She formed a very strong opinion after one night of 'deep diving' into a couple of articles. I'm not from the US and a touch confused...is she actually considered as bright over there?
@@madhatter4173 I'm not from the us either, but I think a lot of Americans would not consider her bright. But a lot probably would, which is a tad frightening
JESSE WILSON Too bad Big Oil Business corrupted one side of politics to be ‘skeptics’ of the science of anthropogenic climate change (in reality they are usually just denying).
Yes, it is correct to say that one cannot discuss a topic without relevant data. I don't believe you can find an example of someone expressing a meaningful opinion on a topic about which they possess no information. @@deusmuerte6832
Emphasis on the speed. They're legal meth heads. Probably hopped up on adderall or something. They sound like every meth head or coke head who's ever thought that what they have to say means something.
@John Burton I kno that you kno that I kno that IF that wasnt sarcasm that was about as racist as you can get while simultaneously being as ignant as you can get...n you kno I kno you kno you ain't no racist...so ima chalk that up as sarcasm.
@John Burton there's only one race, you twat...human. And saying "credit to their race", is like saying "they speak well for a _______". It's at best a backhanded compliment, but in reality, just racism.
@Michael Larkin Joe's level of informed is "It seems like we pollute a lot and that's probably bad". Meanwhile, Candace is trying to point out the FACT that every single climate prediction has been wrong, and in some cases the opposite happens.
I really do respect Joe Rogans composure. I have seen him get cut off hundreds of times by guests and speakers, yet he continues to stay calm and actually listens when they interrupt him. Simply a master of communication.
Joe Rogan talks over Candace 100 times during this interview. It's like he can't just let her talk and then answer. I think they both got a lot batter at interviews in the last 5 years
She's wrong about Global Warming... but her point is she has an opinion and she doesn't know much about it but if someone sits down with her she can change her mind. Nothing wrong with that.
Lovin McLovin but Joes point is that if you don’t know.. don’t have an opinion... she “claims ignorance” at same time as “it’s a hoax”, those 2 can’t be mutually exclusive ... it’s a problem in political commentary and people in general
@Very Fake News CNN Are you stupid. Scientists around the globe are saying so and warn us. Look up the greenhouse effect and look up a graph There you go
All of these comment replies are massive copes. Dont let them tell you this video isn't pure pain that hasn't brought out anything good to think or feel about yourself or anyone or anything
Not control, just stop causing harm that will come back to bite us in the ass in the future. Same thing as using Acutane when you have really bad acne. It’s not going to get rid of the scars and previous damage, but you won’t have to deal with bad breakouts in the future.
@@TNTobin Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or understanding. Deliberate ignorance is a culturally-induced phenomenon, the study of which is called agnotology. "knowing better but doing the wrong thing anyway." Immoral describes people who can differentiate between right and wrong but intentionally do wrong anyway. Irrational would also describe such a behavior.
A B You probably shouldn't use articles written by Christopher Booker. He believes in intelligent design and denies evolution and he also claims that asbestos and second hand smoke don't increase your risk of developing cancer. He is what you would call, a complete fucking moron.
Who's more corrupt in Congress between the Republicans and the Democrats? " When comparing criminal indictments of those serving in the executive branch of presidential administrations it's so lopsided as to be ridiculous. Yet all I ever hear is how corrupt the Democrats are. So why don't we break it down by president and the numbers. Obama (D) - 8yrs in office. zero criminal indictments, zero convictions and zero prison sentences. so the next time somebody describes the Obama administration as "scandal free" they aren't speaking wishfully, they're simply telling the truth. Bush, George W. (R) - 8yrs in office. 16 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 9 prison sentences. Clinton (D) - 8yrs in office. 2 criminal indictments. one conviction. one prison sentence. that's right nearly 8yrs of investigations. tens of millions spent and 30yrs of claiming them the most corrupt ever and there was exactly one person convicted of a crime. Bush, George H. W. (R) - 4yrs in office. one indictment. one conviction. one prison sentence. Reagan (R) - 8yrs in office. 26 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 8 prison sentences. Carter (D) - 4yrs in office. one indictment. zero convictions and zero prison sentences. Ford (R) - 2 1/2 yrs in office. one indictment and one conviction. one prison sentence. Pardoned Richard Nixon. Nixon (R) - 6yrs in office. 76 criminal indictments. 55 convictions. 15 prison sentences. Johnson (D) - 5yrs in office. zero indictments. zero convictions. zero prison sentences. So, let’s see where that leaves us. in the last 53 years Democrats have been in office for 25 of those years while Republicans held it for 28. in their 25yrs in office Democrats had a total of three executive branch officials indicted with one conviction and one prison sentence. That's one whole executive branch official convicted of a crime in two and a half decades of Democrat leadership. In the 28yrs that Republicans have held office over the last 53yrs they have had a total of (a drum roll would be more than appropriate), 120 criminal indictments of executive branch officials. 89 criminal convictions and 34 prison sentences handed down. That's more prison sentences than years in office since 1968 for Republicans. If you want to count articles of impeachment as indictments (they aren't really but we can count them as an action), both sides get one more. However, Clinton wasn't found guilty while Nixon resigned and was pardoned by Ford. So, those only serve to make Republicans look even worse. With everything going on with Trump and his people right now, it's a safe bet Republicans are gonna be padding their numbers a bit real soon. So let's just go over the numbers one more time shall we. 120 indictments for Republicans. 89 convictions and 34 prison sentences. Those aren't "feelings" or "alternate facts" those are simply the stats by the numbers. Republicans are, and have been for my entire lifetime, the most criminally corrupt party to hold the office of the presidency.
@@bear3663 Only because it has been used so heavily. Its "definition" is regardless. The prefix ir is intended to change the meaning of the root word to the opposite of the root word. So irregardless should be the opposite of regardless which is essentially equivalent to saying nothing but instead its definition is stated as the very word it is meant to negate. It doesn't make any sense.
@Real Progressives Allowed even if weather and climate mean the same thing, it’s still really stupid to compare the weather which varies everyday to the climate which is an average of the weather of a region or of a period of time
Debra Hoffman ayyyy 🤣🤣🤣 your idiocy is beyond measure innit ? Roger Penrose was just awarded the nobel prize for his mathematical models that prove the existence of black holes as a prediction of Einstein's theory of general relativity. Meanwhile you’re an oxygen thief 🤷
Ooooooh. Einstein.... The guy who was ridiculed by the "scientific consensus" and his "collogues" for his theories and who famously said “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." in response to them trying to discredit him even though he was later proven correct?... That guy? So much for consensus and Majority.
You can't tell someone they can't have a opinion. In her opinion she doesn't agree, Joe is frustrared she won't agree with him. He wants her to agree so badly, I can feel it through my screen.
He just wants her to agree that she doesn’t know. The way she comes across is like someone that doesn’t believe in climate change and is not open to it
@raz922 It's an opinion none the less, people have opinions on all sorts of matters with or without proper facts. One person's truth can be another person's lie.
@@JaniMorrow84 opinions are overrated in their "sanctity" depending on what is being talked about. if I say "in my opinion, cars dont run on fuel but they run on a hamster that eats the petrol and then spins a wheel" or "in my opinion the moon is made of cheese" it doesnt mean anyone needs to respect my opinion. everyone can have any kind of opinion on any given thing, that doesnt mean that these opinions are equally valid or that someone shouldnt be challenged on it.
Yeah as in the funding of oil companies produces the small discrepancy, that has been proven. You've got it the wrong way around. Who do you think has more money? Scientists or oil cartels? I can't believe this fact isn't obvious to people.
LoweRider Her claim is that Hillary Clinton was in bed with the Saudis *and* that Donald Trump changed that. Even supposing that he is doing exactly what past presidents had done*, you need to meet the other half of the claim: how did "Trump came in and said NO" with regard to the Saudis? Saying that he continued with business as usual with the Saudis does not meet that burden. *Ignoring, for example, that past presidents weren't making those sales over the objections of Congress in the wake of one of the most significant international human rights scandal of the past decade. The action is hardly the same when the context changes that much: it's one thing to buy some jewelry from a pawn shop, it's another thing to buy from that same pawn shop 10 minutes after the cops tell you that the pawn broker is a fence for local burglars.
LoweRider Ok. Trump said he would not be in bed with saudi arabia. Then sells $10 billion in weapons to them. Yea previous administrations did. But wasnt trump supposed to be different and end those corrupt practices? Yea fuckin right gimme a break. He did the opposite. Its ok you will concoct some excuse for him.
She obviously ignored the picture of trump holding that light sphere with the king of Saudi Arabia and all the gifts they gave him🙄but she’s a talking head being paid by the Koch Brothers to deny everything true and blame liberals for the world’s woes. www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/world/middleeast/trump-glowing-orb-saudi.html
How thick are you dweebs?...there is not one iota of credible peer reviewed scientific data which show a connection between global warming & global climate change...NOTHING.....local and regional weather/climate variations ..yes...and that's been known since the mid 19th century......but that has nothing to do with global warming trends......the IPCC are frauds....pathetic, amateur frauds who have stolen billions of research funds from legitimate scientists.....thus the US, China, Russia, Australia et etc will continue to build coal fired power plants cos they have nothing to do with global warming PS: it's the Sun, silly......ha ha ha ha
Rogan is so busy trying to prove her opinion wrong, he doesn't value her right to have an opinion. It's pathetic when his ego gets in the way of common sense
rahul mahbubani Climate Change isn't about how you feel climate has been changing, it's more about global changes across larger scales of time. So saying you feel it's gotten hotter isn't a good argument for climate change. Instead, point to all the scientific evidence of climate change.
Majority opinion doesn't always and in every situation determine truth or right or wrong. To think that it does is extremely naive and illogical. The empirical outcomes of our elections for example speaks to this.
It’s not the same as a public majority opinion. These are people who devote their lives to studying this and are incredibly accomplished in their field. It’s not the same as asking John from Kansas what he thinks about climate change. Bad example
Joe Rogan needs to get himself educated around this subject. He and others in the comment section need to know how deep the rabbit hole runs. For starters, begin your adventure with Al Gore's professor. I promise you, it is damn good ride and it will change you completely whenever they start whining about climate change.
@@stacychew4175 Oh bc you've seen one video of her talking about a topic that she barely knew about and Rogan stuck to because he wanted to make her look bad. Okay Stacy.
What bugs me most is that we are burning coal and gas to make electricity. Using oil to make windmill blades. To me this is evidence enough to cause all of us to think before we jump into the water, just how deep is it? Can we swim well enough?
@@antoinecharlesdegaulle580 she said i haven’t formed opinion and I don’t believe it in. He is like it’s science and stuff she told him she does not have an opinion.
People confuse the politics of climate change with the science. You might not agree with what politicians are doing about climate change but it's real. People say Evolution is a theory, evolution is a fact; evolution by natural selection is a theory.
She was saying she didn't believe it (agnostic) but was focusing on disagreeing with and being real offput by the politics of it. And yes more people should be able and willing to admit it's true even while disagreeing with most of the proposed politics about it.
