JESSE WILSON Too bad Big Oil Business corrupted one side of politics to be ‘skeptics’ of the science of anthropogenic climate change (in reality they are usually just denying).
She formed a very strong opinion after one night of 'deep diving' into a couple of articles. I'm not from the US and a touch confused...is she actually considered as bright over there?
@@madhatter4173 I'm not from the us either, but I think a lot of Americans would not consider her bright. But a lot probably would, which is a tad frightening
@Very Fake News CNN Are you stupid. Scientists around the globe are saying so and warn us. Look up the greenhouse effect and look up a graph There you go
Joe Rogan needs to get himself educated around this subject. He and others in the comment section need to know how deep the rabbit hole runs. For starters, begin your adventure with Al Gore's professor. I promise you, it is damn good ride and it will change you completely whenever they start whining about climate change.
@@stacychew4175 Oh bc you've seen one video of her talking about a topic that she barely knew about and Rogan stuck to because he wanted to make her look bad. Okay Stacy.
Emphasis on the speed. They're legal meth heads. Probably hopped up on adderall or something. They sound like every meth head or coke head who's ever thought that what they have to say means something.
@John Burton I kno that you kno that I kno that IF that wasnt sarcasm that was about as racist as you can get while simultaneously being as ignant as you can get...n you kno I kno you kno you ain't no racist...so ima chalk that up as sarcasm.
@John Burton there's only one race, you twat...human. And saying "credit to their race", is like saying "they speak well for a _______". It's at best a backhanded compliment, but in reality, just racism.
The even scarier part, your comments is true regarding most important things. People will listen to the opinion they like versus scientist and subject matter experts.
All contrarian republicans. All our institutions are corrupt, America is collapsing, according to them. So the only people who truly know whats going on are Alex Jones, and facebook memers.
NO. Scientists who don't buy into the hoax aren't allowed in the club any more, thus sustaining "97% of all scientists support..." (the silly hot) What's scary is people like you
She's wrong about Global Warming... but her point is she has an opinion and she doesn't know much about it but if someone sits down with her she can change her mind. Nothing wrong with that.
Lovin McLovin but Joes point is that if you don’t know.. don’t have an opinion... she “claims ignorance” at same time as “it’s a hoax”, those 2 can’t be mutually exclusive ... it’s a problem in political commentary and people in general
@Michael Larkin Joe's level of informed is "It seems like we pollute a lot and that's probably bad". Meanwhile, Candace is trying to point out the FACT that every single climate prediction has been wrong, and in some cases the opposite happens.
She was right and Joe looks like a nutter now doesn't he. And he was a Covidian for a while and now...he DENIES the Science...on Covid! Wonder where he is on waking up to the Climate Scam.
Candace doesn’t believe in climate change. She doesn’t know there is patches of garbage in every ocean the size of state if texas. There’s oil spills killing wildlife: greenhouse effect automobiles use sending more pollution in countries like China and India where ppl have to buy oxygen tanks. Ignorance in this video
Candace doesn’t believe in climate change. She doesn’t know there is patches of garbage in every ocean the size of state if texas. There’s oil spills killing wildlife: greenhouse effect automobiles use sending more pollution in countries like China and India where ppl have to buy oxygen tanks. Ignorance in this video
THE PROBLEM IS: she’s disbelieving as a DEFAULT. that’s insane. the DEFAULT should be neutral. “i don’t know” is so much wiser than sure disbelief by default.
Nobody knows. It's not even a consensus in the scientific community. She's totally correct in just giving her opinion and saying what she believes or not. Believing is different than knowing. Joe, on the other side, has been pushing her all time to agreeing with his stance.
@@otaviolimirio1 Believing is not different than knowing. Belief just means you think you know. If you dont know how to perform open heart surgery you dont say "i dont believe it's possible". You say "i dont know wtf im talking about so I'm going to stand back and let the experts handle this". She's somehow trying to have it both ways, by saying she neither understands the subject but also has enough information to flat out reject it, which makes no sense.
No, that's not the problem and disbelief should be the default. The problem is that she doesn't understand and confines to maintain her default position.
@@y2kblackout disbelief should NOT be the default. By saying you dont believe something you are giving an affirmative response. You can never affirm something without knowing, so your default answer should always be "i dont know".
All of these comment replies are massive copes. Dont let them tell you this video isn't pure pain that hasn't brought out anything good to think or feel about yourself or anyone or anything
Because...she is right...and Joe Rogan has grown up a bit since them. Here he is just a bullying jerk and he comes across as an arrogant prick. She does NOT have to say what you want to say...his take,. since your an INFLUENCER...you must agree with CLIMATE CHAOS that Shannon believes in!
Nope. She’s got more knowledge and expertise than someone with two undergrads, a master, a PhD, and at least one Post-Doc. She also got this from reading “deep on some links online.” Never gave the source, statistics, data, graphs, or rationale for her “belief.” She’s just being contrarian to own the libs and get street credits hooking for corporate America. All these people do is doom billions in the future for the sake of immediate gratification and money. It’s a racket, and none of us will ever be able to break the monopoly on propaganda that these gigantic oligopolies have over us and our destinies. Because of the reductions in sulfides and sulfates from reduced fuel oil usage on ships in the atmosphere, climate change has broken through a barrier we weren’t supposed for another 8-12 years, we are beginning to see some ocean currents and major melting events happen break down in critical areas of the earth. I know it sounds alarmist as hell, but we are beginning to see that it might be too late. AMOC collapsing or moving will destroy Europe, Africa, and the Amazon. It will begin a phase of increasingly larger forest fires in traditionally wet areas undergoing first-ever droughts. Europe will lose its agriculture and weather stability. The poles will begin rapidly melting. Unless we figure out how to get to net zero by 2035 globally, it’s game over for our modern standard of living. Global GDP will drop by 10-30% and the US will lose half its arable land for agriculture by 2080. If things accelerate or occur far faster than expected, we will see this hit much sooner. So maybe we need to release sulfates and sulfides into the atmosphere to act as mirrors, knowing it will come down as acid, but at least it will reflect UV frequencies from the sun and reduce the amount of energy passing through our atmospheric boundary. A few grams of some sulfuric acid molecules can counteract the equivalent of ONE TON of CO2. I’m not sure about its effect on methane or other gases, but it’s the best we’ve got while we fail to transition quick enough to renewables and net zero. We also really need to plant trillions of trees and figure out high capacity energy production. There’s a fracking technology that Google is funding to heat up water in underground hot spots, then bring the boiling water back up to earth and spin a turbine to generate electricity. All this is carbon neutral and could easily power carbon capture plants. They could be run by teams of a few people and run 24/7. Fusion is basically impossible for 100 years or more. Leftists are insane by not wanting nuclear power. Solar requires too much carbon to manufacture the batteries required to power homes at night. Wind works if we build higher, but republicans are attacking this now too for killing 400k birds a year. I’m just in disbelief that something so permanent is being ignored for the sake of boomers (primarily) being able to make more shareholder value and pad their retirements. Do none of them care about their grandkids or great grandkids? Do they think any rich people in Mad Max make it out okay? No, the rich kids are the first to die because of their arrogance and lack of survival skills. We’ve got to figure out how to get the right and left to work together against these billionaires who care so little for anyone but themselves. Any ideas? We have more in common than what the corporations and elite are using to divide us. The culture war is a fraud on both sides.
LoweRider Her claim is that Hillary Clinton was in bed with the Saudis *and* that Donald Trump changed that. Even supposing that he is doing exactly what past presidents had done*, you need to meet the other half of the claim: how did "Trump came in and said NO" with regard to the Saudis? Saying that he continued with business as usual with the Saudis does not meet that burden. *Ignoring, for example, that past presidents weren't making those sales over the objections of Congress in the wake of one of the most significant international human rights scandal of the past decade. The action is hardly the same when the context changes that much: it's one thing to buy some jewelry from a pawn shop, it's another thing to buy from that same pawn shop 10 minutes after the cops tell you that the pawn broker is a fence for local burglars.
She obviously ignored the picture of trump holding that light sphere with the king of Saudi Arabia and all the gifts they gave him🙄but she’s a talking head being paid by the Koch Brothers to deny everything true and blame liberals for the world’s woes. www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/world/middleeast/trump-glowing-orb-saudi.html
I mean...that isn’t an incorrect sentence. You can travel around the world AND see different parts of the U.S. I don’t agree with her, I’m just saying it’s not a bad sentence technically speaking.
@@antoinecharlesdegaulle580 she said i haven’t formed opinion and I don’t believe it in. He is like it’s science and stuff she told him she does not have an opinion.
Debra Hoffman ayyyy 🤣🤣🤣 your idiocy is beyond measure innit ? Roger Penrose was just awarded the nobel prize for his mathematical models that prove the existence of black holes as a prediction of Einstein's theory of general relativity. Meanwhile you’re an oxygen thief 🤷
Ooooooh. Einstein.... The guy who was ridiculed by the "scientific consensus" and his "collogues" for his theories and who famously said “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." in response to them trying to discredit him even though he was later proven correct?... That guy? So much for consensus and Majority.
@@michaela1843 I really don’t get it. And she’s been on Twitter since the election telling lie after lie and supporting the accusations that the election was rigged.
@@michaela1843 She also gets propped up because she's a person of colour promoting conservative viewpoints. She's a grifter who has to stay on character at all times. Who knows what she believes behind closed doors, tbh
You're aware that she didn't come on this podcast to talk about global warming right? Joe asked her a question and she said she doesn't believe it's real. Is she just not supposed to hold an opinion..
@@zeebazil if u have watched the video. It should go through your tiny brain that u CANNOT have an opinion about scientific matters if u are a very influential person. Its a clear case of spreading misinformation. U can have opinion on whether god is real or not its not a global issue that will end the world or affect us in any way. But having opinion on something that clearly affect human lives , maybe not yours but over the years some small villages living on islands who day by day see their coast shrinking and water level rising ( just an exmaple). If you are influential at this level TAKE SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITIES.
This is exactly the reason why I don't have a political party. You begin to identify with the party and always side with it even on issues in which it's wrong in.
Never a truer word. Even thoughtful, clearly intelligent members of each group fall into the same trap. Candace said one truism in this clip but the significance was lost on her...at 4:48 she said "instead of looking for what you're searching for why don't you look up what you're not searching for". She's right. You could easily justify the opposite viewpoint of that was your goal and this betrays a real truth. In todays age a layperson can find evidence to corroborate any viewpoint they wish to hold. Confirmation bias and a limitless database of knowledge, opinion, spin, etc make it a simple matter. Did you ever watch a flat Earth video? They pull 'facts' from everywhere. It's almost convincing. Almost!
that's not true. That's called identity politics and you shouldn't play that game. They play it a lot in the west but just because someone sides with a party that doesn't mean you believe everything one party does.
rahul mahbubani Climate Change isn't about how you feel climate has been changing, it's more about global changes across larger scales of time. So saying you feel it's gotten hotter isn't a good argument for climate change. Instead, point to all the scientific evidence of climate change.
@@danielbaker7213 Because that's how science works. Once you are confronted with data that changes the reality of what your talking about, the name shifts to more accurately reflect that data. edit: also, if your goal is to convince laymen, people without no scientific background, that this highly complicated issue IS an issue, your going to try to use a name that will translate the best to the common population. Global warming was too inaccurate and reductive and confused the morons who went "OH BUT SOME PLACES ARE COLDER" so they changed it.
I remember learning in middle school science class weather is the day to day state of the atmosphere and climate is the long term state. She lost all credibility on the issue when she failed to understand that
that is not true at all, she said several time she up for protecting our environment, and here u go...denying what you just saw to make your point. Why do that.....
A B You probably shouldn't use articles written by Christopher Booker. He believes in intelligent design and denies evolution and he also claims that asbestos and second hand smoke don't increase your risk of developing cancer. He is what you would call, a complete fucking moron.
Who's more corrupt in Congress between the Republicans and the Democrats? " When comparing criminal indictments of those serving in the executive branch of presidential administrations it's so lopsided as to be ridiculous. Yet all I ever hear is how corrupt the Democrats are. So why don't we break it down by president and the numbers. Obama (D) - 8yrs in office. zero criminal indictments, zero convictions and zero prison sentences. so the next time somebody describes the Obama administration as "scandal free" they aren't speaking wishfully, they're simply telling the truth. Bush, George W. (R) - 8yrs in office. 16 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 9 prison sentences. Clinton (D) - 8yrs in office. 2 criminal indictments. one conviction. one prison sentence. that's right nearly 8yrs of investigations. tens of millions spent and 30yrs of claiming them the most corrupt ever and there was exactly one person convicted of a crime. Bush, George H. W. (R) - 4yrs in office. one indictment. one conviction. one prison sentence. Reagan (R) - 8yrs in office. 26 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 8 prison sentences. Carter (D) - 4yrs in office. one indictment. zero convictions and zero prison sentences. Ford (R) - 2 1/2 yrs in office. one indictment and one conviction. one prison sentence. Pardoned Richard Nixon. Nixon (R) - 6yrs in office. 76 criminal indictments. 55 convictions. 15 prison sentences. Johnson (D) - 5yrs in office. zero indictments. zero convictions. zero prison sentences. So, let’s see where that leaves us. in the last 53 years Democrats have been in office for 25 of those years while Republicans held it for 28. in their 25yrs in office Democrats had a total of three executive branch officials indicted with one conviction and one prison sentence. That's one whole executive branch official convicted of a crime in two and a half decades of Democrat leadership. In the 28yrs that Republicans have held office over the last 53yrs they have had a total of (a drum roll would be more than appropriate), 120 criminal indictments of executive branch officials. 89 criminal convictions and 34 prison sentences handed down. That's more prison sentences than years in office since 1968 for Republicans. If you want to count articles of impeachment as indictments (they aren't really but we can count them as an action), both sides get one more. However, Clinton wasn't found guilty while Nixon resigned and was pardoned by Ford. So, those only serve to make Republicans look even worse. With everything going on with Trump and his people right now, it's a safe bet Republicans are gonna be padding their numbers a bit real soon. So let's just go over the numbers one more time shall we. 120 indictments for Republicans. 89 convictions and 34 prison sentences. Those aren't "feelings" or "alternate facts" those are simply the stats by the numbers. Republicans are, and have been for my entire lifetime, the most criminally corrupt party to hold the office of the presidency.
