| || |
Patrick Michael exposes Climate Change danger hype.
My commentary by Danzil Monk
Short version covering only the Climate change issue
May 31, 2018 youtube
The full interview
Some time ago when I first saw this interview, and heard the exchange these two had over the topic of “Climate change”, I knew that Candace would be hammered by Climate Change Danger advocates. I also knew that they would not be fair about how they attacked her and so I am doing this commentary to show just how poorly CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER advocates really understand their own arguments, and so called evidence. I also want to stick it to Joe Rogan, who failed to respect Candace Owens.
I have included the link of the full video above, but this review is based on the short interview version above that concerns only the climate change issue.
In the full interview version also included above, Joe conducts himself well, and their conversation is both interesting and friendly. Candace tells her obscurity to popularity story and drops some great information. But all that changes as is seem by what follows as the short version picks up at the point where things get crazy.
During their conversation at the 1:20 min. point in the above video linked, while Candace Owens was explaining to Joe how Donald Trump turned things around for our nation for the better, including helping to reverse the gap between the rich and the poor, Joe asked her what she thought was causing the gap, and she cited how government policies under Obama causing jobs to be shipped overseas and US factories to close down. She then said that Trump appealed to Americans (who wanted our leaders to put us first). She said that she was learning about how ignorant she was about what was really going on, and Joe asked her to explain how. And when she began to explain, she mentioned how she fell for the “Left’s” claim that “Progress” was their goal and that the environment was the major issue.
Joe asked her “you don’t think we have to care about the environment?” Candace laughed and said not even a little bit, but then clarified that she was not for throwing trash around or trashing the environment, but that she did not believe in climate change. But she later clarified that what she meant by that was that she did not believe the hype about the dangers of Climate Change. She said she believes that the climate has always been changing (and so it is not a big deal). She said it is like the Global warming danger issue that was refuted, so they just shifted to Climate change. And that it was just a way to extract dollars form America. That is why it was wise for Trump to pull out of the Paris accord.
Joe counters her by saying that this is an incredibly complex subject, and that she would have to talk to a lot of scientists who have compiled the data, and asked if she had done all this?
Note: he did not even ask about the data that refutes that Climate Change danger data or even acknowledge that it existed. He accused her of just being flipid and following a party line.
So Candace should have said no, I' not, but have you examined all of the data and talked to all of the many scientists who refute the danger claim?
Candace did say that she read a ton of material on it, and Joe quickly asked what have you read. Candace said that she was not resting everything on her convictions about CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER because she did not have all the details, but the fact that there is a disparity was sufficient not to accept it as fact.
Joe countered that there was very very little disparity and that the vast majority of scientist supported CLIMATE CHANGE (DANGER) in that they agree that humans are “negatively affecting the climate”. But he gave no details as to what that means, how much and how they know how much. Since it has been established that how humans effect the climate is extremely minor to the natural negative effects of nature and mainly the Sun and oceans, that we have no control over, JR’s point was moot. Candace did not know this to tell Joe. She said she did not accept the [supposed] majorities claims over the [supposed] few scientists who disagreed with them.
Candace also pointed out that she did not think that there were just “a few” scientists against CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER, but that they were not getting the media support like a Bill Nye.
Around 3 min. in, Candace makes the mistake of using Bill Nye in her example of paid science talkers and Joe jumped on her Comment, not allowing her to finish her point, which was that the “majority” of scientists have financial motives for siding with human caused CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER and promoting programs that in essence make them money and has nothing or little to do with real science exposing real dangers to our planet.
But she never got to say this at that point. Joe cut her off, (something that he does constantly throughout their conversation). He proceeds to explain to her what the “real” problem is with CLIMATE CHANGE. And he quotes Scientific America, a known atheistic- anti-Christian anti-creationists organization whose scientists makes a living off of being a mouth piece for CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER programs. And he does not bother to quote any major science organizations or prominent and widely respected scientists who speak out against the lies being promoted about CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER, or the massive profits being made off of it.