@@sitrep2418 But how much does she really know about it? She'd be utterly lost two minutes into a climate science examination. You know it and I know it.
@@tln25 www.ucsusa.org/resources/are-humans-major-cause-global-warming www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/faq/how-do-human-activities-contribute-to-climate-change-and-how-do-they-compare-with-natural-influences rses.anu.edu.au/research/research-stories/humans-have-caused-climate-change-180-years www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change And I'm sure, even with all this statistical information and scientific explanations, you will still come up with some bullshit to say it's fake. And if you do, why don't you provide evidence as to why it's not caused by humans.
@@sitrep2418 correct she didn't say the climate changes everyday - she said the climate always changes. It's not unusual to see mis-quotes. "So what you're saying is.."
I mean...that isn’t an incorrect sentence. You can travel around the world AND see different parts of the U.S. I don’t agree with her, I’m just saying it’s not a bad sentence technically speaking.
Candace: Do I believe in climate change? No. Joe: You don’t believe in climate change? Candace: No. I think the climate always changes. She just contradicted herself.
He didn't ask a question, she stupidly said she doesn't think anyone should care about the environment which Joe found very hard to ignore and that's how it started.
@@allroundlad He didn't ask a question? Really?! Joe asks a question at: :32 - "What do you think's causing that?" 1:04 - "In what way?" 7:21 - "But why have a belief?" 9:12 - "But why are you saying that you don't think it exists, though?" 11:00 - "But why have an opinion on something that you don't have data about?" 12:00 - "Science has been politicized?" 14:32 - "But why then say you don't believe in it?!"
@@joeb5230 Yeah after he starts asking questions because she said something really stupid and as the host, he's allowed to ask questions especially when it's concerning her saying really ignorant things. Unfortunately it never got through her thick skull that what she was saying was utter shite but he tried.
@@allroundlad Lemme get this straight. You stated that Joe Rogan didn't ask a question. When I provide you with quotes and timestamps proving that he asked Candace several, your response is that he didn't begin asking questions until after she said something that, in your subjective opinion, was 'stupid'. *sigh* Where to begin? First, you just acknowledged that he asked her questions after her statement, thus invalidating your claim that he didn't ask her questions. Second, you failed to notice that his first two questions were asked before her statement. Third, you failed to grasp that at no point in any of my comments have I weighed in on either side of the climate discussion. In my original comment I was pointing out that Joe was not performing his duties as interviewer to the same standards that he usually does. He asked for his guest's opinion repeatedly, trying to convince her to change her answer between each question. Regardless of the intelligence of a guest's answer, repeatedly posing the same question is bad form as an interviewer. His question was asked and answered several times, and he had lost his objectivity in the process. That was my point.
@@joeb5230 Yes the podcaster asked questions, I misspoke. Here's your medal. Do you not know Joe? He's always drilling into people that have controversial, stupid opinions. Just look at him and Eddie bravo going at it so there was no different treatment here, this is how he always is. Secondly, don't play that game. You don't need to state your opinion on the topic because it's obvious what side you stand on after rushing to Candace's defence, doesn't take a genius to work that out. How about you just cut the crap and explain why you're even supporting her ludicrous waffle. Anyone with a brain can see that Joe has substantial talking points and Candace was "dying on that hill" after saying she wasn't going to do that because she doesn't infact know what the eff she's talking about.
@@michaela1843 I really don’t get it. And she’s been on Twitter since the election telling lie after lie and supporting the accusations that the election was rigged.
@@michaela1843 She also gets propped up because she's a person of colour promoting conservative viewpoints. She's a grifter who has to stay on character at all times. Who knows what she believes behind closed doors, tbh
And like, she read a “$hit ton” of articles…that she can’t recall. I think literature review or systematic review would be a more appropriate term for the “deep dive she did in one night” 😂😂😂
As an old Yogi once told me: If someone is actually sleeping you can wake them up, but if someone is pretending to be sleeping you can never wake them up.
Or in one night! While it takes scientist their whole life to understand it. This lying fake poser says its not true because she read it one night! Unbelievable
THE PROBLEM IS: she’s disbelieving as a DEFAULT. that’s insane. the DEFAULT should be neutral. “i don’t know” is so much wiser than sure disbelief by default.
Nobody knows. It's not even a consensus in the scientific community. She's totally correct in just giving her opinion and saying what she believes or not. Believing is different than knowing. Joe, on the other side, has been pushing her all time to agreeing with his stance.
Otavio Limirio Farias it is literally 97% of active scientists. That is about as much of a consensus as you can get from the scientific community. It is a real thing. The only argument to be had on it is whether or not climate change is the result of human interaction.
@@otaviolimirio1 Believing is not different than knowing. Belief just means you think you know. If you dont know how to perform open heart surgery you dont say "i dont believe it's possible". You say "i dont know wtf im talking about so I'm going to stand back and let the experts handle this". She's somehow trying to have it both ways, by saying she neither understands the subject but also has enough information to flat out reject it, which makes no sense.
No, that's not the problem and disbelief should be the default. The problem is that she doesn't understand and confines to maintain her default position.
I have taken 4 graduate courses in the sciences that study this topic. Every one of those professors said that this is part of the natural cycle. They explained it in detail, including the Black Death and its relationship to the Little Ice Age when people were undernourished due to fewer crops growing. Satellite pictures show that the Earth is now becoming greener with plants growing more widely. The traditional climate scientists agree that man has caused some of the increase in CO2, but it’s a small fraction of the increase. Those 97% of scientists included anyone they could stick the word science to their field…social scientists, domestic scientists, etc., and were 97% of those who responded to the poll. Many real climate scientists didn’t respond, so they were not considered scientists for that poll. Please, check out the many real climate scientists who are now speaking out. This was a scare tactic to get people to “go green”. Why are so many who “believe” this buying beach houses? The coastal areas are supposed to be underwater soon.
exactly!!! global warming was a fraud to tax people, regular citizens, while private company owners, industrial giants wipe their butts with those same bills.
Ahoy and Aloha, I am so very Sorry I Do Not Understand What is The Hill, Where is The Hill that WE Are Not Going to Die On? Please Clarify my ignorance!?
@@Jianju69 by confronting her on the topic and instead of just letting it go she continues to defend her position fully aware that she knows without the knowledge. She is a drifter she spins the points To confuse the viewer fully aware of the fact that she is just trying to score political points.
@@Liam-uh3pr that's half true. analyze the video and what was said. she claimed to be of the opinion that global warming wasn't a concern to her in the context of being in an international agreement where trillions were involved. joe Rogan then said, why have a belief on something you know nothing about. the difference in the understanding is the word opinion and belief, they are not the same but are used similarly to literally and figuratively.
m3lon San, What Does Candace Owens_Farmer mean by her statement to Joe Rogan: " I'm Not So Sure, I Would Die on the Hill for It" ? I am so very Sorry, I do not Understand.
Not true. Joe is arguing that we must all be scientifically agnostic... She is creating a hypothesis based on data too... This is America and the coversation is more about her belief of disbelief... Joe was so busy trying to convince her to stand on the fence that he didn't bother to take a beat to consider whether or not there may be truth in her Candace's suspicions that climate change has been hijacked by politics and people who can capitalize off of it... Just pause and think about how big the green industry is and how much money and trash is made from it. In NYC there are home owners and landlords who are removing perfectly good fixtures to update to green fixtures... Do you know how much money and garbage (that isn't biodegradable or recyclable) that generates? Candace's reservations are valid. But, instead of examining her point further Joe decides to try dragging her for saying she doesn't believe. Stay on the topic and destroy her argument instead or deflecting and attempting to assassinate her belief, or lack of belief system...
Joe: "you don't think we have to care about the environment?" Candace: "(laughing) no, not even a little bit." WOW. Even with her following statements. STILL WOW.
You can model temperature increasing by x amount no doubt but you can NEVER predict how that wildly complex system will behave once we reach those temperatures never mind to predict it accurately and reliably. They present warming as boiling now, what utter shit 😂 The earth will not be on fire if its as warm as the time of the dinosaurs, it will be so green and abundant in a higher carbon environment. The people who lied and are all the covid shit up are the same type as the climate operatives
I tell my fuance this all the time... They cut down millions of trees that will help us to replace it with machines. This shit is idiotic. I believe this is a contributing factor why our earth is caving in. Tree roots are strong and hold so much together. We are parasites to this earth.
Human beings cut down CO2 eating trees to make way for C02 producing humans! 3 billion people on earth till middle of last century. Over population is the reason for climate change
In my opinion, we must have an educated society before to talk about Climate change because people tend to be ignorant especially, the celebrities, who are able to talk about an issue like this without knowledge when they're asked. Nevertheless, as Jurgen Klopp once said; "It's not important about famous people say", when I heard that, everything made me sense. By the way, I wish I had also seen Greta Thumberg as a guest to argue over Climate Change with Joe.
He doesn’t. He’s arguing here that humans affect the climate changing which is true. He still believes that to be true but understands changes like this have always happened.
@@hepwo91222 Newsflash, it was 65 farenheit a few days ago in Antarctica. Newsflash, the UN report *made up of scientists* confirmed that we know that we are accelerating climate change at a dangerous rate. Newsflash, the only people who gain from denying climate change is oil companies who trash the environment.
@@hepwo91222 I'm on the side of Joe where I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it. I don't care how many scientists say things or how much evidence they claim to have. I don't know therefore I won't claim to know and I don't care to know. Humans will be killed off but the earth will be just fine. I couldn't literally not care any less.
@@jakjam300 you have been brainwashed by the MSM and globalist politicians. Anthropogenic climate change is unproven, it fails the scientific method every... single... time. Also the climate models are based on incomplete data due to our inability to predict the movement of water vapor more than a few hours/days. So maybe one day when we can solve Navier-Stokes equations we can predict future climate but as of now, we cannot.
I’ve never agreed and disagreed with any person more than Candace Owens. She’s got some bright moments and some really really really low light moments.
Rogan is clearly wrong here about The climate change issue and is forcefully argueing with faulty facts. You could say hes bringing forth the globalists agenda. See the respons and links to real scientists about this climate change debate: Hello Andreas! Thank you for your inquiry. This is a curious petition which seems to have been hastily put together and not well vetted. "Mickey Mouse" was one of the signatories. (attached) It has some similarities to a similar petition of some years ago with 15,000 signatories - of which Adolf Hitler had signed. blog.friendsofscience.org/2017/11/20/the-petition-of-more-than-15000-scientists-more-fakenews/ As many commentators have noted, most of the signatories do not work in climate science assessments but rather in fields like biology. While there is a component of climate change impacts on biology inherent in that field of study, climate change is measured on very long time scales of 30, 50, 100 and millennial time scales. We do not have sufficient data to make pronouncements about climate change like those made by this group. William Briggs, statistician, has written a biting critique wmbriggs.com/post/28490/ There is much debate in the climate community - the Spilman Law firm hosted this debate: czcams.com/video/lyNCl7NzjaM/video.html We have hosted annual events since our inception, hoping to encourage open, public debate and to inform people of the complexities of climate science. friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=308 Dr. Judith Curry states that climate change is not a clear or present danger. wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/16/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-climate-change-is-not-a-clear-and-present-danger/ Unfortunately, the media love frightening headlines and many environmental groups drive donations with ever more catastrophic claims. We are in favour of open, civil debate on climate and energy policies and full cost-benefit analysis. A group of international scientists have stated there is no climate emergency. czcams.com/video/GpVBH-HY5Ow/video.html I hope this is helpful information. Best wishes, Michelle Stirling Communications Manager -- Friends of Science Society P.O. Box 23167, Mission P.O. Calgary, Alberta Canada T2S 3B1 Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597 Web: friendsofscience.org
I'm not here to argue climate change. I'm just pointing out how much it says about someone when they would rather have an opinion about something they clearly know very little about, as opposed to having the courage to say they don't know enough about it to form an opinion in the first place. That is our current political landscape in a nutshell.
