If you’ve spent any time on the internet in the last few years, you’ve probably seen a clip of Dr. Jordan Peterson talking about the environment. Usually, he’s leaning into a microphone, looking intense, and dismantling what he calls "climate alarmism." It’s polarizing stuff. People either see him as a lone voice of reason against a "woke" apocalypse narrative or as a dangerous interloper spreading misinformation outside his expertise.
But what is he actually saying?
💡 You might also like: Diane Farr and Husband: What Really Happened With Their Marriage
Honestly, it’s not just one thing. His stance on jordan peterson climate change isn’t a simple "it’s not happening." It’s a mix of philosophical skepticism, a deep distrust of top-down planning, and some very specific—and highly contested—critiques of scientific modeling.
The Model Problem: Can We Actually Predict the Future?
Peterson’s biggest splash in this arena happened during a four-hour marathon session on the Joe Rogan Experience. He dropped a line that sent the scientific community into a collective meltdown. He basically argued that because "climate" is everything, and a model can’t include everything, the models are inherently broken.
"Your models aren't right," he told Rogan. "Because your models don't include everything."
Scientists like Dr. Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick and Professor Michael Mann weren't amused. They pointed out that Peterson was fundamentally confusing weather with climate. Think of it like this: you can’t predict exactly which bubble will pop in a boiling pot of water (that’s weather), but you can sure as hell predict the water will boil if you keep the heat on (that’s climate).
Peterson’s skepticism goes deeper than just the math, though. He’s worried about the "error bars." He argues that as you project 50 or 100 years out, the compounding errors make the data useless. Most climatologists argue the opposite—that while short-term variability is high, long-term trends driven by $CO_2$ are actually quite stable and predictable.
The Philosophical "New Denial"
Recently, researchers have started calling Peterson’s approach "New Denial." It’s a shift. It’s no longer about saying the Earth isn’t warming. Instead, the focus moves to:
- Attacking the solutions (like wind and solar).
- Mocking the advocates (calling them "narcissistic poseurs").
- Claiming the science itself is a "psychogenic epidemic" or a new religion.
He’s even gone as far as to say that "net zero alarmism is a mental illness." That’s a heavy statement. It shifts the debate from carbon molecules to clinical psychology.
Is It About the Environment or the Economy?
For Peterson, the climate conversation is inseparable from the plight of the poor. He often quotes the saying, "When the aristocracy gets a cold, the working class dies of pneumonia."
His logic? If we force a rapid transition to expensive green energy, the people who suffer aren't the billionaires in Davos. It’s the farmer in Africa or the single mom in a cold climate who can no longer afford her heating bill. He’s teamed up with people like Bjørn Lomborg and Steven Koonin to argue that we should prioritize "human flourishing" over radical carbon reduction.
He basically thinks we’re trying to solve a 30-variable problem with a 1-variable solution. To him, the "cure" of radical policy is more dangerous than the "disease" of a warming planet.
The ARC Conference and the "Pro-Human" Future
In late 2023 and throughout 2024, Peterson’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) became a hub for this viewpoint. They talk about "stewardship" rather than "sustainability." It sounds like a small difference, but it’s huge. Stewardship implies we use the Earth’s resources to better human life, whereas sustainability often implies we should limit human activity to protect the Earth.
What the Experts Say (The Pushback)
You can't talk about jordan peterson climate change without mentioning the experts who spend their lives in the lab. Most of them are exhausted by his rhetoric.
Professor Steve Sherwood from the University of New South Wales noted that Peterson’s arguments often rely on "zombie" myths—ideas that have been debunked for decades but keep coming back to life. For instance, the idea that water vapor "swamps" the effect of $CO_2$ is a classic. While water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, it’s a feedback, not a primary driver like carbon. We control the carbon; the atmosphere adjusts the vapor.
Real Talk on Sea Levels
Peterson has hosted guests like Richard Lindzen who claim sea levels aren't a big deal. The data says otherwise. Since 1900, levels have risen about 20cm, and the rate is accelerating. For a guy who talks a lot about "truth," his choice of guests often leans toward the slim minority of scientists who disagree with the vast bulk of recorded evidence.
Where Does This Leave Us?
So, is Peterson right to be skeptical of "The Science™"?
It’s complicated.
Science thrives on skepticism. Questioning models is part of the job. But there's a line between "questioning the data" and "dismissing the field because it doesn't fit your political philosophy." Peterson is a master of the "what-if." What if the models are wrong? What if the bureaucrats are just power-hungry?
These are valid psychological and political questions. But they aren't atmospheric ones.
📖 Related: Christie Brinkley and Daughters: The Reality Behind Those Red Carpet Photos
If you’re trying to navigate the noise, here are a few things to keep in mind:
- Distinguish between the "Is" and the "Ought": Peterson is often right that climate policies can be poorly planned and hurt the poor. That doesn't mean the climate science is wrong.
- Check the sources: When Peterson cites a study, look at when it was published. Science moves fast. A 2001 report (which he often references via his guests) is ancient history in climate terms.
- Watch the terminology: When he says "there is no such thing as climate," he’s making a linguistic point about how we define global systems. He isn't saying the weather doesn't exist.
Actionable Steps for the Curious
If you want to actually understand this debate without the Twitter shouting matches, don't just watch Peterson clips.
- Read the IPCC Summary for Policymakers: It’s dense, but it shows you exactly what the "consensus" actually is, including the uncertainties they acknowledge.
- Look at "Carbon Tracker": If you’re worried about the economics, this group does great work on how the transition to renewables is actually becoming cheaper than staying with coal.
- Follow the "Middle Way": Look into researchers like Roger Pielke Jr., who often critiques both climate alarmists and climate deniers.
The world is getting warmer. That’s a fact. How we deal with it without destroying our economy or our freedom is the real "chaos" Peterson is trying to solve. You don't have to agree with his science to see that the policy debate is where the real fight is.
Practical Next Steps:
To get a balanced view, start by comparing a transcript of Peterson's Rogan interview with a rebuttal from a site like Skeptical Science. Then, look up the current price of solar vs. natural gas in your specific region to see if the "expensive green energy" argument holds weight where you actually live. Information is the only antidote to the polarizing "culture war" surrounding the planet's future.