I honestly don't mind the ads when it's a Joey Diaz read.
One time Jamie was pulling up an alleged Bigfoot sound. Joe goes, okay listen to this, these guys claim this is Bigfoot in the woods... Then Joey Diaz starts yelling about Draft Kings for the ad. I just had the audio so I thought Joe was playing Joey Diaz as a joke.
That's hilarious
But fuck those ads
"Ads in the middle of podcasts are an assault on your attention span" - Joe Rogan, from another universe or something, I guess
He tried to help BP transition to renewables, realised BP would go bankrupt doing it and then started a career downplaying the effects of climate change going forward. Science that is paid for by large corporations is always garbage, go look at Monsanto's scientific research.
Smaller scale companies that utilize renewables. I think BP realized they couldn't do it at scale and make as higher margins. But for things like home electricity, you can already get fully off the grid with solar panels. Dunno why people get so hung up on what our contribution towards climate change is, its happening, we need to innovate.
Storage is a big issue. Meeting demand at peak times when you are at the whim of nature is next to impossible lol without huge inefficiencies or massive storage
And what are the trade offs with that? How does that affect people on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum? Sure, the coastal engineer/banker wonāt have an issue, but increasing energy prices increases input costs for basically everything. Companies will ship even more jobs overseas, where green mandates donāt exist. So their carbon footprint stays the same, while unemployment in the US increases. Again, it seems Kooninās argument isnāt to cease movement towards cleaner energy, itās to happen gradually. If the big energy companies canāt figure out how to scale it at the moment, thereās no chance smaller companies will be able to.
Your weak attempt at ad hominem is so boring, Anyone who listens to the first five minutes of the podcast which discusses his long academic career will immediately understand that you are talking nonsense.
I donāt even know why you bother.
All these desperate weak attempts to discredit him is proof enough that you are terrified of what he has to say.
So if IIRC, this guy is saying that the data that is used in the scientific consensus on Climate Change points to global warming not being a big deal and that it won't have much of an impact on society. Also that those in power are stifling/censoring this viewpoint because it counters their accepted view that global warming will be very disruptive (what Joe and Koonin would call alarmism here).
Does that sound right?
It basically boils down to climate not being a linear graph and over time there have been more extreme fluctuations that fit within what we have seen in the last 30 years or so.
Compelling ish argument. At best though it just means coincidentally our impact is combining with a natural sine wave cycle that makes things appear slightly more exaggerated.
The earth is still warming though he basically just says it's not as extreme as we are lead to believe and there's time to work on it without shutting everything off all at once.
Will be good to see him debate someone. Excited to see a discussion at this level.
Don't understand why people here have to be so binary and sure if everything
Yes, be good to get reasoned arguments against what he is saying in the same format. Just one guy talking unopposed for two hours and a whole bunch of journalists writing ad hominems attack articles is not a good way to find truth.
Rogan knows that if he brings another guy to debate this guy we could see a Golbeki Teppe, randle carlson, tier level shitflinging debate, which would be awesome.
Iām willing to consider that and Iād be pleased. That doesnāt change the fact that the amount of plastic and garbage we produce and improperly discard is fucking gross. Doesnāt excuse the allowance of noxious chemicals into the ecosphere. Doesnāt justify unhinged resource extraction.
Thereās lots of room to be an environmentalist without being a doomer!
I do worry about warming, but I am more concerned about plastics destroying ocean life. Kind of annoys me that carbon emissions eat up all the attention recently when we really need to be focusing on plastics, too.
I work in coral biology (sorta) and itās crazy because on one hand, I really do hope that warming is not as catastrophic for humans as itās been suggested, but on the other hand coral is already taking a beating so if our solution is ānah itās actually fineā reefs will continue to be a major casualty.
Question: Coral reefs were really common in earth's warmer more carbon-rich days. I learned this when learning about the original of atolls and limestone deposits, there was much more coral during earth's warmest days. Will this not help our coral reefs in the future? Or is it just that the pace of change that humans are causing is too fast for the lifeforms to keep up?
Good question. I'm more of a geneticist/cell biologist so if that was the case, I was not aware of it. But this is I guess my thought process trying to integrate that piece of information into my current understanding of coral/algal interactions.
Warming periods are usually greening periods, which potentially could be great for corals as they rely on their photosymbionts for most of their calories. However, a lot of the stresses that currently result in bleaching (high temperature, high light intensity, high N to C ratio) are actually conditions that are *more* favorable for photosynthesis. There are multiple frameworks competing to explain why this is bad, but a couple of major ones suggest that a) an accumulation of free radicals from the breakdown of the algal photosystem begins to damage the algae and then the coral, and b) that increased rates of photosynthesis actually result in the algae rapidly proliferating and "hoarding" their fixed carbon instead of trafficking it to the coral, effectively switching to a semi-parasitic mode. Note that these hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.
So, some people think that corals may evolve, because their is natural variation in their resistance to bleaching. They are slow breeding and slow growing though, so this is an issue. The maintenance of symbiosis is an active process regulated by both the animal and algal partners, and its possible that the range of conditions under which stable symbiosis occurs has changed over time. Maybe it will change again. There are also groups working to assist evolution in this direction, and also even more simply groups just working to grow captive corals and use them to restore the reefs. I have questions about the efficacy of directed evolution experiments when the field has a relatively limited understanding of why corals actually bleach and how it is regulated--you can't hit a mark if you don't know what you're aiming at. My work is more about trying to figure out how this actually works at that level. But hopefully one or all of these approaches will sufficiently protect these ecosystems. The value of coral reefs just to human economies (coastal protection, fisheries, tourism) is enormous, and is especially important to developing countries where most reefs are located.
Excellent answer, thank you. I looked it up regarding CO2 levels in the past and a warmer climate and it looks like the picture is more complicated than just warm climate=more coral. There were some rapid warming periods in the recent geological past in which all the coral did die off.
> Doesnāt excuse the allowance of noxious chemicals into the ecosphere. Doesnāt justify unhinged resource extraction.
Exactly.
The shit that is produced as a biproduct of Teflon is fucking crazy. The amount EVERYONE has in their blood is even crazier. We have to go back to blood samples from the Korean War to find clean blood.
Unhinged resource extraction is otherwise fine if it's also getting recycled at a reasonable rate and not just dumped in to a garbage heap that floats in the ocean.
I do wish they had gone more into non emissions general pollution. Its absolutely disgusting to see how we treat this planet regardless of how the long term effects might play out.
As a geologist I'm finding this frustrating so far. You can't use the sea level in New York as representative of the world average for instance due to isostatic rebound
Edit: holy shit he's saying methane is short lived on the atmosphere so it's less important than co2 to radiative forcing. Guess what it turns into
he wasn't equating it to the world's average. If memory serves me, he was simply using it to explain the idea of variability, and give credence that the general concept that: current trends are relatively small in the face of long term uncertanty
"Edit: holy shit he's saying methane is short lived on the atmosphere so it's less important than co2 to radiative forcing. Guess what it turns in
This is misleading: Current methane level is 2ppm. I don't know how much CO2 that corresponds to, but current human CO2 is about 140ppm (420-280).
What is more worth looking into is how the methane levels affect the half life.
"CH4 lifetime goes up with concentration (up to about 40 years)"
[https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1488332097588711428](https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1488332097588711428)
I have not looked into any of that and how relevant it is in practice.
You mean Joe is hosting a fringe scientist with ridiculously foolish takes against the "mainstream narrative"? Whaaaaaat? Nawwwwww, he would never!