Her point being is that she is respectfully engaging in the topic at hand because its just the 2 of them talking. As in, she means that she isn't trying to persuade anyone whatsoever during this exchange.. Its obvious only Joe Rogan is trying to do the persuading. @JULIE & JAMES! Are you this ignorant? Bc Joe clearly proves he is the one with the agenda by getting upset that she "as an influencer" is stating she doesn't share the same beliefs as him!!
@@teejay3193 It may have been just the 2 of them talking, but it wasn't just the 2 of them listening to the conversation, unless she just drew a blank and forgot that their conversation was being recorded on one of the most listened to podcasts...
@@teejay3193 Joe's point is that as an influencer she can't just state her feelings as if they're more important than facts because she has a responsibility as a public figure not to misinform people.
Go tell our swiss glaciers that climate change doesn‘t exist maybe they will stop thawing so rapidly and even faster from year to year. Would be great to keep them for a while longer.
Is that what she said? Pretty sure her wording would've been "I don't believe you own a dog." Literally speaking there's a difference between "I don't believe you own a dog" and "I believe you don't own a dog", even though we interpret them the same. "I don't believe" means you have no belief either way (you don't know), "I believe you don't" means you believe the contrary. For some reason all of us interpret them the same way. I never considered the difference until she pointed out they may have a difference in linguistics. Either way she definitely should've said "I don't know" to be clear.
More like "I don't know whether you have a dog or not, BUT, there's a dog house in your front yard, there's some dog toys and chewed up rags lying around, there's some dog shit in your backyard, the cats stay the fuck away from your house, oh and I hear some barking coming from your house. Hmmm, nope I don't buy it. You don't have a doggo."
she only exists so that the right can point to her and say “seeeee? our policies aren’t racist. a black person supports them!!” a sad existence, indeed
@@serclintalot4497 dude the entire video she’s like “I don’t know anything about this, but here’s my detailed opinion. very obviously trying to push the right’s climate science denial propaganda while also giving herself an out if she’s ever called out about this video
@@sub-zero5433 The video only exists because he interpreted "I don't believe" to mean "I vehemently oppose" and decided to grill her on it. Yes, she should have just said "I don't know" but she tried to end it several times, he got more aggressive, and she got defensive. Regardless, what does it matter at this point? It's not like the left has any viable solutions other than griping about it and pointing fingers at the other side.
I think this subject can be answered so easily. What are the pros if we are right on global warming? Add thousands of jobs in renewable resources, rely less on fossil fuel and gas. Cons to it? Hurts big oil companies makes them obsolete. It’s expensive to do. Honestly the pros are at least worth a shot what is it with Republicans just saying it’s bad without even giving it a shot? All I see when I hear them say this is that they may have too much money from big oil that don’t want to lose their monopoly.
Joe Rogan : Excuse me sir, but I do believe you've dropped your wallet. This chick : Doesn't look familiar to me. Joe Rogan : What? I just saw you drop it. Here. This chick : Nope, it's not mine. Joe Rogan: It is yours. I am trying to be a good person and return it to you. This chick : Return what to who? Joe Rogan : [facepalms, then shows Patrick his ID] Aren't you Patrick Star? This chick : Yup. Joe Rogan : And this is your ID. This chick : Yup. Joe Rogan : I found this ID in this wallet. And if that's the case, this must be your wallet. This chick : That makes sense to me. Joe Rogan : Then take it. This chick : It's not my wallet.
O X that is debatable and not proven fact you are aware of that right? The common belief is more co2 equals higher temps which is true but do you know how many factors go into the temperature of the earth ? It’s not just co2 lvls lmao
Russian Bot8269 because everyone has a car and everyone wants cow meat plus pollution in the ocean ruin coral reefs all of which contribute to the decrease of co2 reduction
@@danielbaker7213 Because that's how science works. Once you are confronted with data that changes the reality of what your talking about, the name shifts to more accurately reflect that data. edit: also, if your goal is to convince laymen, people without no scientific background, that this highly complicated issue IS an issue, your going to try to use a name that will translate the best to the common population. Global warming was too inaccurate and reductive and confused the morons who went "OH BUT SOME PLACES ARE COLDER" so they changed it.
I remember learning in middle school science class weather is the day to day state of the atmosphere and climate is the long term state. She lost all credibility on the issue when she failed to understand that
@Alexis S She's allowed to have an opinion. I love Joe, but she's entitled to her own personal opinion. Like she said, she doesnt preach it, she doesnt give talks about it and she's not spreading it so whats the problem with her having her own beliefs??? I have mine, you have yours etc.
@@j-pvezeau5797 Well considering the Higgs Boson helps explain how to obtain dark matter I think its pretty fascinating. But its just theory. Lets see how it pans out. And thanks for helping me prove my point entirely. People can have an opinion while having very limited knowledge on a topic. Thats why its opinion.
😂 Thousands of scientists backed up the Lucy theory, only to find out the whole thing was made up from a tooth. And it wasnt even a human tooth... Look it up 😅
A big misunderstanding of the events. Scientists proved it false by using science. They corrected a fraud. Hardly the evidence of scientific incompetence you think it is.
@Toori Baba Jordan Peterson isn't a rightwinger. I only meant it in the politician + political commentator sense. Donald Trump, Mike Pence, mini Trumps, Mitch Mcconnell, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Bill Barr, Stephen Miller, Lindsay Graham, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Candace Owens, Chris Christie, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Tomi Lahren, etc.
@Toori Baba False. "Trump registered as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987, switched to the Reform Party in 1999, the Democratic Party in 2001, and back to the Republican Party in 2009." So he's been a Democrat 8 years, a Republican for 23 years, and in the Reform Party for 2 years. And aside from being a registered Republican for 75% of the past 30 years, he's an extreme rightwing Republican right now. I get why you're trying to distance yourself from him, because he's as embarrassing as they come, but he's firmly in your camp.
@Toori Baba I've never read so much bullshit in one CZcams comment before. Trump follows the teachings of Jesus Christ? Hahahaha. Hahahaha. I'm not even going to waste my time commenting on all the other false stuff you just spewed.
She was a liberal 3 years ago. She's still in her conservative honeymoon phase, and is paid handsomely to support those views. I doubt she will hold the same views once they find a better shill with a larger reach.
She's also stated that this isn't a point she's put much research into. I don't think it's fair to call her dumb because she doesn't know much about an issue she hasn't researched much yet. But then has much more informed decisions on a bunch of other topics. So because she doesn't know much about one given topic she stated she hasn't put much research into, she's stupid altogether? I think that's a little unfair of a statement to make. Dumb on this topic, sure. Or at least hasn't really formulated her thoughts about it yet I think the way that you attempt to measure intellect, is dumb in and of itself. It's been 2 years, I'm sure she's had time to formulate her thoughts about the issue. Also if you actually listened to her argument, she stated the does believe in climate change, just not to the extent others do. For instance, I believe the climate changes all the time, I just don't think Humans have much effect on it. I do know we have a certain degree of effect on it, but how much? All of it? Some of it? How much do Humans actually contribute to Climate Change? What can Humans do to stop it? I don't think there's much the U.S. can do to stop Climate change, at least the technology just isn't their yet. Are renewable methods just aren't cost effective enough and aren't that great compared to fossil fuels. Now there is nuclear energy which burn a lot cleaner, but for some reason many don't want to go that route. It would be cost effective, clean, and a better power source. Even if we went back to the stone ages and completely replaced are energy with crappy alternatives that cost more but are cleaner, We still don't know if that would make any significant effect on climate change what so ever. China will continue what they're doing, other impoverished country's will continue to do what they're doing because environmentalism is a luxury of the rich. Those country's could not afford (Neither can we) to change all of are energy sources for crappier alternatives that cost much more and require more maintenance. If some poor family in Zimbabwe have to burn couch chips to keep their family warm, they're going to do it. Regardless if it raises carbon emissions by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002% in the future. Also, carbon emissions aren't necessarily bad for the planet either and have been around since the earth has been. It has been aiding in plant growth. After multiple studies done, the research shows that Carbon dioxide actually help with plant growth by aiding the photosynthesis process. Carbon Dioxide is actually essential for keeping earth Habitable, But it is a balancing act. Too little and the earth becomes below freezing, too much and the earths temperature can begin to rise. What I generally don't agree with people on is the extent of which we effect it, and the solution for attempting to keep it balanced. I don't believe the technology is quite there yet for us to make much of a change on it as of yet. But there are also many other green house gases that seem to cause this effect as-well such as methane, Chlorofluorocarbons, and nitrous oxide. Also, the changing of the greenhouses effects are hard to predict. So anyone telling you the world is going to end in 2021, is probably an idiot. I don't believe the world is ending any time soon due to this, and I believe the best solution currently is to wait for better technology to become available. I believe there are currently far more pressing concerns than climate change.
This is exactly the reason why I don't have a political party. You begin to identify with the party and always side with it even on issues in which it's wrong in.
Never a truer word. Even thoughtful, clearly intelligent members of each group fall into the same trap. Candace said one truism in this clip but the significance was lost on her...at 4:48 she said "instead of looking for what you're searching for why don't you look up what you're not searching for". She's right. You could easily justify the opposite viewpoint of that was your goal and this betrays a real truth. In todays age a layperson can find evidence to corroborate any viewpoint they wish to hold. Confirmation bias and a limitless database of knowledge, opinion, spin, etc make it a simple matter. Did you ever watch a flat Earth video? They pull 'facts' from everywhere. It's almost convincing. Almost!
that's not true. That's called identity politics and you shouldn't play that game. They play it a lot in the west but just because someone sides with a party that doesn't mean you believe everything one party does.
Pulls up .com site. "They're just interested in money." Pulls up .org site. "Who are they polling?" Pulls up .gov site. "You can't trust the government." Pulls up climate denial geocities site with clip art and pink text on pink background. "Now this one I trust."
