<div class=text-justify>

Holocaust denial was a very unique word combination, and only recently was the term denial added to climate change. I say only recently because in the last decade or so people who subscribe to the notion of anthropogenic global warming had to reframe their argument after 2009 when the CRU was hacked and documents leaked.

These documents revealed the fact that the global warming argument wasn't going to go so well for its advocates if they could not hide the decline. Essentially, the hack revealed dishonest charts based on manipulated data. They had a simple solution for that, rebrand global warming to climate change. AKA if we can't change the numbers, let's change the cause.

Surely nobody can argue the fact that the climate changes, that's a bulletproof and unassailable cause, right? The Problem is, is that people still know that you mean global warming. People still realize the agenda for pushing this science is to push a carbon tax on the false belief that man can change the weather in a meaningful way.

What are the costs of man "changing the weather"? Firstly, the people selling the carbon credits will get filthy rich. Also, the industries will be crippled and this cost will be passed down to the consumer. Everyone will suffer under a carbon tax. Will it be worth it? Most people who advocate in favor of the climate change agenda have no clue how many degrees man is claiming he can change the weather by crippling industry and taxing people.

Additionally, most people don't realize that a lot of these studies don't even take into consideration the effect that the sun has on the climate. Yes, our star climate changer, the number one source of global warming for this planet is not even considered in most of these studies.

I think it's safe to say that I'm a climate change skeptic. I'm not skeptical of whether or not the climate changes, surely it changes. Yet, I wonder just how much control we could exercise over the climate and what toll in human lives would it cost? This fanciful notion that government can magically install a thermostat and successfully tinker with the nature of our weather and negate the effect of solar cycles and whatnot is cute in theory, yet also very highly impractical.

All that said, getting back to your point about Jordan Peterson and his comments about the use of the phrase climate denial. It's clearly been adopted and used maliciously as a double entendre/dog whistle to invoke in people the same feelings that they might have when hearing the term holocaust denial. It's very clever, the words, in general, are clever.

Climate change is such a loaded word combination. Everyone believes in the weather, so they know the climate changes every single day. So how could they possibly be a denier of climate change? The words are dishonest, they don't accurately encapsulate the argument and it would never have to have been rebranded if the earth didn't stop warming in the first place.

I don't know if you realize this about Jordan Peterson but he's thinking all of the time and always refining his arguments and positions and whatnot. You pulled a tweet from 2016 where he engaged in something that he now considers an ad hominem. If he only recently had the revelation that slapping the term denier onto an argument is an ad hominem attack meant to invoke holocaust denialism then you can't rightly hold him responsible for using the term "denier" prior to coming to that realization.

To do so would be to suggest that people are not capable of learning or changing their minds. A lot of growth and personal development can happen in the space of two years, one month, and eleven days. Now if the first tweet was from 2016 and the second tweet was from 2018 then I would agree with you and could see that as a form of intellectual dishonesty. Either that or intentional shenanigans. There's a whole lot of that going around too.

</div>

I'm not surprised C U L T U R A L M A R X I S T David Pakman is trying, rather clumsily, to bring down the patriarchal archetype of Dr. Jordan Peterson. But we are used to this, it's all part of the same presumptions of total annihilation that the new feminist order, itself an extension of N E O M A R X I S T ideology, is coming up with to destroy, D E S T R O Y, Western Civilization. Furthermore, ancient depictions of serpents mating reveal the ancients knew about the DNA double helix. [It's very complicated to explain.](https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/997575537089564672)