This dude is a Russian asset too right? Him, Crowder, cucker tarlson, Candace Owen's, the hodge twins....not just tim pool and the other two...it's this guy too right?
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
107 points (98.2% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5240 readers
380 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's a very plausible claim, but difficult to prove
Well, you see, this whole climate change thing—it’s not as simple as they make it out to be. We’re told it’s an existential crisis—like the ice caps are melting and the polar bears are moving south to Florida. That’s nonsense! And then they say, “Well, the world’s going to burn, and if we just give more power to these massive bureaucratic entities, they’re going to fix it!” But here’s the problem—no one’s asking, what about the lobsters?
First off, lobsters don’t care about climate change. They’ve been around for 360 million years! Do you know what that means? Lobsters survived the dinosaurs, the Ice Age, and God knows how many volcanic eruptions. And now, we’re supposed to believe a few carbon emissions are going to wipe us all out? No. The lobsters won’t stand for it. They live on the ocean floor, in perfect hierarchies, and you don’t see them holding protest signs or demanding government intervention. No, they just keep doing their lobster thing—climbing up dominance hierarchies, defending their territory, no matter the temperature of the water.
People say, “The science is settled!” But I ask you, when was science ever settled? The lobster didn’t sit around waiting for science to figure things out. It just adapted—took responsibility for its place in the world. That’s what we need. More lobster-like resilience!
If you put order onto the chaos of climate, you’re just going to end up with a confused lobster, stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare of its own making. The lobsters never had top-down hierarchies of so-called experts telling them what to do. It’s individuals—individual lobsters, standing up, being responsible for their own shells—that create change, not bureaucrats. So, before you throw up your hands and say, “The oceans are boiling, we’re all doomed!”—ask yourself: What would a lobster do?
This whole climate change catastrophe narrative—it reeks of ideology more than it does of a scientific pursuit of truth. And I, for one, would trust the wisdom of the lobsters over the hysteria of bureaucrats any day.
You forgot to mention the philosophical archetypal substrate.
Which is why lobsters have been shifting northward, with populations rising on the north edge of their range, and declining on the southern end.
Not exactly what we want humans to be forced to do.
He was also communicating a worldview that’s increasingly central to the political strategy of his allies in the U.S. conservative movement—that environmental advocates who push for urgent action to avert climate catastrophe are followers of a “pseudo-religion” seeking to impose socialist control over every aspect of modern society.
What an absolute, self-fallating idiot. But then, there's lots of money to be made by pretending to be smart in the right-wing griftosphere; it's not hard, when your slobbering demographic has the collective intelligence of a single snail and the attention of a toddler.
It's also a pretty big self-own to find religion, pseudo or otherwise, problematic. He's basically implying that people with religious zeal are irrational and authoritarian, and that says a lot more about him and his followers than it does about people who follow the science.
He's useful, because he is the lone "expert" they can wield like a club. Peterson will be remembered as having marginally interesting ideas, once upon a time, and descending into paranoid narcissism in his later years.