Danny Davis I think that applies to all you who are slamming Candace Owens . None of you are climate scientists, so you are all as ignorant - and probably more so than Candace - who did research the researchers and the studies - reading both sides of the “ story”- as well as seeing which billionaire ( Soros) was behind the findings and the findings. Every scientist admits that there have been VAST climate changes thruout earths history- preceding humans and certainly preceding CO2 emissions.
The so-called facts from the global warming doomsday cult is data that was fraudulently “adjusted” to prove their case. The 1930’s was always the warmest decade in recorded history until the temperatures were adjusted downward by the cult.
Tol, R. S. J. (2014). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis. Energy Policy, 73, 701-705. doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.045
Where i live snow used to be feets just a decade before, it used to be massive snow days, but now we'd be lucky to get a couple inches. This has happened for 3 years in a row, and it had been getting worse every year from that decade ago. Climate change is real.
Neither can scientists apparently. Where did "global warming" go? Climate change is real, the climate changes all the time, that's nothing new. Have a look at pictures of the sky during the industrial revolution, then comment on whether or not you think what we're doing now, has the ability to "bring the sky down" so to speak. Co2 takes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. How can something that occupies that much space in the atmosphere, cause the sky to fall? Millions of people and fish piss in the ocean every day, does that change the flavor of the ocean? No, it does not, because even the fish, of which there are billions, who piss in that ocean every day, is not a large enough part of that ocean to change any aspect of it. Same idea with Co2 and the atmosphere. Search for yourself.
![[Vowel]물고기는 물에서 살아야 해🐟🤣Fish have to live in the water #funny](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3G9MH063Cx4/mqdefault.jpg)
"Yeah the climate changing, the weather was different yesterday"
PACK IT UP BOYS, SCIENCE HAS BEEN DISPROVED
She formed a very strong opinion after one night of 'deep diving' into a couple of articles. I'm not from the US and a touch confused...is she actually considered as bright over there?
@@madhatter4173 I'm not from the us either, but I think a lot of Americans would not consider her bright. But a lot probably would, which is a tad frightening
🤣🙌🏼😂😂
Tis fucking hilarious comment man 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Science never proved anything. If you believe science leads to objective truths you're a sheep
Climate change shouldn't be a right or left subject. Just an issue.
JESSE WILSON yup, I’m right/conservative but believe in climate change, it’s scientifically proven
JESSE WILSON Too bad Big Oil Business corrupted one side of politics to be ‘skeptics’ of the science of anthropogenic climate change (in reality they are usually just denying).
Its weird how it became that way.
The far right and far left cannot budge in their beliefs. So annoying. I’m right, but if something is proven or makes sense, I tend to believe it.
Its so fucking weird that its a right and left issue
“Why have an opinion on something you have no data about? “ This question should be at the center of any discussion.
Another good question, a you sure your opinion is made on correct information?
She did fucking say she didn’t know enough nd Joe kept pushing
That's because she continues to express strong opinions on this topic about which she is ignorant. @@Yodontdoit
Yes, it is correct to say that one cannot discuss a topic without relevant data. I don't believe you can find an example of someone expressing a meaningful opinion on a topic about which they possess no information. @@deusmuerte6832
@@OneTheBlue well Joe has since changed his stance on climate change to something similar to hers sooo
This convo is 5 years old. Where does Rogan stand now?
He still feels the same way because he’s not full blown MAGA, he still at least believes in science, something you probably don’t understand
@@hurricane0064 Aww! Did your leftist feelings get hurt?
The science shows that You are A Dick!
@@hurricane0064 Ok Hurricane! The science guy! Haha!
@@chocolateforever63 earth is very much round you illiterate trash
@@chocolateforever63 bet you think Isaac Newton is a brand of cookies you uneducated 🐈
She must've graduated from Ben Shapiro's speed talking academy
Emphasis on the speed. They're legal meth heads. Probably hopped up on adderall or something. They sound like every meth head or coke head who's ever thought that what they have to say means something.
@John Burton I kno that you kno that I kno that IF that wasnt sarcasm that was about as racist as you can get while simultaneously being as ignant as you can get...n you kno I kno you kno you ain't no racist...so ima chalk that up as sarcasm.
@John Burton "credit to her race" sounds pretttty fuckin' racist bro, lol.
@John Burton there's only one race, you twat...human. And saying "credit to their race", is like saying "they speak well for a _______". It's at best a backhanded compliment, but in reality, just racism.
@@KnockManJo speaking super fast and saying absolutely nothing of substance isn't verbal dexterity.
"Arguing with a smart person is hard. Arguing with a stupid person is impossible"
Don’t argue with a stupid person. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Absolutely 💯 💯 💯
Why do the media give this unqualified dumbass a platform to spout bollocks.
@Michael Larkin Joe's level of informed is "It seems like we pollute a lot and that's probably bad".
Meanwhile, Candace is trying to point out the FACT that every single climate prediction has been wrong, and in some cases the opposite happens.
“Arguing with a genius”
I can’t stand when people try to talk over eachother because they disagree
who cares?
@@user-cg5lo4zy6f apparently you do since you took the time to not only read my comment but also to reply to it 🤡
I really do respect Joe Rogans composure. I have seen him get cut off hundreds of times by guests and speakers, yet he continues to stay calm and actually listens when they interrupt him. Simply a master of communication.
He constantly interrupted her…
Joe Rogan talks over Candace 100 times during this interview. It's like he can't just let her talk and then answer. I think they both got a lot batter at interviews in the last 5 years
Actually Joe is the one interrupted Candace all the time
He’s definitely a gifted communicator.
He’s an amazing listener. He does reflective listening like a master.
This is weed arguing with coke.
😂😂😂
Under rated comment.
LMFAO
Nah. This is logic arguing with ideological bullshit.
😂
-there is no evidence
Joe: here is some evidence
- I don’t believe you ....
Politics
No just Candace
People
She's wrong about Global Warming... but her point is she has an opinion and she doesn't know much about it but if someone sits down with her she can change her mind. Nothing wrong with that.
Lovin McLovin but Joes point is that if you don’t know.. don’t have an opinion... she “claims ignorance” at same time as “it’s a hoax”, those 2 can’t be mutually exclusive ... it’s a problem in political commentary and people in general
Tobias..no Candace just makes everyone that's in a debate with her she makes the look dumb lol 😂..
The back peddling is off the charts. As much as she claims she does not want to die on the hill, she is sure is coming off as a victim on it.
I learned all about climate science one night….one night lol 😂
I think Joe got another forehead wrinkle during this convo
Joe's a moron
Every time her mouth opens
Jessica W lol
She believes science is not real, I believe she is shit!!!
@Very Fake News CNN Are you stupid. Scientists around the globe are saying so and warn us. Look up the greenhouse effect and look up a graph There you go
Why did I choose to click on this and feel pain for 20 minutes.
Cuz it hurts so good.
I don't know, I feel a little better about myself.
Because its a woman
Because attempting to understand others means more to you than holding your opinions higher than others.
All of these comment replies are massive copes. Dont let them tell you this video isn't pure pain that hasn't brought out anything good to think or feel about yourself or anyone or anything
Ask Irish people about global warming, they can’t wait for it 😂😂
I’m Irish but what do u mean by that
I’d bet they’d settle for colder weather if it kept Ireland Irish
@@MarkStoddard😂
I wish it would hurry up, not that it’s real of course
People think they can actually control it which is absolutely insane
Not control, just stop causing harm that will come back to bite us in the ass in the future. Same thing as using Acutane when you have really bad acne. It’s not going to get rid of the scars and previous damage, but you won’t have to deal with bad breakouts in the future.
Ignorance = Not knowing something.
Stupidity = Not knowing something and having an ego about it.
So Joe is stupid!
exactly. like joe's doing here.
@@drtimoshea4087sit down Candace
@@drtimoshea4087 the delusion is strong with you, young one 😅
@@TNTobin Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or understanding. Deliberate ignorance is a culturally-induced phenomenon, the study of which is called agnotology. "knowing better but doing the wrong thing anyway." Immoral describes people who can differentiate between right and wrong but intentionally do wrong anyway. Irrational would also describe such a behavior.
"I don't believe in global warming"
"Based on what?"
*shrug*
Based on the fact that we are going through a cooling period for the last 15 years lol
Lmao.
A B You probably shouldn't use articles written by Christopher Booker. He believes in intelligent design and denies evolution and he also claims that asbestos and second hand smoke don't increase your risk of developing cancer. He is what you would call, a complete fucking moron.
Read above and I have lots more!
Who's more corrupt in Congress between the Republicans and the Democrats? "
When comparing criminal indictments of those serving in the executive branch of presidential administrations it's so lopsided as to be ridiculous. Yet all I ever hear is how corrupt the Democrats are. So why don't we break it down by president and the numbers.
Obama (D) - 8yrs in office. zero criminal indictments, zero convictions and zero prison sentences. so the next time somebody describes the Obama administration as "scandal free" they aren't speaking wishfully, they're simply telling the truth.
Bush, George W. (R) - 8yrs in office. 16 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 9 prison sentences.
Clinton (D) - 8yrs in office. 2 criminal indictments. one conviction. one prison sentence. that's right nearly 8yrs of investigations. tens of millions spent and 30yrs of claiming them the most corrupt ever and there was exactly one person convicted of a crime.
Bush, George H. W. (R) - 4yrs in office. one indictment. one conviction. one prison sentence.
Reagan (R) - 8yrs in office. 26 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 8 prison sentences.
Carter (D) - 4yrs in office. one indictment. zero convictions and zero prison sentences.
Ford (R) - 2 1/2 yrs in office. one indictment and one conviction. one prison sentence. Pardoned Richard Nixon. Nixon (R) - 6yrs in office. 76 criminal indictments. 55 convictions. 15 prison sentences.
Johnson (D) - 5yrs in office. zero indictments. zero convictions. zero prison sentences.
So, let’s see where that leaves us. in the last 53 years Democrats have been in office for 25 of those years while Republicans held it for 28. in their 25yrs in office Democrats had a total of three executive branch officials indicted with one conviction and one prison sentence. That's one whole executive branch official convicted of a crime in two and a half decades of Democrat leadership.
In the 28yrs that Republicans have held office over the last 53yrs they have had a total of (a drum roll would be more than appropriate), 120 criminal indictments of executive branch officials. 89 criminal convictions and 34 prison sentences handed down. That's more prison sentences than years in office since 1968 for Republicans. If you want to count articles of impeachment as indictments (they aren't really but we can count them as an action), both sides get one more.
However, Clinton wasn't found guilty while Nixon resigned and was pardoned by Ford. So, those only serve to make Republicans look even worse. With everything going on with Trump and his people right now, it's a safe bet Republicans are gonna be padding their numbers a bit real soon.
So let's just go over the numbers one more time shall we. 120 indictments for Republicans. 89 convictions and 34 prison sentences. Those aren't "feelings" or "alternate facts" those are simply the stats by the numbers. Republicans are, and have been for my entire lifetime, the most criminally corrupt party to hold the office of the presidency.
OMG... IRREGARDLESS IS NOT A WORD!!! Just wanted to mention that. Drives me NUTS!
It is a word though.