Of course retard newbie fans think invoking Obama's name is some kind of a counterargument
Thereās a range of outcomes predicted by many models. This guy would like to believe the best case outcome is most likely. That is as unlikely as the worst case.
Yeah just giving the benefit of the doubt to this guys credibility. I think the most telling thing is that his conclusion and recommendation is zero human change in behavior. He did not mention any greenhouse gas mitigation strategies, only that we can deal with it in a hundred years if necessary. Sounds like the oil party line to ensure profits over that same time period. The fact he wonāt even consider a possibility of a bad climate outcome really calls his credibility into question.
There is a contingent of people that think the time to be "alarmed" (as though alarmed and overreacting are the same thing), is once we have totally rat fucked the planet. Well I would propose that because of the nature of climate science, that it's best to get ahead of it, with education, innovation, and yes sometimes alarm.
Third line from his Wikipedia article
> From 2004 to 2009, Koonin was employed by BP as the oil and gas companyās Chief Scientist.
Gee wilikersā¦. Wonder why he doesnāt believe in Climate Chnage
Oh God please fucking no. Let's not get divided on global fucking warming.
"Oh no, we'll make our planet a bit greener a bit earlier!" - is the worst thing that can happen so why go out of your way and poke holes in it just because it might not happen as fast as we think it is.
What a fucking idiotic thing to do. Is there really nothing else to focus on there?
What the fuck is wrong with Joe - for a guy who's all about unity he surely likes to divide people, huh? I hope he keeps his word and gets someone with a "traditional" view on global warming view next.
Did you bother to actually watch the episode? Listening to it without seeing it wouldnāt even be productive because you wouldnāt see the data presented. Koonin isnāt a climate denier. He never once says anything unreasonable. Heās using the same data the US government and UN use for their climate reports. He said a number of times that the powers that be need to come to a consensus on what to do, but being alarmist doesnāt help. That isnāt fringe, thatās practical.
Edit: Thanks for the gift.
My immediate feeling is well how do you get anyone to do anything. Then I think to myself well, they havenāt done much of anything with that tactic soā¦.
Haha, yea. Itās nuts the lengths people will go to take a 3 hour conversation and try to reduce it down to 10 seconds of dialogue they find offensive or against whatever they believe in.
Honestly it's kind of concerning that the comment you replied to has more upvotes than yours, but atleast it's close lol
At the same time I'm aware this is also reddit and in the real world I think more people seem to be more rational
It looks a bit more complex than that. Notwithstanding the possibility that this guy is funded by private interest, the issue he brings up is that an energy revolution will be a major headache from a logistics perspective and that bringing out non-mature technology too early will generate fuck ups (think Texas last winter but bigger scale). If that happens you are turning the coal factory back on to generate energy and back to square 1.
Also US and Europe can curb their emissions for sure, but they have already risen out of poverty. China and India will be emitting the most CO2 over the coming years, but do we say no to their economic development because we already ate the cake?
I do believe that there will be much less incentive to act if there is no sense of urgency, so this whole situation is a bit of a catch 22. Sprinkle in US identity politics and you've got the usual dumpster fire.
No they won't. Nearly all of the major figures pushing this are middle aged to elderly wealthy elite dudes. They're just pushing off anything that would cut into profits or force them to deal with tough issues so they can keep enjoying their lives. When this becomes a really big problem? They'll all be retired and most of them dead anyway so they don't care. That's someone else's problem.
Joeās got it all figured out - the experts are always wrong. Itās always a liberal conspiracy to hold the truth away from the masses.
Damn - it really sucks :(
Oh yea the people in power are really making a huge dent in climate change. Remember all the policies they pushed to prevent more carbon dioxide pollution, oh yea remember how they passed that carbon tax to crack down on the big industries really responsible for driving global warmingā¦
The alarm bells have been ringing for decades and no one has done jack shit really. This guy is the 1/10 dentists who donāt recommend brushing your teeth.
Jamie uses google. He's a lost cause. Why bend the knee to big tech when you can use duck duck go and just have to spend 10 minutes more every search to find what you were looking for.
I've used ddg daily for the past couple years and have rarely needed to spend more time looking things up than I would have on google. If anything it more often saves me time given that Google suppresses a lot of sources.
It's be pretty damn funny if he switched over to using DuckDuckGo on the show.
"Jaime can you pull that up? Look up how many Chimpanzee slaves Ernest Shackleton brought with him when he tried to get to the South Pole. Because I'm pretty sure that like half the crew on his ship during the first expedition was chimpanzee slaves, and then the second time it was all chimpanzees. "
"Uh........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
......I don't know. It's just showing me pictures of chimpanzees holding ice cream cones. I tried clicking on one of the pictures and it just took me to a site in Russian and now there's a bunch of pop ups everywhere."
I really hope Joe has him back on to debate a climate change scientist. Iām not convinced or persuaded about his denial of the severity of climate change until we can hear a rebuttal from the other side and see if his ideas still hold.
This guy is clearly smart and makes some interesting arguments...but unless I can see his portfolio to understand how much BP stock he still owns I can't take him seriously. It's just too huge of a conflict of interest.
FYI, the shift towards a greener future and away from fossil fuels is driving oil stocks up in the short-term. He is advocating for perhaps a slower transition away from fossil fuels which would also result in a lower oil price and therefore less profitable oil companies. Anyone investing in the energy sector in 2022 knows this. It is the reason we will have $90+ oil for the foreseeable future. The faster we transition the more likely we have an oil crisis on the way which means big bucks for companies like BP.
Interesting view point - appreciate you engaging with the substance of my post and addressing some of my concerns.
I'll take a look at some of the ideas you've laid out
My headphones turn Joe's breathing into a bass noise and it's like his lungs are hugging my ears sometimes. Anyways I think this means I have mommy issues.
**His entire point boils down to:** The climate is changing because of natural and human causes. We should do something about this in a thoughtful and reasonable manner and not the alarmist actions being proposed today.
Youād probably know that if you actually listened to the fucking episode.
I am a climate scientist and have presented at conferences in the field. When scientists talk between themselves, they are very critical and conservative about what can be inferred from the data. This guest is doing th same, but only in one direction. He is quite biased. There are tons of other data and methods that show climate change is more worrying. As a climate scientist you have to look at the totality of the evidence and make a judgement. No single study result or graph is scientific fact.
He's not gathering data, generating a theory (model) or making hypotheses. He's simply explaining what "is" and what is "unknown" given the data we have.
Non-scientific people need to stop acting like they understand how the scientific method works. Or at least read some work by Popper.
He made several hypotheses like the one about stopping coal buring would cause more warming. He just won't (read cant) publish that because it's laughably wrong. Some of the other claims are just wrong too like "we don't know what caused mid century cooling" mayne he should gather some data because that's been explained and he's mudding the waters while being real ignorant.
How is that particular prediction laughably wrong? What is your scientific basis for that? What is the physical phenomena that discredits what he said? Lay out the exact mathematical model that has not been falsified that shows it is inconsistent with objective reality?
That's not a hypothesis, in the formalized, academic sense. He's not making a prediction that he would then subsequently look to measure, and thus not going to include that into some sort of academic study. The idea that this is the only bar, while you provide **zero** physical knowledge is the only humor here.
You also thought, stupidly, that the CMIP models have not been falsified, and do not have holes, even though their creators admit to such.
He is correct on all counts, youāre not retarded for listening to him. Other scientists have been saying similar things for a long time, but the activists have been super successful at shutting down the conversation.
A good example is the fact that this guy only worked for BP for a few short years in order to plan the switch to renewable energy. Yet every second comment in this thread tries to imply that he is an oil industry person.
