You don't understand the argument he was making. I suspect you didn't even bother looking at the references I provided for your edification.

His premise, although admittedly not adequately articulated to non-scientists, is that scientists choose the variables when developing a testing model. In methods, I often tell my students, "garbage in, garbage out." That means if your assumptions about what you are going to study are incorrect, the variables you feed into your model will not accurately represent what you are trying to study and the output will be useless.

To be clear, since my first post is being downvoted by non-scientists and I expect this one to, as well, I don't deny climate change nor do I teach my students this concept of garbage in, garbage out in any way linked to climatology studies. When I was in grad school my roommate was a climatologist and I tend to think his modeling was on point. But that doesn't mean I can't understand the argument Peterson was making. The concerns with scientific paradigms are well-documented. If you want to dispute someone, you need to educate yourself on what they are saying or you end up looking like you don't know what you're talking about like you're doing in this conversation with me.