@@bear3663 Only because it has been used so heavily. Its "definition" is regardless. The prefix ir is intended to change the meaning of the root word to the opposite of the root word. So irregardless should be the opposite of regardless which is essentially equivalent to saying nothing but instead its definition is stated as the very word it is meant to negate. It doesn't make any sense.
@@SolipsisStudios I'm glad that we can agree that it is a word. Language evolves, or we wouldn't have most of the words we have today.
It is a word now. It’s still entirely de-necessary though
@@Sam-rf6ev I realized that once I commented on it. But it is definitely de necessary lol
Really shows somebody’s intelligence when they over use “like” and “literally” as Candace does.
Too true
She is the absolute expert in ignoring arguments and facts. Nobody does it better
she literally said "the weather is different today from yesterday" did she not learn in sixth grade the difference between weather and climate 💀
I almost lost it bawhahahahaha
Welcome to Trumpworld. What happened to intelligent conservatives? These are not conservatives, they are Trumpers.
@Real Progressives Allowed exactly
😭😭😂😂😂
@Real Progressives Allowed even if weather and climate mean the same thing, it’s still really stupid to compare the weather which varies everyday to the climate which is an average of the weather of a region or of a period of time
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein
Einstein was a shill to market on. He even admitted Tesla was smarter.
Albert thought the Milky Way was the universe.
Human stupidity can be read every day about climate change. czcams.com/video/r9igooLWnB0/video.html
Debra Hoffman ayyyy 🤣🤣🤣 your idiocy is beyond measure innit ? Roger Penrose was just awarded the nobel prize for his mathematical models that prove the existence of black holes as a prediction of Einstein's theory of general relativity. Meanwhile you’re an oxygen thief 🤷
Ooooooh. Einstein.... The guy who was ridiculed by the "scientific consensus" and his "collogues" for his theories and who famously said “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." in response to them trying to discredit him even though he was later proven correct?... That guy?
So much for consensus and Majority.
@@darianjohnston1658 what the fuck are you talking about? Have you ever read a single physics paper in your life?
You can't tell someone they can't have a opinion. In her opinion she doesn't agree, Joe is frustrared she won't agree with him. He wants her to agree so badly, I can feel it through my screen.
He just wants her to agree that she doesn’t know. The way she comes across is like someone that doesn’t believe in climate change and is not open to it
@@LAVISHGREEDY some people don't believe in it. You can't convince everyone to feel the way you feel. I've tried in the past it doesn't work.
@@JaniMorrow84the overall point Joe was trying to make was why have an opinion on something you know nothing about
@raz922 It's an opinion none the less, people have opinions on all sorts of matters with or without proper facts. One person's truth can be another person's lie.
@@JaniMorrow84 opinions are overrated in their "sanctity" depending on what is being talked about. if I say "in my opinion, cars dont run on fuel but they run on a hamster that eats the petrol and then spins a wheel" or "in my opinion the moon is made of cheese" it doesnt mean anyone needs to respect my opinion. everyone can have any kind of opinion on any given thing, that doesnt mean that these opinions are equally valid or that someone shouldnt be challenged on it.
Funding ABSOLUTELY affects scientific results
Yeah Joe and his fans here are way too idealistic.
Yeah as in the funding of oil companies produces the small discrepancy, that has been proven. You've got it the wrong way around. Who do you think has more money? Scientists or oil cartels? I can't believe this fact isn't obvious to people.
Yes science can be manipulated
And we can usually spot it, because results have to be replicated.
"Think about who we were in bed with, Saudi Arabia... Trump came in and said NO!" Yeah, this claim didn't age well.
Horribly.
In bed as far as what? If it's selling arms to Saudi, then it's been done by previous administrations multiple times over the years
LoweRider Her claim is that Hillary Clinton was in bed with the Saudis *and* that Donald Trump changed that. Even supposing that he is doing exactly what past presidents had done*, you need to meet the other half of the claim: how did "Trump came in and said NO" with regard to the Saudis? Saying that he continued with business as usual with the Saudis does not meet that burden.
*Ignoring, for example, that past presidents weren't making those sales over the objections of Congress in the wake of one of the most significant international human rights scandal of the past decade. The action is hardly the same when the context changes that much: it's one thing to buy some jewelry from a pawn shop, it's another thing to buy from that same pawn shop 10 minutes after the cops tell you that the pawn broker is a fence for local burglars.
LoweRider Ok. Trump said he would not be in bed with saudi arabia. Then sells $10 billion in weapons to them. Yea previous administrations did. But wasnt trump supposed to be different and end those corrupt practices? Yea fuckin right gimme a break. He did the opposite. Its ok you will concoct some excuse for him.
She obviously ignored the picture of trump holding that light sphere with the king of Saudi Arabia and all the gifts they gave him🙄but she’s a talking head being paid by the Koch Brothers to deny everything true and blame liberals for the world’s woes. www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/world/middleeast/trump-glowing-orb-saudi.html
Sometimes the best answer is “I don’t know”
Jeffrey Gandara takes humility, she doesn’t have that
@@deem10 Agreed. Everyone is an expert about their uneducated views on all things.
not when its global warming, the answer should always be yes there is
Climate change should be discussed between two scientists
How thick are you dweebs?...there is not one iota of credible peer reviewed scientific data which show a connection between global warming & global climate change...NOTHING.....local and regional weather/climate variations ..yes...and that's been known since the mid 19th century......but that has nothing to do with global warming trends......the IPCC are frauds....pathetic, amateur frauds who have stolen billions of research funds from legitimate scientists.....thus the US, China, Russia, Australia et etc will continue to build coal fired power plants cos they have nothing to do with global warming PS: it's the Sun, silly......ha ha ha ha
Where is the full episode???
It's on Spotify (episode #1125)
Rogan is so busy trying to prove her opinion wrong, he doesn't value her right to have an opinion. It's pathetic when his ego gets in the way of common sense
Albert Einstein: “The Difference Between Stupidity and Genius Is That Genius Has Its Limits”
There is a limit to stupidity. Its called death.
That’s not the limit to stupidity, that’s the limit of everything
@@sheikmutanabi3003i feel as tho stupidity would be included in "everything"...
Derrick Henry why are you trying to sound smart when you know what he’s getting at. Who are u tryna impress lmao
This is a fake quote, he never said this.
Joe was low key irritated and I’m all for it 😂
Exactly only a fool needs evidence. Why is research so goddamn important can't you just feel how horrible the climate has, I mean it's no brainier
I wish I had Joe's patience...
He keeps it cool though
rahul mahbubani
Climate Change isn't about how you feel climate has been changing, it's more about global changes across larger scales of time. So saying you feel it's gotten hotter isn't a good argument for climate change.
Instead, point to all the scientific evidence of climate change.
Joe was HIGH KEY irritated ahahaha
It's human nature to have opinions on everything brought to our attention, and expert knowledge is not a prerequisite.
But not being open to learn is the problem
@@kaashviagarwal565 In general, yes. Not being open to learning is a problem. But it depends on what is being learned, as well as where and when.
Majority opinion doesn't always and in every situation determine truth or right or wrong. To think that it does is extremely naive and illogical. The empirical outcomes of our elections for example speaks to this.
It’s not the same as a public majority opinion. These are people who devote their lives to studying this and are incredibly accomplished in their field. It’s not the same as asking John from Kansas what he thinks about climate change. Bad example
There's a word "Fremdschämen" in German. It's a mixture of feeling acute embarrassment and deep shame for another person.
Steve Hardy literally how I feel Rn 😂
We call it "second hand embarrassment"
@@kakashisensei8419 we call it cringe
It’s called cringe in america
There is a word in Spanish come mierda
Google translate for this. Thats whats going on here. GW is real
Joe Rogan's patience and willingness to listen to people he disagrees with is so refreshing.
I’ll give Joe credit every time when he’s critical 👍
Joe Rogan needs to get himself educated around this subject. He and others in the comment section need to know how deep the rabbit hole runs. For starters, begin your adventure with Al Gore's professor. I promise you, it is damn good ride and it will change you completely whenever they start whining about climate change.
She’s is very nice to look at but not that bright. He has more patience than I.
@@stacychew4175 Oh bc you've seen one video of her talking about a topic that she barely knew about and Rogan stuck to because he wanted to make her look bad. Okay Stacy.
all of us as human beings needa strive to be like this honestly
What bugs me most is that we are burning coal and gas to make electricity. Using oil to make windmill blades. To me this is evidence enough to cause all of us to think before we jump into the water, just how deep is it? Can we swim well enough?
She said nothing for 20 mins,.... she's gonna be an excellent politician...
Lol
She is just like TRUMP. Or imitating Trump.
Because he is forcing the question.
@@hunali7343 he is trying to understand why she thinks that way
@@antoinecharlesdegaulle580 she said i haven’t formed opinion and I don’t believe it in. He is like it’s science and stuff she told him she does not have an opinion.
“I don’t want to die on this hill”
Proceeds to die on the hill 😂
Bruh 😂😂
So you even know what that means???
Jeremiah Hessian yeah I think he knows what it means
Well, Joe kept pushing her back up the hill.
Candace doesn't make a good argument, but Joe arrogantly saying anthropogenic climate change is scientifically proven is not true.
People confuse the politics of climate change with the science. You might not agree with what politicians are doing about climate change but it's real. People say Evolution is a theory, evolution is a fact; evolution by natural selection is a theory.
She was saying she didn't believe it (agnostic) but was focusing on disagreeing with and being real offput by the politics of it. And yes more people should be able and willing to admit it's true even while disagreeing with most of the proposed politics about it.
I feel like i'm watching someone else. Is this how candace used to be? Her personality is so different it makes it hard to even recognise her!
She’s still the same high school mean girl she’s always been. The only difference is that she’s now better in hiding her mean girl tactics
"the climate changes everyday!"
Honey, that's the weather. Not the worldwide climate
She didnt say that. She said it always changed.
@@sitrep2418 But how much does she really know about it? She'd be utterly lost two minutes into a climate science examination. You know it and I know it.
Show me the evidence that humans affect the total temperature of the planet. Oh, and do it without NOAA adjusting data. And go.
@@tln25
www.ucsusa.org/resources/are-humans-major-cause-global-warming
www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/faq/how-do-human-activities-contribute-to-climate-change-and-how-do-they-compare-with-natural-influences
rses.anu.edu.au/research/research-stories/humans-have-caused-climate-change-180-years
www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change
And I'm sure, even with all this statistical information and scientific explanations, you will still come up with some bullshit to say it's fake. And if you do, why don't you provide evidence as to why it's not caused by humans.
@@sitrep2418 correct she didn't say the climate changes everyday - she said the climate always changes. It's not unusual to see mis-quotes. "So what you're saying is.."
Candace Owens: "As I travel around the world and see different parts of the country"
Lol
She travels the same world where NFL teams are World Champs.
I mean...that isn’t an incorrect sentence. You can travel around the world AND see different parts of the U.S. I don’t agree with her, I’m just saying it’s not a bad sentence technically speaking.