@Real Progressives Allowed even if weather and climate mean the same thing, it’s still really stupid to compare the weather which varies everyday to the climate which is an average of the weather of a region or of a period of time
It's proven bro. I am right wing, conservative, anti-communist, anti-sjw, anti-big state and I believe in climate change. It's proven by science. Not flat-earth bs. Serious stuff man. m.ruclips.net/video/j6iE62jovMo/видео.html 👽
… and even more so, I’ve just watched JRE experience #501 with Randal Carlson, which is 4 years before this interview. Randal tells Joe everything there is just enough to get skeptic about the climate agenda (and more) and after listening to him for an hour or so Joe himself agrees that the issue is idealised and politicised by the both sides.
YEp...he was a BLIND Jerk here...trying to force her to accept his believes and tell her her own opinions and thoughts are not worth considering. YOU MUST BELIEVE THIS CLIMATE CHAOS IS REAL...and MAN did it!
I tell my fuance this all the time... They cut down millions of trees that will help us to replace it with machines. This shit is idiotic. I believe this is a contributing factor why our earth is caving in. Tree roots are strong and hold so much together. We are parasites to this earth.
Human beings cut down CO2 eating trees to make way for C02 producing humans! 3 billion people on earth till middle of last century. Over population is the reason for climate change
Joe Rogan : Excuse me sir, but I do believe you've dropped your wallet. This chick : Doesn't look familiar to me. Joe Rogan : What? I just saw you drop it. Here. This chick : Nope, it's not mine. Joe Rogan: It is yours. I am trying to be a good person and return it to you. This chick : Return what to who? Joe Rogan : [facepalms, then shows Patrick his ID] Aren't you Patrick Star? This chick : Yup. Joe Rogan : And this is your ID. This chick : Yup. Joe Rogan : I found this ID in this wallet. And if that's the case, this must be your wallet. This chick : That makes sense to me. Joe Rogan : Then take it. This chick : It's not my wallet.
O X that is debatable and not proven fact you are aware of that right? The common belief is more co2 equals higher temps which is true but do you know how many factors go into the temperature of the earth ? It’s not just co2 lvls lmao
Russian Bot8269 because everyone has a car and everyone wants cow meat plus pollution in the ocean ruin coral reefs all of which contribute to the decrease of co2 reduction
@@TNTobin Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or understanding. Deliberate ignorance is a culturally-induced phenomenon, the study of which is called agnotology. "knowing better but doing the wrong thing anyway." Immoral describes people who can differentiate between right and wrong but intentionally do wrong anyway. Irrational would also describe such a behavior.
How thick are you dweebs?...there is not one iota of credible peer reviewed scientific data which show a connection between global warming & global climate change...NOTHING.....local and regional weather/climate variations ..yes...and that's been known since the mid 19th century......but that has nothing to do with global warming trends......the IPCC are frauds....pathetic, amateur frauds who have stolen billions of research funds from legitimate scientists.....thus the US, China, Russia, Australia et etc will continue to build coal fired power plants cos they have nothing to do with global warming PS: it's the Sun, silly......ha ha ha ha
As an old Yogi once told me: If someone is actually sleeping you can wake them up, but if someone is pretending to be sleeping you can never wake them up.
@@troyrichardson6575 I hope he is. She was pretty patient putting up with him interrupting her the whole time. What's funny is they both agree for the most part but Joe felt the need to act like there was some conflict to boost ratings, lol
What patience? The filthy pervert is trying to convince her of a vile lie, that he, in all his stupidity believes. He's a scumbag, period. Don't tell me you're a moron that believes this rubbish also? LOL You Are, aren't you? LOl LMFAO LOL LOL HAHA JAJA LOL LMAO
@@sitrep2418 But how much does she really know about it? She'd be utterly lost two minutes into a climate science examination. You know it and I know it.
@@tln25 www.ucsusa.org/resources/are-humans-major-cause-global-warming www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/faq/how-do-human-activities-contribute-to-climate-change-and-how-do-they-compare-with-natural-influences rses.anu.edu.au/research/research-stories/humans-have-caused-climate-change-180-years www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change And I'm sure, even with all this statistical information and scientific explanations, you will still come up with some bullshit to say it's fake. And if you do, why don't you provide evidence as to why it's not caused by humans.
@@sitrep2418 correct she didn't say the climate changes everyday - she said the climate always changes. It's not unusual to see mis-quotes. "So what you're saying is.."
@@hepwo91222 Newsflash, it was 65 farenheit a few days ago in Antarctica. Newsflash, the UN report *made up of scientists* confirmed that we know that we are accelerating climate change at a dangerous rate. Newsflash, the only people who gain from denying climate change is oil companies who trash the environment.
@@hepwo91222 I'm on the side of Joe where I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it. I don't care how many scientists say things or how much evidence they claim to have. I don't know therefore I won't claim to know and I don't care to know. Humans will be killed off but the earth will be just fine. I couldn't literally not care any less.
@@jakjam300 you have been brainwashed by the MSM and globalist politicians. Anthropogenic climate change is unproven, it fails the scientific method every... single... time. Also the climate models are based on incomplete data due to our inability to predict the movement of water vapor more than a few hours/days. So maybe one day when we can solve Navier-Stokes equations we can predict future climate but as of now, we cannot.
Her point being is that she is respectfully engaging in the topic at hand because its just the 2 of them talking. As in, she means that she isn't trying to persuade anyone whatsoever during this exchange.. Its obvious only Joe Rogan is trying to do the persuading. @JULIE & JAMES! Are you this ignorant? Bc Joe clearly proves he is the one with the agenda by getting upset that she "as an influencer" is stating she doesn't share the same beliefs as him!!
@@teejay3193 It may have been just the 2 of them talking, but it wasn't just the 2 of them listening to the conversation, unless she just drew a blank and forgot that their conversation was being recorded on one of the most listened to podcasts...
@@teejay3193 Joe's point is that as an influencer she can't just state her feelings as if they're more important than facts because she has a responsibility as a public figure not to misinform people.
I think Joe disarmed her with his deliberate slow pacing of speech and his tone of voice in this exchange. Candice is used to more confrontational exchanges and I think it threw her off.
100% on Joe Rogan's side here. Je caught her bluffing basically. She sounded very convinced at first and got more and more vague as he wouldn't just let it slide
@Alexis S She's allowed to have an opinion. I love Joe, but she's entitled to her own personal opinion. Like she said, she doesnt preach it, she doesnt give talks about it and she's not spreading it so whats the problem with her having her own beliefs??? I have mine, you have yours etc.
@@j-pvezeau5797 Well considering the Higgs Boson helps explain how to obtain dark matter I think its pretty fascinating. But its just theory. Lets see how it pans out. And thanks for helping me prove my point entirely. People can have an opinion while having very limited knowledge on a topic. Thats why its opinion.
That's my problem with these conservative pundits. I start listening to them and their debates (other debates, not this one), and I think "Hey, this is actually a pretty reasonable person. They're making good points." But when you dig deeper into their ideas, you find that their viewpoints are all driven by ideology. They're not actually interested in the truth. They're just professional debaters that sound good talking about conservative viewpoints.
@Shane Jones No one’s saying it can be stopped overnight, but science overwhelmingly tells us we are partly responsible for the speeding up of the process. Do some research friend
@Shane Jones So your argument is that because it's such an issue, the effort isn't worth the reward, and we should just carry on about our day? So when you let your house get so messy, I assume you just decide to not clean it anymore.
Neither can scientists apparently. Where did "global warming" go? Climate change is real, the climate changes all the time, that's nothing new. Have a look at pictures of the sky during the industrial revolution, then comment on whether or not you think what we're doing now, has the ability to "bring the sky down" so to speak. Co2 takes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. How can something that occupies that much space in the atmosphere, cause the sky to fall? Millions of people and fish piss in the ocean every day, does that change the flavor of the ocean? No, it does not, because even the fish, of which there are billions, who piss in that ocean every day, is not a large enough part of that ocean to change any aspect of it. Same idea with Co2 and the atmosphere. Search for yourself.
Ahoy and Aloha, I am so very Sorry I Do Not Understand What is The Hill, Where is The Hill that WE Are Not Going to Die On? Please Clarify my ignorance!?
@@Jianju69 by confronting her on the topic and instead of just letting it go she continues to defend her position fully aware that she knows without the knowledge. She is a drifter she spins the points To confuse the viewer fully aware of the fact that she is just trying to score political points.
@@Liam-uh3pr that's half true. analyze the video and what was said. she claimed to be of the opinion that global warming wasn't a concern to her in the context of being in an international agreement where trillions were involved. joe Rogan then said, why have a belief on something you know nothing about. the difference in the understanding is the word opinion and belief, they are not the same but are used similarly to literally and figuratively.
Is that what she said? Pretty sure her wording would've been "I don't believe you own a dog." Literally speaking there's a difference between "I don't believe you own a dog" and "I believe you don't own a dog", even though we interpret them the same. "I don't believe" means you have no belief either way (you don't know), "I believe you don't" means you believe the contrary. For some reason all of us interpret them the same way. I never considered the difference until she pointed out they may have a difference in linguistics. Either way she definitely should've said "I don't know" to be clear.
More like "I don't know whether you have a dog or not, BUT, there's a dog house in your front yard, there's some dog toys and chewed up rags lying around, there's some dog shit in your backyard, the cats stay the fuck away from your house, oh and I hear some barking coming from your house. Hmmm, nope I don't buy it. You don't have a doggo."
she only exists so that the right can point to her and say “seeeee? our policies aren’t racist. a black person supports them!!” a sad existence, indeed
@@serclintalot4497 dude the entire video she’s like “I don’t know anything about this, but here’s my detailed opinion. very obviously trying to push the right’s climate science denial propaganda while also giving herself an out if she’s ever called out about this video
@@sub-zero5433 The video only exists because he interpreted "I don't believe" to mean "I vehemently oppose" and decided to grill her on it. Yes, she should have just said "I don't know" but she tried to end it several times, he got more aggressive, and she got defensive. Regardless, what does it matter at this point? It's not like the left has any viable solutions other than griping about it and pointing fingers at the other side.
She was a liberal 3 years ago. She's still in her conservative honeymoon phase, and is paid handsomely to support those views. I doubt she will hold the same views once they find a better shill with a larger reach.
She's also stated that this isn't a point she's put much research into. I don't think it's fair to call her dumb because she doesn't know much about an issue she hasn't researched much yet. But then has much more informed decisions on a bunch of other topics. So because she doesn't know much about one given topic she stated she hasn't put much research into, she's stupid altogether? I think that's a little unfair of a statement to make. Dumb on this topic, sure. Or at least hasn't really formulated her thoughts about it yet I think the way that you attempt to measure intellect, is dumb in and of itself. It's been 2 years, I'm sure she's had time to formulate her thoughts about the issue. Also if you actually listened to her argument, she stated the does believe in climate change, just not to the extent others do. For instance, I believe the climate changes all the time, I just don't think Humans have much effect on it. I do know we have a certain degree of effect on it, but how much? All of it? Some of it? How much do Humans actually contribute to Climate Change? What can Humans do to stop it? I don't think there's much the U.S. can do to stop Climate change, at least the technology just isn't their yet. Are renewable methods just aren't cost effective enough and aren't that great compared to fossil fuels. Now there is nuclear energy which burn a lot cleaner, but for some reason many don't want to go that route. It would be cost effective, clean, and a better power source. Even if we went back to the stone ages and completely replaced are energy with crappy alternatives that cost more but are cleaner, We still don't know if that would make any significant effect on climate change what so ever. China will continue what they're doing, other impoverished country's will continue to do what they're doing because environmentalism is a luxury of the rich. Those country's could not afford (Neither can we) to change all of are energy sources for crappier alternatives that cost much more and require more maintenance. If some poor family in Zimbabwe have to burn couch chips to keep their family warm, they're going to do it. Regardless if it raises carbon emissions by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002% in the future. Also, carbon emissions aren't necessarily bad for the planet either and have been around since the earth has been. It has been aiding in plant growth. After multiple studies done, the research shows that Carbon dioxide actually help with plant growth by aiding the photosynthesis process. Carbon Dioxide is actually essential for keeping earth Habitable, But it is a balancing act. Too little and the earth becomes below freezing, too much and the earths temperature can begin to rise. What I generally don't agree with people on is the extent of which we effect it, and the solution for attempting to keep it balanced. I don't believe the technology is quite there yet for us to make much of a change on it as of yet. But there are also many other green house gases that seem to cause this effect as-well such as methane, Chlorofluorocarbons, and nitrous oxide. Also, the changing of the greenhouses effects are hard to predict. So anyone telling you the world is going to end in 2021, is probably an idiot. I don't believe the world is ending any time soon due to this, and I believe the best solution currently is to wait for better technology to become available. I believe there are currently far more pressing concerns than climate change.
@heckald The Pfizer trial data says the ARR(Absolute Risk reduction) of their Covid-19 shot was less than 1%. Nobody can question that or has questioned that.
And your point? What’s wrong with pointing out the fact that someone is a science influencer and not a scientist then inviting conversation about the efficacy of mRNA Inoculations against Covid-19.
@TheBold1994 bill Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering. Joe has a degree in? Joe's not even a good comedian, an area he claims he's an expert at, yet will argue to dr. Rhonda Patrick who has a PhD in biology about the COVID vaccine citing his folder of "research" as evidence.
@TheBold1994 Bill Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering. Rogan does Google searches and uses duck duck go when he thinks he's being clever. They are not the same.
Dn Zach saying I don't know, as Joe does, and looking into it yourself, and forming an opinion based on a high number of professional subject matter experts is anti-intellectualism to you? Our species is fucked!
