By Yung Nixon , in Exposing MSM Lies Rants on June 5, 2018 .
If you haven't seen it, and I'm sure you haven't, Candace Owens recently discussed her disbelief in climate change on Joe Rogan's popular podcast this week. He had none of it.
If you're among skeptics, you'll find yourself infuriated that typically open-minded Rogan delves into condescending platitudes once the topic of climate change gets broached. It's a touchstone for him that he clearly can't consider opposing views on.
"You don't think we have to care about the environment?" Rogan asks, invoking dogma that's eerily reminiscent of radical feminism's go-to opening line don't you believe in equality? It's the definition of feminism.
From there, Joe and Candace get into a heated dialogue, which predictably starts with two ubiquitous arguments every zealous climate-activist gives. The first being, 'hey, this is like…. super duper complicated.' Rogan laments how hard it is to understand the climate (it isn't) and goes on to lay the foundation for point two, 'but like, everyone who can grasp the complexity agrees.' This is used to create doubt that laypeople can discuss this, then opens the door to use groupthink as a data point.
He then asks his off-screen producer to get two links onscreen. The first is from Scientific American, suggesting 87% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and driven by human activities. Candace says "I don't care" and essentially dismisses the website because it's commercialized.
So Rogan does what any scientist would do, and he finds an even more biased source with even scarier numbers. We arrive to the second link, from the Union of Concerned Scientists (yes, actually, complete with stock photo in the margins of a white activist's pasty hands trying to caress a sunset), citing 97% consensus. The 10% gap in reporting doesn't give Rogan any pause, because science is about scientific consensus, right? Not about bad, self-defeating data?
Here begins the ultimate, blood-boiling, stupidity. Candace simply sticks by her guns, denying that she believes in it, and trying to change the topic to a thought experiment. She is willing to pretend climate change is real and man-made, and can't get her next string of words out.
Candace tries to clarify, suggesting there's doubt for statistics in science across many organizations just as there are doubts for Media Matters' organization and suggest various political statistics crumble under scrutiny.
Predictably, as unknowingly trained, Rogan replies, "You're talking about a different subject, politics vs. science." Candace then concedes that she might be culpable of reading too politically into it.
As most conditioned climate alarmists, Rogan again replies questioning Candace's motives and suggests that she's only in opposition because she's a political partisan.
It goes on, but goes nowhere.
And there you have it. The man bashes a person's loosely held opinion by citing two contradicting figures claiming consensus — about science no less — with supposedly damning figures from two sources which don't even match each other. He commits the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, and does so by presenting 87% and 97% as the scientific consensus from different "scientific" yet incongruent sources. Which is it Joe? 87% or 97%? And where's your data? The data you pretend to hold as truth?
But somewhere in this heated Joe Rogan clip he proudly, like a mom at soccer practice, says, "there are people working on carbon sucking machines" as if he's on the sidelines of unquestionable progress.
Here's the truth. Man doesn't need to create a new "carbon sucking" machine. It already exists, it's called a tree.
It's pretty obvious. Humans consume oxygen and output carbon. Just like industries do. Trees consume carbon and output oxygen. Just like always. So my super scientific hypothesis would therefore be, if we add more carbon to the environment, we will get more trees.
And CBS is reporting that the sun is cooling and we'll be in an ice age by 2050. Wow, that sounds like totally not-man-made climate change which we can't blame on the energy sector.