's trained. You're getting mad at at a psychologist for not being an authority on climate science.

>>10238024
Regardless, it is still naturalistic fallacy assuming nature can teach us about how humans should behave, what is moral and what is not.

Nature is immoral, it is survival of the fittest for the selfish gene. No animals use any kind of sexual contraception, doesn't mean that we should not teach teenagers and people in 3rd world countries about reproductive rights and contraception.

If he give the lobster talk in evolutionary biology conference, and infer what human should do from lobster behavior he'll get laughed at.

>>10238028
>He deals with the areas for which he's trained.
Except he's clearly not. I brought up examples that he's dabbled with natural fallacies in evolutionary biology, quantum woo, and pretend to have authoritative opinion on climate science (including talking about model projection uncertainties).

This is a science board so we BTFO him on all aspect of hard science that he presented. If he want to be motivational speaker and culture warrior against trannies be my guest, but a scientific fallacy is still a fallacy

>>10238036
I mean, not even anarchists agree upon tearing down all hierarchies (parents usually having better judgement than kids, thus their authority)

Lobster Peterson is basically strawmanning, along with his post-modern-marxist boogeyman, which doesn't make sense since post modernism is in conflict with marxism

>>10231399
>denier
Nobody really denies that climate change is occuring, the 'denial' part comes from being suspicious that blame is solely on man's actions and that the only way to stop climate change is to tinker with a bunch of things that magically will solve the problem, like getting us all to drive Elon Musk cars. Peterson is like most people in that they don't buy into the ideology around statistical models built by fanatics who will only ever find that man is to blame, and is simply asking for somebody to remove bias from these models and allow their findings to be published instead of buried by ideology run climate science journals.

Of course you can never articulate this opinion without immediately being labelled as a redneck who denies "science". The way you can tell you're dealing with ideology is their reaction to people involved in the research of removing carbon from the atmosphere. It doesn't involve redistribution of wealth or punishing the western world, so ideologues refuse to fund or publish anything in this field.

>>10238073
>Nobody really denies that climate change is occuring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG8gLt4GChg

>>10238055
>I mean, not even anarchists agree upon tearing down all hierarchies (parents usually having better judgement than kids, thus their authority)

You said it yourself. So why bring up lobster and talk about hierarchy to begin with? Peterson was strawmanning the post modern marxist boogeyman for being anti hierarchy so he brought up the dumb lobster analogy and get laughed at by everyone.

SJW who are against him is dumb.
Peterson is also just as dumb.

None of this conversation belong in /sci/ because neither side is /sci/

The whole Lobster debacle is blown out of proportion.
Have any of you critics read the book or are you just reading the hit pieces?
The observation was that a defeated Lobster would be more reluctant to fight unless given SSRI's.
The same drugs we give to depressed people.

>>10238078
That guy (Malcom Roberts) often argues there is nothing unusual about the climate change going on, that this happens throughout history, and demands empirical evidence that man is causing it, which hipster "we have absolute consensus" panelist guy claims otherwise with his biased data. So he's not denying climate change, he argues it is a natural phenomena which could very well be true, considering most things used to be frozen and melted well before burning coal or the internal combustion engine showed up in history.

>>10238086
True, I think his denial of climate change is a genuine concern, seems like he's just shilling out to whatever will make him popular

>>10238107
Forgetting the other bs, why do you and Malcolm Roberts have such an issue with consensus? What do you think repeatability and peer review are? There's a conflation between a very particular kind of logical way of arguing and "being scientific".

Btw, if you're arguing against the temperature data and saying it's biased or tampered with, yes you are arguing against climate change. I think you want it to be something more like "everyone agrees the weather changes", which very much vacuous.

>>10238089
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/04/jordan-peterson-needs-to-reconsider-the-lobster/?utm_term=.bb1822335ef5


By Bailey Steinworth
Bailey Steinworth is a third-year Ph.D. student studying evolutionary developmental biology at the University of Florida Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience.

>According to Peterson, there is an “unspeakably primordial calculator, deep within you, at the very foundation of your brain, far below your thoughts and feelings,” that “monitors exactly where you are positioned in society.” In other words, no matter how sophisticated we humans believe ourselves to be, deep down, we’re supposedly motivated by the same drive for dominance as lobsters. Want to “embark on the voyage of your life, let your light shine, so to speak, on the heavenly hill, and pursue your rightful destiny”? Assume the upright posture of the biggest, baddest lobster on the reef, or as Peterson says, “Look for your inspiration to the victorious lobster, with its 350 million years of practical wisdom. Stand up straight, with your shoulders back.”