Dear@@F1fan4eva, I agree that we should always consider what the experts think; that is certainly a valid consideration. However, science (and truth) is not determined by majority or consensus. (Argumentum ad populum fallacy). We can all think of instances in history, where the consensus was wrong. The "follow the crowd mentality" is not the way to make a decision, particularly when politics is involved, and this has become a political hot topic with millions of dollars of grant money at stake for scientists who work with the politicians. We all agree that scientists are humans beings, subject to many temptations, and we all know how dirty politics is. I think the data is also an important factor to consider, and probably should receive priority over consensus, if there is any question of disagreement. There is also a question of objectivity of the data we do have. If the acquisition of the data has variables and extraneous factors that is not adequately controlled, then the raw data can be misleading and manipulated. There are questions of data manipulation due to the accusations that old data sets do not match the more contemporary "adjusted" data sets. There is also the question of data driven conclusions vs model driven conclusions. Models lose their predictive power as they are projected farther into the future. Consider the predictive power of hurricane projection models, short term vs long term. Climate change has many more extraneous variables than predicting hurricanes. Question: Dear@@F1fan4eva, if the famous "hockey stick graph" of Mann, Bradly and Hughes, is an accurate prediction of the increase of warming, and their graph exhibits a dramatic increase to the end of their graph in the year 2000, then what do you think the graph should be now in 2020 (20 years in the future from the time the graph ended) ? Consider that the graph does support an increase of about 1 degree in since 1900. It would seem that at rate of increase, as shown in the graph, we should have increased in temperature another degree in the last 20 years (to 2020), if that graph is an accurate, predictive model. That is 2 degrees since 1900. Shouldn't a two degree change have dramatic effects ? Many scientist think so (climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/). Do you think our current data supports this prediction, twenty years later ? If this rate of increase continues to increase "proportionally" according to the prediction of the model, then in the next twenty years there should be an increase of 2 to 3 degrees which perhaps would be devastating. If so, we may only have 20 years left. Is this your assertion ? I see many questions that are unsettled and I am not sure the predictions of the models are completely accurate. I do favor active, open debate on the issue between the scientists of both sides (and those in-between). It does appear the politically correct side is suppressing this kind of open discussion which is a form of anti-intellectualism. I do favor taking precautions and moving on to become more eco-friendly. It certainly won't hurt and can push our technology forward. (Electric cars are cool and faster !). Be well and open-minded. DZ
Or in one night! While it takes scientist their whole life to understand it. This lying fake poser says its not true because she read it one night! Unbelievable
Thats the entire right wing grift, and the most egregious is Jordan peterson's brand of "I'm going to say things that have an obvious implication, then when you ask me if that's what im implying, im gonna say your putting words in my mouth and lying because lefty's are evil".
@@TheTinyTimmyTimTim Jordan Peterson is completely different from Candace Owens. Unlike most people he has changed the world for the better and he has improved a lot of people’s lives including mine. Is he perfect? No. Are all of his thoughts inherently correct? No. Has he made the world a better place? Yes. Hope you understand where I am coming from. Cheers :)
@@darioam3329 Thats fine, and i'd never equate Candace and JLP. Unlike candace, even If I disagree with JLP, i can tell he's an inherently intelligent individual unlike candace who's a talking points machine and is only just clever enough to dress it up as if they aren't talking points and some huge revelation she's "woke" too (ironically enough). Problem with JLP is he steps outside his expertise way too often. Dude has almost no actual political knowledge or analysis, yet almost everything he's done recently in public (his tours, speeches, debates etc) is about american politics that he doesn't understand, as a CANADIAN no less. He speaks in airy homilies, somehow translating an anti-trans language stance into an entire political philosophy and it forces him to embarrass himself in front of guys like zizek because he's now wedded to an awful ideology within a paradigm he doesn't understand.
@@TheTinyTimmyTimTim He’s never really said anything that’s “anti trans” though. One of the reasons he rose to fame is because Canada wanted a implement a law that forced people to refer to others by their preferred pronouns and he protested that since it’s a huge infringement of free speech. He publicly criticized that and was then labelled transphobic. I’d argue no one can really go out of their “area of expertise” when arguing politics, he just approaches the political issues from the perspective of a clinical psychologist. You could argue that he isn’t well enough informed to speak on specific political issues but I think he does a pretty good job of answering questions by using the knowledge that he actually knows something about. Unlike Candace Owens who seems to just parrot right wing talking points.
@@TheTinyTimmyTimTim I don’t think Peterson originally intended on becoming a U.S. politics pundit. I think he got asked what his thoughts were on the topic so many times that he started to FEEL like it fell into his area of expertise.
Because its undeniable that the climate change fanatics have a larger agenda than caring for the climate, given that the people who are loudest about it are the worse individuals for negatively impacting the climate, using private jets, powerful cars, overly large homes which are always heated with lights on even when they arent there. Lets also not forget about the fact that the same billionaire advocates are buying beachfront property in areas which are being said by these lot to be underwater decades from now.
@@maeannengo4908 Yeah very true, and youll never get anyone who thinks theres no problems with deforestation or pollution, resolving those two issues isn't the same as tackling climate change on a larger scale, especially when the apocalypse lot cant even tell us what we have to be so worried about and when they wont challenge china on it, its just a joke, another group of fanatics whining about another issue without presenting very good arguments.
@@Durram258 They have been telling us why we have to worry about climate change. Severe storms/hurricanes, severe drought, severe snowstorms, melting land glaciers which causing rising sea levels.
@@maeannengo4908 Yeah and yet we haven't seen anything out of the ordinary, and its not like storms are an issues when you can just avoid living in storm hot spots. The rising sea levels clearly isn't an issue given that all the wealthiest people are buying sea front property in the areas they themselves say will be underwater within decades, why are banks and investors also giving loans on these properties, think about it.
m3lon San, What Does Candace Owens_Farmer mean by her statement to Joe Rogan: " I'm Not So Sure, I Would Die on the Hill for It" ? I am so very Sorry, I do not Understand.
Not true. Joe is arguing that we must all be scientifically agnostic... She is creating a hypothesis based on data too... This is America and the coversation is more about her belief of disbelief... Joe was so busy trying to convince her to stand on the fence that he didn't bother to take a beat to consider whether or not there may be truth in her Candace's suspicions that climate change has been hijacked by politics and people who can capitalize off of it... Just pause and think about how big the green industry is and how much money and trash is made from it. In NYC there are home owners and landlords who are removing perfectly good fixtures to update to green fixtures... Do you know how much money and garbage (that isn't biodegradable or recyclable) that generates? Candace's reservations are valid. But, instead of examining her point further Joe decides to try dragging her for saying she doesn't believe. Stay on the topic and destroy her argument instead or deflecting and attempting to assassinate her belief, or lack of belief system...
@@hepwo91222 She fails to make any argument and I don't think she even full understood what he was trying to tell her with the three positions. (1) I believe in climate change. (2) I have no opinion on the matter. (3) I don't believe in climate change. He was not preachy to her at all. In fact I'm supplied he was able to keep his composure as he did.
@@silverhand2151 she said she didn't believe in climate change and he is trying to convince her the most politicized and for profit scientific field I can recall is settled science bc of what? I will agree she doesn't defend her position at all and was not prepared at all to talk about the topic. But Rogan is spewing things that just are not how science works.
Mason M. Yeah but all she had to say is that she is wrong and you can not make a statement and say you don’t believe in climate change and have blatant disregard for scientific evidence
Kalub Litzinger There isn’t any iron clad scientific evidence. There is more evidence that disproves man made climate change. The climate has been changing for millions of years and in the last 100 years it hasn’t even changed by 1 degree.
I've been thinking, how can so many scientist be so sure about human based climate change? We have gathered less than 200y data from the climate and earth's co2 levels? I mean the universe is 14billion years old, even earth is 4,5billion years old. Sure they have drilled samples from antarctic, but remember that some documentary that had some specialist explaining and showing that drill sample how our climate has always had differences and co2 levels follow earth's climate with 300-500y delay. And for that political side, is human really the main cause? co2 is natural gas so it shows up everywhere so i guess it is easy to blame and gather money from the people because we emit lots of co2 with our everyday lives. I think we don't have enough data from human based co2 emissions to climate change to prove that. There are also lots of natural things that happen in the core of our planet, seas and space that might also cause differences in our climate and emit co2, if it causes climate change. Human industrial era has just started compared to how old earth is. Can it really have that fast impact? I'm not anymore so sure about this whole argument so can anyone enlighten me?
@@asevarasto the Antartic ice cores can be dated to millions of years old. We have been in the Holocene period which has been one of the most stable and confortable tempature periods in human history (200,000+ years). Our Carbon is altering the atmosphere to change the temperature just enough to raise the oceans to wipe out almost 90% of coastal settlement. Most populations are on the coast. The planet will be fine in the long run, but contributing to climate change with CO2 is a threat to our civilization. Not to mention all the other damage we are doing to earth's ecosystems and niche biomes. Most large mammals will go extinct because of us, maybe in 100 years max. Here is the UN website which has links to papers and conferences. You can research individual scientists and programs, as well as how they are funded with this knowledge. unstats.un.org/unsd/envstats/climatechange.cshtml
its yeshau not jesus they didn’t get to be able to because this stupid repuplitard can’t understand that if she doesn’t know something, she should say she doesn’t know. How can you talk about the science and say you’re open to learning but argue against all the actual evidence available
Will never show my name, RUclips, just stop. Science isn't a dogma...the "facts" of science are the current most factual view of the world. Note *current*...further research could always tip our view of the nature of reality
Her problem and with many ppl like her is that... she speaks before the other is done speaking. Which means it’s absolutely impossible for her to have listened and retained anything that was said to her. What’s the point in doing an interview if you aren’t going to have a conversation (aka listening/responding; repeat)
Rogan is clearly wrong here about The climate change issue and is forcefully argueing with faulty facts. You could say hes bringing forth the globalists agenda. See the respons and links to real scientists about this climate change debate: Hello Andreas! Thank you for your inquiry. This is a curious petition which seems to have been hastily put together and not well vetted. "Mickey Mouse" was one of the signatories. (attached) It has some similarities to a similar petition of some years ago with 15,000 signatories - of which Adolf Hitler had signed. blog.friendsofscience.org/2017/11/20/the-petition-of-more-than-15000-scientists-more-fakenews/ As many commentators have noted, most of the signatories do not work in climate science assessments but rather in fields like biology. While there is a component of climate change impacts on biology inherent in that field of study, climate change is measured on very long time scales of 30, 50, 100 and millennial time scales. We do not have sufficient data to make pronouncements about climate change like those made by this group. William Briggs, statistician, has written a biting critique wmbriggs.com/post/28490/ There is much debate in the climate community - the Spilman Law firm hosted this debate: ruclips.net/video/lyNCl7NzjaM/видео.html We have hosted annual events since our inception, hoping to encourage open, public debate and to inform people of the complexities of climate science. friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=308 Dr. Judith Curry states that climate change is not a clear or present danger. wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/16/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-climate-change-is-not-a-clear-and-present-danger/ Unfortunately, the media love frightening headlines and many environmental groups drive donations with ever more catastrophic claims. We are in favour of open, civil debate on climate and energy policies and full cost-benefit analysis. A group of international scientists have stated there is no climate emergency. ruclips.net/video/GpVBH-HY5Ow/видео.html I hope this is helpful information. Best wishes, Michelle Stirling Communications Manager -- Friends of Science Society P.O. Box 23167, Mission P.O. Calgary, Alberta Canada T2S 3B1 Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597 Web: friendsofscience.org
I'm not here to argue climate change. I'm just pointing out how much it says about someone when they would rather have an opinion about something they clearly know very little about, as opposed to having the courage to say they don't know enough about it to form an opinion in the first place. That is our current political landscape in a nutshell.
This is at least six years ago. Rogan has changed an awful lot of his opinions since then, especially about trust in media and scientism. If he's not there yet, he'll come around to Candace's view soon enough.
That is the oxford definition, the Webster definition would include "partly unlike" either way her answers would not be opposite. Joe was triggered, he started out by attacking her in a passive aggressive manner for saying "like". It lead to profanity during an assault on her intelligence masked behind an example of "what he would say." i agree with her on most subjects but i still can't stand her , Ann coulter or ben Shapiro.
@Toori Baba Jordan Peterson isn't a rightwinger. I only meant it in the politician + political commentator sense. Donald Trump, Mike Pence, mini Trumps, Mitch Mcconnell, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Bill Barr, Stephen Miller, Lindsay Graham, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Candace Owens, Chris Christie, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Tomi Lahren, etc.
@Toori Baba False. "Trump registered as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987, switched to the Reform Party in 1999, the Democratic Party in 2001, and back to the Republican Party in 2009." So he's been a Democrat 8 years, a Republican for 23 years, and in the Reform Party for 2 years. And aside from being a registered Republican for 75% of the past 30 years, he's an extreme rightwing Republican right now. I get why you're trying to distance yourself from him, because he's as embarrassing as they come, but he's firmly in your camp.
@Toori Baba I've never read so much bullshit in one RUclips comment before. Trump follows the teachings of Jesus Christ? Hahahaha. Hahahaha. I'm not even going to waste my time commenting on all the other false stuff you just spewed.
Whats hilarious is how Rogan believes in this so passionately. C02 is still a whopping 0.04% of the atmosphere, but yeah, its going to cause the apocalypse, its laughable.
@@hepwo91222 What's hilarious is your reasoning, oh it's only 0.04%, it can't be dangerous. How about you try to research the effects of even extremely small overdoses and/or on environmental scale instead of living in your small minded echochamber.
@@bobbobson9952 small minded echo chamber? Climate scientists have to prove global warming is happening with evidence. I can debunk the feeble "science" with a few points, climate models are all worthless due to our inability to solve Navier-Stokes equations, climate has always changed before man was here and will after, and C02 levels are still extremely low at 00.04%, not significant.
@@EventualWarlord climate changed more strongly before man. The miniscule 00.04% C02 is still insignificant, anthropogenic climate change is about as impactful as the individual investor buying 1 share of Apple would be to the stock market, has virtually little to no impact.
hepwo91222 science’s job is never to prove anything. It’s responsible for the gathering of data, experimenting, and coming up with hypothesis’ and theories based on these experiments. Science is however used to disprove other established hypothesis’ and theories for which there has never been any scientist thats ever disproved climate change.
She was proven wrong multiple times, she just refuses to change her language which is all JR was really asking. She's just tap dancing and being stubborn
Proven wrong when, her point was she doesn't need to have a specific opinion not that global warming was fake. People are so stupid, cant just let people be skeptical smh
@@kmankx1592 she does have a specific opinion though, she says that she does not believe in global warming. Which is an opinion, specifically on the truth of the subject... lol
@@manofmeidan347 yet the left that screams defund the police but give them more training? riot for "equal" rights yet buys products from and supports china? wants to vote for a man who will die, then have a woman who jails people for smoking weed but smokes weed herself? Which party is more hypocritical and loony?
Tony you have no idea what you’re talking about, I bet you think Ben Shapiro is the leading intellectual philosopher of the day. Defunding the police means that we can reverse the militarisation of the police that happened when most US forces returned from Iraq and Afghanistan and needed to sell their equipment. Now we has small town police forces with SWAT teams and armour trucks. In every major city, the police budget dwarves every other area, if some money was spend on impoverished communities rather than the occupying army that is the police force today then perhaps crime would lower.
