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).
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.
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
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
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
@@PPSainity: There's a big difference between a typo and a misspelling; in the former case you know how to spell it but made some error while writing it (like missing a character or hitting a different character, or maybe an extra space, and so on), whereas in the latter case you think a word is spelled in a different way than it really is. So me correcting you on it should ideally be welcomed by you, since you have now learnt how to spell it correctly. But thanks, I'll sleep quite peacefully tonight indeed.
@@PPSainity: I'm just stating the facts. Saying "backpeddling" is an extremely common misspelling of "backpedaling", and not something you accidentally type when trying to spell "backpedaling" instead. That's the big difference between the two. Now show some gratitude for the correction, so that you don't embarrass yourself to others in the future by making that misspelling.
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
@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.
@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
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.
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.
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
@@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.
@@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
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.
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.
Albert thought the Milky Way was the universe. Human stupidity can be read every day about climate change. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-r9igooLWnB0.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.
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.
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.
@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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
@@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
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
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...
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.
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.
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
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
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
Which flavor of ice cream you like is an opinion. What the facts are are not an opinion. Disagreeing with the facts of reality just makes her blatantly wrong, that's got nothing to do with "opinion". What's pathetic is when the ego of an absolute moron like Owens gets in the way of her acknowledging the facts of reality.
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
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.
I understand Joe and Candace. Joe is making this hard. Candace made a simple point she don't believe what she see on certain sites and she wonder if the people funding them are political or if they are doing something bad. Joe want Candace to admit why she believe something she don't know when she keep explaining why.
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
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.
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
@@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.
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.
Her problem and with many ppl like her is that... she speaks before the other is done speaking. Which means it’s absolutely impossible for her to have listened and retained anything that was said to her. What’s the point in doing an interview if you aren’t going to have a conversation (aka listening/responding; repeat)
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.
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.
@@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 was so glad to see YEARS later that Joe finally learned how obnoxious it is when he constantly interrupts his guests, forcing them to talk faster out of desperation to have themselves be heard. Now, in 2023, he’s a much better interviewer.
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
What patience? The filthy pervert is trying to convince her of a vile lie, that he, in all his stupidity believes. He's a scumbag, period. Don't tell me you're a moron that believes this rubbish also? LOL You Are, aren't you? LOl LMFAO LOL LOL HAHA JAJA LOL LMAO
Don't worry, she believes it. But she won't admit it. That's the difference. All politicians say they believe or don't believe something, because that's how they got where they are, by playing their voters. It's only after their voters' opinion is shifting, they start to shift. Shifting too early, or too late is political suicide.
Bill Nye the science hack. He said Venice, Italy is flooding because of rising sea levels due to global warming. And I bet some people just suck it up as science even though they know better. This crap is why people don't believe the "science".
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: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lyNCl7NzjaM.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. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GpVBH-HY5Ow.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.
She was proven wrong multiple times, she just refuses to change her language which is all JR was really asking. She's just tap dancing and being stubborn
Proven wrong when, her point was she doesn't need to have a specific opinion not that global warming was fake. People are so stupid, cant just let people be skeptical smh
@@kmankx1592 she does have a specific opinion though, she says that she does not believe in global warming. Which is an opinion, specifically on the truth of the subject... lol