>I’m a marine biologist, and despite my deeply held affection for all marine invertebrates, I confess I was a little puzzled by Peterson’s fixation on lobsters. It’s not that he gets the science wrong, exactly, just that his choice is a little too convenient. The facts he identifies do arguably square with his own “stand up straight with your shoulders back” advice. But in asking us to consider the lobster, he’s cherry-picking one model of social behavior when there’s a whole ocean full of equally relevant examples.

Bring up dumb science example, get smacked in science board. He should go back to be motivational speaker for incels

>>10238132
>>10238024
>>10238089
There are a few arguments based around phylogeny/evolution coming up, and I'd just like to point out something really big: we are deuterostomes, they are protostomes. The gulf in relatedness is so massive that every tissue and orifice in our bodies are formed in drastically different ways.

>>10238149
lobster good, trannies bad

Triggered yet you snowflake?

>>10238132
>Peterson’s fixation on lobsters
He's not the one with the fixation

>>10238153
A snowflake doesn't even have DNA you fucking hack.

>>10238161
Read her whole thesis rather than greentext her out of context.

By fixation it means among all the animals you could pick, Peterson picked lobster because it happens to line up with his argument despite lobster and humans are separated by millions of years of evolution

>>10238073
>>10238073
>Nobody really denies that the climate is changing, I just deny the scientific fact that man is causing it and can stop it by emitting less greenhouse gases, because I'm incapable of accepting things that are inconvenient for my ideology.
OK, denier.

>Peterson is like most people in that they don't buy into the ideology around statistical models built by fanatics who will only ever find that man is to blame, and is simply asking for somebody to remove bias from these models and allow their findings to be published instead of buried by ideology run climate science journals.
Please explain how the statistical models can't find that man is not to blame. Please explain what biases these models have and what findings are being suppressed. After all, I'm the ideological one and you're the skeptical one. So you should be able to rationally explain your claims. You're definitely not just making shit up and won't cave at the slightest bit of scientific inquiry, right?

>>10238175

>>10237464

Clean your room

>>10238186
What about it?

>>10238203
Climate change is real and the temperature rise since Preindustrial are directly attributable to human CO2 emissions

>>10238207
Yup, are you replying to the wrong person?

>>10238208
Yes sorry I fucked up. Nevermind

>>10238073
>nobody really denies climate change
Maybe qualify that statement.
>you can never articulate this opinion without being labeled
It's a politically hot topic. That's how they are. Politics ruins open discussion. I think if we were gonna make unqualified claims like the one you made something like that is more appropriate. I certainly don't think he's wrong in saying that in itself but it's the spirit of what he's saying that's a problem.
>who will only find man to blame
We (humanity) don't exist on a time scale where considering the rather extraordinary events you're asking people to consider more closely makes much sense. And it should be noted that there are many studies into other explanations.
We know how gas and radiation interacts. It's not a mystery. We know that if we have a higher proportion Co2 in the atmosphere less energy will be radiated away.
It feels silly to explain this but there's good reason below. None of that is in doubt. It's not because some overwhelming scientific conspiracy it's because of overwhelming evidence. What is in doubt is solutions. Peterson is right on a few things here (in my opinion), but that's mainly because he's so scattershot in criticising solutions. Anyone is bound to agree if they have an opinion.
>their reaction to research of removing carbon from the atmosphere
This is an impressively hard task. The reasons people may deny this as feasible is many. Even just filtering the atmosphere is hard. Just pushing all the air through whatever superstructure we'd build. You're asking the oil (super dense in energy) that was built up over millions of years to be put back into a form we could store.
I'm personally very much for nuclear, the land area estimates for renewable sources makes me feel it's an impossibility on a energy sovereignty level alone.
Trying to put the co2 back is not something we could hope to do before we've gone to emission <0. Or very close. We're not close.

>>10238230
>I certainly don't think he's wrong in saying that in itself but it's the spirit of what he's saying that's a problem.

So you're tone policing?

>>10238238
What's that?

>>10238073
>Nobody really denies that climate change is occuring
Horseshit.

>being suspicious that blame is solely on man's actions
We can measure the amount of CO2 we're emitting, and the impact that has on the Earth's radiative balance. This is like shooting someone with a gun, and then being "suspicious" when you're charged with murder.

>and that the only way to stop climate change is to tinker with a bunch of things that magically will solve the problem
The problem is carbon dioxide emissions.
The solution is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
That's only "magic" to someone with an idealogical (or financial) aversion to regulation.

>Peterson is like most people in that they don't buy into the ideology around statistical models built by fanatics who will only ever find that man is to blame
When your doctor tells you that you likely have cancer, are they an ideologue with a fanatical devotion towards a statical model? If not, what's different?

