The Incredible Cringe of Joe Rogan and Candace Owens Talking “Climate Change”

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.

The exchange got heated, and Candace repeatedly distanced her own opinions from her core beliefs, saying, “This isn’t the hill I’d die on.”

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.

Here’s a snippet of the opening back and forth, but watch the full video for a full dose of Joe Rogan going full election-night Ben Rhodes:

“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.

Candace laughs when asked if she cares about the environment, saying “no, not even a little bit.” She clarifies by saying, “I don’t throw trash on the ground.”

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.

“Why have an opinion on something you don’t have data about?” Rogan chides, “This is my question, like, I don’t have an opinion on climate science… the vast majority of people who study it are in agreement that humans are affecting it.”

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?

Here’s some data. NASA reports that Antarctica is actually gaining ice volume. Canada’s Global News asks, “What if the earth is actually cooling?”
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 what would you know, here’s a headline from 2 years ago reported by the BBC no less, titled “Rise in CO2 has greened planet earth.”

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.

So Joe, please let those scientists you “read about” know that they need not worry. Mother Nature got this! And maybe stop reading Scientific American, which is now asking “Should Climate Scientists Fly?” or using an argument levied by the increasingly crazy Guardian, which with equal smugness pouts “Trump administration refuses to consider that 97% of climate scientists could be right.”

But if you gotta read something on the left, consider the newly minted New York Times article suggesting, “Liberals, You’re Not as Smart as You Think.”