> The second, and much more egregious crime, is that he’s a climate change denier.... He does not deny climate change, he rejects climate change catastrophe fe

> The second, and much more egregious crime, is that he’s a climate change denier.... He does not deny climate change, he rejects climate change catastrophe fear driven measurements of questionable efficacy with known unquestionable negative side effect for many many people. AKA things like the west moving their emissions to poor counties in order to "green" their economy. Or things like raising energy cost in an attempt to incentivizes people to use less energy. The problem here is that this affects the poor people proportionally more. It may reduce emission from the "rich" a tiny bit but it pushes million of people globally into poverty. Ofc anyone is entitled to disagree with him. Many do in fact think the end justifies the means. Many people think it is totally acceptable that some people wont make it but "saving the planet" has the higher priority else we are all not gonna make it. Unsurprisingly Peterson as a psychologist has the focus (or bias if you want) on the individual therefore it would be morally wrong to push someone into poverty today to solve a problem of the future. Again anyone can disagree with him on that but calling him climate change denier isn't disagreeing its just slander to avoid the complex moral problems around the topic.