>and is simply asking for somebody to remove bias from these models and allow their findings to be published
That's exactly what every proponent of pseudo-science wants.
Creationists want biology stripped of it's "bias towards atheism", and they want the prestige of publishing in peer-reviewed journals without all that mean, nasty peer-review.

>Of course you can never articulate this opinion without immediately being labelled as a redneck who denies "science".
I don't know if you're a redneck, and I don't care. But if you're going to dismiss actual research and peer-review because you dislike the results, and then substitute them with conspiracy theories and charismatic speakers, be prepared to be labelled as "denying science". Because that's exactly what you're doing.

>>10238244
lol whats with kermit the frog that he triggers so many SJWs and lefties

>>10238230
>This is an impressively hard task. The reasons people may deny this as feasible is many. Even just filtering the atmosphere is hard. Just pushing all the air through whatever superstructure we'd build. You're asking the oil (super dense in energy) that was built up over millions of years to be put back into a form we could store.
>I'm personally very much for nuclear, the land area estimates for renewable sources makes me feel it's an impossibility on a energy sovereignty level alone.
>Trying to put the co2 back is not something we could hope to do before we've gone to emission <0. Or very close. We're not close.
I don't believe nuclear is much of an option if at all personally. There's not enough high enough grade uranium to refine to power station quality for it to make much sense economically or even power wise from what I have seen. Hopefully tokamaks will be around the corner, we'll have to see how that goes.

I think there's also very very good scope for much simpler technologies. For making new oil, algal farms seem to be the most promising, it's a case of working out how to keep your colonies high yield. The main issue with biofuels has been the competition between food and energy crops, this would use low to non productive wet lands so no problem. Similarly, there's also a possibility of building up large carbon sinks in woodland or similar, and maybe even using that for fuel in a kind of tight loop. This wouldn't have the same operating efficiency as solar panels, but the embodied carbon and scalability are leagues better.

>>10238259
>>10238244
How does it feel to have low res brain

>>10231399
>“very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change”
>“You can’t trust the data because too much ideology is involved”
>focusing on climate change is “low-resolution thinking”, and there are other more important issues in the world.
'm glad he isn't just employing word salad tactics this time in favor of more straightforward parroting right wing talking points about a potential multi-decade global conspiracy of climatologists, geologists, physicists, zoologists, &c. fudging their data because they hate conservatives or love grant money, but only grant money from governments and not multi trillion dollar extractive resource industry (apparently even the ones on Exon Mobil's payroll who come to the same conclusions).

>>10238230
>something we could hope to do before
To be perfectly clear.
We could of course do it. Take a dead plant and put it underground. Well done.
Point is you're not on a measurable scale of assisting the global warming issue.
It's presumed a good idea to address issues from the point where you have the greatest effect.
>>10238238
Not familiar with the term. I realize I didn't make it obvious what I meant there. Some irony in that. Point was that a general audience (even 'better' general audiences) would not perceive his answer as a very light statement as it is. If you don't deny climate change you realize implicitly it's a problem. What Peterson has done is made himself sound like a denier while he's not really. He'll gather defenders who defend him in a way that deceives others, or his statements bring the wrong idea immediately. A common way to put it would be giving the opposite side ammunition. But that implies that's not a good idea. It is a good idea. The right side will win we just want it to happen quickly. It's more a case of walking into the war-room and messing with the structure, ideally of both sides. People get confused. Just so happens that Peterson is only messing with the warroom of the side that has the upper hand.

There's people who are far better at presenting similar things he does in a less disruptive way. Some of the people he cites, like Bjorn Lomborg, brings substance and actually addresses efficiency issues.

An aside, you see this all the time with the YouTube right wing following. Someone like athletesf00t makes scepticism videos and then gets 50%+ dislikes and a large comment response for making unremarkable claims about the existence global warming. These groups fancy themselves something they're not. I'm unsure if Peterson is just a person who plays around that or if he's always so vague where he doesn't have enough weight that it doesn't matter. He's certainly very particular what he's saying but he's not a communicator.

>>10238268
you're preaching to the choir. he has been thoroughly picked apart in this thread and all of his supporters ran back with tails between their legs to reddit and pol

>>10238268
Why not watch the actual video?
>>10237908

>>10238272
It's the Sam Harris defense. You tether towards being a provocateur as vague as possible, then when criticized you cry about being misrepresented

>>10237821

You are retarded. There is an immense amount of genetic similarity between all animals. The amount time of evolution between two animals doesn't preclude continuity between them, in fact it would be weird if this wasn't the case because it would imply that there was some sort of gap in the evolutionary history.

>>10238289
Why not compare us to prying mantis? The female mantis eat the male as they try to have sex with them.