@JhonNye96 and your comment is proof you assume sh!t without even thinking. People are way more complex than you will ever know. That's why you're still "woke" 😂
This should be a textbook example of Confirmation Bias She asks Jamie to search for what confirms her point of view. That’s the reason people like flat-eathers and global warming deniers exist.
well it sounded like she said to search for things to contradict your own point of view, which is smart. Problem is the only view she is interested in contradicting is yours, not her own.
@@VasileSurdu It would have been disingenuous though. She would have said "see! see!! There's a dispute!" and then completely tuned out everything when he went back towards pro-climate articles.
well this confirmation bias also applies to the climate alarmists. They have no clue... But climate will magically be fixed by adding an ever increasing amount of communism.
@M B G Global Warming absolutely happens and is the biggest risk, however you idiots would go bezerk any time it was cold during a historically warm day and say "SeE, sO MuCh FoR gLoBaL wArMiNg!!" so we had to make sure you numbskulls understood that it is indeed overall CLIMATE CHANGE, but the heat is going to be the killer.
@Cools DOODS yeah I really can’t wait to how they will react when they see the world start to go to ruins because conservatives are this fucking stupid. I really hope we can save the world from conservatives and get rid of them to hopefully save wha little of the world we have left. Honestly sad man
@CashMoney Presedent yeah conservatism is an ideology that goes against itself and forces everyone to comply to the harsh and sickening demands of what it has to Offer
The so-called facts from the global warming doomsday cult is data that was fraudulently “adjusted” to prove their case. The 1930’s was always the warmest decade in recorded history until the temperatures were adjusted downward by the cult.
Tol, R. S. J. (2014). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis. Energy Policy, 73, 701-705. doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.045
Bill Nye the science hack. He said Venice, Italy is flooding because of rising sea levels due to global warming. And I bet some people just suck it up as science even though they know better. This crap is why people don't believe the "science".
@Gerardo Argueta some people get it! Most people just believe what they hear on mainstream media. Of course the climate is changing and yeah, humans contribute a SMALL part of that but these people don’t understand that around 95% plus of the climate change is due to the sun but whatever..
@Gerardo Argueta Wrong. 417 ppm is likely the highest it has ever been in the history of humans on Earth. On top of that, it is likely the highest concentration seen on Earth. The last time the atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high, sea level was 50 to 80 feet higher than it is today and 3.6°-5.4°F warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. There is a delay in the physical response of a forced increase in carbon dioxide to temperature and sea level, meaning this acts as a benchmark for where we are likely headed into the future.
@Tyler Durden You're shifting the goalposts. Science is observational, I see it and therefore x. Politics is subjective, I feel it and therefore x. Stick to the former bro, the latter is cancer.
@Tyler Durden You moved the goalposts from "90% of experts believe it's real" to "90% of the scientist do not believe that the climate is such a big problem that we should implement the measures the leftie fucks are proposing." Not sure how you can't see that, it's written right above.
@Tyler Durden So you think that melting permafrost and feedback loops aren't a problem? The FACT that Greenland has been losing massive amount of glacier ice. That the ice of those glaciers which used to cover the ocean has now melted to the point of being mostly inland and will continue melting. Your ignorant about the subject. Why don't you ignore the politics entirely. Ignore both parties and just look at what's happening. It's a serious problem.. Although I'm sure your the kind of person who wants polar bears to die off because you think they're dangerous.
Climate change shouldn't be a right or left subject. Just an issue.
JESSE WILSON yup, I’m right/conservative but believe in climate change, it’s scientifically proven
JESSE WILSON Too bad Big Oil Business corrupted one side of politics to be ‘skeptics’ of the science of anthropogenic climate change (in reality they are usually just denying).
Its weird how it became that way.
The far right and far left cannot budge in their beliefs. So annoying. I’m right, but if something is proven or makes sense, I tend to believe it.
Its so fucking weird that its a right and left issue
"Yeah the climate changing, the weather was different yesterday"
PACK IT UP BOYS, SCIENCE HAS BEEN DISPROVED
She formed a very strong opinion after one night of 'deep diving' into a couple of articles. I'm not from the US and a touch confused...is she actually considered as bright over there?
@@madhatter4173 I'm not from the us either, but I think a lot of Americans would not consider her bright. But a lot probably would, which is a tad frightening
🤣🙌🏼😂😂
Tis fucking hilarious comment man 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Science never proved anything. If you believe science leads to objective truths you're a sheep
I think Joe got another forehead wrinkle during this convo
Joe's a moron
Every time her mouth opens
Jessica W lol
She believes science is not real, I believe she is shit!!!
@Very Fake News CNN Are you stupid. Scientists around the globe are saying so and warn us. Look up the greenhouse effect and look up a graph There you go
Rogan: have you done your research on climate change?
Candice: No
when the subject is a psyop being less educated is better.
@@Pow_FIshbrainrot
@@vhufeosqap how many boosters vaxxie?
@@Pow_FIsh 300
@@vhufeosqap its good you're ashamed
you should be.
Joe Rogan's patience and willingness to listen to people he disagrees with is so refreshing.
I’ll give Joe credit every time when he’s critical 👍
Joe Rogan needs to get himself educated around this subject. He and others in the comment section need to know how deep the rabbit hole runs. For starters, begin your adventure with Al Gore's professor. I promise you, it is damn good ride and it will change you completely whenever they start whining about climate change.
She’s is very nice to look at but not that bright. He has more patience than I.
@@stacychew4175 Oh bc you've seen one video of her talking about a topic that she barely knew about and Rogan stuck to because he wanted to make her look bad. Okay Stacy.
all of us as human beings needa strive to be like this honestly
She must've graduated from Ben Shapiro's speed talking academy
Emphasis on the speed. They're legal meth heads. Probably hopped up on adderall or something. They sound like every meth head or coke head who's ever thought that what they have to say means something.
@John Burton I kno that you kno that I kno that IF that wasnt sarcasm that was about as racist as you can get while simultaneously being as ignant as you can get...n you kno I kno you kno you ain't no racist...so ima chalk that up as sarcasm.
@John Burton "credit to her race" sounds pretttty fuckin' racist bro, lol.
@John Burton there's only one race, you twat...human. And saying "credit to their race", is like saying "they speak well for a _______". It's at best a backhanded compliment, but in reality, just racism.
@@KnockManJo speaking super fast and saying absolutely nothing of substance isn't verbal dexterity.
i watched this stoned & it made my high go away
Alex Ignacio Jovel 😂😂😂😂
Second.
Alex Ignacio Jovel yea cause rogan is like an jr. high principal
Facts rogan act like you gotta straddle the fence all the time
Alex Ignacio Jovel I was gonna watch this while high, saw your comments, now I’m not gonna watc it.
The scary part is 60 percent of Americans will believe her instead of the 97 percent of scientists who actually have grounds to speak on.
The even scarier part, your comments is true regarding most important things. People will listen to the opinion they like versus scientist and subject matter experts.
All contrarian republicans. All our institutions are corrupt, America is collapsing, according to them. So the only people who truly know whats going on are Alex Jones, and facebook memers.
@@BIGBLUEGMENworse
People now choose the reality they believe to be true
Choose what’s true based on what they believe…..
Yeah just like they listened to Fauci and got the jab to save their lives and not kill grandma
NO. Scientists who don't buy into the hoax aren't allowed in the club any more, thus sustaining "97% of all scientists support..." (the silly hot)
What's scary is people like you
This is weed arguing with coke.
😂😂😂
Under rated comment.
LMFAO
Nah. This is logic arguing with ideological bullshit.
😂
-there is no evidence
Joe: here is some evidence
- I don’t believe you ....
Politics
No just Candace
People
She's wrong about Global Warming... but her point is she has an opinion and she doesn't know much about it but if someone sits down with her she can change her mind. Nothing wrong with that.
Lovin McLovin but Joes point is that if you don’t know.. don’t have an opinion... she “claims ignorance” at same time as “it’s a hoax”, those 2 can’t be mutually exclusive ... it’s a problem in political commentary and people in general
Tobias..no Candace just makes everyone that's in a debate with her she makes the look dumb lol 😂..
"Arguing with a smart person is hard. Arguing with a stupid person is impossible"
Don’t argue with a stupid person. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Absolutely 💯 💯 💯
Why do the media give this unqualified dumbass a platform to spout bollocks.
@Michael Larkin Joe's level of informed is "It seems like we pollute a lot and that's probably bad".
Meanwhile, Candace is trying to point out the FACT that every single climate prediction has been wrong, and in some cases the opposite happens.
“Arguing with a genius”
Candace Owen’s was out here 6yrs ago!? Time flies man lol Rogans entire mindset has changed since
She was right and Joe looks like a nutter now doesn't he. And he was a Covidian for a while and now...he DENIES the Science...on Covid! Wonder where he is on waking up to the Climate Scam.
Frrr she said we are losing America and Joe Rogan looked at her like she’s crazy lol look at us now
Candace doesn’t believe in climate change. She doesn’t know there is patches of garbage in every ocean the size of state if texas. There’s oil spills killing wildlife: greenhouse effect automobiles use sending more pollution in countries like China and India where ppl have to buy oxygen tanks. Ignorance in this video
Candace doesn’t believe in climate change. She doesn’t know there is patches of garbage in every ocean the size of state if texas. There’s oil spills killing wildlife: greenhouse effect automobiles use sending more pollution in countries like China and India where ppl have to buy oxygen tanks. Ignorance in this video
THE PROBLEM IS: she’s disbelieving as a DEFAULT. that’s insane. the DEFAULT should be neutral. “i don’t know” is so much wiser than sure disbelief by default.
Very well said. We all have bias and skepticism but you can't just begin every topic assuming it's a conspiracy and a lie.
Nobody knows. It's not even a consensus in the scientific community. She's totally correct in just giving her opinion and saying what she believes or not. Believing is different than knowing. Joe, on the other side, has been pushing her all time to agreeing with his stance.
@@otaviolimirio1 Believing is not different than knowing. Belief just means you think you know. If you dont know how to perform open heart surgery you dont say "i dont believe it's possible". You say "i dont know wtf im talking about so I'm going to stand back and let the experts handle this". She's somehow trying to have it both ways, by saying she neither understands the subject but also has enough information to flat out reject it, which makes no sense.
No, that's not the problem and disbelief should be the default. The problem is that she doesn't understand and confines to maintain her default position.
@@y2kblackout disbelief should NOT be the default. By saying you dont believe something you are giving an affirmative response. You can never affirm something without knowing, so your default answer should always be "i dont know".
YOU DARE QUESTION JAMIES SOURCING SKILLS?!?!
chris wells young Jamie checked her quick
Why did I choose to click on this and feel pain for 20 minutes.
Cuz it hurts so good.
I don't know, I feel a little better about myself.
Because its a woman
Because attempting to understand others means more to you than holding your opinions higher than others.
All of these comment replies are massive copes. Dont let them tell you this video isn't pure pain that hasn't brought out anything good to think or feel about yourself or anyone or anything
She couldn’t just said “I don’t know.” That’s it.
i think i literally heard her said i dont know a couple times. i dont agree with candace on this one but she does have great takes at some issues.
She has a right to believe what she wants . Though I disagree , I respect her opinion
Because...she is right...and Joe Rogan has grown up a bit since them. Here he is just a bullying jerk and he comes across as an arrogant prick. She does NOT have to say what you want to say...his take,. since your an INFLUENCER...you must agree with CLIMATE CHAOS that Shannon believes in!
Nope. She’s got more knowledge and expertise than someone with two undergrads, a master, a PhD, and at least one Post-Doc. She also got this from reading “deep on some links online.” Never gave the source, statistics, data, graphs, or rationale for her “belief.” She’s just being contrarian to own the libs and get street credits hooking for corporate America. All these people do is doom billions in the future for the sake of immediate gratification and money. It’s a racket, and none of us will ever be able to break the monopoly on propaganda that these gigantic oligopolies have over us and our destinies.
Because of the reductions in sulfides and sulfates from reduced fuel oil usage on ships in the atmosphere, climate change has broken through a barrier we weren’t supposed for another 8-12 years, we are beginning to see some ocean currents and major melting events happen break down in critical areas of the earth. I know it sounds alarmist as hell, but we are beginning to see that it might be too late. AMOC collapsing or moving will destroy Europe, Africa, and the Amazon. It will begin a phase of increasingly larger forest fires in traditionally wet areas undergoing first-ever droughts. Europe will lose its agriculture and weather stability. The poles will begin rapidly melting. Unless we figure out how to get to net zero by 2035 globally, it’s game over for our modern standard of living. Global GDP will drop by 10-30% and the US will lose half its arable land for agriculture by 2080. If things accelerate or occur far faster than expected, we will see this hit much sooner.
So maybe we need to release sulfates and sulfides into the atmosphere to act as mirrors, knowing it will come down as acid, but at least it will reflect UV frequencies from the sun and reduce the amount of energy passing through our atmospheric boundary. A few grams of some sulfuric acid molecules can counteract the equivalent of ONE TON of CO2. I’m not sure about its effect on methane or other gases, but it’s the best we’ve got while we fail to transition quick enough to renewables and net zero.
We also really need to plant trillions of trees and figure out high capacity energy production. There’s a fracking technology that Google is funding to heat up water in underground hot spots, then bring the boiling water back up to earth and spin a turbine to generate electricity. All this is carbon neutral and could easily power carbon capture plants. They could be run by teams of a few people and run 24/7. Fusion is basically impossible for 100 years or more. Leftists are insane by not wanting nuclear power. Solar requires too much carbon to manufacture the batteries required to power homes at night. Wind works if we build higher, but republicans are attacking this now too for killing 400k birds a year.
I’m just in disbelief that something so permanent is being ignored for the sake of boomers (primarily) being able to make more shareholder value and pad their retirements. Do none of them care about their grandkids or great grandkids? Do they think any rich people in Mad Max make it out okay? No, the rich kids are the first to die because of their arrogance and lack of survival skills.
We’ve got to figure out how to get the right and left to work together against these billionaires who care so little for anyone but themselves. Any ideas? We have more in common than what the corporations and elite are using to divide us. The culture war is a fraud on both sides.
"Think about who we were in bed with, Saudi Arabia... Trump came in and said NO!" Yeah, this claim didn't age well.
Horribly.