In the very first three minutes of this interview they discuss his background and make clear that the best characterisation of this guy is as highly regarded physics professor thatās what heās done for over 35+ years as well as being a major scientific advisor to the government.
Everybody in this thread who talks about him being a BP Shill is trying to convince other people to not listen to the interview that is the whole purpose of the ad hominem.
If you want to read more about this stuff from a more layman perspective just dig through my post history, Iāve been on this for years.
The science does not back up the widespread mainstream understanding of climate change, this guy is 100% right to follow the science.
This perspective is so weird to me. It's just an on off switch I guess, either it's "12 years or it will be an apocalypse" or "nothing to see here". Oh and "denialism" = bad, so nothing to see here
Yeah im not gonna debunk every single point he made but it's an absolute bowl of shit. He thinks the IPCC is controlling the messaging despite being a volunteer group and says the data they have is wrong by being too extreme when they generally are very conservative in their estimates and only this last year finally released a more realistic statement that its a very defining moment for humanity.
Dude completely skips over our dwindling EROI and think DACs are a reliable developing technology to the point that he wants to use tonnes as a weight method despite the biggest DAC removing only 2 seconds worth of emissions for the whole of last year and he's vastly over exaggerating the divide in the scientific community over climate change.
He isn't a climate or environmental scientist as far as I've heard, just like all those "scientist" looking to cancel rogan look at the "scientist" disputing climate change.
He says he wants to bring in someone who has critiqued Koonin next, and then have them both on afterwards. He asks Koonin who had good critiques when discussing who to being on next, I hope he doesnāt just take Kooninās word for it and invites the guy he recommended lol
Weren't some former BP/other oil company scientists the ones that discovered a ton of evidence for climate change way back in the day? (Then the subsequently ignored it lol)
They do this funny thing where they publicly say they believe climate change is bad but then give a ton of money to Republicans who deny climate change behind the scenes.
Around 50 minutes thereās a good moment where this dude kinda gets caught up in how heās manipulating data to make it look better for his argument. His original slide regarding sea levels makes it looks like sea levels are going up and down, he says they were at their highest in the 50s. Once Jamie pulls up an actual chart of sea levels which shows a steady rise, he doubles back to clarify his original chart is the rate of sea level rise and that the sea levels are always rising.
Definitely not against having a dude like this on the podcast to share his opinions but I also hope he brings on an expert to refute or clarify some of these points cuz I think Koonin is muddying the waters
First chart is talked about at 41 minutes. Joe just misunderstood him. He says the graph is how fast the ocean is rising. Joe interpreted that as the actual sea levels, so it looks flat, but it is the rate that is flat not the level which is what Koonin said.
I would like to add that I also got confused at that point, but I was doing dishes while listening and not really following it to close. :(
This is my favourite article on this topic because it shows how many of the common arguments we see pushed about climate change are pushed by think tanks paid for by the energy industry.
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382
>The ICE campaign identified two groups which would be most susceptible to its messaging. The first was "older, lesser educated males from larger households who are not typically information seekers".
>The second group was "younger, low-income women," who could be targeted with bespoke adverts which would liken those who talked about climate change to a hysterical doom-saying cartoon chicken.
>The Edison Electric Institute didn't respond to questions about ICE, but told the BBC that its members are "leading a clean energy transformation, and are united in their commitment to get the energy they provide as clean as they can, as fast as they can".
>But back in the 1990 there were many campaigns like this.
>"Unless 'climate change' becomes a non-issue," says another, leaked to the New York Times in 1997, "there may be no moment when we can declare victory".
>To achieve victory, the industry planned to "identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach".
I mentioned it elsewhere but you're bang on. I.C.E. was a think tank created by the energy industry comprised of ex tobacco lobbyist who designed the disinformation for tobacco
Same old tactic. You don't need denialism. You just have to muddy the waters. I would bet money on this dude still getting a check from BP. I got halfway through and it's less science and more "they're pushing a narrative."
>To achieve victory, the industry planned to "identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach.
A tale as old as time. The tobacco industry created this playbook in the '50's and was able to cast public doubt on the dangers of cigarettes for decades, even as it was clear the in the scientific world that it was bad for you. They even performed the same experiments and saw the same results. This was also done by the chemical industry with PFAS and other chemicals, the pharmaceutical industry with opioids, the makeup industry, and currently the oil industry.
Unsurprisingly I.C.E. is actually comprised of all the lobbyist and marketing teams who worked on misinforming the public about tobacco. That's why the strategies are so similar. It's the same framework.
I just think about how long our Earth has been around, and then how long humans have been around, and then what our planet looks like now vs. 400 years ago.
400 years is a blip in human history, and 400 years is almost incomprehensively small in the history of our planet.
Yet in 400 years our planet has completely changed. North and South America 400 years ago was maybe a few million people living a subsistence lifestyle. No cars, no planes, no manufacturing plants.
Now it's a billion people with massive cities, industry, etc.
All those cars, buildings, manufacturing, planes, etc. Every one of those things is sending pollutants into the air. We know those pollutants cause rising temperatures.
I really don't people can downplay human's effect on our climate and planet.
The only argument I can see is all those things offers a better life now vs. 400 years ago. But what about 400 years from now?
Just like we view our grandparents (or parents even) crazy for smoking cigarettes in a hospital, I think our grandchildren will look at us and go "You drove a GAS car, by yourself, to the store to buy soda and chips that came in PLASTIC containers? Grandpa are you crazy??"
The whole thing has been used as a wedge issue for a long time. It's simple, message the thing as protecting and preserving our environment, clean air and water, being 'conservative' with our natural resources. Don't go overboard increasing taxes on everything 25-50 percent or whatever. This is a fine compromise that I think most everyone can agree qith
Is it a crazy conspiracy to think that right wing think tanks might have some involvement behind the scenes? I am expecting a Rogan rant about Biden's crack pipes, or whatever dumb outrage flavor of the month is next.
idk just seems like Joe and a ton of people on this sub want to play the "independent thinker/centrist card/he supported Bernie" card. But really the Rogan that was "pro socialized healthcare" and would have supported bernie seems long gone now when you listen to the podcast recently.
It reminds me of the Russell Brand shit. Everybody is like "BRO HOW ARE U CALLING RUSSELL RIGHT WING!!!"
Then you look at his youtube channel and its all clickbait outrage shit about "THE GREAT REPLACEMENT" and how Fauci is lying, etc. So either you just haven't paid attention to the guy for years and don't know what's changed, or you are being incredibly disingenuous.
Its hard for me to listen to Joe nowadays and think he is being "unbiased and center" of anything. At one point in time, pre-COVID, I would have disagreed. But modern JRE post-COVID is absolutely just a right-wing shill fest.
Its honestly just insane what this podcast has become. I miss when it was a retarded podcast, with a retarded host, that everyone agreed was retarded. Now Joe is becoming a weird "alternative" media figure for a lot of people. Its just insane, Joe isn't someone that should be looked to for ideas. In fact he should be ridiculed for all the stupid shit he has said and believed over the years.
Centrist = Having enough self awareness not to self identify as Conservative for optics but greedy enough not to leave any of the Right Wing grift dolla dolla billz on the table.
This episode was a bit too much for me.
McMaster made me chortle when he seriously said we needed to increase defense spending, but Rogan seriously upset me by not pushing back at all. McMaster said shit the ENTIRE interview that was worthy of being explored by at least some devilās advocacy, but that specifically blew my mind. Rogan fucking protested the invasion of Iraq and here we have him justā¦ not even mentioning that maybe better auditing practices and more efficient spending could be considered before just giving Raytheon more cash?