Honestly Candice is an idiot
Perhaps the key word here is.... And
Candace: Do I believe in climate change? No.
Joe: You don’t believe in climate change?
Candace: No. I think the climate always changes.
She just contradicted herself.
Joe: asks guest a question.
Guest: answers question.
Joe: how dare you answer in such a way, you're not an expert?!
He didn't ask a question, she stupidly said she doesn't think anyone should care about the environment which Joe found very hard to ignore and that's how it started.
@@allroundlad He didn't ask a question? Really?!
Joe asks a question at:
:32 - "What do you think's causing that?"
1:04 - "In what way?"
7:21 - "But why have a belief?"
9:12 - "But why are you saying that you don't think it exists, though?"
11:00 - "But why have an opinion on something that you don't have data about?"
12:00 - "Science has been politicized?"
14:32 - "But why then say you don't believe in it?!"
@@joeb5230 Yeah after he starts asking questions because she said something really stupid and as the host, he's allowed to ask questions especially when it's concerning her saying really ignorant things. Unfortunately it never got through her thick skull that what she was saying was utter shite but he tried.
@@allroundlad Lemme get this straight. You stated that Joe Rogan didn't ask a question. When I provide you with quotes and timestamps proving that he asked Candace several, your response is that he didn't begin asking questions until after she said something that, in your subjective opinion, was 'stupid'.
*sigh* Where to begin?
First, you just acknowledged that he asked her questions after her statement, thus invalidating your claim that he didn't ask her questions.
Second, you failed to notice that his first two questions were asked before her statement.
Third, you failed to grasp that at no point in any of my comments have I weighed in on either side of the climate discussion. In my original comment I was pointing out that Joe was not performing his duties as interviewer to the same standards that he usually does. He asked for his guest's opinion repeatedly, trying to convince her to change her answer between each question. Regardless of the intelligence of a guest's answer, repeatedly posing the same question is bad form as an interviewer. His question was asked and answered several times, and he had lost his objectivity in the process. That was my point.
@@joeb5230 Yes the podcaster asked questions, I misspoke. Here's your medal.
Do you not know Joe? He's always drilling into people that have controversial, stupid opinions. Just look at him and Eddie bravo going at it so there was no different treatment here, this is how he always is.
Secondly, don't play that game. You don't need to state your opinion on the topic because it's obvious what side you stand on after rushing to Candace's defence, doesn't take a genius to work that out. How about you just cut the crap and explain why you're even supporting her ludicrous waffle. Anyone with a brain can see that Joe has substantial talking points and Candace was "dying on that hill" after saying she wasn't going to do that because she doesn't infact know what the eff she's talking about.
"The climate changes. It was different weather yesterday than it was today." LOLOL
I don’t many conservatives that like her a few people prop her because she’s an “empowered woman” but her ignorance is incredible
@@michaela1843 I really don’t get it. And she’s been on Twitter since the election telling lie after lie and supporting the accusations that the election was rigged.
that line there was when I walked away...........she needs to slow it down, and think before speaking
“I read a lot about it”
@@michaela1843 She also gets propped up because she's a person of colour promoting conservative viewpoints. She's a grifter who has to stay on character at all times. Who knows what she believes behind closed doors, tbh
Don’t argue with stupid people because they will drag you to their level and beat you with experience. Mark Twain
It’s difficult to argue with geniuses.
But impossible to argue with morons.
Which one is the stupid one? I hoping your talking Candace
@Your Older Brother you're right it was you
@@insanegenius5321 Candice is the moron who can’t listen to any perspectives besides trumpsters
@@steveharveyhd5289 exactly so just let Candice Owens speak because stupidity from her won’t stop 🛑
Joe Rogan says at the end I don't know shit about global warming but says he believes it lol
99% of scientists also believe
Being well spoken and intelligent are not the same thing. Owen’s is not that bright. Just regurgitates right wing talking points better than others.
And like, she read a “$hit ton” of articles…that she can’t recall.
I think literature review or systematic review would be a more appropriate term for the “deep dive she did in one night”
😂😂😂
As an old Yogi once told me: If someone is actually sleeping you can wake them up, but if someone is pretending to be sleeping you can never wake them up.
Just tickle them
😂😂😂😂😂
Never believe a word from anyone who says "I have read a SHIT TON of articles"
Or in one night! While it takes scientist their whole life to understand it. This lying fake poser says its not true because she read it one night! Unbelievable
@@ruubs9615 She thinks that she is the second coming of Einstein 🤣. Joe was very generous in calling her Intelligent.
Never use absolutes.
@@edaboodie6346 that's in itself an absolute haha
Haha
why can't she have an opinion and disagree on climate change when he has an opinion.
Because its not an opinion its a scientific fact
@@wolowizard4364nope, even Joe Rogan changed his mind about it. lol
No, he didn’t. That’s a moronic assumption.
@@mpwest929 yes, yes he has.
THE PROBLEM IS: she’s disbelieving as a DEFAULT. that’s insane. the DEFAULT should be neutral. “i don’t know” is so much wiser than sure disbelief by default.
Very well said. We all have bias and skepticism but you can't just begin every topic assuming it's a conspiracy and a lie.
Nobody knows. It's not even a consensus in the scientific community. She's totally correct in just giving her opinion and saying what she believes or not. Believing is different than knowing. Joe, on the other side, has been pushing her all time to agreeing with his stance.
Otavio Limirio Farias it is literally 97% of active scientists. That is about as much of a consensus as you can get from the scientific community. It is a real thing. The only argument to be had on it is whether or not climate change is the result of human interaction.
@@otaviolimirio1 Believing is not different than knowing. Belief just means you think you know. If you dont know how to perform open heart surgery you dont say "i dont believe it's possible". You say "i dont know wtf im talking about so I'm going to stand back and let the experts handle this". She's somehow trying to have it both ways, by saying she neither understands the subject but also has enough information to flat out reject it, which makes no sense.
No, that's not the problem and disbelief should be the default. The problem is that she doesn't understand and confines to maintain her default position.
YOU DARE QUESTION JAMIES SOURCING SKILLS?!?!
chris wells young Jamie checked her quick
Coming back to this, I guess she was right.
no she wasn't????
@GlobeStan she was because Joe rang to say she was right.
I'm right, and you're wrong.
Joe now agrees with this theory…🤯
The way we are treating thearth in general needs to change
I have taken 4 graduate courses in the sciences that study this topic. Every one of those professors said that this is part of the natural cycle. They explained it in detail, including the Black Death and its relationship to the Little Ice Age when people were undernourished due to fewer crops growing. Satellite pictures show that the Earth is now becoming greener with plants growing more widely. The traditional climate scientists agree that man has caused some of the increase in CO2, but it’s a small fraction of the increase.
Those 97% of scientists included anyone they could stick the word science to their field…social scientists, domestic scientists, etc., and were 97% of those who responded to the poll. Many real climate scientists didn’t respond, so they were not considered scientists for that poll.
Please, check out the many real climate scientists who are now speaking out.
This was a scare tactic to get people to “go green”. Why are so many who “believe” this buying beach houses? The coastal areas are supposed to be underwater soon.
exactly!!! global warming was a fraud to tax people, regular citizens, while private company owners, industrial giants wipe their butts with those same bills.
“This wouldn’t be the hill I die on”
*Proceeds to die on hill
Ahoy and Aloha, I am so very Sorry I Do Not Understand What is The Hill, Where is The Hill that WE Are Not Going to Die On? Please Clarify my ignorance!?
@@saitohshihomi5649 she says she doesn’t believe despite knowing absolutely nothing about it. That’s the hill and joe Rogan was the one to finish her.
@@Liam-uh3pr How exactly did he "defeat" her? By claiming that 97% of scientists believe in human-caused climate change?
@@Jianju69 by confronting her on the topic and instead of just letting it go she continues to defend her position fully aware that she knows without the knowledge.
She is a drifter she spins the points
To confuse the viewer fully aware of the fact that she is just trying to score political points.
@@Liam-uh3pr that's half true. analyze the video and what was said. she claimed to be of the opinion that global warming wasn't a concern to her in the context of being in an international agreement where trillions were involved. joe Rogan then said, why have a belief on something you know nothing about. the difference in the understanding is the word opinion and belief, they are not the same but are used similarly to literally and figuratively.
“I wouldn’t die on this hill”
*dies on hill for 20 minutes*
This felt like an hour, not 20 minutes... my god
m3lon San, What Does Candace Owens_Farmer mean by her statement to Joe Rogan: " I'm Not So Sure, I Would Die on the Hill for It" ? I am so very Sorry, I do not Understand.
@@saitohshihomi5649 the fuck is wrong with you?
Yyyeessss that's fucking hilarious!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Not true. Joe is arguing that we must all be scientifically agnostic... She is creating a hypothesis based on data too... This is America and the coversation is more about her belief of disbelief... Joe was so busy trying to convince her to stand on the fence that he didn't bother to take a beat to consider whether or not there may be truth in her Candace's suspicions that climate change has been hijacked by politics and people who can capitalize off of it...
Just pause and think about how big the green industry is and how much money and trash is made from it. In NYC there are home owners and landlords who are removing perfectly good fixtures to update to green fixtures... Do you know how much money and garbage (that isn't biodegradable or recyclable) that generates?
Candace's reservations are valid. But, instead of examining her point further Joe decides to try dragging her for saying she doesn't believe. Stay on the topic and destroy her argument instead or deflecting and attempting to assassinate her belief, or lack of belief system...
Joe: "you don't think we have to care about the environment?"
Candace: "(laughing) no, not even a little bit." WOW. Even with her following statements. STILL WOW.
Give me an accurate 5 day forecast and I will believe a 100 year one.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
@nataliealvarado9753 I know, right? 🤣
😂😂… this is good
You can model temperature increasing by x amount no doubt but you can NEVER predict how that wildly complex system will behave once we reach those temperatures never mind to predict it accurately and reliably.
They present warming as boiling now, what utter shit 😂
The earth will not be on fire if its as warm as the time of the dinosaurs, it will be so green and abundant in a higher carbon environment.
The people who lied and are all the covid shit up are the same type as the climate operatives
A device that pulls CO2 out of air ....
Tree: " Am I a joke to you ?"
I tell my fuance this all the time... They cut down millions of trees that will help us to replace it with machines. This shit is idiotic. I believe this is a contributing factor why our earth is caving in. Tree roots are strong and hold so much together. We are parasites to this earth.
Apparently not enough people know about the function of trees, sad
its literally like the movie idiocracy, everyones like " it got electrolytes thats what trees crave"
@@Greenthumbn1576 and sea
Human beings cut down CO2 eating trees to make way for C02 producing humans! 3 billion people on earth till middle of last century. Over population is the reason for climate change
i watched this stoned & it made my high go away
Alex Ignacio Jovel 😂😂😂😂
Second.
Alex Ignacio Jovel yea cause rogan is like an jr. high principal
Facts rogan act like you gotta straddle the fence all the time
Alex Ignacio Jovel I was gonna watch this while high, saw your comments, now I’m not gonna watc it.