Candace should have been much better prepared with such statistics if she was going to introduce the topic. But I am sure she was not expecting to have to go on the defensive about this and she should have stopped Joe from pressing the issue after she acknowledged that she did not have the details handy to present a full defense of her perspective. Instead, she allowed Joe to punk her with the usual CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER rhetoric, and get away with steamrolling over her good basic defenses against accepting CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER.
Candace makes a great point about Joe’s selective use of sources and suggested to him that he could have pulled sources of scientists who refuted CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER, I understood her point perfectly, but Joe’s response was “What do you mean?” he basically ignored her intelligent argument.
She should have replied, “let me simplify it for you, have you read the research or any reports of any climate scientist whose conclusions contradict CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER?"
Given Joe’s adversarial conduct towards her, at this point Candace should have said “perhaps we can table this topic until I can better prepare for this battle and go in to something that I am prepared to battle over”.
But instead, she allowed Joe to keep attacking her and he kept pressing this issue for some reason, which I think was to gain points for exposing what he thought was a weakness in Candace’s armor.
Joe objected to her being “so sure” (yet felt justified in being “sure” that he was right though he had not studied the scientific arguments against CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER to be able to be “sure”).
When Candace attempted to point out that climate change has always happened in human history and is being made to seem like something strange and dangerous by CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER advocates, Joe accused her of misrepresenting the topic, and then presented the usual argument as to what it was “really about”. At the 3 min. and 3 seconds point, he said that people think that humans are exacerbating climate change to the point that it could tip and causes world disaster, and that it could be prevented if money was applied to prevention.
But Candace should have asked Joe, how does he know that is true? Because lots of scientists say there is danger does not mean that they are telling the truth. Why don’t you address or even mention the selective research and research referencing going on by CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER supporters?
A good interview to watch is the Dave Rubin Alex Epstein interview in which Alex addresses the games CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER scientists and supporters play to demonize those who don’t hold their views about CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER. He also points out the exaggerated dangers claims and the downplaying of the massive benefits that we have been receiving from “fossil fuels” for decades.
And as I said, why did he not address the data of the side that reject the majorities Climate Change danger claims, or even mention the “possibility” that the scientists who reject CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER could be right?
A great documentary to watch for this information is: “THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE”
History is full of examples where the majority of scientists have been wrong and intentionally lied about dangers to line their pockets. On what does Joe base his “being sure” that there is a pending disaster and that money would stop the disaster? Why has Joe not examined the reports of reputable scientists who say we are not in any real danger from climate change? Why is Joe not acknowledging the possibility of money being the force behind a CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER?
Joe says it is not propaganda and Candace should have asked him, why is he so sure that it is not propaganda? She let Joe block her in on why she had a “belief” at all when in his view there was overwhelming support for Climate Change danger by the vast majority of scientists, allowing him to deny and skip past her point about the money being made by CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER pushers from our Government as a part of the Paris accord.
Joe kept saying Candace did not believe Climate Change existed even though she stated she did, but only she did not think it was the massive danger that CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER pushers are claiming.
(So Coleman Hughes, during his interview with Dave Rubin, said that Candace was wrong and acting on emotion without evidence, but he was wrong. She had read a lot about it by her own admission during the dialogue, but Coleman apparently forgot or missed her statements.)
Candace should have asked Joe to try to remember that she has already clarified her point that she was not denying that the Climate changed, because he keeps saying it, and then she should have asked him why he kept making that mistake.
Candace asked Joe if Climate Change [Dangers] was true, has he discovered through his research that there is something that humans can do to change this [stop the danger], and Joe said yes by pulling carbon out of the atmosphere. But carbon is not causing Climate Change planetary danger, this has been scientifically proven so why does Joe believe it is? As I said, I would suggest that you watch the Dave Rubin interview with Alex Epstein. Alex presents an intelligent argument against majoring on the Carbon danger and the majority rule argument for truth. You should also watch the great documentary “THE GREAT GLOBLE WROMING SWINDLE” because it presents great scientific examination against the CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER issue and exposes the money motives behind the CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER campaign.