In bed as far as what? If it's selling arms to Saudi, then it's been done by previous administrations multiple times over the years
LoweRider Her claim is that Hillary Clinton was in bed with the Saudis *and* that Donald Trump changed that. Even supposing that he is doing exactly what past presidents had done*, you need to meet the other half of the claim: how did "Trump came in and said NO" with regard to the Saudis? Saying that he continued with business as usual with the Saudis does not meet that burden.
*Ignoring, for example, that past presidents weren't making those sales over the objections of Congress in the wake of one of the most significant international human rights scandal of the past decade. The action is hardly the same when the context changes that much: it's one thing to buy some jewelry from a pawn shop, it's another thing to buy from that same pawn shop 10 minutes after the cops tell you that the pawn broker is a fence for local burglars.
She obviously ignored the picture of trump holding that light sphere with the king of Saudi Arabia and all the gifts they gave him🙄but she’s a talking head being paid by the Koch Brothers to deny everything true and blame liberals for the world’s woes. www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/world/middleeast/trump-glowing-orb-saudi.html
trump made the biggest weapon deal in the last 20 years with the saudis(most radical islamic country in the world)
Candace Owens: "As I travel around the world and see different parts of the country"
Lol
She travels the same world where NFL teams are World Champs.
I mean...that isn’t an incorrect sentence. You can travel around the world AND see different parts of the U.S. I don’t agree with her, I’m just saying it’s not a bad sentence technically speaking.
Honestly Candice is an idiot
Perhaps the key word here is.... And
She said nothing for 20 mins,.... she's gonna be an excellent politician...
Lol
She is just like TRUMP. Or imitating Trump.
Because he is forcing the question.
@@hunali7343 he is trying to understand why she thinks that way
@@antoinecharlesdegaulle580 she said i haven’t formed opinion and I don’t believe it in. He is like it’s science and stuff she told him she does not have an opinion.
She isn’t smart enough to understand what Joe is saying. Which is clear by her continuing to say “yeah yeah yeah.” And interrupting him!
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein
Einstein was a shill to market on. He even admitted Tesla was smarter.
Albert thought the Milky Way was the universe.
Human stupidity can be read every day about climate change. ruclips.net/video/r9igooLWnB0/видео.html
Debra Hoffman ayyyy 🤣🤣🤣 your idiocy is beyond measure innit ? Roger Penrose was just awarded the nobel prize for his mathematical models that prove the existence of black holes as a prediction of Einstein's theory of general relativity. Meanwhile you’re an oxygen thief 🤷
Ooooooh. Einstein.... The guy who was ridiculed by the "scientific consensus" and his "collogues" for his theories and who famously said “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." in response to them trying to discredit him even though he was later proven correct?... That guy?
So much for consensus and Majority.
@@darianjohnston1658 what the fuck are you talking about? Have you ever read a single physics paper in your life?
Candace clearly doesn't know anything about climate change. She's too stubborn to admit it
actually she admits it several times..right there this here video
@@Skate2rev but her responses were always I don’t know therefore I don’t believe it to be true when it could’ve just been I don’t know
well, she wouldn't have a career if she admitted to not knowing about anything now would she
@@Liza.Wharton yea
Yup. Another person too proud to say "I Don't Know"
She's like "I don't know anything about it but I have a stance on it"
"The climate changes. It was different weather yesterday than it was today." LOLOL
I don’t many conservatives that like her a few people prop her because she’s an “empowered woman” but her ignorance is incredible
@@michaela1843 I really don’t get it. And she’s been on Twitter since the election telling lie after lie and supporting the accusations that the election was rigged.
that line there was when I walked away...........she needs to slow it down, and think before speaking
“I read a lot about it”
@@michaela1843 She also gets propped up because she's a person of colour promoting conservative viewpoints. She's a grifter who has to stay on character at all times. Who knows what she believes behind closed doors, tbh
9:09 "I dont go to colleges to talk about global warming"
No, but you are on a podcast millions people watch. Tf is she saying hahah
You're aware that she didn't come on this podcast to talk about global warming right?
Joe asked her a question and she said she doesn't believe it's real. Is she just not supposed to hold an opinion..
@@zeebazildid you watch the video at all?
@@roryobrien3947 what's your point?
@@zeebazil if u have watched the video. It should go through your tiny brain that u CANNOT have an opinion about scientific matters if u are a very influential person. Its a clear case of spreading misinformation. U can have opinion on whether god is real or not its not a global issue that will end the world or affect us in any way. But having opinion on something that clearly affect human lives , maybe not yours but over the years some small villages living on islands who day by day see their coast shrinking and water level rising ( just an exmaple). If you are influential at this level TAKE SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITIES.
Joe got absolutely shitted on in this Convo
This is exactly the reason why I don't have a political party.
You begin to identify with the party and always side with it even on issues in which it's wrong in.
You’re doing great. Keep being you, and don’t fall under the tribe mentality curse.
Never a truer word. Even thoughtful, clearly intelligent members of each group fall into the same trap.
Candace said one truism in this clip but the significance was lost on her...at 4:48 she said "instead of looking for what you're searching for why don't you look up what you're not searching for". She's right. You could easily justify the opposite viewpoint of that was your goal and this betrays a real truth. In todays age a layperson can find evidence to corroborate any viewpoint they wish to hold. Confirmation bias and a limitless database of knowledge, opinion, spin, etc make it a simple matter. Did you ever watch a flat Earth video? They pull 'facts' from everywhere. It's almost convincing. Almost!
FACTS
that's not true. That's called identity politics and you shouldn't play that game. They play it a lot in the west but just because someone sides with a party that doesn't mean you believe everything one party does.
I don’t have a political party either but I’d never vote Democrat. I’d rather not vote at all
Joe was low key irritated and I’m all for it 😂
Exactly only a fool needs evidence. Why is research so goddamn important can't you just feel how horrible the climate has, I mean it's no brainier
I wish I had Joe's patience...
He keeps it cool though
rahul mahbubani
Climate Change isn't about how you feel climate has been changing, it's more about global changes across larger scales of time. So saying you feel it's gotten hotter isn't a good argument for climate change.
Instead, point to all the scientific evidence of climate change.
Joe was HIGH KEY irritated ahahaha
When she said “the weather was different than it was today” that told me she had no idea what climate is
So can you explain to me why it went from global cooling, to global warming, then too climate change? Why does the name always change?
@@danielbaker7213 Because that's how science works. Once you are confronted with data that changes the reality of what your talking about, the name shifts to more accurately reflect that data.
edit: also, if your goal is to convince laymen, people without no scientific background, that this highly complicated issue IS an issue, your going to try to use a name that will translate the best to the common population. Global warming was too inaccurate and reductive and confused the morons who went "OH BUT SOME PLACES ARE COLDER" so they changed it.
@@danielbaker7213 THAT'S what your argument is?
@@danielbaker7213 did you skip science class in school 😂
I remember learning in middle school science class weather is the day to day state of the atmosphere and climate is the long term state. She lost all credibility on the issue when she failed to understand that
Wow. Her saying we don't need to care about the environment even a little bit, then laughing. She seems so immature and lacking in empathy.
What she is lacking is a brain....
that is not true at all, she said several time she up for protecting our environment, and here u go...denying what you just saw to make your point. Why do that.....
@@lovetrump1088 "you don't think we have to care about the environment?" "no, not even a little bit teehehehe 🤭"
"I don't believe in global warming"
"Based on what?"
*shrug*
Based on the fact that we are going through a cooling period for the last 15 years lol
Lmao.
A B You probably shouldn't use articles written by Christopher Booker. He believes in intelligent design and denies evolution and he also claims that asbestos and second hand smoke don't increase your risk of developing cancer. He is what you would call, a complete fucking moron.
Read above and I have lots more!
Who's more corrupt in Congress between the Republicans and the Democrats? "
When comparing criminal indictments of those serving in the executive branch of presidential administrations it's so lopsided as to be ridiculous. Yet all I ever hear is how corrupt the Democrats are. So why don't we break it down by president and the numbers.
Obama (D) - 8yrs in office. zero criminal indictments, zero convictions and zero prison sentences. so the next time somebody describes the Obama administration as "scandal free" they aren't speaking wishfully, they're simply telling the truth.
Bush, George W. (R) - 8yrs in office. 16 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 9 prison sentences.
Clinton (D) - 8yrs in office. 2 criminal indictments. one conviction. one prison sentence. that's right nearly 8yrs of investigations. tens of millions spent and 30yrs of claiming them the most corrupt ever and there was exactly one person convicted of a crime.
Bush, George H. W. (R) - 4yrs in office. one indictment. one conviction. one prison sentence.
Reagan (R) - 8yrs in office. 26 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 8 prison sentences.
Carter (D) - 4yrs in office. one indictment. zero convictions and zero prison sentences.
Ford (R) - 2 1/2 yrs in office. one indictment and one conviction. one prison sentence. Pardoned Richard Nixon. Nixon (R) - 6yrs in office. 76 criminal indictments. 55 convictions. 15 prison sentences.
Johnson (D) - 5yrs in office. zero indictments. zero convictions. zero prison sentences.
So, let’s see where that leaves us. in the last 53 years Democrats have been in office for 25 of those years while Republicans held it for 28. in their 25yrs in office Democrats had a total of three executive branch officials indicted with one conviction and one prison sentence. That's one whole executive branch official convicted of a crime in two and a half decades of Democrat leadership.
In the 28yrs that Republicans have held office over the last 53yrs they have had a total of (a drum roll would be more than appropriate), 120 criminal indictments of executive branch officials. 89 criminal convictions and 34 prison sentences handed down. That's more prison sentences than years in office since 1968 for Republicans. If you want to count articles of impeachment as indictments (they aren't really but we can count them as an action), both sides get one more.
However, Clinton wasn't found guilty while Nixon resigned and was pardoned by Ford. So, those only serve to make Republicans look even worse. With everything going on with Trump and his people right now, it's a safe bet Republicans are gonna be padding their numbers a bit real soon.
So let's just go over the numbers one more time shall we. 120 indictments for Republicans. 89 convictions and 34 prison sentences. Those aren't "feelings" or "alternate facts" those are simply the stats by the numbers. Republicans are, and have been for my entire lifetime, the most criminally corrupt party to hold the office of the presidency.
she literally said "the weather is different today from yesterday" did she not learn in sixth grade the difference between weather and climate 💀
I almost lost it bawhahahahaha
Welcome to Trumpworld. What happened to intelligent conservatives? These are not conservatives, they are Trumpers.
@Real Progressives Allowed exactly
😭😭😂😂😂
@Real Progressives Allowed even if weather and climate mean the same thing, it’s still really stupid to compare the weather which varies everyday to the climate which is an average of the weather of a region or of a period of time
Joe: “you have this opinion with no evidence”
Candice: “that’s what a Opinion is”
Joe: “or you can do research”
She’s never heard the term “well educated opinion” but then again she probably doesn’t know what educated means
@@callumrock11lol76 education doesn’t mean you’re right. Just like college these days teaches bs 20% of the time.
Research.... every right wingers Kryptonite
Do research never means do and actual scientific research on your own.
Now it's time for aliens.👽
It's proven bro. I am right wing, conservative, anti-communist, anti-sjw, anti-big state and I believe in climate change. It's proven by science. Not flat-earth bs. Serious stuff man. m.ruclips.net/video/j6iE62jovMo/видео.html 👽
Wow how Joe’s BELIEFS on the issue has changed since this conversation 6y ago is amazing
… and even more so, I’ve just watched JRE experience #501 with Randal Carlson, which is 4 years before this interview. Randal tells Joe everything there is just enough to get skeptic about the climate agenda (and more) and after listening to him for an hour or so Joe himself agrees that the issue is idealised and politicised by the both sides.
Joe was so convinced with the "sciences"...
"Climate agenda" you're cooked. Tell me empirical evidence that climate change isn't real.
Covid cures kind of hit everyone's belief in "settled science."
YEp...he was a BLIND Jerk here...trying to force her to accept his believes and tell her her own opinions and thoughts are not worth considering. YOU MUST BELIEVE THIS CLIMATE CHAOS IS REAL...and MAN did it!
A device that pulls CO2 out of air ....
Tree: " Am I a joke to you ?"
I tell my fuance this all the time... They cut down millions of trees that will help us to replace it with machines. This shit is idiotic. I believe this is a contributing factor why our earth is caving in. Tree roots are strong and hold so much together. We are parasites to this earth.
Apparently not enough people know about the function of trees, sad
its literally like the movie idiocracy, everyones like " it got electrolytes thats what trees crave"
@@Greenthumbn1576 and sea
Human beings cut down CO2 eating trees to make way for C02 producing humans! 3 billion people on earth till middle of last century. Over population is the reason for climate change
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” - ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Russian Bot8269 but we are making it worse
Joe Rogan : Excuse me sir, but I do believe you've dropped your wallet.
This chick : Doesn't look familiar to me.
Joe Rogan : What? I just saw you drop it. Here.
This chick : Nope, it's not mine.
Joe Rogan: It is yours. I am trying to be a good person and return it to you.
This chick : Return what to who?
Joe Rogan : [facepalms, then shows Patrick his ID] Aren't you Patrick Star?
This chick : Yup.
Joe Rogan : And this is your ID.
This chick : Yup.
Joe Rogan : I found this ID in this wallet. And if that's the case, this must be your wallet.
This chick : That makes sense to me.
Joe Rogan : Then take it.
This chick : It's not my wallet.
O X that is debatable and not proven fact you are aware of that right? The common belief is more co2 equals higher temps which is true but do you know how many factors go into the temperature of the earth ? It’s not just co2 lvls lmao
E B I do know my handful share of information about he topic i took a university course on it it’s real man we make it worse
Russian Bot8269 because everyone has a car and everyone wants cow meat plus pollution in the ocean ruin coral reefs all of which contribute to the decrease of co2 reduction
Ignorance = Not knowing something.
Stupidity = Not knowing something and having an ego about it.
So Joe is stupid!
exactly. like joe's doing here.