In my opinion, we must have an educated society before to talk about Climate change because people tend to be ignorant especially, the celebrities, who are able to talk about an issue like this without knowledge when they're asked. Nevertheless, as Jurgen Klopp once said; "It's not important about famous people say", when I heard that, everything made me sense. By the way, I wish I had also seen Greta Thumberg as a guest to argue over Climate Change with Joe.
The funny part is today 2024 Joe Rogan has a 180° opposite view
He doesn’t. He’s arguing here that humans affect the climate changing which is true. He still believes that to be true but understands changes like this have always happened.
Candace clearly doesn't know anything about climate change. She's too stubborn to admit it
actually she admits it several times..right there this here video
@@Skate2rev but her responses were always I don’t know therefore I don’t believe it to be true when it could’ve just been I don’t know
well, she wouldn't have a career if she admitted to not knowing about anything now would she
@@Liza-lm8vq yea
Yup. Another person too proud to say "I Don't Know"
She's like "I don't know anything about it but I have a stance on it"
I can't even listen to this. How did he sit there for 2+ hours. That martial arts discipline must be something else
Lmao that was funny
He was being rude to her and condescending. Newsflash, anthropogenic climate change is not a proven scientific fact, its barely a theory.
@@hepwo91222
Newsflash, it was 65 farenheit a few days ago in Antarctica.
Newsflash, the UN report *made up of scientists* confirmed that we know that we are accelerating climate change at a dangerous rate.
Newsflash, the only people who gain from denying climate change is oil companies who trash the environment.
@@hepwo91222 I'm on the side of Joe where I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it. I don't care how many scientists say things or how much evidence they claim to have. I don't know therefore I won't claim to know and I don't care to know. Humans will be killed off but the earth will be just fine. I couldn't literally not care any less.
@@jakjam300 you have been brainwashed by the MSM and globalist politicians. Anthropogenic climate change is unproven, it fails the scientific method every... single... time. Also the climate models are based on incomplete data due to our inability to predict the movement of water vapor more than a few hours/days. So maybe one day when we can solve Navier-Stokes equations we can predict future climate but as of now, we cannot.
"Science has been politicized?"
Rogan says as he argues majority rules in science
She felt that because he preferred Trump, he would agree with everything she says.
Dave Chappelle said it best “She will tell you how stupid she is ACCURATELY!”
Haha. No way. Where is this clip? I’d love to hear Chappelle talk about her
@@AustinKampen his special 8:46
czcams.com/video/3tR6mKcBbT4/video.html @ 22:00
"Most articulate idiot I've ever seen in my fucking life. She's so articulate she can tell you how stupid she is, PRECISELY."
I like Dave Chappelle but he's not right all the time
Is everyone allowed to have their own opinions? YES
Are everyone's opinions valid? NO
Exacrtly.
Hence why i recommend 'Some More News' ( even though this month right now
wasnt his Best).
I disagree, everyones opinions are valid, and deserve to be heard, but not all opinions are correct
@@erikh1041 THATS LITERALLY WHAT HE MEANT.
@@slevinchannel7589 whats ur problem? Calm down dude
@@CrackedConker Who hurt you?
She is extremely ignorant. It's mind boggling how one will have a strong opinion without any knowledge...
I’ve never agreed and disagreed with any person more than Candace Owens. She’s got some bright moments and some really really really low light moments.
The fact she can't understand the difference between "I don't believe in it" and "I don't know enough about it" is mind-blowing.
She is knowing the difference. The facts just dont fit her agenda
Rogan is clearly wrong here about The climate change issue and is forcefully argueing with faulty facts. You could say hes bringing forth the globalists agenda.
See the respons and links to real scientists about this climate change debate:
Hello Andreas!
Thank you for your inquiry.
This is a curious petition which seems to have been hastily put together and not well vetted. "Mickey Mouse" was one of the signatories. (attached) It has some similarities to a similar petition of some years ago with 15,000 signatories - of which Adolf Hitler had signed.
blog.friendsofscience.org/2017/11/20/the-petition-of-more-than-15000-scientists-more-fakenews/
As many commentators have noted, most of the signatories do not work in climate science assessments but rather in fields like biology. While there is a component of climate change impacts on biology inherent in that field of study, climate change is measured on very long time scales of 30, 50, 100 and millennial time scales. We do not have sufficient data to make pronouncements about climate change like those made by this group.
William Briggs, statistician, has written a biting critique
wmbriggs.com/post/28490/
There is much debate in the climate community - the Spilman Law firm hosted this debate:
czcams.com/video/lyNCl7NzjaM/video.html
We have hosted annual events since our inception, hoping to encourage open, public debate and to inform people of the complexities of climate science.
friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=308
Dr. Judith Curry states that climate change is not a clear or present danger.
wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/16/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-climate-change-is-not-a-clear-and-present-danger/
Unfortunately, the media love frightening headlines and many environmental groups drive donations with ever more catastrophic claims.
We are in favour of open, civil debate on climate and energy policies and full cost-benefit analysis.
A group of international scientists have stated there is no climate emergency.
czcams.com/video/GpVBH-HY5Ow/video.html
I hope this is helpful information.
Best wishes,
Michelle Stirling
Communications Manager
--
Friends of Science Society
P.O. Box 23167, Mission P.O.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2S 3B1
Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597
Web: friendsofscience.org
@@andreaserik6069 nice propaganda
I'm not here to argue climate change. I'm just pointing out how much it says about someone when they would rather have an opinion about something they clearly know very little about, as opposed to having the courage to say they don't know enough about it to form an opinion in the first place. That is our current political landscape in a nutshell.
@Andreas erik Im german and human made climate change is the consens here. But nice try strange youtube guy
"I'm not saying this publically, I'm just talking to you." -Candace Owens on one of the most popular podcasts in the world
@Julie
She's not even a bulb. She's like trying to screw a shoe into a light socket...
Her point being is that she is respectfully engaging in the topic at hand because its just the 2 of them talking. As in, she means that she isn't trying to persuade anyone whatsoever during this exchange.. Its obvious only Joe Rogan is trying to do the persuading. @JULIE & JAMES! Are you this ignorant? Bc Joe clearly proves he is the one with the agenda by getting upset that she "as an influencer" is stating she doesn't share the same beliefs as him!!
@@teejay3193
It may have been just the 2 of them talking, but it wasn't just the 2 of them listening to the conversation, unless she just drew a blank and forgot that their conversation was being recorded on one of the most listened to podcasts...
@@teejay3193 Joe's point is that as an influencer she can't just state her feelings as if they're more important than facts because she has a responsibility as a public figure not to misinform people.
@@teejay3193 lol, so you disagree with his point that you shouldn't be opinionated on something you know nothing about? yeah he's the bad guy here.
It's better to not believe it in it than to just believe . The worlds progress is based upon the unreasonable man not reasonable
Go tell our swiss glaciers that climate change doesn‘t exist maybe they will stop thawing so rapidly and even faster from year to year. Would be great to keep them for a while longer.
Her logic is “I don’t know wether or not you own a dog, therefore I believe you don’t own a dog”
Is that what she said? Pretty sure her wording would've been "I don't believe you own a dog."
Literally speaking there's a difference between "I don't believe you own a dog" and "I believe you don't own a dog", even though we interpret them the same. "I don't believe" means you have no belief either way (you don't know), "I believe you don't" means you believe the contrary.
For some reason all of us interpret them the same way. I never considered the difference until she pointed out they may have a difference in linguistics. Either way she definitely should've said "I don't know" to be clear.
More like "I don't know whether you have a dog or not, BUT, there's a dog house in your front yard, there's some dog toys and chewed up rags lying around, there's some dog shit in your backyard, the cats stay the fuck away from your house, oh and I hear some barking coming from your house. Hmmm, nope I don't buy it. You don't have a doggo."
she only exists so that the right can point to her and say “seeeee? our policies aren’t racist. a black person supports them!!” a sad existence, indeed
@@serclintalot4497 dude the entire video she’s like “I don’t know anything about this, but here’s my detailed opinion. very obviously trying to push the right’s climate science denial propaganda while also giving herself an out if she’s ever called out about this video
@@sub-zero5433 The video only exists because he interpreted "I don't believe" to mean "I vehemently oppose" and decided to grill her on it. Yes, she should have just said "I don't know" but she tried to end it several times, he got more aggressive, and she got defensive.
Regardless, what does it matter at this point? It's not like the left has any viable solutions other than griping about it and pointing fingers at the other side.
Stop writing mean comments
I can’t like all of them
I think this subject can be answered so easily. What are the pros if we are right on global warming? Add thousands of jobs in renewable resources, rely less on fossil fuel and gas. Cons to it? Hurts big oil companies makes them obsolete. It’s expensive to do. Honestly the pros are at least worth a shot what is it with Republicans just saying it’s bad without even giving it a shot? All I see when I hear them say this is that they may have too much money from big oil that don’t want to lose their monopoly.
Brilliant
Broh, i just made 400 like. Do i get something
@@khwezi4725 our undying respect
😂😂😂😂
He wants to manipulate and convince Candace to say what he wants her to say.🤦🏽♀️
Yeah I was kinda getting that as well.
No, he is trying to justify and explain how belief and opinions dont matter regarding scientific facts.
It’s funny now, Candace hasn’t changed her argument but Joe finally opened his eyes
Agreed. He is finally trusting the science instead of the politicians. She came off pretty dumb here, but Joe eventually came around anyway.
Brian, you gotta get off the internet mate
Exactly. Finally he opened his eyes.
Candice why you acting ignorant, when you way smarter then that. waste of Joe Rogan time
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” - ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Russian Bot8269 but we are making it worse
Joe Rogan : Excuse me sir, but I do believe you've dropped your wallet.
This chick : Doesn't look familiar to me.
Joe Rogan : What? I just saw you drop it. Here.
This chick : Nope, it's not mine.
Joe Rogan: It is yours. I am trying to be a good person and return it to you.
This chick : Return what to who?
Joe Rogan : [facepalms, then shows Patrick his ID] Aren't you Patrick Star?
This chick : Yup.
Joe Rogan : And this is your ID.
This chick : Yup.
Joe Rogan : I found this ID in this wallet. And if that's the case, this must be your wallet.
This chick : That makes sense to me.
Joe Rogan : Then take it.
This chick : It's not my wallet.
O X that is debatable and not proven fact you are aware of that right? The common belief is more co2 equals higher temps which is true but do you know how many factors go into the temperature of the earth ? It’s not just co2 lvls lmao
E B I do know my handful share of information about he topic i took a university course on it it’s real man we make it worse
Russian Bot8269 because everyone has a car and everyone wants cow meat plus pollution in the ocean ruin coral reefs all of which contribute to the decrease of co2 reduction
When she said “the weather was different than it was today” that told me she had no idea what climate is
So can you explain to me why it went from global cooling, to global warming, then too climate change? Why does the name always change?
