@toronto daddy Greenwald is a fascist. 100%. He was on Tucker this week attacking Obama - the same week Tucker praised the fascist leader of Hungary. Greenwald is all out fascist. Or at least he will play one for substack revenue.
You only say that because you're not living in Brazil. He only publishes news that are leaned towards what he believes is or should be true, regardless of actually being true.
Coleman is by far one of the best interviewers around He tries to abstain from being biased and he asks intelligent , well thought out questions. Bravo
Ever seen the Tim Dillon one? Lol the dogs are yapping and Dillon says, “could you kill them?” Lol i watched that like a month ago and I’ll never forget it because it was one of those uncontrollable laughs that hurt. And those don’t happen often.
Not sure how getting a mainstream climate scientist on will “rectify” the last podcast. Seems to me that getting two people on who can have an open debate and back up their claims would be the way to go.
@George Mann But you're smearing Coleman right now. Frankly, Coleman doesn't ostensibly spend great energy on anything, and especially not here. All he did was issue a very brief bit of housekeeping. The contents of that housekeeping were nothing more than a restatement and acknowledgment of some dissenting feedback in the audience; the alleged smear is not being led by Coleman. And the gun death thing is a truly terrible analogy. I would also favor a debate/three-way convo format between qualified, reasonable individuals to "rectify" any fallout, but I'm at least hopeful that whenever this follow-up episode happens, Hughes and whomever he gets on will be engaging with the actual substance of what Shellenberger's said.
Found the story about the court case banning racial preference in covid relief for small businesses fascinating. Congress and the Fed gave unlimited money to banks and large corporations, but small businesses and individuals have to fight for a place in line because those funds are limited. Definitely class bias.
Michael isn’t a climate scientist. I’m an environmentalist, however, would love to hear a pro and con climate scientist good faith debate/discussion. If Covid has taught us anything, it ought to be to suspect media-manufactured “scientific” consensus. Thanks, Coleman, love your podcast and the measured way you approach issues.
Agreed. I'm in no position to say to what extent Shellenberger's claims are true or false. If they're considered controversial by many, it would be most-worthwhile to have a fair compare and contrast of the merits between his standpoint and that of many in the consensus.
Amen! When it comes to covid, I've become an extremely educated layman. That has made me very conscious of the earth shattering bullshit that the world has been force fed in the name of science. And this understanding has me, for the first time, questioning the climate change narrative. If billionaires and technocrats can do what they've done with covid, they most certainly can do it with the notion of climate change. I'm not a right winger by any stretch of the imagination. But when it comes to covid I find myself more in line with the right. "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it." --Malcolm X
In regards to wild fires the forestry services in both countries have data on hectares burned, it's been going down drastically since the records have been kept. Fires may be more likely but it's not an unmanageable issue.
@THE ONE When "right-wing" encompasses any deviation from left totalitarianism, then yes, all discussion is by definition right-wing. Is that the same as what you are saying?
So I think there is some confusion, and perhaps Shellenberger hasn't helped himself here. My reading of his book didn't leave me with the impression that he thought climate had no affect on the California wild fires, it was that these affects were largely outweighed by the proximity of human populations coupled with poor land use management policies. I don't think that necessarily came out clearly in the conversation.
@George Mann bruh, seriously... if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, you might consider asking questions on the topic instead of commenting. By commenting, you reveal your ignorance. By asking a question, you reveal your ignorance as well as your humility. You'll find that most people will have a more favorable disposition towards the latter - js..
Coleman got pressure from the mob to discredit Shellenberger. No differing opinions or disproving facts are allowed by these people. You must believe we are all dying from climate change in the next 50 years and you must believe that the only solution is to give the government 90 trillion dollars. Oh and you must also love communism. That’s a big one. Blindly accept the narrative and become a communist. That’s the only chance the world has. 🙄
I feel like this will be a journey for Coleman. He has integrity. I can't think of a more rabid group of folks than climate change activists. I've already lived through at least three civilization ending events that never came to pass since the 90's. According to them. Every 10 to 12 years; DOOM. If Coleman pushes back at all that will be 1. -an attack on their ideology and 2. -an attack on their money. Which is more important to them I'm not sure. They will never stop until they have complete control over everyone's every action. After all we must save the planet. The apocalypse is in 2030. See you there.
@George Mann case closed my ass. Stating a few figures does not warrant such a conclusion. Nor does it explain how that conclusion is reached. What are the "other factors"? In what ways are they more significant? Without illustrating these things, there is no argument in what you wrote, or what you quoted..
Also consensus is a sociological need, not a scientific one. All the heterodox opinions on this issue must not be invalidated on the basis of popularity. These arguments must be disconfirmed at the level of science, not intuition or perception. This really is a prime example of repressive tolerance making it's way into scientific affairs. Not ok.
There is value in the "scientific consensus", especially if like me (despite having studied applied physics for two years) lack enough domain knowledge to actively participate in the scientific debate. The problem is, how to value that consensus. I myself came up with the following rule of thumb. "If a topic is researched a lot and there is a strong scientific consensus, that consensus is the current answer" Three small issues: 1) The rule of thumb does have two poorly defined attributes, like when is the consensus 'strong' and when is it investigated 'a lot'. But regarding climate change and the basic principles, I think that these criteria are met. 2) How does one know in a polarized media know (if there is a / what is the) strong consensus? 3) The scientific process should be free of corruption. Corruption can occur for instance through money and/or ideologies. And regarding social sciences, I myself am not convinced that in social sciences there is no corruption. Thus unless you are part of the scientific debate and publish papers in peer-reviewed journals,.. I believe that the consensus is something useful for us mortals.
You are a brilliant young man no matter what your opinion or views. May God bless all you do and keep you on a path of success and wellness. Thank you for all you do to seek the truth. Most of us, no matter what race, nationality, gender, sex, or age want to know the truth. Take care and God bless!
Wish Coleman would have asked Glen about his beef with Sam Harris where Glen labeled him an Islamaphobe on the sanction of the SPLC. I like Glenn, but it's this episode that still gives me reservations about him.
I, too, was skeptical about Greenwald‘s latest media incarnation because of the Sam Harris thing, but nothing I’ve heard him talk about over the last year have I had any substantial disagreement with. Maybe he’s been red pilled, maybe he still holds those views, but I’m not gonna turn down any help from any side that’s fighting against wokeness and media corruption.
Who cares. Glenn offers things Sam doesn’t and vice versa. I judge them as both acting in good faith. I think the accusation of Islamaphobia shouldn’t prevent you from taking Glenn seriously. Imo
I was wondering if there was anyone else that remembered this beef since Coleman is so close to Sam lol. Ive only heard sams side of this, and I remember thinking it was brutally unfair how GG treated him. GG is very pro-Palestine and he regularly fights against islamaphobia. As far as having reservations, examine the merits of each argument. I thought GG was wrong about Sam in that instance but was more right than Sam in regards to trump and Russia.
@@clee8019 Since the anti-islamic sentiment has become almost non existent in US political discourse these days (compared to like the 2010s) I don't think that is a relevant issue anymore. Also I believe that a lot of Glen's "islamophobia" stuff was informed by world renowned apologist Mehdi "but the planned parenthood bomber" Hasan who was his colleague at the time when he was at the Intercept. So I think he might have changed his opinions on the issue but I'm still skeptical because at one point Glen accused Sam of wanting to fucking nuke Islam out of existence lmao.
@@harivatsaparameshwaran4174 it’s true the last 2-3 years we’ve seen a huge decrease of anti-Muslim sentiment (I think all the attention the last few years has been about racism) but it was probably around trumps inauguration that it was at an all time high. Glenn was one of the few that reported honestly on the pulse nightclub shooting, which many still believe was an intolerant Muslim attack on the gay community. I don’t doubt your theory about medhi’s association with Glenn at the intercept, I’ve always thought medhi was a lightweight. But I’m actually not certain Glenn’s opinion changed regarding Sam though, from reading some of Glenn’s thoughts on Twitter, he wasn’t a big fan of those that were labeled IDW.
Coleman: if you disagree with Shellenberger on climate change details, please be specific. And/or better yet have him back on your show and argue the details. Just making a vague claim that Shellenberger makes "false claims about extreme weather" and making an appeal to the authority of "the consensus" is inadequate (and I think unfair to Shellenberger)
Appeal to "the consensus" isn't an appeal to authority. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you're interpreting the use of "the consensus" in the same way creationists interpret the use of the word "theory" in the "it's just a theory" argument - meaning, the wrong definition is used. In science we absolutely want consensus, that's how science works. It's just not consensus in the sense that a bunch of people come together and vote or come to an agreement. It's consensus in the sense that multiple experiments are done by different people and there is consensus among the outcomes. Someone measuring temperatures in the arctic and someone measuring temperatures near the equator that both see signs of warming have come to a consensus that warming is occurring, not because they agreed, but because they found the same results in different places. The hallmark of science is reproducibility. Reproducibility and prediction is what would falsify a scientific theory and the more people who can reproduce an experiment, the more consensus you have among the results.