@@drtimoshea4087sit down Candace
@@drtimoshea4087 the delusion is strong with you, young one 😅
@@TNTobin Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or understanding. Deliberate ignorance is a culturally-induced phenomenon, the study of which is called agnotology. "knowing better but doing the wrong thing anyway." Immoral describes people who can differentiate between right and wrong but intentionally do wrong anyway. Irrational would also describe such a behavior.
she's just amazing, and
Joe 😅.. grew a lot since then
Sometimes the best answer is “I don’t know”
Jeffrey Gandara takes humility, she doesn’t have that
@@deem10 Agreed. Everyone is an expert about their uneducated views on all things.
not when its global warming, the answer should always be yes there is
Climate change should be discussed between two scientists
How thick are you dweebs?...there is not one iota of credible peer reviewed scientific data which show a connection between global warming & global climate change...NOTHING.....local and regional weather/climate variations ..yes...and that's been known since the mid 19th century......but that has nothing to do with global warming trends......the IPCC are frauds....pathetic, amateur frauds who have stolen billions of research funds from legitimate scientists.....thus the US, China, Russia, Australia et etc will continue to build coal fired power plants cos they have nothing to do with global warming PS: it's the Sun, silly......ha ha ha ha
“I don’t want to die on this hill”
Proceeds to die on the hill 😂
Bruh 😂😂
So you even know what that means???
Jeremiah Hessian yeah I think he knows what it means
Well, Joe kept pushing her back up the hill.
Candace doesn't make a good argument, but Joe arrogantly saying anthropogenic climate change is scientifically proven is not true.
As an old Yogi once told me: If someone is actually sleeping you can wake them up, but if someone is pretending to be sleeping you can never wake them up.
Just tickle them
😂😂😂😂😂
Rogan schooled her. Sometimes saying "I don't know" is the smart answer.
Climate , health etc are super politicized! Apologize to the queen
@@essay2426 queen of what? Conspiracies and fake news?
Wrong.
Do it is not . She is entitled to her opinion. Her 24 hours of going down the rabbit hole of study has enabled her to have a opinion
He is so patient, this is almost like therapy.
I THINK I NEED THERAPY AFTER WATCHING SOME OF THIS......
@@quantumofhate I wish someone in my life would speak to me so patiently about my worst thoughts and ideas
Please tell me you're being sarcastic?
@@troyrichardson6575 I hope he is. She was pretty patient putting up with him interrupting her the whole time. What's funny is they both agree for the most part but Joe felt the need to act like there was some conflict to boost ratings, lol
@@aloha_ohana Oh Dave you silly little dolt.
Is everyone allowed to have their own opinions? YES
Are everyone's opinions valid? NO
Exacrtly.
Hence why i recommend 'Some More News' ( even though this month right now
wasnt his Best).
I disagree, everyones opinions are valid, and deserve to be heard, but not all opinions are correct
@@erikh1041 THATS LITERALLY WHAT HE MEANT.
@@slevinchannel7589 whats ur problem? Calm down dude
@@CrackedConker Who hurt you?
Bless the patience that Joe Rogan has.
If anyone would have the patience for this, it's Joe. Remember, he basically lives with 4 women in his house lol.
30 women wouldnt give me the patience to prepare for this bitch. Big annoyed by her haha
well said J B
What patience? The filthy pervert is trying to convince her of a vile lie, that he, in all his stupidity believes. He's a scumbag, period. Don't tell me you're a moron that believes this rubbish also? LOL You Are, aren't you? LOl LMFAO LOL LOL HAHA JAJA LOL LMAO
She’s right, one volcano in one day puts out more carbon than all man made in one year. Also he is twisting words around
This aged well.
Albert Einstein: “The Difference Between Stupidity and Genius Is That Genius Has Its Limits”
There is a limit to stupidity. Its called death.
That’s not the limit to stupidity, that’s the limit of everything
@@sheikmutanabi3003i feel as tho stupidity would be included in "everything"...
Derrick Henry why are you trying to sound smart when you know what he’s getting at. Who are u tryna impress lmao
This is a fake quote, he never said this.
"Science has been politicised?!"
Hello from 2022 🤣
LMFAO
Joe has had a paradigm shift since to say the least. Jesus christ is coming back for the rapture. Get ready. Unprecedented times coming ahead.
But Joe still supports the science on climate change. So…..
Yes it has.
politics + science = politics
"the climate changes everyday!"
Honey, that's the weather. Not the worldwide climate
She didnt say that. She said it always changed.
@@sitrep2418 But how much does she really know about it? She'd be utterly lost two minutes into a climate science examination. You know it and I know it.
Show me the evidence that humans affect the total temperature of the planet. Oh, and do it without NOAA adjusting data. And go.
@@tln25
www.ucsusa.org/resources/are-humans-major-cause-global-warming
www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/faq/how-do-human-activities-contribute-to-climate-change-and-how-do-they-compare-with-natural-influences
rses.anu.edu.au/research/research-stories/humans-have-caused-climate-change-180-years
www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change
And I'm sure, even with all this statistical information and scientific explanations, you will still come up with some bullshit to say it's fake. And if you do, why don't you provide evidence as to why it's not caused by humans.
@@sitrep2418 correct she didn't say the climate changes everyday - she said the climate always changes. It's not unusual to see mis-quotes. "So what you're saying is.."
Watching him interview jd Vance and say there are a bunch of scientists that say it’s not an issue. Had to come back and watch this. Hilarious
She seems like the kinda person I couldn't spend an hour with.
hour?! more like a few minutes
@@keeeiif I stand corrected
Her and Tomi Lahren both.
Not if she has clothes on.
@@kpllc4209 yooooo. maybe too far
I can't even listen to this. How did he sit there for 2+ hours. That martial arts discipline must be something else
Lmao that was funny
He was being rude to her and condescending. Newsflash, anthropogenic climate change is not a proven scientific fact, its barely a theory.
@@hepwo91222
Newsflash, it was 65 farenheit a few days ago in Antarctica.
Newsflash, the UN report *made up of scientists* confirmed that we know that we are accelerating climate change at a dangerous rate.
Newsflash, the only people who gain from denying climate change is oil companies who trash the environment.
@@hepwo91222 I'm on the side of Joe where I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it. I don't care how many scientists say things or how much evidence they claim to have. I don't know therefore I won't claim to know and I don't care to know. Humans will be killed off but the earth will be just fine. I couldn't literally not care any less.
@@jakjam300 you have been brainwashed by the MSM and globalist politicians. Anthropogenic climate change is unproven, it fails the scientific method every... single... time. Also the climate models are based on incomplete data due to our inability to predict the movement of water vapor more than a few hours/days. So maybe one day when we can solve Navier-Stokes equations we can predict future climate but as of now, we cannot.
paraphrased: "It's just you and me talking, I wouldn't say that in the public eye"
-Candace Owens on literally the most popular podcast on earth
That is the WHOLE PREMISE of all of JRE Podcasts...'just us talking'
"I'm not saying this publically, I'm just talking to you." -Candace Owens on one of the most popular podcasts in the world
@Julie
She's not even a bulb. She's like trying to screw a shoe into a light socket...
Her point being is that she is respectfully engaging in the topic at hand because its just the 2 of them talking. As in, she means that she isn't trying to persuade anyone whatsoever during this exchange.. Its obvious only Joe Rogan is trying to do the persuading. @JULIE & JAMES! Are you this ignorant? Bc Joe clearly proves he is the one with the agenda by getting upset that she "as an influencer" is stating she doesn't share the same beliefs as him!!
@@teejay3193
It may have been just the 2 of them talking, but it wasn't just the 2 of them listening to the conversation, unless she just drew a blank and forgot that their conversation was being recorded on one of the most listened to podcasts...
@@teejay3193 Joe's point is that as an influencer she can't just state her feelings as if they're more important than facts because she has a responsibility as a public figure not to misinform people.
@@teejay3193 lol, so you disagree with his point that you shouldn't be opinionated on something you know nothing about? yeah he's the bad guy here.
That man’s composure is something to behold
Of course cancel culture will make you compose.
@@alextorres5665 this was before cancel culture
Tommyboy 6426 nah, #MeToo was a thing before 2017 even
@@alextorres5665 8
@@alextorres5665 weed helps too
I think Joe disarmed her with his deliberate slow pacing of speech and his tone of voice in this exchange. Candice is used to more confrontational exchanges and I think it threw her off.
If you don’t listen to the facts lmfao
I think having to think more deeply about it threw her off
Nice observation 👍🏼
@@mystercraig Cheers bud. I try.
He's still wrong though. Climate change has always been. It's not something new.
100% on Joe Rogan's side here. Je caught her bluffing basically. She sounded very convinced at first and got more and more vague as he wouldn't just let it slide
Joe: You're wrong
Candice: right, yeah
Basically, it's no surprise to me anymore that most people are dumb as rocks..
@Alexis S She's allowed to have an opinion. I love Joe, but she's entitled to her own personal opinion. Like she said, she doesnt preach it, she doesnt give talks about it and she's not spreading it so whats the problem with her having her own beliefs??? I have mine, you have yours etc.
Stan what's your opinion about dark matter and the Higgs Boson?
@@j-pvezeau5797 Well considering the Higgs Boson helps explain how to obtain dark matter I think its pretty fascinating. But its just theory. Lets see how it pans out. And thanks for helping me prove my point entirely. People can have an opinion while having very limited knowledge on a topic. Thats why its opinion.
@Alexis S your attitude towards Candice shows clearly you don't believe she should have an opinion. Get real before you reply.
Candance: "You and I are having a conversation 1-on-1"
RUclips: 3.9M views
Can'tdance
7 million now
gosh, her ignorance in response to Joe's relentless effort to meet her halfway makes me angry
That's my problem with these conservative pundits. I start listening to them and their debates (other debates, not this one), and I think "Hey, this is actually a pretty reasonable person. They're making good points." But when you dig deeper into their ideas, you find that their viewpoints are all driven by ideology. They're not actually interested in the truth. They're just professional debaters that sound good talking about conservative viewpoints.
Or maybe we don’t wanna pay into with our taxes? I don’t mind a few cuts to to this money pit. Is it valuable? Sure but not at its current price tag.
@Shane Jones No one’s saying it can be stopped overnight, but science overwhelmingly tells us we are partly responsible for the speeding up of the process. Do some research friend
@Shane Jones So your argument is that because it's such an issue, the effort isn't worth the reward, and we should just carry on about our day? So when you let your house get so messy, I assume you just decide to not clean it anymore.
@@johngalt3118 Thank you, so well said. I completely agree.
Joe is a fool here. Candace kept it 100% real without trying to be a know-it-all
Yes…it’s hard to listen to him here
She can’t tell the difference between climate and weather that’s concerning
I literally thought the same thing 😂
image calling winter climate change lmfao
HAHA i cackled when she said that. she can’t have an “opinion” on something when she doesn’t know how to define it properly.
Very true a basic biology high school class would give the difference between the two.
Neither can scientists apparently. Where did "global warming" go? Climate change is real, the climate changes all the time, that's nothing new. Have a look at pictures of the sky during the industrial revolution, then comment on whether or not you think what we're doing now, has the ability to "bring the sky down" so to speak. Co2 takes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. How can something that occupies that much space in the atmosphere, cause the sky to fall? Millions of people and fish piss in the ocean every day, does that change the flavor of the ocean? No, it does not, because even the fish, of which there are billions, who piss in that ocean every day, is not a large enough part of that ocean to change any aspect of it. Same idea with Co2 and the atmosphere. Search for yourself.
“This wouldn’t be the hill I die on”
*Proceeds to die on hill
Ahoy and Aloha, I am so very Sorry I Do Not Understand What is The Hill, Where is The Hill that WE Are Not Going to Die On? Please Clarify my ignorance!?
@@saitohshihomi5649 she says she doesn’t believe despite knowing absolutely nothing about it. That’s the hill and joe Rogan was the one to finish her.
@@Liam-uh3pr How exactly did he "defeat" her? By claiming that 97% of scientists believe in human-caused climate change?
@@Jianju69 by confronting her on the topic and instead of just letting it go she continues to defend her position fully aware that she knows without the knowledge.
She is a drifter she spins the points
To confuse the viewer fully aware of the fact that she is just trying to score political points.
@@Liam-uh3pr that's half true. analyze the video and what was said. she claimed to be of the opinion that global warming wasn't a concern to her in the context of being in an international agreement where trillions were involved. joe Rogan then said, why have a belief on something you know nothing about. the difference in the understanding is the word opinion and belief, they are not the same but are used similarly to literally and figuratively.
Bless her heart. Joe has the patience of a Saint.
Leishla M I cussed her out about 1,363,839 times.
He was ready to jump across that table tho..
She has identity issues please excuse her. Ppl like her help nobody.. annoy the enlightened and mislead the seekers.
@@billybobthornton5144 and do WHAT?
liecrusher give a hug and say why are you saying these stupid stupid stupid things.
So this was painful. She seems incredibly ignorant and full of herself despite clear lack of knowledge. Rogan's running circles around her.
Her logic is “I don’t know wether or not you own a dog, therefore I believe you don’t own a dog”
Is that what she said? Pretty sure her wording would've been "I don't believe you own a dog."
Literally speaking there's a difference between "I don't believe you own a dog" and "I believe you don't own a dog", even though we interpret them the same. "I don't believe" means you have no belief either way (you don't know), "I believe you don't" means you believe the contrary.
For some reason all of us interpret them the same way. I never considered the difference until she pointed out they may have a difference in linguistics. Either way she definitely should've said "I don't know" to be clear.
More like "I don't know whether you have a dog or not, BUT, there's a dog house in your front yard, there's some dog toys and chewed up rags lying around, there's some dog shit in your backyard, the cats stay the fuck away from your house, oh and I hear some barking coming from your house. Hmmm, nope I don't buy it. You don't have a doggo."
she only exists so that the right can point to her and say “seeeee? our policies aren’t racist. a black person supports them!!” a sad existence, indeed
@@serclintalot4497 dude the entire video she’s like “I don’t know anything about this, but here’s my detailed opinion. very obviously trying to push the right’s climate science denial propaganda while also giving herself an out if she’s ever called out about this video
@@sub-zero5433 The video only exists because he interpreted "I don't believe" to mean "I vehemently oppose" and decided to grill her on it. Yes, she should have just said "I don't know" but she tried to end it several times, he got more aggressive, and she got defensive.
Regardless, what does it matter at this point? It's not like the left has any viable solutions other than griping about it and pointing fingers at the other side.
“I don’t have an opinion on it.” LITERALLY NEXT SENTENCE “I don’t believe in it”
She was a liberal 3 years ago. She's still in her conservative honeymoon phase, and is paid handsomely to support those views. I doubt she will hold the same views once they find a better shill with a larger reach.
@@Power_Cosmic27 Like Lauren Southern
Its comical! Do you believe in gravity? Science doesn't need your faith.