When Joe continued to press Candace as to why she did not accept CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER and posted more “statistics” for her to see, clearly trying to "educate" her and convert her, she said maybe because of the way climate change danger was politicized. Joe showed the page statistics that stated that 10,306 scientists were evaluated to confirm that over 97 % of climate scientists agree and over 97% of scientific articles find that global warming is real and largely caused by humans. Then he condescendingly says to Candace, “if you want to step outside of the scientific consensus which is vast which involves 10,306 scientists, and just say I don’t believe in it. Even if you are right, you don’t have enough information to say that. He said she had to learn about it before she could have and opinion about it.
Joe then contradicts himself by saying that he does not have an opinion on Climate Change because he does not know much about it, but he knows from what he read that the majority of scientists who study it say that humans are affecting it. So, he “learned about it” and yet claimed that he had no opinion about it, in spite of drilling Candace with his opinion. Yet he tells Candace that she can’t have an opinion until she studies the issue. But he can badger her about it while having no opinion?
Candace had already informed Joe that she had read many articles about the issue and again informed him of that fact, so in essence, she has just as much right to have an opinion on the topic as he did. And yet he felt he had the right to challenge her on the bases of a supposed “majority” view that he could not possibly confirm, and which he should know does not mandate truth.
Candace also should not have allowed Joe to disrespect her intelligence as he was attempting to do, she was clearly caught off guard by his sudden abrupt adversarial attitude and she should have pointed out his condescending disposition. She had made it clear on several occasions during their conversation and did so again, that she was not promoting an anti-climate change agenda, so in my opinion, he had no right to act as if she had not explained herself. Frankly, he was rude.
But instead of Joe acknowledging his rudeness, he first acknowledges Candace’s claim that the CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER has been politicized, but then pushes Candace further by suggesting that her view is based on her being influenced by rightwing talking points because the rightwing believes that “global warming is not real”, but that is not what she said. First, she had already pointed out that the global warming title is generally not used anymore because it has been proven to have occurred throughout human history with no danger to human life. That Climate Change is the term now used, so he either slipped or he was being slick. But for him to say that the rightwing denies global warming happens is a bold face lie. The “rightwing” does not deny Global Warming, they deny as I do and Candace did, that Global Warming is a threat to human existence, Candace should have caught it.
But to be fair, she was not expecting to be ambushed on this topic by a supposedly friendly host. It is problematic that Candace kept saying “right”, ”right”, “right”, while Joe was talking, giving the impression that she was agreeing with everything he was saying, though she was more likely just indicating she understood him. But he was wrong.
When Candace pointed out how reports she had read indicated that some reports being published were done by scientists who were being funded by CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER sources, Joe basically denied that a conflict of interest can exist in science research. And that funding does not influence research, and that thousands of scientists would not put their reputations on the line by pushing false data. I must ask HOW DOES HE KNOW THIS? HOW CAN HE HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS IF HE HAS NOT RESEARCHED IT? THE BETTER QUESTION IS, WHY IS HE SO IGNORANT (AS HE SEEMED TO BE CALLING Candace), THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH THAT CIGARETT COMPANIES FUNDED THAT CLAIMED THAT CIGARETTS WERE HARMLESS AND DID NOT CAUSE CANCER? THAT GMO STUDIES BY SCIENTISTS WHO WERE FUNDED BY GMO COMPANIES PRODUCED RESEARCH THAT CLAIMED THAT GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS ARE HARMLESS? I AM SHOCKED AT HOW SURE JOE IS ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENTISTS GIVEN THE WELL KNOWN HISTORY OF FRAUD IN THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY.
Joe then repeats his claim that the science for CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER is based on data that you can look at but he is not challenged as to how he knows that data can be trusted, or why he believes that the “majority” of scientists “must” be right or even honest.
Candace again explained to Joe that if she was pushing a platform of climate change, she would do the research and solidify her position on the issue, but she is not.
Then Joe as a typical advocate for CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER, (even though he said he had no opinion on climate change) says to Candace, “yes, but you are a smart person and people are going to listen to you for a long time I believe”.
WHAT? If she is smart, why can’t he grasp that she has a good reason for not jumping on the CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER bandwagon? And more importantly, why is he so vehemently campaigning for her to accept CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER?
