When it comes to the question of whether Peterson should be disbarred, it should not be based on his personal opinions on various political/social issues, but rather on how his patients have fared under his care.
If his patients have fared well relative to the norm for patients being treated by Psychologists, then disbarring him would be stain against the reputation of the Ontario College of Psychologists suggesting they are more concerned about politics then the effectiveness of care a clinician gives his patients. That undermines the value and credibility of the organization to police its members with respect clinical care quality rather than political leanings.
Climate Change: The problem with the topic of climate change is that for progressives... earth has become a religion. As one of the Founders of Greenpeace stated, environmentalism was initially about optimizing the planet to benefit man long term... today, environmentalism has been taken over by people that see humans as a "blight" on the planet to be at best tolerated and eliminated if necessary. Pretty scary.
With that thought in mind, I am terribly concerned that people who express opinions on Climate Change have no idea what they are talking about but are simply echoing the largely biased coverage in the media today.
If one would look at the IPCC publication on climate change, one would find it produces six scenarios. Thanks to skeptics pointing out the flaws in its most severe scenario, the IPCC has all but withdrawn it saying, that while the other five are equally likely, the sixth is highly unlikely.
Yet that most severe case, which the IPCC has abandoned is repeated 1300 times more than any other case in the media. So, the average person and even the average scientists not involved in predicting climate change is operating on the assumption that the scenario most unlikely to happen is the one that will happen. And then screaming others are ignoring "the science".
Regarding the other five scenarios, none of them suggest there is an existential threat to man or a reason to be a climate alarmist. The ones closest to the discarded "doomsday" scenario suggests that climate change will trigger a wave of migration based on the oceans rising and other changes in weather patterns brought about by climate change.
Advanced nations have the resources to adapt to these projected climate changes and as such climate change as long as societies have abundant energy will be something they adapt to relatively easily. The greatest threat will be to nations that do not have the resources to adapt.
For the most part, those are the exact same nations, that will experience the most serious negative effects of attempting to moderate global carbon emissions, since such attempts will stall or reverse their attempts to develop their economies and bring pain and suffering to their people. In that sense, for most of the poor countries of the world, adapting to climate change or in the worst case, migration (something humans have done for thousands of years in response to climate change) is still the better option.
Climate science is not precise. A simple example is the IPCC predicted 10 years ago; the Artic Ice would be gone in ten years. Problem is after a period of rapid melting just prior to the prediction, it suddenly stopped melting. Just recently, the IPCC revised its prediction to 25 years from now, the Artic ice will be melted. But why were they so wrong the first time? Because climate science is not a precise science and in fact, we need the skeptics more than ever to help climate science evolve. Science has always advanced most, when people rightly question its "truth".