She's also stated that this isn't a point she's put much research into. I don't think it's fair to call her dumb because she doesn't know much about an issue she hasn't researched much yet. But then has much more informed decisions on a bunch of other topics. So because she doesn't know much about one given topic she stated she hasn't put much research into, she's stupid altogether? I think that's a little unfair of a statement to make. Dumb on this topic, sure. Or at least hasn't really formulated her thoughts about it yet I think the way that you attempt to measure intellect, is dumb in and of itself. It's been 2 years, I'm sure she's had time to formulate her thoughts about the issue. Also if you actually listened to her argument, she stated the does believe in climate change, just not to the extent others do. For instance, I believe the climate changes all the time, I just don't think Humans have much effect on it. I do know we have a certain degree of effect on it, but how much? All of it? Some of it? How much do Humans actually contribute to Climate Change? What can Humans do to stop it? I don't think there's much the U.S. can do to stop Climate change, at least the technology just isn't their yet. Are renewable methods just aren't cost effective enough and aren't that great compared to fossil fuels. Now there is nuclear energy which burn a lot cleaner, but for some reason many don't want to go that route. It would be cost effective, clean, and a better power source. Even if we went back to the stone ages and completely replaced are energy with crappy alternatives that cost more but are cleaner, We still don't know if that would make any significant effect on climate change what so ever. China will continue what they're doing, other impoverished country's will continue to do what they're doing because environmentalism is a luxury of the rich. Those country's could not afford (Neither can we) to change all of are energy sources for crappier alternatives that cost much more and require more maintenance. If some poor family in Zimbabwe have to burn couch chips to keep their family warm, they're going to do it. Regardless if it raises carbon emissions by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002% in the future. Also, carbon emissions aren't necessarily bad for the planet either and have been around since the earth has been. It has been aiding in plant growth. After multiple studies done, the research shows that Carbon dioxide actually help with plant growth by aiding the photosynthesis process. Carbon Dioxide is actually essential for keeping earth Habitable, But it is a balancing act. Too little and the earth becomes below freezing, too much and the earths temperature can begin to rise. What I generally don't agree with people on is the extent of which we effect it, and the solution for attempting to keep it balanced. I don't believe the technology is quite there yet for us to make much of a change on it as of yet. But there are also many other green house gases that seem to cause this effect as-well such as methane, Chlorofluorocarbons, and nitrous oxide. Also, the changing of the greenhouses effects are hard to predict. So anyone telling you the world is going to end in 2021, is probably an idiot. I don't believe the world is ending any time soon due to this, and I believe the best solution currently is to wait for better technology to become available. I believe there are currently far more pressing concerns than climate change.
@@Power_Cosmic27 You got all that off of a 20 minute clip?
There's a word "Fremdschämen" in German. It's a mixture of feeling acute embarrassment and deep shame for another person.
Steve Hardy literally how I feel Rn 😂
We call it "second hand embarrassment"
@@kakashisensei8419 we call it cringe
It’s called cringe in america
There is a word in Spanish come mierda
Google translate for this. Thats whats going on here. GW is real
"Bill nye is a science influencer." Says Joe unironically...then years later argues with people with PhDs about the efficacy of vaccines.
@heckald The Pfizer trial data says the ARR(Absolute Risk reduction) of their Covid-19 shot was less than 1%. Nobody can question that or has questioned that.
And your point?
What’s wrong with pointing out the fact that someone is a science influencer and not a scientist then inviting conversation about the efficacy of mRNA Inoculations against Covid-19.
@TheBold1994 bill Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering. Joe has a degree in? Joe's not even a good comedian, an area he claims he's an expert at, yet will argue to dr. Rhonda Patrick who has a PhD in biology about the COVID vaccine citing his folder of "research" as evidence.
@TheBold1994 Bill Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering. Rogan does Google searches and uses duck duck go when he thinks he's being clever. They are not the same.
This is legit the definition of anti-intellectualism.
Dear LN,
Which one ? I would say both !
DZ
Dn Zach saying I don't know, as Joe does, and looking into it yourself, and forming an opinion based on a high number of professional subject matter experts is anti-intellectualism to you?
Our species is fucked!
Lies through her teeth anytime Joe calls her out. Classic idiot behavior.
@@yazzyyazyaz which lies? Be specific, please.
Dear@@F1fan4eva,
I agree that we should always consider what the experts think; that is certainly a valid consideration. However, science (and truth) is not determined by majority or consensus. (Argumentum ad populum fallacy).
We can all think of instances in history, where the consensus was wrong. The "follow the crowd mentality" is not the way to make a decision, particularly when politics is involved, and this has become a political hot topic with millions of dollars of grant money at stake for scientists who work with the politicians. We all agree that scientists are humans beings, subject to many temptations, and we all know how dirty politics is.
I think the data is also an important factor to consider, and probably should receive priority over consensus, if there is any question of disagreement.
There is also a question of objectivity of the data we do have. If the acquisition of the data has variables and extraneous factors that is not adequately controlled, then the raw data can be misleading and manipulated.
There are questions of data manipulation due to the accusations that old data sets do not match the more contemporary "adjusted" data sets.
There is also the question of data driven conclusions vs model driven conclusions. Models lose their predictive power as they are projected farther into the future. Consider the predictive power of hurricane projection models, short term vs long term. Climate change has many more extraneous variables than predicting hurricanes.
Question:
Dear@@F1fan4eva, if the famous "hockey stick graph" of Mann, Bradly and Hughes, is an accurate prediction of the increase of warming, and their graph exhibits a dramatic increase to the end of their graph in the year 2000, then what do you think the graph should be now in 2020 (20 years in the future from the time the graph ended) ?
Consider that the graph does support an increase of about 1 degree in since 1900. It would seem that at rate of increase, as shown in the graph, we should have increased in temperature another degree in the last 20 years (to 2020), if that graph is an accurate, predictive model.
That is 2 degrees since 1900. Shouldn't a two degree change have dramatic effects ? Many scientist think so (climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/).
Do you think our current data supports this prediction, twenty years later ?
If this rate of increase continues to increase "proportionally" according to the prediction of the model, then in the next twenty years there should be an increase of 2 to 3 degrees which perhaps would be devastating. If so, we may only have 20 years left. Is this your assertion ?
I see many questions that are unsettled and I am not sure the predictions of the models are completely accurate.
I do favor active, open debate on the issue between the scientists of both sides (and those in-between). It does appear the politically correct side is suppressing this kind of open discussion which is a form of anti-intellectualism.
I do favor taking precautions and moving on to become more eco-friendly. It certainly won't hurt and can push our technology forward. (Electric cars are cool and faster !).
Be well and open-minded.
DZ
Never believe a word from anyone who says "I have read a SHIT TON of articles"
Or in one night! While it takes scientist their whole life to understand it. This lying fake poser says its not true because she read it one night! Unbelievable
@@ruubs9615 She thinks that she is the second coming of Einstein 🤣. Joe was very generous in calling her Intelligent.
Never use absolutes.
@@edaboodie6346 that's in itself an absolute haha
Haha
I'm really tired of all these "I'm going to say what I feel and influence a lot of people, but I'm not an expert" types.
Thats the entire right wing grift, and the most egregious is Jordan peterson's brand of "I'm going to say things that have an obvious implication, then when you ask me if that's what im implying, im gonna say your putting words in my mouth and lying because lefty's are evil".
@@TheTinyTimmyTimTim Jordan Peterson is completely different from Candace Owens. Unlike most people he has changed the world for the better and he has improved a lot of people’s lives including mine. Is he perfect? No. Are all of his thoughts inherently correct? No. Has he made the world a better place? Yes. Hope you understand where I am coming from. Cheers :)
@@darioam3329 Thats fine, and i'd never equate Candace and JLP. Unlike candace, even If I disagree with JLP, i can tell he's an inherently intelligent individual unlike candace who's a talking points machine and is only just clever enough to dress it up as if they aren't talking points and some huge revelation she's "woke" too (ironically enough).
Problem with JLP is he steps outside his expertise way too often. Dude has almost no actual political knowledge or analysis, yet almost everything he's done recently in public (his tours, speeches, debates etc) is about american politics that he doesn't understand, as a CANADIAN no less. He speaks in airy homilies, somehow translating an anti-trans language stance into an entire political philosophy and it forces him to embarrass himself in front of guys like zizek because he's now wedded to an awful ideology within a paradigm he doesn't understand.
@@TheTinyTimmyTimTim He’s never really said anything that’s “anti trans” though. One of the reasons he rose to fame is because Canada wanted a implement a law that forced people to refer to others by their preferred pronouns and he protested that since it’s a huge infringement of free speech. He publicly criticized that and was then labelled transphobic. I’d argue no one can really go out of their “area of expertise” when arguing politics, he just approaches the political issues from the perspective of a clinical psychologist. You could argue that he isn’t well enough informed to speak on specific political issues but I think he does a pretty good job of answering questions by using the knowledge that he actually knows something about. Unlike Candace Owens who seems to just parrot right wing talking points.
@@TheTinyTimmyTimTim I don’t think Peterson originally intended on becoming a U.S. politics pundit. I think he got asked what his thoughts were on the topic so many times that he started to FEEL like it fell into his area of expertise.
This is one of the wildest back and forths
Her smug answer “not even a little bit” while laughing when asked if she cares about the environment is wild.
Because its undeniable that the climate change fanatics have a larger agenda than caring for the climate, given that the people who are loudest about it are the worse individuals for negatively impacting the climate, using private jets, powerful cars, overly large homes which are always heated with lights on even when they arent there. Lets also not forget about the fact that the same billionaire advocates are buying beachfront property in areas which are being said by these lot to be underwater decades from now.
@@Durram258 Caring about the environment isn't just about Climate Change. It's also about basic stuff like Pollution and Deforestation.
@@maeannengo4908 Yeah very true, and youll never get anyone who thinks theres no problems with deforestation or pollution, resolving those two issues isn't the same as tackling climate change on a larger scale, especially when the apocalypse lot cant even tell us what we have to be so worried about and when they wont challenge china on it, its just a joke, another group of fanatics whining about another issue without presenting very good arguments.
@@Durram258 They have been telling us why we have to worry about climate change. Severe storms/hurricanes, severe drought, severe snowstorms, melting land glaciers which causing rising sea levels.
@@maeannengo4908 Yeah and yet we haven't seen anything out of the ordinary, and its not like storms are an issues when you can just avoid living in storm hot spots. The rising sea levels clearly isn't an issue given that all the wealthiest people are buying sea front property in the areas they themselves say will be underwater within decades, why are banks and investors also giving loans on these properties, think about it.
She's just throwing out word salads
She is copying Trump.
Try watching this 4 times i bet it makes less sense from her point of view with more replays
@@321cast6 hahahahaha what??? You are out of your mind.
You believe we are causing sea levels to rise 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
That's all brainwashed (read MAGA) republicans ever do...
“I wouldn’t die on this hill”
*dies on hill for 20 minutes*
This felt like an hour, not 20 minutes... my god
m3lon San, What Does Candace Owens_Farmer mean by her statement to Joe Rogan: " I'm Not So Sure, I Would Die on the Hill for It" ? I am so very Sorry, I do not Understand.
@@saitohshihomi5649 the fuck is wrong with you?
Yyyeessss that's fucking hilarious!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Not true. Joe is arguing that we must all be scientifically agnostic... She is creating a hypothesis based on data too... This is America and the coversation is more about her belief of disbelief... Joe was so busy trying to convince her to stand on the fence that he didn't bother to take a beat to consider whether or not there may be truth in her Candace's suspicions that climate change has been hijacked by politics and people who can capitalize off of it...
Just pause and think about how big the green industry is and how much money and trash is made from it. In NYC there are home owners and landlords who are removing perfectly good fixtures to update to green fixtures... Do you know how much money and garbage (that isn't biodegradable or recyclable) that generates?
Candace's reservations are valid. But, instead of examining her point further Joe decides to try dragging her for saying she doesn't believe. Stay on the topic and destroy her argument instead or deflecting and attempting to assassinate her belief, or lack of belief system...
She’s always laughing but there isn’t anything funny about what she sais.
“Look up what you’re not looking for...”
“It’s not a belief, i just don’t believe in it...”
My ears are bleeding...
Owens fails to make a compelling argument, but rogan lecturing her on an unproven hypothesis comes off as ignorant and preachy also.
@@hepwo91222 She fails to make any argument and I don't think she even full understood what he was trying to tell her with the three positions. (1) I believe in climate change. (2) I have no opinion on the matter. (3) I don't believe in climate change. He was not preachy to her at all. In fact I'm supplied he was able to keep his composure as he did.
@@silverhand2151 she said she didn't believe in climate change and he is trying to convince her the most politicized and for profit scientific field I can recall is settled science bc of what? I will agree she doesn't defend her position at all and was not prepared at all to talk about the topic. But Rogan is spewing things that just are not how science works.
@@hepwo91222 should have pivoted like she usually does as opposed to argue something she doesn't believe in
@@hepwo91222 you have an issue
She’s out of her depth here and she’s scared to be wrong.
Nailed it
Michael T Joe always argues with conservatives on topics they admit they don’t know a lot about, did the same thing with crowder on pot
She’s not wrong. Read this article from 1989, it’s all about the money! apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
Mason M. Yeah but all she had to say is that she is wrong and you can not make a statement and say you don’t believe in climate change and have blatant disregard for scientific evidence
Kalub Litzinger There isn’t any iron clad scientific evidence. There is more evidence that disproves man made climate change. The climate has been changing for millions of years and in the last 100 years it hasn’t even changed by 1 degree.
"I'm open to learning!"
(presents evidence)
"I just like don't believe that"
I've been thinking, how can so many scientist be so sure about human based climate change? We have gathered less than 200y data from the climate and earth's co2 levels? I mean the universe is 14billion years old, even earth is 4,5billion years old. Sure they have drilled samples from antarctic, but remember that some documentary that had some specialist explaining and showing that drill sample how our climate has always had differences and co2 levels follow earth's climate with 300-500y delay.
And for that political side, is human really the main cause? co2 is natural gas so it shows up everywhere so i guess it is easy to blame and gather money from the people because we emit lots of co2 with our everyday lives.
I think we don't have enough data from human based co2 emissions to climate change to prove that. There are also lots of natural things that happen in the core of our planet, seas and space that might also cause differences in our climate and emit co2, if it causes climate change.
Human industrial era has just started compared to how old earth is. Can it really have that fast impact?
I'm not anymore so sure about this whole argument so can anyone enlighten me?