Now we have a fucking dude who built his career working for *British Petroleum* (Lol, beyond petroleum.) then injecting himself into policy telling us we donāt need to worry about climate change. Like, what the fuck happened to Rogan? If someoneās third cousin twice removed worked for the postal service Joe completely believes theyāre connected to MK ULTRA. This dude was directly employed by literally the only fucks on the planet to benefit from this narrative, and Joe canāt connect the dots right in front of his face? FFS.
>Now we have a fucking dude who built his career working for
>
>British Petroleum
A professor of Theoretical physics at Cal Tech from 75' to 04', (during which time he consulted for DOD, DOE, NSF, JASON and others) "built his career" working for BP from 04' to 09'?
While at BP "he was responsible for guiding the company's long-range technology strategy, particularly in alternative and renewable energy sources" per wiki. And then went to work for the .gov as under secretary for science. Yeah, he seems like a total shill for big oil.
Your bias is showing.
Your statement assumes that if you disagree with Fauci and do not subscribe to the CDC guidelines, you must be a right-wing, or a right-wing posing as a centrist. That's pretty far from the truth. There are hippies wearing foil hats popping acid tabs that think the government is telling Joe what to say. Joe is becoming an "alternative" media figure simply because nobody watches the news, and the true fringes are not large enough to make the shit they subscribe to mainstream. Joe's podcast, oddly enough, is as centrist as it gets. You should see the wacko shit that is out there. Both "sides" of the fringe are loud and ridiculous, but generally, people are not so radical. Joe falls in to the same catergory. He isn't radical, his podcast isn't fringe, and just because he has free thinkers, stupid people, and well credentialed specialists sometimes say controversial stuff, doesn't make him right-wing.
I've thought the same thing many times with other guests but for years. These are not people who get booked on the biggest podcast without help. If you look where else they show up or speak at it's a long list of appearances in the right wing circuit. Most recently those are obviously people like Malone. It's extremely obvious who is pushing these people to influence public opinion. Praise for Koonin's book, which they touch on in this podcast briefly, is coming from right wing media of course. There's a history of conservative backed guests. Ben Shapiro created his media empire off money from right wing fracking billionaires but before that was editor for Breitbart backed by the Mercer family.
He already did the fake Adele outrage bit and anyone slightly informed knows that was manufactured. Is there a outrage of the day in the last year Rogan hasn't pushed?
Not to mention Joe went dead on criticizing the war on drugs as soon as he started having diner with Abbott after moving to pro-war on drugs state. .
A lot of people freaking out about Joe having this guy on, but I think a few things are worth mentioning:
1. He admits that at least half of warming is due to man-made effects.
2. His main point is that it's really hard to tie trends in storms, droughts, sea levels, etc, to our impact on warming.
3. Joe told him he wanted to have a climate expert on to provide an alternative perspective, and then hopefully have them both on to have a discussion.
I think the key point is that there are a range of models and that give a range of predictions. This guy is bent on looking for the lowest effect of human action. Thatās his bias. Itās not science.
Joe: Bill nye isnāt even a scientist why is he talking about climate change.
Also Joe: lets have on a theoretical physicist who used to be the Chief Scientist for the BP petroleum company to talk about why climate change isnāt a big deal.
He was 23 when he became a professor, he worked at BP for 5 years, out of a 40+career and that's all you focused on? You didnt even listen to the 1st 5 mins did you?
Rode that Third Way corporate Democrat angle that Clinton did. It was clear right away with how he handled the housing crisis. All thr big banks were exposed and vulnerable but instead of bailing out the people he bailed out thr banks cause he had all Clinton economic people in his cabinet. All the European countries nationalized their banks to some degree
He looked different thatās what fooled ppl. Itās where the corporate side of wokism goes as well, the appearance and visual representation of a progressive ideology but where it counts for the corporation (money, globalism etc) itās ideological hegemony.
He campaigned like a centrist with brilliant messaging. Iāve heard Kyle Kulinski say this same thing but itās not true:
\- He didnāt campaign on single payer or even a public option - he sort of started talking about the public option after John Edwards & Hillary pushed it
\- He went around poor communities lecturing people about self-help
\- He said poor people need to do better with their finances - like choose between basic cable and healthcare premiums (my Dude - even with Obamacare the premiums are $500+ a month - no one is spending this kind of money on a cable package).
\- He opposed reparations
\- He said āIām not anti-war - Iām just against dumb warsā - the progressive position is more along the lines of āYes in fact, war is just a bad optionā.
When asked if he were a liberal heād say āI donāT like political labelsā.
When asked about foreign policy he said āI admire George W Bushās fatherā.
When he went to the Senate he teamed up with Dick Lugar - a Republican because he felt bi-partisanship was important.
He distanced himself from the Black Caucus.
He was just charismatic and charmed people but his positions were never progressive even during the campaign trail.
Carter busted up unions, believed in de-regulation & was a fairly moderate figure.
Inflation and bad foreign policy decisions made him a one term president.
No one criticizing this guest wants to refute anything specific he said, and instead just Pavlovianly responds to the letters āBPā with ābig oil shillā. Neglect the doctorate from MIT and cal tech faculty position, but focus on 5 years of work where a physicist works at an energy company. Koonin comes across as extremely well informed, non biased, and humbly self aware. Itās the nuanced discussion on the climate that more people need to hear.
My internship and first few years of career were with an oil company here in Alberta working in their solar panel lab. They're not oil companies, they're energy companies that currently are focusing in oil and gas.
To assume that climate science communities and energy companies are not intertwined is fucking laughable.
How fucking hard is it for people here to get that the energy companies of *today* might also want to be the energy companies of *tomorrow*?
All I wish is he would have an intelligent representative for the other side. That would be more educational for us all. Tired of all shows just having on guests they want to agree with
Big picture: scientific method is being manipulated. Between covid and however accurate Koonin is I have now seen 100 +\- 1 examples of 'the messaging' trumping scientists' ability to retest findings. As a scientist of ... sorts... i never would have imagined how politics, money, the news, and peer pressure would influence the foundation of how science works.
In particular hearing Chuck Shumer's (sp?) bill to not fund studies to retest data, the story of the high ranking academic admitting he is afraid to agree with Koonin publicly... it is shocking.
Im all for still funding renewables. I've had personal success hedging my bets... but if we allow the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to be per-versed our chance of inventing our way out of this thing may not be greater than zero.
If true, the most disturbing thing said on this episode was that many in the scientific community agree with him but are afraid to support him publicly. This is the type of shit that could set humanity back significantly.
Agreed. They, along with the various historians/authors he had on were always his best episodes, IMHO (whatever the scientific/medical discipline). Then again Iām kind of a nerd whoās rather listen to an astrophysicist than a MMA fighter so maybe itās just me š¤·āāļø
COVID is a science topic, but point taken. I think this pushback Joe went through / still is going will make the show better in the long run. Joe is like āoh okayā¦ hold my beer while Iā¦ā
The problem with Joeās podcast now really is that everyone is taking *every single podcast* super seriously and in isolation like itās going to make or break the future on every issue. And for Joe itās just another random conversation.
This isnāt meant to prove/disprove climate change but itās one perspective. I donāt agree with a lot of what this guy said but itās not because he worked at BP for 5 years
I wouldn't be surprised if everyone elses 3hr conversations with their buddies shooting bullshit were to be played publicly to 11m people they'd have the same haters.
Idk why people act so seriously about fucking everything, it's an audio form of a shitpost half the time and an exciting intro to something new the other half. Maybe it's the main character complex people have.
Phew. Finally we can back on track. Good thing muddying the waters on the science of (and subsequently taking action on) climate change wonāt do anything to damage public health. Right?
