Lobster guy has a funny one today.
He's casually called a "climate change denier," for example, which is an appallingly treacherous term of criticism, used to denigrate someone personally by associating them with Holocaust deniers. The ethics of anyone who employs it should be instantly questioned. https://t.co/K9lRIrlE9I
— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) December 8, 2018
Ok not really funny, exactly; more like sinister. Of course it’s not “appallingly sinister” to talk of climate change denial and to call particular people deniers. There is such a thing as denial, and there are deniers; the words are not confined to the Holocaust.
Look at Trump for one example. He doesn’t bother to read anything or learn anything or ask anyone, he just shouts “I don’t believe it!” and keeps on walking to the helicopter. He denies that the Mueller investigation has found anything when it has issued multiple indictments.
Look at the tobacco executives who told Congress under oath that they didn’t “believe” nicotine is addictive. Look at Mohammed bin Salman who told Trump several times that he Didn’t Do It. Look at a lot of things. We are not wanting for examples of people who just blindly deny deny deny no matter what the evidence or argument. Those people are deniers, and they engage in denial. It’s a thing.
I’m questioning Jordan Peterson’s ethics right now.
Comments
10 responses to “An appallingly treacherous term”
What are we supposed to call people who don’t agree with/aren’t persuaded by/refute the scientific consensus about climate change?
Those are all slightly different, of course. “Skeptics” is one word. (I think by “refute” you mean perhaps “reject”? I’m not sure refutation of the scientific consensus is possible at this point.) Critics; opponents; doubters. “Denier” is indeed at the other end of the spectrum from “skeptics” – if Peterson meant to say it’s a strong word he’s right. But he failed to say that.
I certainly question the judgment of a ‘scientist’ who only eats beef.
The fact that he can’t accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on the most important issue facing our species, an issue outside of his field of ‘expertise’, seems like a good candidate for the final nail in the coffin. The media should put him in the same box as Alex Jones now. The box of crazies (either for real or for profit) who we don’t need to waste time listening to. Let them have all the freedom of speech they like but let’s not pretend they can contribute to the wealth of human knowledge or be reasoned with.
I should have made clear i’m referring to Peterson.
Like I’m going someone’s opinion of environmental issues when they have cigarettes in their ears…
* going to trust
If he hasn’t heard of anyone who has “come up with a better method for assessing and rank-ordering strategies for improving the state of the world over the next few decades”, then he needs to get out more. I read widely in my own field (which is environmental science, which Lomborg pretends to be an expert in), and I have read many, many who can do that. The only thing is, Peterson doesn’t actually like what they have to say.
Iknklast:
In case you have not encountered it already, at the site below is a list of 198 scientific organisations worldwide that endorse the proposition of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It includes the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Royal Society and Australia’s CSIRO.
So much as it might get up Peterson’snose, the mainstream scientific consensus concurs with AGW, though not all practicing scientists agree. The closer such scientists are to the mining and particularly the fossil carbon industries, the more likely they are to deny the AGW proposition. A prize example is the ore-body geologist Ian Plimer.
However, I do not think that calling those who deny the scientific mainstream ‘denialists’ is unfair. Particularly since the world’s climatologists are ~100% behind the AGW proposition. I happen myself to be a denialist of many propositions that I cannot see valid justification for: that the Earth is flat; that death is followed by eternal life… etc, etc.
(BTW I knew a man once who believed that the Earth was flat, admittedly pre-NASA. But although a professional pharmaceutical chemist, he was also deeply religious, and had been convinced of the flat Earth by some quack who argued from and cited Holy Scripture in support of it, chapter and verse.)
https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
Yes, Omar, I am aware of that. I did indicate that I read widely in my field, and I do try to keep up with the relevant information. But thanks anyway.
I cannot recall where, but I believe that it has been pointed out that Peterson himself has used the phrase “biological sex deniers” for certain trans activists. Apparently he should be be questioning his own ethics.