I agree that there's a difference between a model and a theory. A scientific theory is a very well-tested model so that its principles are regarded as laws of nature.

Certainly, models can be politicized. I've argued as much in the cases of mental health, the replication crisis in the soft sciences, and economics.

But that's not Peterson's point. He's saying that climate is too complex to be modelled by anything other than capitalism. He's saying there can't be a scientific theory of climate change, so we have to defer to the free market as our best chance of "modelling" the environment. That's foolish.

Is climate supposed to be more complex than the universe? Does Peterson think astronomy or cosmology is a pseudoscience? How about biological evolution? Is that less complex than the climate? Is the theory of natural selection pseudoscientific? No, I suspect that only in this highly political subject of climate change will Peterson take this stand against a science, on behalf of certain big businesses.