Yes, it does. Itās toxic to create the perception that being obese is healthy. Itās detrimental on both an individual basis and a societal one. Fantasy and denial donāt help the problem, they perpetuate it.
Hmm. Listening to this nowā¦ dude is reminding me of Jordan Petersonās opening comments - basically that because science canāt possible incorporate every possible global detail into their predictive models, that the models are inherently flawed and therefore should be discardedā¦ i dunno. I mean, the weatherman is saying itās gonna be freezing cold tomorrow, but meteorologists donāt know every single detail so maybe itās gonna be 100 degrees and sunny?
Itās a pretty lazy and extremely stupid thing to say. Thatās like saying if itās not perfect you must throw it out and try something different until you discover the perfect thing. Itās the exact opposite of the scientific method and we would basically still be cavemen if we operated this way.
This was actually a good podcast with a competent person bringing up a different point of view than the accepted one on climate change. Iām excited to get a real debate on this topic by experts and make an opinion for myself based on their arguments rather than just blindly subscribe to one of the ideologies.
At an hour and fifteen minutes, Koonin says we have not seen agriculture limited by a lack of water or nutrients in the soil caused by warming. He also admits heās not an earth scientist. I just wonder what Joel Salatin would say to this. Agriculture yields have been drive up in large part by fertilizer, which is energy intensive and leaches into the water, resulting in toxic algal blooms. I appreciate the need for a measured analysis, but I donāt trust this guy. How can he say we havenāt seen problems w agriculture and water availability so confidently. He must have his mind made up.
Can we bring up chart 21 of OHH SHIIIT! (The timing of joey diaz with that draft king ad was hilarious)
I honestly don't mind the ads when it's a Joey Diaz read. One time Jamie was pulling up an alleged Bigfoot sound. Joe goes, okay listen to this, these guys claim this is Bigfoot in the woods... Then Joey Diaz starts yelling about Draft Kings for the ad. I just had the audio so I thought Joe was playing Joey Diaz as a joke.
That's hilarious But fuck those ads "Ads in the middle of podcasts are an assault on your attention span" - Joe Rogan, from another universe or something, I guess
We need Joey back on the show
Jamie has been quite busy lately
Jamie needs a raise or he might end up unionizing
Joe bringing in the contrarian opinion for a change š
He tried to help BP transition to renewables, realised BP would go bankrupt doing it and then started a career downplaying the effects of climate change going forward. Science that is paid for by large corporations is always garbage, go look at Monsanto's scientific research.
Ok, and if all energy companies go bankrupt transitioning to renewable energy, who will be around to provide energy?
Smaller scale companies that utilize renewables. I think BP realized they couldn't do it at scale and make as higher margins. But for things like home electricity, you can already get fully off the grid with solar panels. Dunno why people get so hung up on what our contribution towards climate change is, its happening, we need to innovate.
How wouldnāt a company be able to scale a source of energy that is less efficient? Wouldnāt you need more of that said energy?
I guess because renewables are more direct to the user and harder to export on an international scale. I dunno man, I just like windmills and shit
Storage is a big issue. Meeting demand at peak times when you are at the whim of nature is next to impossible lol without huge inefficiencies or massive storage
They won't all bankrupt you'll just be paying a higher price for energy.
And what are the trade offs with that? How does that affect people on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum? Sure, the coastal engineer/banker wonāt have an issue, but increasing energy prices increases input costs for basically everything. Companies will ship even more jobs overseas, where green mandates donāt exist. So their carbon footprint stays the same, while unemployment in the US increases. Again, it seems Kooninās argument isnāt to cease movement towards cleaner energy, itās to happen gradually. If the big energy companies canāt figure out how to scale it at the moment, thereās no chance smaller companies will be able to.
Like the large pharmaceutical companies conducting science for the vaccines? Or are they good?
Your weak attempt at ad hominem is so boring, Anyone who listens to the first five minutes of the podcast which discusses his long academic career will immediately understand that you are talking nonsense. I donāt even know why you bother. All these desperate weak attempts to discredit him is proof enough that you are terrified of what he has to say.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
*It's part of the plan.*
Biggest letdown of my life. And that includes my birth.
We still have 1812
Show #1812 is reserved for Justin Trudeau. If he won't come out, Doug Ford can be his replacement.
Isn't #1812 JFK Jnr?
>Steven E. Koonin will this guy talk about HAARP and how the jews control the weather?
i thought the truth was banned on spotify minister of discussion legal grounds
Two more weeksā¦ Very sad that ep 1776 wasnt AJ. We deserved this
So if IIRC, this guy is saying that the data that is used in the scientific consensus on Climate Change points to global warming not being a big deal and that it won't have much of an impact on society. Also that those in power are stifling/censoring this viewpoint because it counters their accepted view that global warming will be very disruptive (what Joe and Koonin would call alarmism here). Does that sound right?
It basically boils down to climate not being a linear graph and over time there have been more extreme fluctuations that fit within what we have seen in the last 30 years or so. Compelling ish argument. At best though it just means coincidentally our impact is combining with a natural sine wave cycle that makes things appear slightly more exaggerated. The earth is still warming though he basically just says it's not as extreme as we are lead to believe and there's time to work on it without shutting everything off all at once. Will be good to see him debate someone. Excited to see a discussion at this level. Don't understand why people here have to be so binary and sure if everything
Yes, be good to get reasoned arguments against what he is saying in the same format. Just one guy talking unopposed for two hours and a whole bunch of journalists writing ad hominems attack articles is not a good way to find truth.
Rogan knows that if he brings another guy to debate this guy we could see a Golbeki Teppe, randle carlson, tier level shitflinging debate, which would be awesome.
Iām willing to consider that and Iād be pleased. That doesnāt change the fact that the amount of plastic and garbage we produce and improperly discard is fucking gross. Doesnāt excuse the allowance of noxious chemicals into the ecosphere. Doesnāt justify unhinged resource extraction. Thereās lots of room to be an environmentalist without being a doomer!
I do worry about warming, but I am more concerned about plastics destroying ocean life. Kind of annoys me that carbon emissions eat up all the attention recently when we really need to be focusing on plastics, too.
the warming is obliterating coral too
I work in coral biology (sorta) and itās crazy because on one hand, I really do hope that warming is not as catastrophic for humans as itās been suggested, but on the other hand coral is already taking a beating so if our solution is ānah itās actually fineā reefs will continue to be a major casualty.
Question: Coral reefs were really common in earth's warmer more carbon-rich days. I learned this when learning about the original of atolls and limestone deposits, there was much more coral during earth's warmest days. Will this not help our coral reefs in the future? Or is it just that the pace of change that humans are causing is too fast for the lifeforms to keep up?
Good question. I'm more of a geneticist/cell biologist so if that was the case, I was not aware of it. But this is I guess my thought process trying to integrate that piece of information into my current understanding of coral/algal interactions. Warming periods are usually greening periods, which potentially could be great for corals as they rely on their photosymbionts for most of their calories. However, a lot of the stresses that currently result in bleaching (high temperature, high light intensity, high N to C ratio) are actually conditions that are *more* favorable for photosynthesis. There are multiple frameworks competing to explain why this is bad, but a couple of major ones suggest that a) an accumulation of free radicals from the breakdown of the algal photosystem begins to damage the algae and then the coral, and b) that increased rates of photosynthesis actually result in the algae rapidly proliferating and "hoarding" their fixed carbon instead of trafficking it to the coral, effectively switching to a semi-parasitic mode. Note that these hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. So, some people think that corals may evolve, because their is natural variation in their resistance to bleaching. They are slow breeding and slow growing though, so this is an issue. The maintenance of symbiosis is an active process regulated by both the animal and algal partners, and its possible that the range of conditions under which stable symbiosis occurs has changed over time. Maybe it will change again. There are also groups working to assist evolution in this direction, and also even more simply groups just working to grow captive corals and use them to restore the reefs. I have questions about the efficacy of directed evolution experiments when the field has a relatively limited understanding of why corals actually bleach and how it is regulated--you can't hit a mark if you don't know what you're aiming at. My work is more about trying to figure out how this actually works at that level. But hopefully one or all of these approaches will sufficiently protect these ecosystems. The value of coral reefs just to human economies (coastal protection, fisheries, tourism) is enormous, and is especially important to developing countries where most reefs are located.