@@danielbaker7213 Because that's how science works. Once you are confronted with data that changes the reality of what your talking about, the name shifts to more accurately reflect that data.
edit: also, if your goal is to convince laymen, people without no scientific background, that this highly complicated issue IS an issue, your going to try to use a name that will translate the best to the common population. Global warming was too inaccurate and reductive and confused the morons who went "OH BUT SOME PLACES ARE COLDER" so they changed it.
@@danielbaker7213 THAT'S what your argument is?
@@danielbaker7213 did you skip science class in school 😂
I remember learning in middle school science class weather is the day to day state of the atmosphere and climate is the long term state. She lost all credibility on the issue when she failed to understand that
I don't think I have ever seen someone contradict themselves as much as Candice owens
How is that? Every Democrat contradicts themselves in every sentence..
Every time she speaks she says a bunch of little words really fast that end up amounting to almost nothing
Joe: You're wrong
Candice: right, yeah
Basically, it's no surprise to me anymore that most people are dumb as rocks..
@Alexis S She's allowed to have an opinion. I love Joe, but she's entitled to her own personal opinion. Like she said, she doesnt preach it, she doesnt give talks about it and she's not spreading it so whats the problem with her having her own beliefs??? I have mine, you have yours etc.
Stan what's your opinion about dark matter and the Higgs Boson?
@@j-pvezeau5797 Well considering the Higgs Boson helps explain how to obtain dark matter I think its pretty fascinating. But its just theory. Lets see how it pans out. And thanks for helping me prove my point entirely. People can have an opinion while having very limited knowledge on a topic. Thats why its opinion.
@Alexis S your attitude towards Candice shows clearly you don't believe she should have an opinion. Get real before you reply.
Candance: "You and I are having a conversation 1-on-1"
CZcams: 3.9M views
Can'tdance
😂
Thousands of scientists backed up the Lucy theory, only to find out the whole thing was made up from a tooth. And it wasnt even a human tooth... Look it up 😅
A big misunderstanding of the events. Scientists proved it false by using science. They corrected a fraud. Hardly the evidence of scientific incompetence you think it is.
You’re presuming those same scientists are atmospheric scientists, idiot
the correct answer when you don't know enough about a subject is to say: I don't have enough information on this subject, not, I don't believe in it.
"I've read a ton about it."
"What have you read?"
....*talks fast and avoids question*
Typical Ben Shapiro tactic..
@@ahmedhashmi3584 All famous rightwingers are embarrassing. Literally all of them.
@Toori Baba Jordan Peterson isn't a rightwinger. I only meant it in the politician + political commentator sense.
Donald Trump, Mike Pence, mini Trumps, Mitch Mcconnell, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Bill Barr, Stephen Miller, Lindsay Graham, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Candace Owens, Chris Christie, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Tomi Lahren, etc.
@Toori Baba False. "Trump registered as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987, switched to the Reform Party in 1999, the Democratic Party in 2001, and back to the Republican Party in 2009."
So he's been a Democrat 8 years, a Republican for 23 years, and in the Reform Party for 2 years.
And aside from being a registered Republican for 75% of the past 30 years, he's an extreme rightwing Republican right now.
I get why you're trying to distance yourself from him, because he's as embarrassing as they come, but he's firmly in your camp.
@Toori Baba I've never read so much bullshit in one CZcams comment before. Trump follows the teachings of Jesus Christ? Hahahaha. Hahahaha.
I'm not even going to waste my time commenting on all the other false stuff you just spewed.
“I don’t have an opinion on it.” LITERALLY NEXT SENTENCE “I don’t believe in it”
She was a liberal 3 years ago. She's still in her conservative honeymoon phase, and is paid handsomely to support those views. I doubt she will hold the same views once they find a better shill with a larger reach.
@@Power_Cosmic27 Like Lauren Southern
Its comical! Do you believe in gravity? Science doesn't need your faith.
She's also stated that this isn't a point she's put much research into. I don't think it's fair to call her dumb because she doesn't know much about an issue she hasn't researched much yet. But then has much more informed decisions on a bunch of other topics. So because she doesn't know much about one given topic she stated she hasn't put much research into, she's stupid altogether? I think that's a little unfair of a statement to make. Dumb on this topic, sure. Or at least hasn't really formulated her thoughts about it yet I think the way that you attempt to measure intellect, is dumb in and of itself. It's been 2 years, I'm sure she's had time to formulate her thoughts about the issue. Also if you actually listened to her argument, she stated the does believe in climate change, just not to the extent others do. For instance, I believe the climate changes all the time, I just don't think Humans have much effect on it. I do know we have a certain degree of effect on it, but how much? All of it? Some of it? How much do Humans actually contribute to Climate Change? What can Humans do to stop it? I don't think there's much the U.S. can do to stop Climate change, at least the technology just isn't their yet. Are renewable methods just aren't cost effective enough and aren't that great compared to fossil fuels. Now there is nuclear energy which burn a lot cleaner, but for some reason many don't want to go that route. It would be cost effective, clean, and a better power source. Even if we went back to the stone ages and completely replaced are energy with crappy alternatives that cost more but are cleaner, We still don't know if that would make any significant effect on climate change what so ever. China will continue what they're doing, other impoverished country's will continue to do what they're doing because environmentalism is a luxury of the rich. Those country's could not afford (Neither can we) to change all of are energy sources for crappier alternatives that cost much more and require more maintenance. If some poor family in Zimbabwe have to burn couch chips to keep their family warm, they're going to do it. Regardless if it raises carbon emissions by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002% in the future. Also, carbon emissions aren't necessarily bad for the planet either and have been around since the earth has been. It has been aiding in plant growth. After multiple studies done, the research shows that Carbon dioxide actually help with plant growth by aiding the photosynthesis process. Carbon Dioxide is actually essential for keeping earth Habitable, But it is a balancing act. Too little and the earth becomes below freezing, too much and the earths temperature can begin to rise. What I generally don't agree with people on is the extent of which we effect it, and the solution for attempting to keep it balanced. I don't believe the technology is quite there yet for us to make much of a change on it as of yet. But there are also many other green house gases that seem to cause this effect as-well such as methane, Chlorofluorocarbons, and nitrous oxide. Also, the changing of the greenhouses effects are hard to predict. So anyone telling you the world is going to end in 2021, is probably an idiot. I don't believe the world is ending any time soon due to this, and I believe the best solution currently is to wait for better technology to become available. I believe there are currently far more pressing concerns than climate change.
@@Power_Cosmic27 You got all that off of a 20 minute clip?
can't control the climate without the other countries participating
She reminds me of that 1 out of 4 dentists who does not recommend Trident for their patients who chew gum.
lol 😂
This is exactly the reason why I don't have a political party.
You begin to identify with the party and always side with it even on issues in which it's wrong in.
You’re doing great. Keep being you, and don’t fall under the tribe mentality curse.
Never a truer word. Even thoughtful, clearly intelligent members of each group fall into the same trap.
Candace said one truism in this clip but the significance was lost on her...at 4:48 she said "instead of looking for what you're searching for why don't you look up what you're not searching for". She's right. You could easily justify the opposite viewpoint of that was your goal and this betrays a real truth. In todays age a layperson can find evidence to corroborate any viewpoint they wish to hold. Confirmation bias and a limitless database of knowledge, opinion, spin, etc make it a simple matter. Did you ever watch a flat Earth video? They pull 'facts' from everywhere. It's almost convincing. Almost!
FACTS
that's not true. That's called identity politics and you shouldn't play that game. They play it a lot in the west but just because someone sides with a party that doesn't mean you believe everything one party does.
I don’t have a political party either but I’d never vote Democrat. I’d rather not vote at all
Pulls up .com site.
"They're just interested in money."
Pulls up .org site.
"Who are they polling?"
Pulls up .gov site.
"You can't trust the government."
Pulls up climate denial geocities site with clip art and pink text on pink background.
"Now this one I trust."
Hilariously, her website is a .com site
(I bet she has something to say about .pizza sites too)
@Fl Beats And CNN ?
Predictions? Facts: czcams.com/video/r9igooLWnB0/video.html
I don't know how anyone can ever believe *anything* if you are that cynical...
Shes so close minded
@@johndeoliveira8476 She used to be ... a democrat. Sorry.
Owens gives precedence to biased opinion over facts.
I feel like what she should’ve said is that she’s skeptical on how its being dealt with
Albert Einstein said the difference between genius and stupidity is that there is a limit to genius.
@Jerry Doekhi LSD didn't exist dumbass
Danny Davis - I’m gonna save that quote to my internal insult bank for future usage.
stupid people
Danny Davis I think that applies to all you who are slamming Candace Owens . None of you are climate scientists, so you are all as ignorant - and probably more so than Candace - who did research the researchers and the studies - reading both sides of the “ story”- as well as seeing which billionaire ( Soros) was behind the findings and the findings. Every scientist admits that there have been VAST climate changes thruout earths history- preceding humans and certainly preceding CO2 emissions.
Danny Davis Glad that you can admit that about yourself !! Where did you get your PHD in climate change science? Just curious!
Shes basically sayin "i have my opinion ino im wrong but im keeping it because im too shallow to accept facts".
She's paid not to accept the facts. She's a right wing grifter.
Lots of people do the same shit lol
The so-called facts from the global warming doomsday cult is data that was fraudulently “adjusted” to prove their case. The 1930’s was always the warmest decade in recorded history until the temperatures were adjusted downward by the cult.
She's a brainwashed shill who profits from spreading this nonsense.
Tol, R. S. J. (2014). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis. Energy Policy, 73, 701-705. doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.045
Where i live snow used to be feets just a decade before, it used to be massive snow days, but now we'd be lucky to get a couple inches. This has happened for 3 years in a row, and it had been getting worse every year from that decade ago. Climate change is real.
Record breaking high temperatures here in March, northeast Ohio. I just hope we don’t have to suffer when the earth is completely destroyed
She can’t tell the difference between climate and weather that’s concerning
I literally thought the same thing 😂
image calling winter climate change lmfao
HAHA i cackled when she said that. she can’t have an “opinion” on something when she doesn’t know how to define it properly.
Very true a basic biology high school class would give the difference between the two.
Neither can scientists apparently. Where did "global warming" go? Climate change is real, the climate changes all the time, that's nothing new. Have a look at pictures of the sky during the industrial revolution, then comment on whether or not you think what we're doing now, has the ability to "bring the sky down" so to speak. Co2 takes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. How can something that occupies that much space in the atmosphere, cause the sky to fall? Millions of people and fish piss in the ocean every day, does that change the flavor of the ocean? No, it does not, because even the fish, of which there are billions, who piss in that ocean every day, is not a large enough part of that ocean to change any aspect of it. Same idea with Co2 and the atmosphere. Search for yourself.
“Climate change is real like the weather today is different than yesterday” jesus christ
Lol that's temperature and weather, not climate
@@WinterAlbiero the Jesus Christ was in exasperation
@@barbados1103 I know, it was point in agreement :)
I can’t believe this mouth piece said that 😂
That comment by Owens just made me nearly break my screen.