I'm a supporter of Coleman's work and I contribute to him monthly, but hearing his statement about Michael Shellenberger at the beginning was the first time I've been disappointed in Coleman. I think that Coleman is making the same fundamental mistake that most people make when it comes to climate science, namely, failing to understand that unlike other areas of science and study, like physics, mathematics, etc, the study of the climate is and always will be extremely inexact, and the conclusions that scientists attempt to make about climate can more accurately be described as informed opinions, rather than factual conclusions. This is true regardless of how competent and earnest a particular scientist may be. Most hard sciences involve making observations, conducting experiments and gathering data, and then drawing conclusions about the current state of the world. In other worlds, most sciences simply explain WHAT IS (i.e. how things works). Climate science (of the kind that is discussed in the IPCC, for instance) on the other hand is predictive in nature - observations are made RE what trends have occurred in the past and are occurring in the present, and based on those observations, scientists try to predict what will occur 30, 50, 100, or 200 years from now. Not only are they making long term predictions, but they are making them about CLIMATE - something that is constantly effected by dozens and dozens (probably more like hundreds) of variables and factors at the same time. Nonetheless, most people talk about the opinions and predictions made by climate scientists as though they are established facts - as though we know for sure that the sea level will be X after a given period of time. The consensus of "mainstream" climate scientists may agree on this prediction, but it is still just that - a prediction - and one with a HUGE margin of error. And this is where my rub with Coleman comes in. He says that Michael's statements were misleading or wrong because they are not in line with the opinions of a majority of climate scientists. But that doesn't necessary make him wrong. Almost everything that Michael talks about in his book - basically his entire worldview with respect to climate - is contrary to the views of most climate scientists (i.e. contrary to the consensus). If that is Coleman's standard for what constitutes "extremely misleading or false", then I'm not sure why he had Michael on the show at all. Everything that Michael said in the podcast is explained in more detail in Michael's book and backed up with facts and figures. In other words, he has explained at great length why he has reached these particular outside-the-consensus opinions. Did Coleman read his book? If so, he shouldn't have been surprised by the claims Michael made. Also, if Coleman has now concluded that Michael's positions are misleading and false, then why not simply disavow Michael and the book altogether. I also think Coleman having someone else on in the future to essentially debunk or correct Michael's statements is unfair to Michael, as he won't be present to defend himself in real time. Whatever Coleman's intentions, it will amount to a post hoc attack on Michael. Coleman should have someone on at the same time as Michael so there can be a debate/discussion.
Lastly, it just seemed very insulting to make that statement about Michael and then say that he is going to have a "mainstream" climate activist on to correct it - as though Michael is just some guy on the fringe who isn't a real authority on this issue. He has been a climate activist his whole life, and spent years studying, researching, and discussing these topics. I think he is as mainstream as anyone out there on this topic.
Yeah, forget every major international scientific organization & the UN. Let us instead read an obscure writer to reassure our anxieties with a pseudo-intellectual reasoning. Let us not look at Germany today, Canada, USA West Coast, the melting Arctic, the shrinking Amazon. We should not be concerned about climate change. Let´s keep drilling, polluting and consuming worry free! And the band played on....
@@daysjours That's not what Shellenberger is arguing for. He is saying that the Greta Thunberg-style panic is not warranted and that there are other concerns that are more important than climate change, like improving the livelihoods of those in poverty. His most important point is advocating for nuclear energy, which is indispensable for combatting climate change, yet many on the left still oppose it because they aren't actually concerned with climate change, just with accumulating more power.
Kudos Coleman - I and quite a lot of others pointed that many of Michael Shellenberger's claims are false, misleading and/or cherry picked. Great to hear you acknowledge some of this, and that you will get a climate scientist of repute on your show. My faith in the dedication of your podcast to empiricism, no matter the orthodoxy/politics, is somewhat restored :-)
I am surprised about your statement at the beginning. The reason I listen to and enjoy your post cast is that you are not afraid of talking about controversial topics. That is the reason your post casts are interesting.If I only want hear the consensus, as you put it, I can get them from tons of MSM. Don’t discard any opinion just because they not the current consensus. Likewise, don’t just believe in everything just because they are the current consensus.
But what Shellenberger said about forest fires and The Sixth Extinction (TM) was the consensus. You could tell in that interview Coleman knows almost nothing about what climate scientists think about climate science and apparently an activist/scientist got to him.
I agree. So much "consensus" in COVID science has been often political and based on mob rule rather than free and open scientific discourse. There was so much hysteria resulting from flawed computer modelling that were infused with particular assumptions. The hysteria surrounding COVID last year has only lead me to question certain elements of climate science. How much of that science is also political and based in mob rule? How much of the science is effected by errors and flawed models?
@@nerdygrl647 , consensus has little value especially at out time due to cancel couture and central power. People with orthodox opinions fear to express their opinion for fear of being cancelled and lose funding in research. On the other hand, follow the trend can give you great research grants.
For Glenn's story about his son with the hoody in the mall, it's impossible to know why he was stopped. But these sorts of questionable situations occur to men/boys of all races. I'm white and the friends that I grew up with were all white. In my teenage years guards would often pay much more attention to us because we sometimes had skateboards and dressed that part. Would get the terse 'if you're not going to buy something then you need to leave' and just following us around constantly. As an adult at nearly 40 I had some crazy Karen lady call the cops on me to tell them I was 'casing the neighborhood' when I was just walking down the sidewalk. About a year ago just minding my own business while parallel parked on not busy street, opened my driverside door to get out and some psycho white old man laid on his horn and then pulled aside me to yell at me and flip me off as if he owned the street and I had no right to be there. There are a dozen other situations of just angry nasty people acting like that. I could see how people of different races might experience that and think these things must be racism. Maybe it happens more often to them. However, I think 'racism' in these sorts of situations is just a justification in some people's minds to make it a little easier to let out their frustration with life on someone else. These people have many justifications that they'll use on anyone (wrong political party, ugly, dress horribly, slow, etc.). Don't underestimate how many horrible people are out there already having a bad day that want to take it out on you and don't let them pull you down to their level.
I agree. I was a punk kid and was always watched, followed, and questioned in all kinds of situations. Often times, the examples that are brought out to prove racism are things that actually happen to everyone. It's the narrative that's been relentlessly pushed for years that calls it racism, not the person's intent.
Glenn’s epic Brazilian forest backdrop and occasional canine visitors and random outbursts from his 20 plus dogs booming over his brilliant takes on politics is the stuff of original legends 😆
Coleman, excellent to have Glenn Greenwald on. I _would_ like if you would spend time in the interview finding places you _disagree_. I would tell Tucker Carlson the same thing if I could.
Explaining inequality through a single factor, is the childish simplistic thing to do and a concept like race is also simple, it's the thing you can see on the outside. Time and time again, a huge proportion of inequality comes down to class. Class is a multifaceted concept and thinking on tackling this issue is highly complex, takes more than 1 generation through slow but steady change.
Exactly , you hit the nail on the head . The issues We are currently facing have literally existed since the beginning of time . There are several factors involved ( some existing for hundreds if not thousands of years ) yet the ruling elite have decided that the total destruction of society with them now in charge is the answer . It is necessary to look at conditions and reevaluate how to go forward in a more constructive way as a society BUT the current trend is largely going backward not forward , it is just a different way to divide people and will not end well for ANYONE .
Schellenberger was right on extrem climat events. Freddi Otto head of the Oxford climat modeling center said the same on the german potcast "Jung und Naive". Extrem weather is mainly a consequens of temperatur gradients not of maximum temperatur. Wildfires are a special case, higher temperaturs lead to more dry wood and to more moisture in the air and more rain at the same time and ... the main point is: we now less than most climat apocalytics believe.
Coleman writes: "Specifically, he [Schellenberger] said that climate change did not contribute to the intensity of wildfires in California and Australia." They were talking about wildfires around minute 20 in the Schellenberger episode, and I searched there, but I did not find that statement. Can anyone direct me to the place, perhaps later in the interview, where Schellenberger takes that position?