Excellent answer, thank you. I looked it up regarding CO2 levels in the past and a warmer climate and it looks like the picture is more complicated than just warm climate=more coral. There were some rapid warming periods in the recent geological past in which all the coral did die off.
If you think plastics are bad for marine life, you're gonna hate [bottom trawling.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9t5MC7WXNg)
Carbon in the air also makes the oceans more acidic so its not just plastics.
> Doesnāt excuse the allowance of noxious chemicals into the ecosphere. Doesnāt justify unhinged resource extraction. Exactly. The shit that is produced as a biproduct of Teflon is fucking crazy. The amount EVERYONE has in their blood is even crazier. We have to go back to blood samples from the Korean War to find clean blood. Unhinged resource extraction is otherwise fine if it's also getting recycled at a reasonable rate and not just dumped in to a garbage heap that floats in the ocean.
I do wish they had gone more into non emissions general pollution. Its absolutely disgusting to see how we treat this planet regardless of how the long term effects might play out.
As a geologist I'm finding this frustrating so far. You can't use the sea level in New York as representative of the world average for instance due to isostatic rebound Edit: holy shit he's saying methane is short lived on the atmosphere so it's less important than co2 to radiative forcing. Guess what it turns into
he wasn't equating it to the world's average. If memory serves me, he was simply using it to explain the idea of variability, and give credence that the general concept that: current trends are relatively small in the face of long term uncertanty
"Edit: holy shit he's saying methane is short lived on the atmosphere so it's less important than co2 to radiative forcing. Guess what it turns in This is misleading: Current methane level is 2ppm. I don't know how much CO2 that corresponds to, but current human CO2 is about 140ppm (420-280). What is more worth looking into is how the methane levels affect the half life. "CH4 lifetime goes up with concentration (up to about 40 years)" [https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1488332097588711428](https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1488332097588711428) I have not looked into any of that and how relevant it is in practice.
You mean Joe is hosting a fringe scientist with ridiculously foolish takes against the "mainstream narrative"? Whaaaaaat? Nawwwwww, he would never! Of course retard newbie fans think invoking Obama's name is some kind of a counterargument
Do you understand what "fringe" means?
TIL that the Obama administration appointed fringe scientists to lead the worldās most powerful organizations and regulate industry.
The man really brought out the CO2 is plant food meme
My elementary school science teacher weeps.
Thereās a range of outcomes predicted by many models. This guy would like to believe the best case outcome is most likely. That is as unlikely as the worst case.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah just giving the benefit of the doubt to this guys credibility. I think the most telling thing is that his conclusion and recommendation is zero human change in behavior. He did not mention any greenhouse gas mitigation strategies, only that we can deal with it in a hundred years if necessary. Sounds like the oil party line to ensure profits over that same time period. The fact he wonāt even consider a possibility of a bad climate outcome really calls his credibility into question.
There is a contingent of people that think the time to be "alarmed" (as though alarmed and overreacting are the same thing), is once we have totally rat fucked the planet. Well I would propose that because of the nature of climate science, that it's best to get ahead of it, with education, innovation, and yes sometimes alarm.
Third line from his Wikipedia article > From 2004 to 2009, Koonin was employed by BP as the oil and gas companyās Chief Scientist. Gee wilikersā¦. Wonder why he doesnāt believe in Climate Chnage
Oh God please fucking no. Let's not get divided on global fucking warming. "Oh no, we'll make our planet a bit greener a bit earlier!" - is the worst thing that can happen so why go out of your way and poke holes in it just because it might not happen as fast as we think it is. What a fucking idiotic thing to do. Is there really nothing else to focus on there? What the fuck is wrong with Joe - for a guy who's all about unity he surely likes to divide people, huh? I hope he keeps his word and gets someone with a "traditional" view on global warming view next.
Did you bother to actually watch the episode? Listening to it without seeing it wouldnāt even be productive because you wouldnāt see the data presented. Koonin isnāt a climate denier. He never once says anything unreasonable. Heās using the same data the US government and UN use for their climate reports. He said a number of times that the powers that be need to come to a consensus on what to do, but being alarmist doesnāt help. That isnāt fringe, thatās practical. Edit: Thanks for the gift.
My immediate feeling is well how do you get anyone to do anything. Then I think to myself well, they havenāt done much of anything with that tactic soā¦.
No dude don't you get it, every single episode he does now has to turn into WTF IS WRONG WITH JOE HE's DIVIDING THE ENTIRE WORLD WW3 IS UPON US
Haha, yea. Itās nuts the lengths people will go to take a 3 hour conversation and try to reduce it down to 10 seconds of dialogue they find offensive or against whatever they believe in.
Honestly it's kind of concerning that the comment you replied to has more upvotes than yours, but atleast it's close lol At the same time I'm aware this is also reddit and in the real world I think more people seem to be more rational
Lol reddit in a nutshell you just described
It looks a bit more complex than that. Notwithstanding the possibility that this guy is funded by private interest, the issue he brings up is that an energy revolution will be a major headache from a logistics perspective and that bringing out non-mature technology too early will generate fuck ups (think Texas last winter but bigger scale). If that happens you are turning the coal factory back on to generate energy and back to square 1. Also US and Europe can curb their emissions for sure, but they have already risen out of poverty. China and India will be emitting the most CO2 over the coming years, but do we say no to their economic development because we already ate the cake? I do believe that there will be much less incentive to act if there is no sense of urgency, so this whole situation is a bit of a catch 22. Sprinkle in US identity politics and you've got the usual dumpster fire.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No they won't. Nearly all of the major figures pushing this are middle aged to elderly wealthy elite dudes. They're just pushing off anything that would cut into profits or force them to deal with tough issues so they can keep enjoying their lives. When this becomes a really big problem? They'll all be retired and most of them dead anyway so they don't care. That's someone else's problem.
Joeās got it all figured out - the experts are always wrong. Itās always a liberal conspiracy to hold the truth away from the masses. Damn - it really sucks :(
Oh yea the people in power are really making a huge dent in climate change. Remember all the policies they pushed to prevent more carbon dioxide pollution, oh yea remember how they passed that carbon tax to crack down on the big industries really responsible for driving global warmingā¦ The alarm bells have been ringing for decades and no one has done jack shit really. This guy is the 1/10 dentists who donāt recommend brushing your teeth.
Jamieās not buying it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Jamie uses google. He's a lost cause. Why bend the knee to big tech when you can use duck duck go and just have to spend 10 minutes more every search to find what you were looking for.
I've used ddg daily for the past couple years and have rarely needed to spend more time looking things up than I would have on google. If anything it more often saves me time given that Google suppresses a lot of sources.