We're just as related to lobsters as we are to prying mantis because both are anthropods

>>10238259
>high grade uranium
Not at all required.
>economic
Of course that's a factor. But the land area problem is so fundamental money can't solve it.

Of course if we all joined the empire of man that wouldn't be as big a problem but political feasibility is low on that front.
Storage and energy transportation is a bigger issue there.
>new oil
It's a lot of effort. Oil didn't exactly form quickly. And it's not efficient as fuel its just convenient.
>energy crops
In terms of land area they're awful.
>carbon sinks
One of us is completely wrong about what that means if we assume woodland is correctly applicable. You're saying people have studied the feasibility of growing trees and burying them (in some imaginative way) as a method of carbon sinking and they didn't conclude horrendous inefficiency?
Just letting a forest stand won't help all that much. Forest sinks in the sense of using wood for material use makes some sense but it's absolutely overstated how good wood is as a material. It's very politically popular. I have a lot of first hand experience with that. Bitches love the eco friendly summer house.
I would recommend you look up David MacKay for a simple presentation on the land area issue. Arguably speaking outside his field just like Peterson because he's a physicist. But he's not doing any complicated climate science. It's just watt/land area calculations made intuitive and put into perspective.

>>10238347
>>high grade uranium
>Not at all required.
Why do you think this?

At a guess because you're aware uranium can be extracted/refined and then enriched. What you're probably not so aware of is how much money/resources it takes up, and how much energy you need to put into the process. That's what makes this so prohibitive as a technology as well as the whole decommissioning crap.

For the rest of the comment you both didn't read the comment in enough detail, nor do you understand the little you skimmed. Well done! Try again and try to be a little more patient m80, no worries, I've answered most of your problems.

>Forest sinks in the sense of using wood for material use makes some sense but it's absolutely overstated how good wood is as a material. It's very politically popular. I have a lot of first hand experience with that. Bitches love the eco friendly summer house.
I come from a position of relative expertise on the subject, I don't know exactly what to say except you're wrong. You could do some fairly low effort research into that particular use case and find out you're wrong.

>>10238036
>should behave
He has never used the analogy to say this. His point is that if hierarchies are natural and unavoidable, we should organize our societies in hierarchies that result in the most fair, just, and successful society, which he goes on to say is a hierarchy that is structured around competence.

>>10238149
And yet the mechanisms for social hierarchies are similar.

>>10238300
Why compare them to praying mantis' instead of lobsters? No reason, you're just a straw grasping simpleton ruled by confirmation bias. His point still stands.

>>10238404
Are you an ant? Over 300 years ago that plonker Mandeville wrote the Fable of the Bees and was mocked, have people gained no sense since?

>>10238413
Mechanisms that govern neurochemistry regarding hierarchies, not whatever nonsense you're trying to stawman me into saying.

>>10238431
Why would neurochemistry between protostomes and deuterostomes be similar? What seems to have been argued above is that we somehow, with our quite different centralized nervous systems and vastly different development, somehow share a common ancestor that had similar neurochemistry to both us and lobsters. It is a total nonsense.

>>10238437
It doesn't matter why they're similar, its a matter of fact that the neurochemistry regulating how individuals handle social hierarchies are similar. You can draw whatever conclusions you want..

>>10231399
>Hey, look! A Climate Denier! Go get him!
This reads like a piece of good ol' commie propaganda. Even if there's some truth to it, this writing style automatically discredits all of it.

>>10238394
That kind of response doesn't encourage detailed response. But I'll try.
>uranium extracted refined and enriched
Yes. All of it is. There's no uranium you dig out, dust off and put in a nuclear reactor. But if we're talking costs and not the bigger issues (in my view) like risk of contamination the fuel cost is not where nuclear falls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants being the simplest source, points to 0.0015$ per kWh (ignoring breeding reactors, it's not popular). It's not that big a portion of 0.12$ which is the US average.
>decommissioning
Fuel or reactors especially?
>>things I ignored
>fusion reactors
It's not something we can bet on because there's no gradient of success. Any of our options right now have a gradient of success. The failure mode when betting on fusion reactors is just like ignoring climate change. It's not like experimental reactors grow on trees. To set it in contrast to conventional nuclear like that is dishonest. They're entirely different sources from the perspective of our discussion.
>algae farms (arguably i didn't ignore that)
It only 'solves' the transport factor by remaining horribly inefficient and accepting the cost (of whatever sort) of moving from burning fuel cars to electric as too high. Which it doesn't seem to be very soon.
Economically it doesn't hold as an electricity fuel.
>building up carbon sinks
Now that I re-read it its more clear. I thought you used 'similarly' to imply another form of tech. You really only mentioned algae. So you're saying we sink carbon via algae oil?
Seems way more feasible. Not sure why you prefer woodlands specifically it doesn't actually matter where you do it since you've produced a full fuel. I'm surprised you had nothing to say about the fact that I stuck to trees. If I'm still 'wrong' here (as if someone could be if you can't even point to where) could you do me a solid and don't reply.
Thanks for sharing your expertise so elegantly.