@George Mann I'd really like to hear you describe--in your own words--what good forest management looks like for 33 million square miles of forested land. Gather your thoughts on it, and let me know. I'll wait..
@George Mann I think you must have no idea what the terrain is like in the forests of California. It's not accessible to heavy equipment. Got any other plans?..
@George Mann you only think it's a stupid claim because you're hopelessly ignorant. Public lands are a tiny fraction of California's forested land. So even if 100% of the forests under the legal purview of the state and of local municipalities were managed to the highest degree, it would have little impact on the potential for large fires to occur. Over 50% of the total area of forested land in Cali belongs to the federal government. And about 40% of it is privately owned. As you can see, that doesn't leave much to manage. Add to that the fact that most of the land parcels which have the most trees are unincorporated, unreserved federal land. There are no roads to access these places. Lumber companies have to build their own temporary roads, which even still only give them access to very specific plots of land. And they don't harvest from the more mountainous regions where most of the trees are, and where most of the fires occur. The terrain in those areas is incredibly dynamic, making it impossible to simply drive into. Constructing access roads to reach every nook and cranny of the forests would be outrageously expensive, and it would be the federal government responsible for footing the bill. What I've covered so far is enough to dismiss this all too often regurgitated nonsense about forest management. I don't even need to go into the absurdity of the time it would take to clean up the forests in the manner you suggested. That idea is simply fucking laughable. For real. Anyone making an argument akin to the one you and friggin Sellinburgers is making, has absolutely no idea wtf they're talking about. Period. What I said to you in my first comment was solid advice. Advice you would do well to take..
Schellenberger was right. It was extreamly cold sea surface water around Australia that made it dry 1,5 Years ago. No clouds and no rain. The same is it now on the West coast in USA. That causes high pressure over land. The extinction was worse 15000 to 8000 Years ago.
Interesting to hear about the response to Michael Shellenberger. I discussed his comments on your podcast with a forest management researcher who seemed to think there were many cases where poor forest management seems to have been a factor yet climate change was blamed. Perhaps a climate scientist is not the best person to discuss forest fires with
Please consider investigating scientific climate “consensus“ when making statements about climate issues. There are THOUSANDS of researchers, scientists, meteorologists, that disagree with the conventional wisdom around this extremely complicated issue. But they are ridiculed and defunded when they dare to challenge the climate orthodoxy. There have been many predictions in the last fifty years about a coming ice age or heat waves that just plain failed. Good science is never settled, rather it requires constant challenging of the data when new measurements and observations come along. “Consensus“ can and does stifle meaningful challenges to the orthodoxy. Its true of any discipline. Mr. Hughes, use your learned skepticism of social issues and apply that spirit and look into what the other side on climate is saying. You are an opinion leader, and we are looking to you to gather and comment on important topics and allow all sides to have a say. Love your work here, man.
Great video. I particularly can empathize with the latinx point. Nobody in my family has ever heard the term. I can’t articulate why but I always felt something pernicious behind such a term
Coleman has been consistently excellent on a wide range of topics. The more I watch Glenn Greenwald, the more I find resonance with what he says as well. Thanks Coleman for making this really insightful conversation possible.
Hi Coleman, not sure if you noticed or I missed a joke but your opening screen says "Episode 3498 featuring This Is The Guest Name" (maybe editing mistake?)
Coleman, sorry, I listened to your interview of Shellenberger 3x. He didn't imply at all what you said here at the start, that climate change didn't contribute to the fires. He said in the other vid 20:45 - 22:15 a few times that, "climate change isn't necessary or sufficient" to explain the intense fires. While the build-up of wood fuel is both necessary & sufficient. Australia had a Royal Commission (took many months) into the 2019-20 bushfires, and found that climate change is a possible factor (among several other factors), ie. it's not the only factor, or even the main factor. Thus w/out climate change, the fires might have still happened. It mainly recommends that we backburn (cut down a few lines of trees as a risk mitigation). I watched many of your vids, thx, and brought me to read many of Shellenberger's brilliant articles (on Substack, same platform as Greenwald here). Shellenberger definitely believes in climate change (human caused), just not scaremongering us like some other environmentalists (who often avow renewables over nuclear). Thx again!
Sorry to add, a fire in the Australian capital (Canberra) in Nov 2020 (near summer) was caused by a Defence chopper! And the fire spread because Defence didn't inform others for an hour! My takeaway msg is that... weather events are very complex (eg. by La Nina vs El Nino), and to over-simplify them down to mainly climate change isn't truthful or intellectually stimulating.
@Lean Fist If consensus meant truth, we would still believe that the sun revolved around the earth. There was a time when the earth revolving around the sun was a taboo idea and nobody believed it. All improvements in science are a minority at some point. Consensus is meaningless. Only empirical evidence matters. Models hold true or false by their predictive value. Everyone can agree they are right, but if the model predicts X and Y comes true, the model is not accurate regardless of how many people think it is
Can podcasters stop apologising for what other people have said on their show? Also, if someone doesn't disagree in the moment doesn't mean they agree or acknowledge that it is true.
Very true, did Dan Rather apologize interlviewing Sadam Hussain? Hell, Dan Rather never even apologized for lying about Dubya Bush's National guard record so much he got fired for it.
Absolutely! So weird how so many self-professed "Liberals" dismiss Greenwald because he'll speak with Hughes today, Dore tomorrow, and Tucker the next. And I'm glad Glenn doesn't apologize, instead suggesting his detractors lobby their favorite corporate media outlet to have him on. Fact is, he's all but banned from the rest of cable/broadcast media because he dares speak with Tucker Carlson.
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.” ― Michael Crichton
I missed your Shellenberger interview, but maybe have him back on briefly to defend himself. The data supports him I think, but it's a bit more complicated.
My realization came during the summer of George Floyd, when crowds of thousands(some of them burning and looting) during a pandemic were excused by the media machine as "fighting a different kind of pandemic". I never looked back.
Don't get to divisive about class, there are a lot of college educated people getting screwed by the current economic conditions. If you want a strategy, I suggest taking the approach of a multi-tiered economy vs. our current two-tiered economy. I was just posting earlier about my first job out of college working for a manufacturing company that made mechanical seals. The building was divided into a machine shop on one end and the white collar jobs- accounting, marketing, engineering, contracts, IT, HR, purchasing, etc. that supported the machine shop. Those jobs together, both sides of the building, were probably at least 5 or 6 tiers of the economy, from new hire machinists to vice presidents in charge of marketing. Having a multi-tier economy is what kept the U.S. business sector stable and vibrant. Then we sent our jobs away, all our jobs, blue and white collar. And now we have two-tiered service economy, those that provide services and those who get served. Don't make this about class, make it about economics. Class is about how you talk, what you wear, do you drink beer or wine, where did you go to school, what do your parents do, all that superficial nonsense. While economics is about is there a job for me with a reasonable path toward success and if I find it will it still be here in 3 years. Can I pay my student loan, will I have a decent home, can I get married, is there any money left over to raise kids, and how can I get and keep health care. Those are the issues we should all be united on, they span class.
You have to admire their ability to appropriate victimhood. How dare the underprivileged complain when it's the elite who are truly oppressed and marginalized?
So is being outside "the consensus of the climate science community" now considered wrong-think? The science community consensus used to be that the sun revolved around the earth, or that the earth was flat. When science and consensus are used in tandem, that is its own red flag. Many people remember the Eisenhower speech about the military-industrial complex; few recall the other part of the speech where he warned of a nexus between scientific research and govt funding, and how the money people might well expect results that advanced their viewpoint.
You can't really compare early astronomy to modern science though, in many cases they were also astrologers and their views were clouded by religious beliefs about the structure of the universe. That was more a metaphysical than a scientific consensus. Hell, it's really not even fair to compare the logical positivism of more recent centuries with today's falsification oriented research.
@@samdelia1037 You can compare what people knew/know at the time. Eisenhower's warning was not without merit. Is it unreasonable that those funding research might have a preferred outcome in mind? That's the argument thrown at climate research funded by energy companies. The same applies to research funded by politicians. There is nothing that makes the public sector any more noble or praiseworthy than the private; each has an agenda and neither is particularly concerned about you and me. That said, I am heartened to read the part about the inherent problem of judging past acts by present standards. I wish that were applied more broadly. Perhaps instead of labeling past figures using today's expectation, we could study those people and events in their own context. Yes, the science of the past was clouded by religion and that should be taken into account. Likewise, people of the past were born into a different set of circumstances than what exists today.