Joe them pissed me off by telling her that she did not know what the F—k she was talking about.
Now, at this point in the dialogue, you can’t tell me that this White dude had any respect for this sister. You can’t tell me that he did not just wanted to, but NEEDED TO embarrass her on his show.
She had never claimed one time to be an expert on climate change or CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER and she made it clear several times that it was not an issue that she would promote or use as a platform. It was only her opinion AFTER READING LOTS OF MATERIAL ON THE MATTER. And this ………….Lord, please help me calm down…..This person has the nerve to curse at her and disrespect her.
At this point my whole perspective about this dudes motives of having her on his show had changed.
I really don’t know why this sister allow this dude to keep pressing her on why she had an opinion on CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER, while I understand that she was not expecting this from him, she already by this point in the show, had enough information from him to know that he did not have sufficient respect for her and was now out to dog her, and she should by now have gathered herself and got into intellectual battle mode and asked him who he thought he was talking to.
I finally got around to watching the full interview and now I realize why Candace was so willing to take the abuse Joe was dishing out to her. Their dialogue up to the climate change issue had been so friendly that it is understandable why she chose to stay cool.
Anyway, instead of going off on him, Candace tried to be polite and professional and in trying to explain to this dude that she was not violating any intellectual rule by having and stating her opinion on CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER. She used an analogy about a person being asked if they believed in God and their answering by saying yes or no. Joe replied that the God question is not the same as a science matter that can be physically examined. He was wrong of course because Candace was not using the analogy to determine truth, but to point out how foolish it is to try to force someone who has an opinion about God to admit that they should not have one or say that they do. And he kept on accusing her of saying that it climate change was not real. (Is he stupid or crafty?) But he still refused to get, or I should say accept her point.
Joe then contradicted Candace’s statement that she would not present an argument against CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER on a college campus and said that he thought she would because she did on his show. Now again, earlier Candace had told him that what she was doing on his show is not how she would function on a college campus, she reiterated that point here, but again, because he has little or no respect for her, her word was not sufficient for him.
In her agitated state, even Candace then loosely said that she personally did not believe in Global warming, but from her earlier comments, she is talking about global warming danger. (This is the kind of thing she has to be careful of, because a person like Joe would use it as proof she does not know what she is talking about, even though he has on several occasions made it clear that he is ignorant on the very thing he was drilling her about).
Then after Candace states her case for the 50th time, Joe backs off and said…….get this.
“MEANWHILE I DON’T KNOW JACK SH--T ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING”.
He then even finally admits that there may be some truth to her claim that scientists are using the issue to make money. WHAT?!!!! SO WHY DID HE SPEND ALL THAT TIME ATTACKING HER OPINION?
From this point the conversation became civil again and so I had to drop my anger at this dude and give him credit for catching his mind.
I am still not giving Joe a pass on what he did to Candace in this interview. He owes her a public apology.
And I am going to send him this review and see if he is man enough to acknowledge it.
Below is the message that I sent to him via his website on 10-16-18
My email to Joe- 10-16-18 via his website- https://www.joerogan.com/contact/
Joe I watched your interview with Candace Owens and you were not only wrong, but rude and wrong and I was disappointed. I thought that you were an upstanding guy, who was dedicated to truth as best you could grasp it, but I saw something very different in that interview. I have written a commentary on that interview that I will be posting on line soon and I wanted to give you a heads up on it out of respect. I honestly think that you owe Candace an apology. Even if you still think you were right about Climate Change Danger, your attitude was rude. The young lady did not deserve to be treated the way you treated her. The link below should help your CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER mind set, but that is only if you are a real thinker who is willing to accept correction or to at least be honest. Man I was really turned off by your display of disrespect towards the sister, over something that you are wrong on, and your irrational need to get her to admit something that she clearly did not agree with and HAD as much if not more knowledge about the problems with CLIMATE CHANGE DANGER than you apparently did. So brother, come correct and at least give the sister an apology. I can be reached at (xxx-xxx-xxxx). I am no one so my opinion will not affect a mass crowd, so you really don't have to respond to me. But I just thought I would reach out to you out of respect.