@@asevarasto the Antartic ice cores can be dated to millions of years old. We have been in the Holocene period which has been one of the most stable and confortable tempature periods in human history (200,000+ years). Our Carbon is altering the atmosphere to change the temperature just enough to raise the oceans to wipe out almost 90% of coastal settlement. Most populations are on the coast. The planet will be fine in the long run, but contributing to climate change with CO2 is a threat to our civilization. Not to mention all the other damage we are doing to earth's ecosystems and niche biomes. Most large mammals will go extinct because of us, maybe in 100 years max.
Here is the UN website which has links to papers and conferences. You can research individual scientists and programs, as well as how they are funded with this knowledge. unstats.un.org/unsd/envstats/climatechange.cshtml
he did't present evidence ;-)
its yeshau not jesus they didn’t get to be able to because this stupid repuplitard can’t understand that if she doesn’t know something, she should say she doesn’t know. How can you talk about the science and say you’re open to learning but argue against all the actual evidence available
Will never show my name, RUclips, just stop. Science isn't a dogma...the "facts" of science are the current most factual view of the world. Note *current*...further research could always tip our view of the nature of reality
I just showed my mom this video she says this lady has Bipolar.
Have you seen her medical report?? Stop insulting others.
@@Joyful-gu5bjI agree with you, she's clearly schizophrenic
Get out of mommy's basement
Her problem and with many ppl like her is that... she speaks before the other is done speaking. Which means it’s absolutely impossible for her to have listened and retained anything that was said to her. What’s the point in doing an interview if you aren’t going to have a conversation (aka listening/responding; repeat)
It also keeps the other person from speaking their point of view.
“Who are they polling?”
“...... scientists”
robby cox she is beyond irritating
Of the 10,000 or so scientists who are saying this, how many of them get their funding from companies or businesses that would profit from it
“Scientists? Must be democrats.”
@Desert Ratt and what makes you think Candace isn’t being paid by people who benefit from fossil fuels?
Creed Thoughts don’t expect a response
The fact she can't understand the difference between "I don't believe in it" and "I don't know enough about it" is mind-blowing.
She is knowing the difference. The facts just dont fit her agenda
Rogan is clearly wrong here about The climate change issue and is forcefully argueing with faulty facts. You could say hes bringing forth the globalists agenda.
See the respons and links to real scientists about this climate change debate:
Hello Andreas!
Thank you for your inquiry.
This is a curious petition which seems to have been hastily put together and not well vetted. "Mickey Mouse" was one of the signatories. (attached) It has some similarities to a similar petition of some years ago with 15,000 signatories - of which Adolf Hitler had signed.
blog.friendsofscience.org/2017/11/20/the-petition-of-more-than-15000-scientists-more-fakenews/
As many commentators have noted, most of the signatories do not work in climate science assessments but rather in fields like biology. While there is a component of climate change impacts on biology inherent in that field of study, climate change is measured on very long time scales of 30, 50, 100 and millennial time scales. We do not have sufficient data to make pronouncements about climate change like those made by this group.
William Briggs, statistician, has written a biting critique
wmbriggs.com/post/28490/
There is much debate in the climate community - the Spilman Law firm hosted this debate:
ruclips.net/video/lyNCl7NzjaM/видео.html
We have hosted annual events since our inception, hoping to encourage open, public debate and to inform people of the complexities of climate science.
friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=308
Dr. Judith Curry states that climate change is not a clear or present danger.
wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/16/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-climate-change-is-not-a-clear-and-present-danger/
Unfortunately, the media love frightening headlines and many environmental groups drive donations with ever more catastrophic claims.
We are in favour of open, civil debate on climate and energy policies and full cost-benefit analysis.
A group of international scientists have stated there is no climate emergency.
ruclips.net/video/GpVBH-HY5Ow/видео.html
I hope this is helpful information.
Best wishes,
Michelle Stirling
Communications Manager
--
Friends of Science Society
P.O. Box 23167, Mission P.O.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2S 3B1
Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597
Web: friendsofscience.org
@@andreaserik6069 nice propaganda
I'm not here to argue climate change. I'm just pointing out how much it says about someone when they would rather have an opinion about something they clearly know very little about, as opposed to having the courage to say they don't know enough about it to form an opinion in the first place. That is our current political landscape in a nutshell.
@Andreas erik Im german and human made climate change is the consens here. But nice try strange youtube guy
This is at least six years ago. Rogan has changed an awful lot of his opinions since then, especially about trust in media and scientism. If he's not there yet, he'll come around to Candace's view soon enough.
He already has
"Scientism" 🫵😹
She flat out admitted she would give two different answers depending on her audience.
Lmao... Fake person alart, even tho she said she's not fake.
She has no credibility now.....
Wait, you can give two different answers, and that could just mean answering differently, not giving opposite answers.
@@JBPVFL Different: not the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality.
That is the oxford definition, the Webster definition would include "partly unlike" either way her answers would not be opposite. Joe was triggered, he started out by attacking her in a passive aggressive manner for saying "like". It lead to profanity during an assault on her intelligence masked behind an example of "what he would say." i agree with her on most subjects but i still can't stand her , Ann coulter or ben Shapiro.
"I've read a ton about it."
"What have you read?"
....*talks fast and avoids question*
Typical Ben Shapiro tactic..
@@ahmedhashmi3584 All famous rightwingers are embarrassing. Literally all of them.
@Toori Baba Jordan Peterson isn't a rightwinger. I only meant it in the politician + political commentator sense.
Donald Trump, Mike Pence, mini Trumps, Mitch Mcconnell, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Bill Barr, Stephen Miller, Lindsay Graham, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Candace Owens, Chris Christie, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Tomi Lahren, etc.
@Toori Baba False. "Trump registered as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987, switched to the Reform Party in 1999, the Democratic Party in 2001, and back to the Republican Party in 2009."
So he's been a Democrat 8 years, a Republican for 23 years, and in the Reform Party for 2 years.
And aside from being a registered Republican for 75% of the past 30 years, he's an extreme rightwing Republican right now.
I get why you're trying to distance yourself from him, because he's as embarrassing as they come, but he's firmly in your camp.
@Toori Baba I've never read so much bullshit in one RUclips comment before. Trump follows the teachings of Jesus Christ? Hahahaha. Hahahaha.
I'm not even going to waste my time commenting on all the other false stuff you just spewed.
She clearly doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate and its hillarious
Whats hilarious is how Rogan believes in this so passionately. C02 is still a whopping 0.04% of the atmosphere, but yeah, its going to cause the apocalypse, its laughable.
@@hepwo91222 What's hilarious is your reasoning, oh it's only 0.04%, it can't be dangerous. How about you try to research the effects of even extremely small overdoses and/or on environmental scale instead of living in your small minded echochamber.
@@bobbobson9952 small minded echo chamber? Climate scientists have to prove global warming is happening with evidence. I can debunk the feeble "science" with a few points, climate models are all worthless due to our inability to solve Navier-Stokes equations, climate has always changed before man was here and will after, and C02 levels are still extremely low at 00.04%, not significant.
@@EventualWarlord climate changed more strongly before man. The miniscule 00.04% C02 is still insignificant, anthropogenic climate change is about as impactful as the individual investor buying 1 share of Apple would be to the stock market, has virtually little to no impact.
hepwo91222 science’s job is never to prove anything. It’s responsible for the gathering of data, experimenting, and coming up with hypothesis’ and theories based on these experiments. Science is however used to disprove other established hypothesis’ and theories for which there has never been any scientist thats ever disproved climate change.
"That one night that I did a deep dive into it" 😂😂😂😂😂😂
I'm sure you did Candace lol
Don’t argue with stupid people because they will drag you to their level and beat you with experience. Mark Twain
It’s difficult to argue with geniuses.
But impossible to argue with morons.
Which one is the stupid one? I hoping your talking Candace
Insane Genius I can assure you Candace Owens isn’t the idiot here lmao
@ you're right it was you
@@insanegenius5321 Candice is the moron who can’t listen to any perspectives besides trumpsters
She was proven wrong multiple times, she just refuses to change her language which is all JR was really asking. She's just tap dancing and being stubborn
It hurts the ego to admit defeat
Proven wrong when, her point was she doesn't need to have a specific opinion not that global warming was fake. People are so stupid, cant just let people be skeptical smh
@@kmankx1592 she does have a specific opinion though, she says that she does not believe in global warming. Which is an opinion, specifically on the truth of the subject... lol
@@s1nski nothing specific about saying you don't believe in something
@@kmankx1592 do you even know what the word "specific" is then? Re-read what I previously replied dude, it's not that hard.
He should’ve said to her “facts don’t care about your feelings”
Funny, if the right did that the left would cry 24/7 even more than they already do.
@MetalAficianado Pretty ironic, it must be opposite day.
@@user-dt3kf2iw8i Same party that doesn't believe in science!
@@manofmeidan347 yet the left that screams defund the police but give them more training? riot for "equal" rights yet buys products from and supports china? wants to vote for a man who will die, then have a woman who jails people for smoking weed but smokes weed herself? Which party is more hypocritical and loony?
Tony you have no idea what you’re talking about, I bet you think Ben Shapiro is the leading intellectual philosopher of the day. Defunding the police means that we can reverse the militarisation of the police that happened when most US forces returned from Iraq and Afghanistan and needed to sell their equipment. Now we has small town police forces with SWAT teams and armour trucks. In every major city, the police budget dwarves every other area, if some money was spend on impoverished communities rather than the occupying army that is the police force today then perhaps crime would lower.
Just look at this Joe Rogan compared to the Joe Rogan today... Much more based!
This comment is proof weed kills brain cells
@JhonNye96 and your comment is proof you assume sh!t without even thinking. People are way more complex than you will ever know. That's why you're still "woke" 😂
@@TylerDavis_51-50 Ummm, you just did the same to him that you accused him of doing to the other guy, wow.
@@JhonNye96it's so over for the world man. Seeing these new comments ruined my day
This should be a textbook example of Confirmation Bias
She asks Jamie to search for what confirms her point of view. That’s the reason people like flat-eathers and global warming deniers exist.
well it sounded like she said to search for things to contradict your own point of view, which is smart. Problem is the only view she is interested in contradicting is yours, not her own.
She had a point though, I mean if they would pull off and sites that contradict Joe's beliefs then it would help the conversation
@@VasileSurdu It would have been disingenuous though. She would have said "see! see!! There's a dispute!" and then completely tuned out everything when he went back towards pro-climate articles.
well this confirmation bias also applies to the climate alarmists. They have no clue... But climate will magically be fixed by adding an ever increasing amount of communism.
@M B G Global Warming absolutely happens and is the biggest risk, however you idiots would go bezerk any time it was cold during a historically warm day and say "SeE, sO MuCh FoR gLoBaL wArMiNg!!" so we had to make sure you numbskulls understood that it is indeed overall CLIMATE CHANGE, but the heat is going to be the killer.
when she says "shit ton of articles" she means facebook memes
😂
@Anstapa Solivagus right
@Anstapa Solivagus absolutely right
wrong. theyre from Twitter
Usually when people say that and say that they don't remember the statistics, it means they didn't read about it at all
“If it’s a .org I would trust it”
Shows a .org: I don’t believe it
We’re children
@@Robertedwinhouse38 Deep truth
I caught that. Crazy lady
@Cools DOODS yeah I really can’t wait to how they will react when they see the world start to go to ruins because conservatives are this fucking stupid. I really hope we can save the world from conservatives and get rid of them to hopefully save wha little of the world we have left. Honestly sad man
@CashMoney Presedent yeah conservatism is an ideology that goes against itself and forces everyone to comply to the harsh and sickening demands of what it has to Offer
You've come a long way Joe Rogan... You've come a long way
Shes basically sayin "i have my opinion ino im wrong but im keeping it because im too shallow to accept facts".
She's paid not to accept the facts. She's a right wing grifter.
Lots of people do the same shit lol
The so-called facts from the global warming doomsday cult is data that was fraudulently “adjusted” to prove their case. The 1930’s was always the warmest decade in recorded history until the temperatures were adjusted downward by the cult.
She's a brainwashed shill who profits from spreading this nonsense.
Tol, R. S. J. (2014). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis. Energy Policy, 73, 701-705. doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.045
Bill nye is a
"scince entertainment"
"Science influencer"
I really was waiting for him to say science guy
Brilliant 😂
AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lmfaooo
Bill Nye the science hack. He said Venice, Italy is flooding because of rising sea levels due to global warming. And I bet some people just suck it up as science even though they know better. This crap is why people don't believe the "science".
Dan Matherlee
www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/record-shattering-27-million-year-old-ice-core-reveals-start-ice-ages
Bruh she just said the weather is different every day when talking about climate change I can’t even...
@Gerardo Argueta some people get it! Most people just believe what they hear on mainstream media. Of course the climate is changing and yeah, humans contribute a SMALL part of that but these people don’t understand that around 95% plus of the climate change is due to the sun but whatever..
@Gerardo Argueta Wrong.
417 ppm is likely the highest it has ever been in the history of humans on Earth. On top of that, it is likely the highest concentration seen on Earth.
The last time the atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high, sea level was 50 to 80 feet higher than it is today and 3.6°-5.4°F warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. There is a delay in the physical response of a forced increase in carbon dioxide to temperature and sea level, meaning this acts as a benchmark for where we are likely headed into the future.
Its climate change deniers best argument 💀💀💀
I started laughing out loud💀
@@mrwoody1413 Lmao fucking smooth brain
😂 definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
but 90% of experts believe it is real.
Candace: "yeah... I just dont think so."
@Tyler Durden You're shifting the goalposts. Science is observational, I see it and therefore x. Politics is subjective, I feel it and therefore x.
Stick to the former bro, the latter is cancer.
@Tyler Durden You moved the goalposts from "90% of experts believe it's real" to "90% of the scientist do not believe that the climate is such a big problem that we should implement the measures the leftie fucks are proposing." Not sure how you can't see that, it's written right above.
yeah they tell us a lot of shit, good on you for taking everything first hand
She’s trying so hard not to be a sheep
@Tyler Durden So you think that melting permafrost and feedback loops aren't a problem?
The FACT that Greenland has been losing massive amount of glacier ice. That the ice of those glaciers which used to cover the ocean has now melted to the point of being mostly inland and will continue melting.
Your ignorant about the subject. Why don't you ignore the politics entirely. Ignore both parties and just look at what's happening.
It's a serious problem..
Although I'm sure your the kind of person who wants polar bears to die off because you think they're dangerous.