Glenn needs to get a goddamn office. Every time I see him in any podcast, any interview, any news segment, there is always obnoxious levels of dog barking
You had Shellenburger on your show and were not aware of his views on climate before hand? The consensus also said that lab leak was not possible and that didn't age well.
For lab leak the consensus 'zoonotic' position was fabricated, there was no (and still isn't) empirical evidence of any kind. The consensus re climate change is largely an emergent phenomenon, arising out of immense data across numerous lines of evidence. Comparing and drawing inference re consensus from these two things is like comparing apples with Uranus ;-)
probably because dudes who are thieves or robbers throw on a hood before they do their thieving and robbing. Not saying its right to target kids wearing hoods like that. I do not agree with being that agressive about it but yeah, security will keep an eye on young dudes with hoods.
Coleman said that he's an elite which is absurd. Elites have ruling class power -including corporate mediate journo-activists who shape the establishment - of which Coleman is not. Coleman is a scholar, sure, but he has no political power aside from his own agency like everyone else.
He’s in the world of journalism and academia. He has testified before Congress. He works for a think tank. He is part of ‘elite discourse’, even though he is not part of the elite economic class.
@@StrategicWealthLLC That still doesn't make him an "elite" in any definitive way. I would say the same of Candace Owens who has also testified before Congress. They are important social commentators and pundits. They aren't elites controlling policy at the Establishment level.
@@researchsiempre - Candace doesn’t work for a think tank. She did’t graduate from an Ivy. She doesn’t write for a high brow magazine. I like Candace. I believe she is bright. However, she plays in the game in a different environment. In many ways, her game is bigger. Still, Coleman is at the elite level. Glenn’s tutelage is important.
@@researchsiempre - I do understand what you mean though. I guess I would say that Rush Limbaugh was way bigger than Water Cronkite, but Cronkite was invited to elite parties in a way that Rush never was.
@@StrategicWealthLLCBill Gates didn't graduate college. Candace is just an example. There are others who are in the same non-elite, but important category. If simply attending an elite college makes one an elite, it's no wonder the system is so messed up. I don't agree with your definition.
With respect to the special intro, Shellenberger said about forest fires and The Sixth Extinction (TM) was the consensus. You could tell in that interview Coleman, without a science background, knows almost nothing about what climate scientists think about climate science and apparently an activist/scientist got to him. My guess is that the climate scientist he will interview will not be a mainstream climate scientist at all.
It's very telling that even so sharp a social critic as Greenwald cannot see that there's an even greater source of disadvantage than class: age. As important as class disadvantages are and can be, we at least have a legal system that acknowledges the rights of every adult to make decisions for himself and not have his life controlled by others. There's not a single child in this country (or any other, with the possible exception of some in Scandinavia) for whom that is true, regardless of his or her material circumstances. (Clearly the utter lack of rights in childhood is the greatest equalizer ever.) Not only are children devoid of rights but they need them MORE than adults do, given their developmental immaturity and relative lack of life experience, yet they have none at all. And while we talk endlessly about race, sexual orientation, gender, and yes, even class, we literally never talk about the dangers of being small, young, and having no rights. It's simply not not on the left's radar, but it's not on the radar of folks as nobly contrarian as Greenwald either. This is why, though I respect him, I begin to tune him and everyone else out, and will until they wake up and look at the whole reality of disadvantage in this world.
What's going on with that tree on the right in the background at about 1:20? I figured it was wind moving it but none of the others are moving. Is it freaking monkeys or something?! Lol
Hi Coleman, a long time fan from your early days with Sam Harris. You should check out Mallen Baker and Potholer54 - both review the climate science and the various protagonists on both sides while giving in my view a pretty balanced review of the science without the activism. Claiming a particular extreme weather event as signs of climate change is poor science - as with many things science related, there is no simple one size answer. The events you discuss were most likely to have been exacerbated by climate change but may not have been exclusively because of climate change. Just like many other things you discuss, there are often many causes that combine to give an outcome and science is no exception. Anyone who claims they know the ultimate and single cause of anything in the real world is just an activist. Anyone who claims the opposite is likely one too. Reality is not so simple.
The thing about climate change is that people presume it is 100% bad. Some things get hotter, yes, and that isn't always bad. It may enable us to feed large populations more readily. Nobody ever seems to present both sides. The Gretas of the world only talk about the potential downsides, while never daring to acknowledge the potional *upsides*. Obviously needless pollution and environmental destruction is bad, but who disagrees with that??
![The Perils of Race Science with Charles Murray [S2 Ep.21]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OE5QcD_12fQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Perils of Race Science with Charles Murray [S2 Ep.21]](/img/tr.png)
![The Problem of Race with Glenn Loury [Bonus Episode]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tGLUk48u5l0/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Power of Gods with Daniel Schmachtenberger S2 [Ep 16]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XQpoGL0yIFE/mqdefault.jpg)
Glenn Greenwald is the gold standard of modern journalism and fearlessly speaking uncomfortable truth to power. One of the last real ones left.
“There’s like 6 journalists left. Glenn Greenwald is one of them.” - Tim Dillion
Greenwald is a hack.
100%
@@nathanwadekillebrew386 yes or yes
@@kypdurron62 if somebody believe in leftist ideology it's just something seriously wrong with him!
The reason Glenn has been on different sides of issues is because he has principles.
He actually has no principles.
Fascism is a principle. He is an enabler. .
@toronto daddy Greenwald is a fascist. 100%. He was on Tucker this week attacking Obama - the same week Tucker praised the fascist leader of Hungary. Greenwald is all out fascist. Or at least he will play one for substack revenue.
@toronto daddy Ignore the fact Greenwald is a fascist.
You only say that because you're not living in Brazil. He only publishes news that are leaned towards what he believes is or should be true, regardless of actually being true.
Coleman is by far one of the best interviewers around He tries to abstain from being biased and he asks intelligent , well thought out questions. Bravo
It is very strange that so many sworn enemies of American xenophobia seem to consider Spanish grammar morally wrong.
I don't
Wow. What a treat. Two of my favorite thinkers. Thanks for making this, Coleman and the Coleman Hughes team!
I’ve always liked Glen but have an even greater respect for him, after this podcast. Truly genuine, principled & insightful. Well done gentlemen.
I like Glen too but when he gets in an argument and things get heated, his principals some times fall away…
Greenwald is a fascist apologist. He has no values.
@@peterstafford4426 which, inter alia, indicates that you don't actually know what fascism is.
@@DaveBoy Of course it is serious. Greenwald is a fascist
Wouldn't be Greenwald interview without the yapping k9s in the background
He cares 4 animal rights.
Ever seen the Tim Dillon one? Lol the dogs are yapping and Dillon says, “could you kill them?”
Lol i watched that like a month ago and I’ll never forget it because it was one of those uncontrollable laughs that hurt. And those don’t happen often.
Having a villain is crucial to power. Well said. I recommend the documentary, "The Power Of Nightmares" by Adam Curtis.
I saw Power of Nightmares ages ago. Leo Strauss and all that, getting his morality from watching Gunsmoke. I can see that.
"Featuring: This is the guest name"
That would be a great name for a band lol
or “TBA” because no one would know if you were playing or not
Didn't realize I was getting free admission to Coleman's GUN SHOW
😆
The view out Glenn's window looks divine.
Yeah!
Rivendell :)
It’s the other thing he’s famous for
Not sure how getting a mainstream climate scientist on will “rectify” the last podcast. Seems to me that getting two people on who can have an open debate and back up their claims would be the way to go.
agreed... they have 95% of the mainstream voice... "evidential balance" is not required
If you've had a guest that you *know* has made misleading or false statements, I think trying to make up for it is appropriate.
@George Mann The ones Coleman referred to in the video description.
@George Mann I'm more inclined to agree with Coleman on this.
@George Mann But you're smearing Coleman right now. Frankly, Coleman doesn't ostensibly spend great energy on anything, and especially not here. All he did was issue a very brief bit of housekeeping. The contents of that housekeeping were nothing more than a restatement and acknowledgment of some dissenting feedback in the audience; the alleged smear is not being led by Coleman. And the gun death thing is a truly terrible analogy.
I would also favor a debate/three-way convo format between qualified, reasonable individuals to "rectify" any fallout, but I'm at least hopeful that whenever this follow-up episode happens, Hughes and whomever he gets on will be engaging with the actual substance of what Shellenberger's said.
Found the story about the court case banning racial preference in covid relief for small businesses fascinating. Congress and the Fed gave unlimited money to banks and large corporations, but small businesses and individuals have to fight for a place in line because those funds are limited. Definitely class bias.