>>10238477
What happened to facts over feelings lmao

>>10237870
Friedman is retarded.
Keynes is retarded.

as a scientist the only economist I can respect is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Georgescu-Roegen

that he was given more respect from his peers is a disgrace

beyond that your post has mostly lost me with the heavy economist jargon

>>10238477
Good thing there's no truth to it. Peterson agrees the Earth is warming and we are a part of it to some degree, but he also says that none of the models have panned out accurately and that its difficult to separate real science from political alarmism. He also says that if we're going to fix the climate, we're going to need to focus on solving smaller issues first.

Of course this level headedness has earned him nothing but vitriol from people who ideologically oppose him.

>>10238485
*wasnt

>>10231587
>implying climate change that'd be a threat to humanity is even happening right now

>>10238482
Propaganda is propaganda, mixing facts with half-truth and deliberate lies. Better get your facts elsewhere than waste time trying to sort out which is which.

>>10238537
>climate change is a lie

Back to boomertown

>>10238582
>>climate change is a lie
Who are you quoting?

>>10231440
This guy clearly has an axe to grind.

>>10238486
I dont think any of them can bring themselves to actually listen to what he says, instead they judge from reading all the hit pieces on him that get published weekly.
He doesn't claim to be a climate scientist but he has an opinion on it like anyone e else and he keeps getting asked about it by idiots who are looking for ammunition for their shitty clickbait articles where they quote him out of context and misrepresent him and spin spin spin.

>>10238630
Peterson is not your uncle, why are you being so defensive. He has talked out of his rectum many many times just as this thread shown. He come from a field of soft science where only 50% of studies are replicable but he tried to sell himself as evolutionary biologist, neuroscientist or whatever. His definition of "truth" is so wide and malleable that he think a guy walking on water defying all physics is "truth" because it convey some moral teaching.

He got caught saying dumb shit about lobsters, quantum mechanics, and now he got caught saying dumb shit that is out of his league on climate change.

Here's a cold hard truth. Nobody in the insurance industry is a climate change denier. Nobody in the US military is a climate change denier. People who deal with consequences know it's a real thing and plan accordingly. But Peterson is just Kermit the frog memer siphoning incel for Patreonbucks so he'll say whatever to trigger leftist.

>>10238755
Just because you misrepresent what he's saying doesn't mean he's full of shit.

>>10237926
>climate change is low res thinking because there are more pressing issues
>however trannies and gender pronoun is high res thinking as if there are no other more pressing issues

/thread should have ended here.

>>10238755
What part of him not being a climate change denier do you not understand?

>>10238762
He didn't even say that. If you watch the video he says climate change uniting humanity is low res thinking.
The gender pronoun thing was not an issue until snowflakes got butthurt over it.
He took issue with law being changed to force people to use silly pronouns made up on a whim.

>>10238762
Peterson could give less of a fuck about gender pronouns. He rightfully gives a fuck about his government telling him that he must use a trans persons pronouns or face punishment.

>>10238761
>muh misrepresentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY

From 1:38 to 1:59, 20 second clip. "As you project outwards with your climate change projections that are quite unreliable to begin with, and the unreliability on the measurement magnifies as you move forward in time obviously because the error accumulates. If you go out 50 years the error bars around the projection are already so wide that we won't be able to measure the positive and negative effect of what we do right now"

>and the unreliability on the MEASUREMENT magnifies as you move forward in time
1. This line is comical because experimental measurements != model projection. Typical of someone with a psych major to not understand the difference between theoretical and experimental.

>obviously because the error accumulates
2. Wrong again. Climate != weather. Random errors don't accumulate in climate models. We're not trying to predict the weather in Chicago in 2079, we're predicting average temperature in 2079. He clearly conflates weather forecast with climate projection. The uncertainties got bigger further into the future because we don't know what human emissions are gonna be. He didn't mention that didn't he?

>you go out 50 years the error bars around the projection are already so wide that we won't be able to measure the positive and negative effect of what we do right now
3. Again totally wrong. Things we do and choices we made now have clear impact, outside 1 sigma error on what global temperature would be in 2070. In this case he's clearly misrepresenting the "UN model" which is the IPCC CMIP ensemble (pic related)

3 falsehoods in 20 seconds

>>10238784
So your grievance is with a small nuance of his argument and not the argument itself. Nice.