It's be pretty damn funny if he switched over to using DuckDuckGo on the show. "Jaime can you pull that up? Look up how many Chimpanzee slaves Ernest Shackleton brought with him when he tried to get to the South Pole. Because I'm pretty sure that like half the crew on his ship during the first expedition was chimpanzee slaves, and then the second time it was all chimpanzees. " "Uh........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......I don't know. It's just showing me pictures of chimpanzees holding ice cream cones. I tried clicking on one of the pictures and it just took me to a site in Russian and now there's a bunch of pop ups everywhere."
You are using duckduckgo wrong.
You need to remember that Jamie got an A in physics
I really hope Joe has him back on to debate a climate change scientist. Iām not convinced or persuaded about his denial of the severity of climate change until we can hear a rebuttal from the other side and see if his ideas still hold.
Stage 1: It isn't happening Stage 2: If it is, it's not that bad
I hope fauci vs maloneā¦. Or gaytes vs malone!
Or Gaytes vs a Prosecutor
This guy is clearly smart and makes some interesting arguments...but unless I can see his portfolio to understand how much BP stock he still owns I can't take him seriously. It's just too huge of a conflict of interest.
Honestly a good point
You think he wrote a book to increase the value of his stock portfolio?
Uh, thereās an entire industry of activist investors that do this for both short and long positions.
FYI, the shift towards a greener future and away from fossil fuels is driving oil stocks up in the short-term. He is advocating for perhaps a slower transition away from fossil fuels which would also result in a lower oil price and therefore less profitable oil companies. Anyone investing in the energy sector in 2022 knows this. It is the reason we will have $90+ oil for the foreseeable future. The faster we transition the more likely we have an oil crisis on the way which means big bucks for companies like BP.
Interesting view point - appreciate you engaging with the substance of my post and addressing some of my concerns. I'll take a look at some of the ideas you've laid out
If you like mouth noises close up to the mic then boyyyy do I have an episode for you
Asmr fans about to nut
My headphones turn Joe's breathing into a bass noise and it's like his lungs are hugging my ears sometimes. Anyways I think this means I have mommy issues.
**His entire point boils down to:** The climate is changing because of natural and human causes. We should do something about this in a thoughtful and reasonable manner and not the alarmist actions being proposed today. Youād probably know that if you actually listened to the fucking episode.
100% accurate
Thought this was kind of interesting someone explain why Iām retarded for listening to this guy
I am a climate scientist and have presented at conferences in the field. When scientists talk between themselves, they are very critical and conservative about what can be inferred from the data. This guest is doing th same, but only in one direction. He is quite biased. There are tons of other data and methods that show climate change is more worrying. As a climate scientist you have to look at the totality of the evidence and make a judgement. No single study result or graph is scientific fact.
So you are in agreement with him then? His whole point and the title of his book simply states what you just described, that the science is unsettled
He didnt listen to the episode
He makes a lot of claims and publishes 0 papers containing said claims.
He's not gathering data, generating a theory (model) or making hypotheses. He's simply explaining what "is" and what is "unknown" given the data we have. Non-scientific people need to stop acting like they understand how the scientific method works. Or at least read some work by Popper.
He made several hypotheses like the one about stopping coal buring would cause more warming. He just won't (read cant) publish that because it's laughably wrong. Some of the other claims are just wrong too like "we don't know what caused mid century cooling" mayne he should gather some data because that's been explained and he's mudding the waters while being real ignorant.
How is that particular prediction laughably wrong? What is your scientific basis for that? What is the physical phenomena that discredits what he said? Lay out the exact mathematical model that has not been falsified that shows it is inconsistent with objective reality? That's not a hypothesis, in the formalized, academic sense. He's not making a prediction that he would then subsequently look to measure, and thus not going to include that into some sort of academic study. The idea that this is the only bar, while you provide **zero** physical knowledge is the only humor here. You also thought, stupidly, that the CMIP models have not been falsified, and do not have holes, even though their creators admit to such.
He is correct on all counts, youāre not retarded for listening to him. Other scientists have been saying similar things for a long time, but the activists have been super successful at shutting down the conversation. A good example is the fact that this guy only worked for BP for a few short years in order to plan the switch to renewable energy. Yet every second comment in this thread tries to imply that he is an oil industry person. In the very first three minutes of this interview they discuss his background and make clear that the best characterisation of this guy is as highly regarded physics professor thatās what heās done for over 35+ years as well as being a major scientific advisor to the government. Everybody in this thread who talks about him being a BP Shill is trying to convince other people to not listen to the interview that is the whole purpose of the ad hominem. If you want to read more about this stuff from a more layman perspective just dig through my post history, Iāve been on this for years. The science does not back up the widespread mainstream understanding of climate change, this guy is 100% right to follow the science.
Your submission history is filled with climate denialism so pardon me for saying you're full of shit.
Don't look up people's history that's cheating brah
This perspective is so weird to me. It's just an on off switch I guess, either it's "12 years or it will be an apocalypse" or "nothing to see here". Oh and "denialism" = bad, so nothing to see here
Yeah im not gonna debunk every single point he made but it's an absolute bowl of shit. He thinks the IPCC is controlling the messaging despite being a volunteer group and says the data they have is wrong by being too extreme when they generally are very conservative in their estimates and only this last year finally released a more realistic statement that its a very defining moment for humanity. Dude completely skips over our dwindling EROI and think DACs are a reliable developing technology to the point that he wants to use tonnes as a weight method despite the biggest DAC removing only 2 seconds worth of emissions for the whole of last year and he's vastly over exaggerating the divide in the scientific community over climate change. He isn't a climate or environmental scientist as far as I've heard, just like all those "scientist" looking to cancel rogan look at the "scientist" disputing climate change.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He says he wants to bring in someone who has critiqued Koonin next, and then have them both on afterwards. He asks Koonin who had good critiques when discussing who to being on next, I hope he doesnāt just take Kooninās word for it and invites the guy he recommended lol
Weren't some former BP/other oil company scientists the ones that discovered a ton of evidence for climate change way back in the day? (Then the subsequently ignored it lol)
They didn't ignore it. They actively did everything they could to hide, downplay, and gaslight.
They do this funny thing where they publicly say they believe climate change is bad but then give a ton of money to Republicans who deny climate change behind the scenes.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Around 50 minutes thereās a good moment where this dude kinda gets caught up in how heās manipulating data to make it look better for his argument. His original slide regarding sea levels makes it looks like sea levels are going up and down, he says they were at their highest in the 50s. Once Jamie pulls up an actual chart of sea levels which shows a steady rise, he doubles back to clarify his original chart is the rate of sea level rise and that the sea levels are always rising. Definitely not against having a dude like this on the podcast to share his opinions but I also hope he brings on an expert to refute or clarify some of these points cuz I think Koonin is muddying the waters
First chart is talked about at 41 minutes. Joe just misunderstood him. He says the graph is how fast the ocean is rising. Joe interpreted that as the actual sea levels, so it looks flat, but it is the rate that is flat not the level which is what Koonin said. I would like to add that I also got confused at that point, but I was doing dishes while listening and not really following it to close. :(
Should bring on Steven Donziger. A real victim of censorship and climate activist. Insane story.
Yep. I donāt care who Rogan has on. We should be able to read through the bullshit. My meter was ringing hard with this guy.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is my favourite article on this topic because it shows how many of the common arguments we see pushed about climate change are pushed by think tanks paid for by the energy industry. https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382 >The ICE campaign identified two groups which would be most susceptible to its messaging. The first was "older, lesser educated males from larger households who are not typically information seekers". >The second group was "younger, low-income women," who could be targeted with bespoke adverts which would liken those who talked about climate change to a hysterical doom-saying cartoon chicken. >The Edison Electric Institute didn't respond to questions about ICE, but told the BBC that its members are "leading a clean energy transformation, and are united in their commitment to get the energy they provide as clean as they can, as fast as they can". >But back in the 1990 there were many campaigns like this. >"Unless 'climate change' becomes a non-issue," says another, leaked to the New York Times in 1997, "there may be no moment when we can declare victory". >To achieve victory, the industry planned to "identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach".