Love both these brilliant men of immense integrity!🙏💜
Truth is not a team sport, and Greenwald, with this in mind, is a true journalist. His views on class (versus identity) politics is significant.
Michael isn’t a climate scientist. I’m an environmentalist, however, would love to hear a pro and con climate scientist good faith debate/discussion. If Covid has taught us anything, it ought to be to suspect media-manufactured “scientific” consensus. Thanks, Coleman, love your podcast and the measured way you approach issues.
Agreed. I'm in no position to say to what extent Shellenberger's claims are true or false. If they're considered controversial by many, it would be most-worthwhile to have a fair compare and contrast of the merits between his standpoint and that of many in the consensus.
Amen! When it comes to covid, I've become an extremely educated layman. That has made me very conscious of the earth shattering bullshit that the world has been force fed in the name of science. And this understanding has me, for the first time, questioning the climate change narrative. If billionaires and technocrats can do what they've done with covid, they most certainly can do it with the notion of climate change. I'm not a right winger by any stretch of the imagination. But when it comes to covid I find myself more in line with the right. "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it." --Malcolm X
In regards to wild fires the forestry services in both countries have data on hectares burned, it's been going down drastically since the records have been kept. Fires may be more likely but it's not an unmanageable issue.
@THE ONE When "right-wing" encompasses any deviation from left totalitarianism, then yes, all discussion is by definition right-wing. Is that the same as what you are saying?
ruclips.net/video/pVXHaSqpsVg/видео.html. This is a good debate by the leaders in the different camps. Very adversarial, a good watch.
So I think there is some confusion, and perhaps Shellenberger hasn't helped himself here. My reading of his book didn't leave me with the impression that he thought climate had no affect on the California wild fires, it was that these affects were largely outweighed by the proximity of human populations coupled with poor land use management policies. I don't think that necessarily came out clearly in the conversation.
@George Mann bruh, seriously... if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, you might consider asking questions on the topic instead of commenting.
By commenting, you reveal your ignorance. By asking a question, you reveal your ignorance as well as your humility. You'll find that most people will have a more favorable disposition towards the latter - js..
Wildfires are down by several orders of magnitude from the past.
Coleman got pressure from the mob to discredit Shellenberger. No differing opinions or disproving facts are allowed by these people. You must believe we are all dying from climate change in the next 50 years and you must believe that the only solution is to give the government 90 trillion dollars. Oh and you must also love communism. That’s a big one. Blindly accept the narrative and become a communist. That’s the only chance the world has. 🙄
I feel like this will be a journey for Coleman. He has integrity. I can't think of a more rabid group of folks than climate change activists. I've already lived through at least three civilization ending events that never came to pass since the 90's. According to them. Every 10 to 12 years; DOOM. If Coleman pushes back at all that will be 1. -an attack on their ideology and 2. -an attack on their money. Which is more important to them I'm not sure. They will never stop until they have complete control over everyone's every action. After all we must save the planet. The apocalypse is in 2030. See you there.
@George Mann case closed my ass. Stating a few figures does not warrant such a conclusion. Nor does it explain how that conclusion is reached.
What are the "other factors"? In what ways are they more significant? Without illustrating these things, there is no argument in what you wrote, or what you quoted..
Also consensus is a sociological need, not a scientific one. All the heterodox opinions on this issue must not be invalidated on the basis of popularity. These arguments must be disconfirmed at the level of science, not intuition or perception. This really is a prime example of repressive tolerance making it's way into scientific affairs. Not ok.
Herbert Marcuse
There is value in the "scientific consensus", especially if like me (despite having studied applied physics for two years) lack enough domain knowledge to actively participate in the scientific debate. The problem is, how to value that consensus. I myself came up with the following rule of thumb.
"If a topic is researched a lot and there is a strong scientific consensus, that consensus is the current answer"
Three small issues:
1) The rule of thumb does have two poorly defined attributes, like when is the consensus 'strong' and when is it investigated 'a lot'. But regarding climate change and the basic principles, I think that these criteria are met.
2) How does one know in a polarized media know (if there is a / what is the) strong consensus?
3) The scientific process should be free of corruption. Corruption can occur for instance through money and/or ideologies. And regarding social sciences, I myself am not convinced that in social sciences there is no corruption.
Thus unless you are part of the scientific debate and publish papers in peer-reviewed journals,.. I believe that the consensus is something useful for us mortals.
@@roelofjacobs5807 Trust is a huge part of the function. Can't do anything about cynicism except violence.
Agree
You are a brilliant young man no matter what your opinion or views. May God bless all you do and keep you on a path of success and wellness. Thank you for all you do to seek the truth. Most of us, no matter what race, nationality, gender, sex, or age want to know the truth. Take care and God bless!
Wish Coleman would have asked Glen about his beef with Sam Harris where Glen labeled him an Islamaphobe on the sanction of the SPLC. I like Glenn, but it's this episode that still gives me reservations about him.
I, too, was skeptical about Greenwald‘s latest media incarnation because of the Sam Harris thing, but nothing I’ve heard him talk about over the last year have I had any substantial disagreement with. Maybe he’s been red pilled, maybe he still holds those views, but I’m not gonna turn down any help from any side that’s fighting against wokeness and media corruption.
Who cares. Glenn offers things Sam doesn’t and vice versa. I judge them as both acting in good faith. I think the accusation of Islamaphobia shouldn’t prevent you from taking Glenn seriously. Imo
I was wondering if there was anyone else that remembered this beef since Coleman is so close to Sam lol. Ive only heard sams side of this, and I remember thinking it was brutally unfair how GG treated him. GG is very pro-Palestine and he regularly fights against islamaphobia. As far as having reservations, examine the merits of each argument. I thought GG was wrong about Sam in that instance but was more right than Sam in regards to trump and Russia.
@@clee8019 Since the anti-islamic sentiment has become almost non existent in US political discourse these days (compared to like the 2010s) I don't think that is a relevant issue anymore. Also I believe that a lot of Glen's "islamophobia" stuff was informed by world renowned apologist Mehdi "but the planned parenthood bomber" Hasan who was his colleague at the time when he was at the Intercept. So I think he might have changed his opinions on the issue but I'm still skeptical because at one point Glen accused Sam of wanting to fucking nuke Islam out of existence lmao.
@@harivatsaparameshwaran4174 it’s true the last 2-3 years we’ve seen a huge decrease of anti-Muslim sentiment (I think all the attention the last few years has been about racism) but it was probably around trumps inauguration that it was at an all time high. Glenn was one of the few that reported honestly on the pulse nightclub shooting, which many still believe was an intolerant Muslim attack on the gay community. I don’t doubt your theory about medhi’s association with Glenn at the intercept, I’ve always thought medhi was a lightweight. But I’m actually not certain Glenn’s opinion changed regarding Sam though, from reading some of Glenn’s thoughts on Twitter, he wasn’t a big fan of those that were labeled IDW.
I can see Coleman’s copy of “Knowledge and Decisions” by Thomas Sowell in the background. Out of focus. Fantastic book.
If he likes Sowell, he is a fascist.
@@peterstafford4426 lol xD
@@peterstafford4426 100% white supremacist. Good catch, Petey.
@@robw1945 Thank you for this lol!
@@peterstafford4426 you misspelled factist.
Coleman: if you disagree with Shellenberger on climate change details, please be specific. And/or better yet have him back on your show and argue the details. Just making a vague claim that Shellenberger makes "false claims about extreme weather" and making an appeal to the authority of "the consensus" is inadequate (and I think unfair to Shellenberger)
Appeal to "the consensus" isn't an appeal to authority. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you're interpreting the use of "the consensus" in the same way creationists interpret the use of the word "theory" in the "it's just a theory" argument - meaning, the wrong definition is used. In science we absolutely want consensus, that's how science works. It's just not consensus in the sense that a bunch of people come together and vote or come to an agreement. It's consensus in the sense that multiple experiments are done by different people and there is consensus among the outcomes. Someone measuring temperatures in the arctic and someone measuring temperatures near the equator that both see signs of warming have come to a consensus that warming is occurring, not because they agreed, but because they found the same results in different places. The hallmark of science is reproducibility. Reproducibility and prediction is what would falsify a scientific theory and the more people who can reproduce an experiment, the more consensus you have among the results.
This poor old world we live on is at our mursey.very sad
I'm a supporter of Coleman's work and I contribute to him monthly, but hearing his statement about Michael Shellenberger at the beginning was the first time I've been disappointed in Coleman.