>>10238805
My grievances is that he's full of shit and out of his league talking about things he don't understand, do the Sam Harris jiu jitsu crying about being misrepresented while he actively misrepresented the IPCC findings and the fundamentals on how a climate model is run, which I doubt a psych major like him could understand 3 times in 20 seconds.

This is a classic defense mechanism of a pseudo intellectual. Cast a wide aspersion, strawman your opponent behind their back (there's no climate scientist in the room), but then accuse your critics of strawmanning you. Inevitably your blind fans would still defend you because you cry about being misrepresented despite me quoting him word by word.

>>10238816
fucking based dude this is why I love /sci/

>>10238805
Massively misrepresenting the cause of uncertainties (climate scientists can't predict human behavior, either go on RCP8.5 business as usual, RCP4.5 Paris target, or RCP2.5 aggressive cuts scenenario) vs. "error accumulates" as if it was random stochastic error in the model is a dishonest misrepresentation and strawman. It is not small nuance at all.

Do you really think the guy who was seeting about neo post modernism read the IPCC AR5 technical report Chapter 11: Near term change, projections and predictability and Chapter 12: Long term change, projections and predictability or did he just see what his right wing blogger buddies post on twitter and parrot what they say?

I'd say the latter is more likely, pic related

>>10238839
>>10238784

>>10238839
Peterson has already built the defense mechanism whenever he say stupid shit on twitter and people archive it.

Literally he can tweet shit about Holocaust denial and be like didn't you read my disclaimer? Sometime I post shit I don't agree with, the ABSOLUTE MADMAN. stop misrepresenting my view

>>10238784
Where's Al Gore's model? Bet you don't have the balls to graph that.

>>10238124
> What do you think repeatability
The models used by "climate scientists" have thus far not predicted the near future to a degree that would merit their work a closer look.
>Btw, if you're arguing against the temperature data and saying it's biased or tampered with, yes you are arguing against climate change.
Climate change isn´t necessarily caused by industrial society, you imbecile. Furthermore, anybody with the slightest interest in "climate science" should notice that the data used is cherrypicked, analyzed with the MSE-method (you heard that right: "climate scientists" avoid time series analysis out of stupidity or ideological reasons) and finally confirmed to represent the viewpoint of the proponents of man-made climate change.

If you look at global temperature since it was first recorded accurately (say, in the late 19th century), you´ll notice that there is no clear "trend" coinciding with industrial expansion to speak of.

>>10238172
He refers to lobsters BECAUSE they are separated by millions of years of evolution. Seratonin pathways in both lobsters, lions chimps, humans, whatever... act in the same fundamental way is literally all he was claiming

>>10231399
Don't listen to a fucking clinical psychologist when it comes to matters about climate change maybe? He might say he's skeptical about the models and methods used but how much time has he actually spend studying any of it? Does he think the scientific consensus on climate change by people with a relevant degree is based on bad models and nobody has noticed or said anything in decades because "muh politcs"?

>>10238784
> Random errors don't accumulate in climate models.
You haven´t actually looked at any climate models, have you?
>We're not trying to predict the weather in Chicago in 2079, we're predicting average temperature in 2079.
Correction: you´re trying - and failing miserably - to predict average temperature in the near or far future.
>He clearly conflates weather forecast with climate projection. The uncertainties got bigger further into the future because we don't know what human emissions are gonna be. He didn't mention that didn't he?
How many years into the future would you say we´re able to predict the state of the climate? Judging by past studies, "climate scientists" have failed to make projections with even a sliver of accuracy at a 1, 5, 10 or 15 year time-scale.

The laws of physics do not allow accurate extrapolation of stochastic models (with comically large boundaries) that rely on error-prone partial differential equations.

If you legitimately believe we aren't able to measure temperatures correctly, and have been doing so for many years, you are not to be reasoned with

>>10239065
> Does he think the scientific consensus on climate change by people with a relevant degree is based on bad models and nobody has noticed or said anything in decades because "muh politcs"?
That is exactly what´s been happening. "Climate scientists" are the brainlets unable to make it in real physics, who then resort to constructing "climate models" with comically large margins for error (partly due o limitations of the data at hand, PDE:s used in simulation software and the upper/lower bounds of the stochastic model), which manifests itself as inaccurate models.

Predicting future temperature is the pastime of ideologically motivated brainlets.

>>10239075
Nobody with any sense believes that. However, "climate scientists" have not been able to produce a model of siginificant accuracy since the field emerged in the post-WW2 era.

