Yeah, i am way tired of the shitheads on youtube titling for clicks. So, i always comment that it is wrong to do this.
But: This is a good interview.

Listen to him. Nearly all he says is based in science. And he is not attempting to divide. He is correctly relating what happens when men and women are treated equally. In those countries that are the most egalitarian, scandinavia, the divide is the greatest. Jordan is not making that up. It is real.
And he is not the only one. And men are not the only ones relating this data.

I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh because, if i do not know what he was saying, i could not correctly respond. He is still as stoopid as ever.

At this moment JP is a perceived enemy. Yet, he is a staunch old school feminist. Equality of opportunity is one of his mantras.

Listen to Jordan without preconceptions and you will learn much. Not only about him. But about the world.

I think she was better than many others. She asked open questions. And she presented some of the crap ideas that she was provided, so he could answer. i enjoyed this.

@Jacar Me too! (Can a man say that these days?)

Or why he doesn't publish in peer reviewed journals any more.

He doesn't deny climate change. He repeatedly says that we do not know how much of the change has been caused by humans. The science: The planet is in interglacial period. This occurs about every 125,000 years, when all the ice melts. So, we do not know if we have done this. And to what extent the carbon spewing from volcanoes, tectonic plate emissions,,... have contributed, over the past 16,000 years.

And::: his thoughts of climate change do not, in any way, diminish his many other very important comments and ideas.

@Jacar
So he denies climate science, like you do now. That's not much of a difference in my opinion.

@MrBeelzeebubbles ... . He has moved on to sharing his ideas beyond the choir.

@Dietl . . . He nor i am denying climate change. The examination of 1,000,000 years of ice cores have revealed that every 125,000 years the earth de-ices, for a few thousand years.

The question is, have humans accelerated the natural change? And if so, to what degree?

I think humans have contributed significantly, given what the ice cores tell us.

@Jacar
This is from his wiki:
"Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change. Peterson has said he is "very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change". He has also said, "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved". In a 2018 Cambridge Union address, 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."
He is not a climate scientist but somehow he thinks he can tell if certain data and certain model are correct or not. He is sceptical in spite of the scientific consensus. Even if you don't want to call him a climate change denier, he certainly is a climate science denier.
As for your question, there is no doubt that humans have caused this rapid acceleration. The data from the ice cores tells you about changes from tens to hundreds of thousands of years. The change we see now took place in the last 100 years or so since the industrial revolution. The processes responsible for this 125,000 year period can't explain changes on in such a small time-frame.

@Dietl . . . thank you for the reference. The models have changed every year for the post 60. The recent article about the how the oceans warmed faster that thought, and was wrong, leads me to be skeptical. I am relieved the article was wrong. But not so much, because the deniers have one more bit to deny with.

Jordon correct that climate change is not a unifying issue. Especially when 1/2 the human population is under 25 years of age and living in near poverty conditions.

During the past two hundred years alone, we have had dozens of volcanic and plate boundary emissions, at least one giant solar storm that significantly stripped the ionosphere, the sunspot cycle has changed just since 1948 (10 years to 11),... and methane is constantly leaking from under sea hydrate deposits.

We are still babies at being able to measure most everything.

Everyday we learn something new. It is possible the the greenland ice melt will change the gulf stream enough to start another ice cycle. That is also climate change.

Though i agree humans have been adding methane and co2 to the atmosphere for at least the past 10,000 years, and that it appears that the current ice melting is the result of that behavior, we cannot KNOW this is the underlying reason because this is the first time we have experienced it. We are in the middle of this phenomenon. . . and had the 125K cycle not been now, it is probable our efforts would not have been enough to have stopped the ice sheets from expanding as they had done ~~24,000 years ago, when the position of the precession of the poles was like it is now.

These ideas are still hypotheses. That's how science works. Can't base any knowledge upon only one case study.

Yet: I think we are past the point of no-return. The tundra is melting. There is nothing humans can do but ride out the storm.

It the recent data about how the sun is entering a grand solar minimum. There is some evidence that such a minimum contributed to the mini-iceage 400 years ago. This could be good for us. And maybe not if the greenland ice melt does stop the gulf stream's flow. (lots of new data about the changes in the stream's flow, direction, and effects)

There will still be ocean rise until the effects of the possible 7% less sun energy are evident.

========================

But, this one issue does not discount all of Jordan's ideas. Most of which are based in his clinical work and are all about self responsibility.

@Jacar
I don't disagree with everything you say. Peterson is right that climate change doesn't unite people, but this is because of the influence of lobbyists whose profits are in danger if their industries don't get subsidised anymore. They spread misinformation of all kinds.
I do disagree with you about how much we can know. We know pretty well how Co2 and other gases influence the amount of sun that gets reflected. We can make pretty good computer models about how the temperature will change accordingly, which you seem to disregard or don't take serious dispite the warnings of the large majority of experts.
Of course, Jordan Petersons views on climate change don't necessarily discount his other ideas. I see flaws elsewhere too but there are also things I would agree with him. But I don't have a large amount of respect for him, because he is a hypocrite on some issues and because he isn't clear or honest on other issues.