I think that Coleman is making the same fundamental mistake that most people make when it comes to climate science, namely, failing to understand that unlike other areas of science and study, like physics, mathematics, etc, the study of the climate is and always will be extremely inexact, and the conclusions that scientists attempt to make about climate can more accurately be described as informed opinions, rather than factual conclusions. This is true regardless of how competent and earnest a particular scientist may be. Most hard sciences involve making observations, conducting experiments and gathering data, and then drawing conclusions about the current state of the world. In other worlds, most sciences simply explain WHAT IS (i.e. how things works). Climate science (of the kind that is discussed in the IPCC, for instance) on the other hand is predictive in nature - observations are made RE what trends have occurred in the past and are occurring in the present, and based on those observations, scientists try to predict what will occur 30, 50, 100, or 200 years from now. Not only are they making long term predictions, but they are making them about CLIMATE - something that is constantly effected by dozens and dozens (probably more like hundreds) of variables and factors at the same time. Nonetheless, most people talk about the opinions and predictions made by climate scientists as though they are established facts - as though we know for sure that the sea level will be X after a given period of time. The consensus of "mainstream" climate scientists may agree on this prediction, but it is still just that - a prediction - and one with a HUGE margin of error.
And this is where my rub with Coleman comes in. He says that Michael's statements were misleading or wrong because they are not in line with the opinions of a majority of climate scientists. But that doesn't necessary make him wrong. Almost everything that Michael talks about in his book - basically his entire worldview with respect to climate - is contrary to the views of most climate scientists (i.e. contrary to the consensus). If that is Coleman's standard for what constitutes "extremely misleading or false", then I'm not sure why he had Michael on the show at all. Everything that Michael said in the podcast is explained in more detail in Michael's book and backed up with facts and figures. In other words, he has explained at great length why he has reached these particular outside-the-consensus opinions. Did Coleman read his book? If so, he shouldn't have been surprised by the claims Michael made. Also, if Coleman has now concluded that Michael's positions are misleading and false, then why not simply disavow Michael and the book altogether.
I also think Coleman having someone else on in the future to essentially debunk or correct Michael's statements is unfair to Michael, as he won't be present to defend himself in real time. Whatever Coleman's intentions, it will amount to a post hoc attack on Michael. Coleman should have someone on at the same time as Michael so there can be a debate/discussion.
Lastly, it just seemed very insulting to make that statement about Michael and then say that he is going to have a "mainstream" climate activist on to correct it - as though Michael is just some guy on the fringe who isn't a real authority on this issue. He has been a climate activist his whole life, and spent years studying, researching, and discussing these topics. I think he is as mainstream as anyone out there on this topic.
I have never watched this guy, but the beginning of this episode was straight out of '1984'. It was terrifying.
👋👋👋
Amen brother. "mainstream censes" means absolutely nothing and I thought Coleman knew that
Yeah, forget every major international scientific organization & the UN. Let us instead read an obscure writer to reassure our anxieties with a pseudo-intellectual reasoning. Let us not look at Germany today, Canada, USA West Coast, the melting Arctic, the shrinking Amazon. We should not be concerned about climate change. Let´s keep drilling, polluting and consuming worry free! And the band played on....
@@daysjours That's not what Shellenberger is arguing for. He is saying that the Greta Thunberg-style panic is not warranted and that there are other concerns that are more important than climate change, like improving the livelihoods of those in poverty. His most important point is advocating for nuclear energy, which is indispensable for combatting climate change, yet many on the left still oppose it because they aren't actually concerned with climate change, just with accumulating more power.
Two of my favorite people to listen and learn from.
Glenn changes backdrops every time he gets interviewed. I see, you, Glenn, I see you.
The one thing I respect about Coleman is he truly doesn't care what his audience thinks. He's the anti-Dave Rubin.
It was sad to see Rubin apparently evolve... then slowly devolve into a simple one trick pony.
I've heard the same sort of disqualifier attributed to Rubin before, would you mind elaborating a bit?
Glenn i a real serious journalist. A huge asset for all the world citizenahip
Kudos Coleman - I and quite a lot of others pointed that many of Michael Shellenberger's claims are false, misleading and/or cherry picked.
Great to hear you acknowledge some of this, and that you will get a climate scientist of repute on your show.
My faith in the dedication of your podcast to empiricism, no matter the orthodoxy/politics, is somewhat restored :-)
I am surprised about your statement at the beginning. The reason I listen to and enjoy your post cast is that you are not afraid of talking about controversial topics. That is the reason your post casts are interesting.If I only want hear the consensus, as you put it, I can get them from tons of MSM. Don’t discard any opinion just because they not the current consensus. Likewise, don’t just believe in everything just because they are the current consensus.
But what Shellenberger said about forest fires and The Sixth Extinction (TM) was the consensus. You could tell in that interview Coleman knows almost nothing about what climate scientists think about climate science and apparently an activist/scientist got to him.
He was probably contacted by YT and told that he had to issue a correction or get demonetized.
I agree. So much "consensus" in COVID science has been often political and based on mob rule rather than free and open scientific discourse. There was so much hysteria resulting from flawed computer modelling that were infused with particular assumptions. The hysteria surrounding COVID last year has only lead me to question certain elements of climate science. How much of that science is also political and based in mob rule? How much of the science is effected by errors and flawed models?
@@nerdygrl647 , consensus has little value especially at out time due to cancel couture and central power. People with orthodox opinions fear to express their opinion for fear of being cancelled and lose funding in research. On the other hand, follow the trend can give you great research grants.
I feel like I know Glenn's dogs really well after watching his recent interviews 😁
@@109ejg Oh my gosh, I love Glenn! His dogs have barked loudly throughout every interview he's done lately 😂 I was literally talking about his pets.
The healthiest conversation on race vs class and why
Race class up verse down ,com on man
For Glenn's story about his son with the hoody in the mall, it's impossible to know why he was stopped. But these sorts of questionable situations occur to men/boys of all races. I'm white and the friends that I grew up with were all white. In my teenage years guards would often pay much more attention to us because we sometimes had skateboards and dressed that part. Would get the terse 'if you're not going to buy something then you need to leave' and just following us around constantly. As an adult at nearly 40 I had some crazy Karen lady call the cops on me to tell them I was 'casing the neighborhood' when I was just walking down the sidewalk. About a year ago just minding my own business while parallel parked on not busy street, opened my driverside door to get out and some psycho white old man laid on his horn and then pulled aside me to yell at me and flip me off as if he owned the street and I had no right to be there.
There are a dozen other situations of just angry nasty people acting like that. I could see how people of different races might experience that and think these things must be racism. Maybe it happens more often to them. However, I think 'racism' in these sorts of situations is just a justification in some people's minds to make it a little easier to let out their frustration with life on someone else. These people have many justifications that they'll use on anyone (wrong political party, ugly, dress horribly, slow, etc.). Don't underestimate how many horrible people are out there already having a bad day that want to take it out on you and don't let them pull you down to their level.
I agree. I was a punk kid and was always watched, followed, and questioned in all kinds of situations. Often times, the examples that are brought out to prove racism are things that actually happen to everyone. It's the narrative that's been relentlessly pushed for years that calls it racism, not the person's intent.
Hughs, Greenwald, Jones. Cred x 3. Y'all come.
Glenn has plenty of his own prejudices. It's certainly worth being aware of that when listening to him (just like most people).
Glenn is one of the very, very few whose worldview and political philosophy has remained coherent and consistent over time.
Glenn’s epic Brazilian forest backdrop and occasional canine visitors and random outbursts from his 20 plus dogs booming over his brilliant takes on politics is the stuff of original legends 😆
What a fabulous conversation. Thank you, both!
I really want glen to say WHATEVER in his 90's valley girl voice. peurile observations aside the guy is a genuine hero.
Coleman, excellent to have Glenn Greenwald on. I _would_ like if you would spend time in the interview finding places you _disagree_. I would tell Tucker Carlson the same thing if I could.
Dude wow... I'm so glad Glenn came on and I found you!!
Wow! GREAT interview Mr Hughes! Thank you! Following.
Get a mainstream - that is, government funded - climate scientist to debate Dr. Patrick Michaels.
Would love to hear you talk to Patrick Moore about climate change
I thought it s called climate change?
Global warming is the true name of the end of our world in eight years,?
Came here for Glen Greenwald, impressed by the interviewers questions. Subscribed.
Explaining inequality through a single factor, is the childish simplistic thing to do and a concept like race is also simple, it's the thing you can see on the outside. Time and time again, a huge proportion of inequality comes down to class. Class is a multifaceted concept and thinking on tackling this issue is highly complex, takes more than 1 generation through slow but steady change.