>>10239074
>>10239086
So your main criticism is that prediction models aren't accurate enough? Accuracy is completely irrelevant on a large scale because the predictions for trends in climate change were and are absolutely 100% correct. Accuracy will make the difference in whether it takes 20 or 200 years for it to get to a certain temperature. The results will always be bad whether it's on a short or longer time scale.

>>10238107
>muh natural phenomena

This is by far the most annoying argument of them all. You know how much carbon nature is adding to the atmosphere? Around 200 million tonnes a year. That's a lot, right?
Now do you know how much carbon humans are adding every year? 40 billion tonnes. We are literally producing 200 times more carbon than the whole globe does in a natural way. And yet there are people who have the nerves to claim humans might not have anything to do with climate change.

That being said, it's actually much worse than that. Our carbon sources are finite, so if we were to burn them all we would probably end up with something like 4000ppm in the atmosphere from 400 today. Sounds very high, however there has been time on this earth when the carbon concentration was that high or higher.

HOWEVER, there is a gigantic difference, and that is time. The last time carbon was that high, it accumulated over millions of years, giving ecosystems times to adapt. This time, we are mass-releasing carbon in an absoluetely unprecedented pace. There was no time on this planet when an intelligent species is actually searching the whole globe for fossils to burn and doing so in gigantic dimensions. This all-at-once-mass-releasing might very well be the end of life on earth. Think about how drinking 5 bottles of Wodka over a month won't kill you, but drinking them within a few hours will almost certainly kill you through alcohol poisoning. We might be doing the same to earth. This rapid climate change DOES hold the potential to disrupte the global ecosystems in a way that they can't adapt and recover.

>>10238630
If he doesn't to be called wrong he could always stop spouting dumb opinions in public.

>>10239074
>"climate scientists" have failed to make projections with even a sliver of accuracy at a 1, 5, 10 or 15 year time-scale.
Stop regurgitating talking points off blogs. Climatologists have fairly solid surface temperature predictions.

He's just your traditional right wing talking head who happens to dress up the standard right wing positions in more sophisticated language. At his core, he's no different from someone like Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter, he just has a different style of presentation. This can be seen in how he takes all the standard right wing positions even on issues completely outside his area of expertise. All his conclusions are always 100% in line with traditional right wing thought because that was always the starting point and he worked backwards in developing arguments to justify those conclusions.

>>10239086
Yep just ignore the ice caps, maybe if you ignore hard enough they'll stop melting

>>10238465
>its a matter of fact that the neurochemistry regulating how individuals handle social hierarchies are similar.
This is fluff. Yes there are similarities and differences between things, but recognizing that on a case by case basis is not in any way insightful. Rather enlighten me as to what you think these similarities are exactly. And if the answer is "they use serotonin and have hierarchies" I swear to the internet police I will backtrace you. The hierarchies thing has already been covered by the "naturalistic fallacy" point mentioned above, and pretty much EVERY LIVING THING uses serotonin in a whole variety of ways it in no way gets you around the naturalistic fallacy criticism.

>>10239026
>>Btw, if you're arguing against the temperature data and saying it's biased or tampered with, yes you are arguing against climate change.
>Climate change isn´t necessarily caused by industrial society, you imbecile.
The point here is really straightforward: if you are arguing that the raw temperature data is wrong rather than arguing that it has other causes, which is Malcolm Roberts strategy with Brian Cox in that clip, you are not arguing about the root cause but the actual existence of the phenomena itself i.e. Malcolm Roberts IS denying climate change period.

>>10239335
I've already addressed the naturalistic fallacy accusation twice now. He does not use the lobster analogy to say that hierarchies are good. He uses the lobster analogy to say that hierarchies are natural in response to the claim that hierarchies are socially constructed.
You clearly never read the book. and are basing your view solely on the hatchet job hit pieces that get published by other people who have also never read the book.

>>10239776
>you are clearly not a professor in Peterson studies so your argument is invalid

If someone wants to post or point to an explanation of the true and undisputed meaning of this lobster shit I'm happy to respond to it. I am not reading yet another entire Peterson book however just to respond to this.

>>10239795
I have now posted the context and meaning of the lobster analogy 3 times now and you have failed to respond to any of them.

>>10239799
Then the """argument""" being put forward is "we share a common ancestor with lobsters who also use serotonin, therefore we have hierarchies because serotonin plays some role related to dominance in lobsters".

Use of serotonin and common ancestry is true of pretty much EVERY LIVING THING. What then is the dominance hierarchy of cabbages?

I'm pretty sure this is a weasly endorsement of that power pose bullshit btw. Arguments seem to be leading to the same thing.

The guy should be in a mental asylum.