Exactly , you hit the nail on the head . The issues We are currently facing have literally existed since the beginning of time . There are several factors involved ( some existing for hundreds if not thousands of years ) yet the ruling elite have decided that the total destruction of society with them now in charge is the answer . It is necessary to look at conditions and reevaluate how to go forward in a more constructive way as a society BUT the current trend is largely going backward not forward , it is just a different way to divide people and will not end well for ANYONE .
Schellenberger was right on extrem climat events. Freddi Otto head of the Oxford climat modeling center said the same on the german potcast "Jung und Naive". Extrem weather is mainly a consequens of temperatur gradients not of maximum temperatur. Wildfires are a special case, higher temperaturs lead to more dry wood and to more moisture in the air and more rain at the same time and ... the main point is: we now less than most climat apocalytics believe.
I will listen to any interview with Glenn Greenwald
Coleman writes: "Specifically, he [Schellenberger] said that climate change did not contribute to the intensity of wildfires in California and Australia." They were talking about wildfires around minute 20 in the Schellenberger episode, and I searched there, but I did not find that statement. Can anyone direct me to the place, perhaps later in the interview, where Schellenberger takes that position?
@George Mann good forest management my ass.. 😑
why are you posting this here LMAO
@George Mann I'd really like to hear you describe--in your own words--what good forest management looks like for 33 million square miles of forested land.
Gather your thoughts on it, and let me know. I'll wait..
@George Mann I think you must have no idea what the terrain is like in the forests of California. It's not accessible to heavy equipment. Got any other plans?..
@George Mann you only think it's a stupid claim because you're hopelessly ignorant. Public lands are a tiny fraction of California's forested land. So even if 100% of the forests under the legal purview of the state and of local municipalities were managed to the highest degree, it would have little impact on the potential for large fires to occur. Over 50% of the total area of forested land in Cali belongs to the federal government. And about 40% of it is privately owned. As you can see, that doesn't leave much to manage. Add to that the fact that most of the land parcels which have the most trees are unincorporated, unreserved federal land.
There are no roads to access these places. Lumber companies have to build their own temporary roads, which even still only give them access to very specific plots of land. And they don't harvest from the more mountainous regions where most of the trees are, and where most of the fires occur. The terrain in those areas is incredibly dynamic, making it impossible to simply drive into. Constructing access roads to reach every nook and cranny of the forests would be outrageously expensive, and it would be the federal government responsible for footing the bill.
What I've covered so far is enough to dismiss this all too often regurgitated nonsense about forest management. I don't even need to go into the absurdity of the time it would take to clean up the forests in the manner you suggested. That idea is simply fucking laughable. For real.
Anyone making an argument akin to the one you and friggin Sellinburgers is making, has absolutely no idea wtf they're talking about. Period.
What I said to you in my first comment was solid advice. Advice you would do well to take..
Schellenberger was right. It was extreamly cold sea surface water around Australia that made it dry 1,5 Years ago. No clouds and no rain. The same is it now on the West coast in USA. That causes high pressure over land. The extinction was worse 15000 to 8000 Years ago.
Interesting to hear about the response to Michael Shellenberger. I discussed his comments on your podcast with a forest management researcher who seemed to think there were many cases where poor forest management seems to have been a factor yet climate change was blamed. Perhaps a climate scientist is not the best person to discuss forest fires with
Please consider investigating scientific climate “consensus“ when making statements about climate issues. There are THOUSANDS of researchers, scientists, meteorologists, that disagree with the conventional wisdom around this extremely complicated issue. But they are ridiculed and defunded when they dare to challenge the climate orthodoxy. There have been many predictions in the last fifty years about a coming ice age or heat waves that just plain failed. Good science is never settled, rather it requires constant challenging of the data when new measurements and observations come along. “Consensus“ can and does stifle meaningful challenges to the orthodoxy. Its true of any discipline. Mr. Hughes, use your learned skepticism of social issues and apply that spirit and look into what the other side on climate is saying. You are an opinion leader, and we are looking to you to gather and comment on important topics and allow all sides to have a say. Love your work here, man.
Great video. I particularly can empathize with the latinx point. Nobody in my family has ever heard the term. I can’t articulate why but I always felt something pernicious behind such a term
Coleman's intro is TIGHT! 😆😆😝👍🏻
Coleman has been consistently excellent on a wide range of topics. The more I watch Glenn Greenwald, the more I find resonance with what he says as well. Thanks Coleman for making this really insightful conversation possible.
Excellent conversation.
Hi Coleman, not sure if you noticed or I missed a joke but your opening screen says "Episode 3498 featuring This Is The Guest Name" (maybe editing mistake?)
lol 14:10 "just..I think 6 or 7 years separates us or so"
Coleman, sorry, I listened to your interview of Shellenberger 3x. He didn't imply at all what you said here at the start, that climate change didn't contribute to the fires. He said in the other vid 20:45 - 22:15 a few times that, "climate change isn't necessary or sufficient" to explain the intense fires. While the build-up of wood fuel is both necessary & sufficient.
Australia had a Royal Commission (took many months) into the 2019-20 bushfires, and found that climate change is a possible factor (among several other factors), ie. it's not the only factor, or even the main factor. Thus w/out climate change, the fires might have still happened. It mainly recommends that we backburn (cut down a few lines of trees as a risk mitigation).
I watched many of your vids, thx, and brought me to read many of Shellenberger's brilliant articles (on Substack, same platform as Greenwald here). Shellenberger definitely believes in climate change (human caused), just not scaremongering us like some other environmentalists (who often avow renewables over nuclear). Thx again!
Sorry to add, a fire in the Australian capital (Canberra) in Nov 2020 (near summer) was caused by a Defence chopper! And the fire spread because Defence didn't inform others for an hour!
My takeaway msg is that... weather events are very complex (eg. by La Nina vs El Nino), and to over-simplify them down to mainly climate change isn't truthful or intellectually stimulating.
Very wary when Coleman invokes "concensus"
Yes, me too. The implication being that the consensus was formed only through scientific means as opposed to outside pressure.
Like him a lot, closing the video after I heard it. Consensus strategy is the antithesis of science
@@caseystrong9481 Me too.
@Lean Fist If consensus meant truth, we would still believe that the sun revolved around the earth. There was a time when the earth revolving around the sun was a taboo idea and nobody believed it. All improvements in science are a minority at some point. Consensus is meaningless. Only empirical evidence matters.
Models hold true or false by their predictive value. Everyone can agree they are right, but if the model predicts X and Y comes true, the model is not accurate regardless of how many people think it is
@Lean Fist Your way of thinking is extremely dangerous. If we've not learned that lesson over the past two years, we haven't learned anything.
Can podcasters stop apologising for what other people have said on their show?
Also, if someone doesn't disagree in the moment doesn't mean they agree or acknowledge that it is true.
Very true, did Dan Rather apologize interlviewing Sadam Hussain?
Hell, Dan Rather never even apologized for lying about Dubya Bush's National guard record so much he got fired for it.
Absolutely!
So weird how so many self-professed "Liberals" dismiss Greenwald because he'll speak with Hughes today, Dore tomorrow, and Tucker the next. And I'm glad Glenn doesn't apologize, instead suggesting his detractors lobby their favorite corporate media outlet to have him on. Fact is, he's all but banned from the rest of cable/broadcast media because he dares speak with Tucker Carlson.
@@georgegunnell6319 Always the victim...
@@vinnym5607 Cry me a river...
I remember how much grief Greenwald gave Sam Harris in the past about being racist, Islamophobic etc.
I'm predisposed to people who want to harm me
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton
Word
Brovo.!
excellent conversation.
Fast food values, in convenient packaging, one size fits all and delivered right to your door.
I missed your Shellenberger interview, but maybe have him back on briefly to defend himself. The data supports him I think, but it's a bit more complicated.
I would put it a bit more strongly, myself, but big agree. The "scientific consensus" is fraudulent and paid for, on many related issues.
@@majorshocker2097 I would have too, but I haven't listened to the first video.
Great show & yea we shouldn't focus on race we should focus on the proletariat banding together against the globalist corporations
My realization came during the summer of George Floyd, when crowds of thousands(some of them burning and looting) during a pandemic were excused by the media machine as "fighting a different kind of pandemic". I never looked back.
Don't get to divisive about class, there are a lot of college educated people getting screwed by the current economic conditions. If you want a strategy, I suggest taking the approach of a multi-tiered economy vs. our current two-tiered economy. I was just posting earlier about my first job out of college working for a manufacturing company that made mechanical seals. The building was divided into a machine shop on one end and the white collar jobs- accounting, marketing, engineering, contracts, IT, HR, purchasing, etc. that supported the machine shop. Those jobs together, both sides of the building, were probably at least 5 or 6 tiers of the economy, from new hire machinists to vice presidents in charge of marketing. Having a multi-tier economy is what kept the U.S. business sector stable and vibrant. Then we sent our jobs away, all our jobs, blue and white collar. And now we have two-tiered service economy, those that provide services and those who get served. Don't make this about class, make it about economics. Class is about how you talk, what you wear, do you drink beer or wine, where did you go to school, what do your parents do, all that superficial nonsense. While economics is about is there a job for me with a reasonable path toward success and if I find it will it still be here in 3 years. Can I pay my student loan, will I have a decent home, can I get married, is there any money left over to raise kids, and how can I get and keep health care. Those are the issues we should all be united on, they span class.
You have to admire their ability to appropriate victimhood. How dare the underprivileged complain when it's the elite who are truly oppressed and marginalized?
Enjoying this a lot.
Glenn harrassed a minimum-wage mall cop bc he didnt want his privileged, spoiled son to...checks notes... put his hoody down 🙄🙄
Unwatchable after that
So is being outside "the consensus of the climate science community" now considered wrong-think? The science community consensus used to be that the sun revolved around the earth, or that the earth was flat. When science and consensus are used in tandem, that is its own red flag. Many people remember the Eisenhower speech about the military-industrial complex; few recall the other part of the speech where he warned of a nexus between scientific research and govt funding, and how the money people might well expect results that advanced their viewpoint.
You can't really compare early astronomy to modern science though, in many cases they were also astrologers and their views were clouded by religious beliefs about the structure of the universe. That was more a metaphysical than a scientific consensus. Hell, it's really not even fair to compare the logical positivism of more recent centuries with today's falsification oriented research.
@@samdelia1037 You can compare what people knew/know at the time. Eisenhower's warning was not without merit. Is it unreasonable that those funding research might have a preferred outcome in mind? That's the argument thrown at climate research funded by energy companies. The same applies to research funded by politicians. There is nothing that makes the public sector any more noble or praiseworthy than the private; each has an agenda and neither is particularly concerned about you and me.
That said, I am heartened to read the part about the inherent problem of judging past acts by present standards. I wish that were applied more broadly. Perhaps instead of labeling past figures using today's expectation, we could study those people and events in their own context. Yes, the science of the past was clouded by religion and that should be taken into account. Likewise, people of the past were born into a different set of circumstances than what exists today.
Episode 3498 featuring This Is The Guest Name
Glenn needs to get a goddamn office. Every time I see him in any podcast, any interview, any news segment, there is always obnoxious levels of dog barking
“The Guest name here” was really good as always.
You had Shellenburger on your show and were not aware of his views on climate before hand? The consensus also said that lab leak was not possible and that didn't age well.
For lab leak the consensus 'zoonotic' position was fabricated, there was no (and still isn't) empirical evidence of any kind. The consensus re climate change is largely an emergent phenomenon, arising out of immense data across numerous lines of evidence. Comparing and drawing inference re consensus from these two things is like comparing apples with Uranus ;-)
This is the guest name?
Freaking great conversation Coleman.
We aren't in am extinction event. He goes into detail about why this isn't true in his book and so have many other people
Well yeah.... but what does the government-funded consensus say? That's what really matters. 4head.
Great conversation, by some of my favorite peeps!
Anybody else try to scratch off that spot on Glenn's wall thinking it was a flake of dirt on your screen? 🤭
Coleman Hughes, please interview Dr Sheena Mason on her Theory of Racelessness. She has a traumatic, yet heartening story. Many thanks 🙏
Excellent!
probably because dudes who are thieves or robbers throw on a hood before they do their thieving and robbing. Not saying its right to target kids wearing hoods like that. I do not agree with being that agressive about it but yeah, security will keep an eye on young dudes with hoods.
Coleman said that he's an elite which is absurd. Elites have ruling class power -including corporate mediate journo-activists who shape the establishment - of which Coleman is not. Coleman is a scholar, sure, but he has no political power aside from his own agency like everyone else.
He’s in the world of journalism and academia. He has testified before Congress. He works for a think tank. He is part of ‘elite discourse’, even though he is not part of the elite economic class.
@@StrategicWealthLLC That still doesn't make him an "elite" in any definitive way. I would say the same of Candace Owens who has also testified before Congress. They are important social commentators and pundits. They aren't elites controlling policy at the Establishment level.
@@researchsiempre - Candace doesn’t work for a think tank. She did’t graduate from an Ivy. She doesn’t write for a high brow magazine. I like Candace. I believe she is bright. However, she plays in the game in a different environment. In many ways, her game is bigger. Still, Coleman is at the elite level. Glenn’s tutelage is important.
@@researchsiempre - I do understand what you mean though. I guess I would say that Rush Limbaugh was way bigger than Water Cronkite, but Cronkite was invited to elite parties in a way that Rush never was.
@@StrategicWealthLLCBill Gates didn't graduate college. Candace is just an example. There are others who are in the same non-elite, but important category. If simply attending an elite college makes one an elite, it's no wonder the system is so messed up.
I don't agree with your definition.
Coleman should read "Unsettled" by Steven E. Koonin
And then he should interview Koonin.
Glenn's 9000 dogs ain't down with Latinx gang.
I love how Glenn always lies about his age lol he always says he's somewhere between 25-31
OMG -- I thought he was a prodigy of 19 :-))!!!!
Lol no he doesn't. That was an obvious joke
You put up a clip of this interview on twitter....you're the only one on the clip! lol
Two of my favorite people.
Thankbyou Coleman!
I don't understand why he can't lock his dogs in a room for an hour while he's in an interview. His house looks big enough
It's part of his thing. It wouldn't be a GG interview without dogs barking in the background.
With respect to the special intro, Shellenberger said about forest fires and The Sixth Extinction (TM) was the consensus. You could tell in that interview Coleman, without a science background, knows almost nothing about what climate scientists think about climate science and apparently an activist/scientist got to him. My guess is that the climate scientist he will interview will not be a mainstream climate scientist at all.
I do not understand how relatively intelligent people let their dogs bark out of control. It's insane.
They think it is enduring - just lack of courtesy though.
GG is getting around! Love him! Good to Coleman branching out!
Glenn Greenwald is a savage of the highest order.
It's very telling that even so sharp a social critic as Greenwald cannot see that there's an even greater source of disadvantage than class: age. As important as class disadvantages are and can be, we at least have a legal system that acknowledges the rights of every adult to make decisions for himself and not have his life controlled by others. There's not a single child in this country (or any other, with the possible exception of some in Scandinavia) for whom that is true, regardless of his or her material circumstances. (Clearly the utter lack of rights in childhood is the greatest equalizer ever.) Not only are children devoid of rights but they need them MORE than adults do, given their developmental immaturity and relative lack of life experience, yet they have none at all. And while we talk endlessly about race, sexual orientation, gender, and yes, even class, we literally never talk about the dangers of being small, young, and having no rights. It's simply not not on the left's radar, but it's not on the radar of folks as nobly contrarian as Greenwald either. This is why, though I respect him, I begin to tune him and everyone else out, and will until they wake up and look at the whole reality of disadvantage in this world.
I think you are breathing into the mic Coleman. 16:00 - 19:00
Coleman, where’d you get the shirt you’re wearing during the interview?
What's going on with that tree on the right in the background at about 1:20? I figured it was wind moving it but none of the others are moving. Is it freaking monkeys or something?! Lol
Hi Coleman, a long time fan from your early days with Sam Harris. You should check out Mallen Baker and Potholer54 - both review the climate science and the various protagonists on both sides while giving in my view a pretty balanced review of the science without the activism. Claiming a particular extreme weather event as signs of climate change is poor science - as with many things science related, there is no simple one size answer. The events you discuss were most likely to have been exacerbated by climate change but may not have been exclusively because of climate change. Just like many other things you discuss, there are often many causes that combine to give an outcome and science is no exception. Anyone who claims they know the ultimate and single cause of anything in the real world is just an activist. Anyone who claims the opposite is likely one too. Reality is not so simple.
The thing about climate change is that people presume it is 100% bad. Some things get hotter, yes, and that isn't always bad. It may enable us to feed large populations more readily. Nobody ever seems to present both sides. The Gretas of the world only talk about the potential downsides, while never daring to acknowledge the potional *upsides*. Obviously needless pollution and environmental destruction is bad, but who disagrees with that??