>>10239819
Cabbages don't have a social interface. You can't have social hierarchies in organisms that are not social.
The argument being made is "hierarchies are not social constructs and are in fact biologically ingrained; so much so that our distant relatives, operate in hierarchies with similar neurochemical mechanisms." Anything else is you putting words into his mouth that he never said.
>I'm pretty sure this is a weasly endorsement of that power pose bullshit btw. Arguments seem to be leading to the same thing.
Which is why you should stop assuming and start actually reading something if you want to critique it. Peterson doesn't advocate for a power based hierarchy, in fact he abhors and denounces it thoroughly many times. Peterson argues that if hierarchies are natural and unavoidable (a point he proves WITHOUT using the lobster analogy), then we should strive to live in a competence based hierarchy.

>>10239855
Ik right, what kind of lunatic incel thinks we should force women into marriages with betas.

>>10239868
>Cabbages don't have a social interface.
Define "social interface". Forewarning: they probably do.

>>10239880
The ability to interact directly with members of their group by processing information and using that to determine a course of action.

>>10239904
Plants do this all the time through pheromones.

>>10239930
That's quite indirect

>>10239074
>You haven´t actually looked at any climate models, have you?
Yes I do. Random error in a long projection averages out. This is why weather != climate. 50-100 years down the line, which is the timescale he talks about the uncertainties are dominated by uncertainties in human action.

That's why if you see all RCP projection, the uncertainty envelope did not grow significantly past 2050 for any given pathways.

Just educate yourself first before memeing up

>>10239950
How the hell is that indirect?

>>10240006
no specific intention to procure an outcome. Its a side effect.

>>10240308
Behaviorism rears its braindead head again. You have special knowledge that lobsters and their serotonin have intent?

>>10240343
The capacity to have intent is a necessary component of a hierarchy.

>>10240343
*social hierarchy

>>10240352
You beg the question. You may need intent to make the claim of a hierarchy, but you can't apply it to one thing and not to another as it suits you because one thing doesn't seem to suit your argument.

As you're avoiding making an argument, I'll ask again: what is the dominance hierarchy of cabbages? They equally fulfill the criteria. In fact they're further removed from common ancestors, which apparently made the lobster choice apposite for Peterson, and totally not plucked from his anus because it happened to fit what he was looking for.

>>10239122
This 100%.

>>10232186

From the studio that brought you: Facts don't care about your feelings

>I just FEEL like the science is being practiced with a bias

>>10231399
Pic related OP, when you think your way or argumentation goes on his level, forget it. Philosophy is foreign land for mainstream science, especially the hardly understood part of philosophy.

>>10240928

>>10240972
10/10 beautiful

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY

>peterson climate change denier
top kek

Wow this bait thread is still alive

>>10231399
I feel bad for him. He's trying to hold the middle and taking arrows from the kooky left and from the nationalists who see the writing on the wall. I don't agree with him on certain things but that's ok. Stay strong lobster man, but be warned: the center can not hold.

>>10241396
Sure, and the Discovery Institute will tell you they're not Creationists.

>>10241472
>He's trying to hold the middle
Trying to hold the middle between science and pseudoscience is just another kind of pseudoscience. Accepting reality is an "all or nothing" deal.

>>10239113
>Stop regurgitating talking points off blogs. Climatologists have fairly solid surface temperature predictions.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA pathetic
"Hey we can predict one thing. How about you?"

>>10241523
If we're talking about AGW, surface temperature forecasts are by are the most important thing.

>>10231399
'Climate science' is brought about by uni students choosing the path of least resistence in getting their phdeez coupled with a clickbait media mentality.

- lobster man
- quantum woo
- climate denier

Can a public intellectual be more embarrassing? The only thing he isn't is a creationist

>>10231399
>Being skeptical of the models used to predict climate change

>Deny climate change

Pick one you fucking moron.

>>10242353
>misrepresent other people's finding
>strawman against it
>get BTFO

>>10231399
I just Jordan Peterson's book the 12 Rules for Life for Noël. Lolwut? Is this compatible with reality?

>>10241841
Which part of it is wrong?

>>10242293
>The only thing he isn't is a creationist
He almost is you know

>>10235073
>If you actually listen to what he talks about you will never find anything particularly objectionable
he thinks evil objectively exists

>>10231399
I like how in recent interview with rogan he spoke of all human potential encoded in ones genes and that it was passed from ones ancestors. A perfectly reasonable assumtion but in this day and age sounded somewhat little bit nazi

>>10243872
Evil is just a lack of something. Nothing, does indeed exist.

>>10242353
What qualifications does JP have to be skeptical of their findings?

>>10231399
The problem with Jordan Peterson is he thinks the problem with women is they're too nice and kind. The women are wonderful effect is strong with him.