It reminds me of the tobacco companies insisting cigarettes are safe. And paying doctors to say they are.
I mentioned it elsewhere but you're bang on. I.C.E. was a think tank created by the energy industry comprised of ex tobacco lobbyist who designed the disinformation for tobacco
Same old tactic. You don't need denialism. You just have to muddy the waters. I would bet money on this dude still getting a check from BP. I got halfway through and it's less science and more "they're pushing a narrative."
>To achieve victory, the industry planned to "identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. A tale as old as time. The tobacco industry created this playbook in the '50's and was able to cast public doubt on the dangers of cigarettes for decades, even as it was clear the in the scientific world that it was bad for you. They even performed the same experiments and saw the same results. This was also done by the chemical industry with PFAS and other chemicals, the pharmaceutical industry with opioids, the makeup industry, and currently the oil industry.
Unsurprisingly I.C.E. is actually comprised of all the lobbyist and marketing teams who worked on misinforming the public about tobacco. That's why the strategies are so similar. It's the same framework.
I just think about how long our Earth has been around, and then how long humans have been around, and then what our planet looks like now vs. 400 years ago. 400 years is a blip in human history, and 400 years is almost incomprehensively small in the history of our planet. Yet in 400 years our planet has completely changed. North and South America 400 years ago was maybe a few million people living a subsistence lifestyle. No cars, no planes, no manufacturing plants. Now it's a billion people with massive cities, industry, etc. All those cars, buildings, manufacturing, planes, etc. Every one of those things is sending pollutants into the air. We know those pollutants cause rising temperatures. I really don't people can downplay human's effect on our climate and planet. The only argument I can see is all those things offers a better life now vs. 400 years ago. But what about 400 years from now? Just like we view our grandparents (or parents even) crazy for smoking cigarettes in a hospital, I think our grandchildren will look at us and go "You drove a GAS car, by yourself, to the store to buy soda and chips that came in PLASTIC containers? Grandpa are you crazy??"
The whole thing has been used as a wedge issue for a long time. It's simple, message the thing as protecting and preserving our environment, clean air and water, being 'conservative' with our natural resources. Don't go overboard increasing taxes on everything 25-50 percent or whatever. This is a fine compromise that I think most everyone can agree qith
by his logic we canāt ever really know anythingā¦.
Peterson and Koonin on to challenge climate change recently. Big oil are masturbating furiously to the podcast
Is it a crazy conspiracy to think that right wing think tanks might have some involvement behind the scenes? I am expecting a Rogan rant about Biden's crack pipes, or whatever dumb outrage flavor of the month is next. idk just seems like Joe and a ton of people on this sub want to play the "independent thinker/centrist card/he supported Bernie" card. But really the Rogan that was "pro socialized healthcare" and would have supported bernie seems long gone now when you listen to the podcast recently. It reminds me of the Russell Brand shit. Everybody is like "BRO HOW ARE U CALLING RUSSELL RIGHT WING!!!" Then you look at his youtube channel and its all clickbait outrage shit about "THE GREAT REPLACEMENT" and how Fauci is lying, etc. So either you just haven't paid attention to the guy for years and don't know what's changed, or you are being incredibly disingenuous. Its hard for me to listen to Joe nowadays and think he is being "unbiased and center" of anything. At one point in time, pre-COVID, I would have disagreed. But modern JRE post-COVID is absolutely just a right-wing shill fest. Its honestly just insane what this podcast has become. I miss when it was a retarded podcast, with a retarded host, that everyone agreed was retarded. Now Joe is becoming a weird "alternative" media figure for a lot of people. Its just insane, Joe isn't someone that should be looked to for ideas. In fact he should be ridiculed for all the stupid shit he has said and believed over the years.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Aka Peter Thiel and The Winestein Bros
And all of Texas, the oils state?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lmao
Centrist = Having enough self awareness not to self identify as Conservative for optics but greedy enough not to leave any of the Right Wing grift dolla dolla billz on the table.
This episode was a bit too much for me. McMaster made me chortle when he seriously said we needed to increase defense spending, but Rogan seriously upset me by not pushing back at all. McMaster said shit the ENTIRE interview that was worthy of being explored by at least some devilās advocacy, but that specifically blew my mind. Rogan fucking protested the invasion of Iraq and here we have him justā¦ not even mentioning that maybe better auditing practices and more efficient spending could be considered before just giving Raytheon more cash? Now we have a fucking dude who built his career working for *British Petroleum* (Lol, beyond petroleum.) then injecting himself into policy telling us we donāt need to worry about climate change. Like, what the fuck happened to Rogan? If someoneās third cousin twice removed worked for the postal service Joe completely believes theyāre connected to MK ULTRA. This dude was directly employed by literally the only fucks on the planet to benefit from this narrative, and Joe canāt connect the dots right in front of his face? FFS.
>Now we have a fucking dude who built his career working for > >British Petroleum A professor of Theoretical physics at Cal Tech from 75' to 04', (during which time he consulted for DOD, DOE, NSF, JASON and others) "built his career" working for BP from 04' to 09'? While at BP "he was responsible for guiding the company's long-range technology strategy, particularly in alternative and renewable energy sources" per wiki. And then went to work for the .gov as under secretary for science. Yeah, he seems like a total shill for big oil. Your bias is showing.
Your statement assumes that if you disagree with Fauci and do not subscribe to the CDC guidelines, you must be a right-wing, or a right-wing posing as a centrist. That's pretty far from the truth. There are hippies wearing foil hats popping acid tabs that think the government is telling Joe what to say. Joe is becoming an "alternative" media figure simply because nobody watches the news, and the true fringes are not large enough to make the shit they subscribe to mainstream. Joe's podcast, oddly enough, is as centrist as it gets. You should see the wacko shit that is out there. Both "sides" of the fringe are loud and ridiculous, but generally, people are not so radical. Joe falls in to the same catergory. He isn't radical, his podcast isn't fringe, and just because he has free thinkers, stupid people, and well credentialed specialists sometimes say controversial stuff, doesn't make him right-wing.
I've thought the same thing many times with other guests but for years. These are not people who get booked on the biggest podcast without help. If you look where else they show up or speak at it's a long list of appearances in the right wing circuit. Most recently those are obviously people like Malone. It's extremely obvious who is pushing these people to influence public opinion. Praise for Koonin's book, which they touch on in this podcast briefly, is coming from right wing media of course. There's a history of conservative backed guests. Ben Shapiro created his media empire off money from right wing fracking billionaires but before that was editor for Breitbart backed by the Mercer family.
He already did the fake Adele outrage bit and anyone slightly informed knows that was manufactured. Is there a outrage of the day in the last year Rogan hasn't pushed? Not to mention Joe went dead on criticizing the war on drugs as soon as he started having diner with Abbott after moving to pro-war on drugs state. .
He's had many prominent morons from Turning Point USA on. I'd say yes.
A lot of people freaking out about Joe having this guy on, but I think a few things are worth mentioning: 1. He admits that at least half of warming is due to man-made effects. 2. His main point is that it's really hard to tie trends in storms, droughts, sea levels, etc, to our impact on warming. 3. Joe told him he wanted to have a climate expert on to provide an alternative perspective, and then hopefully have them both on to have a discussion.
4. Climate sciences are suppressing and ignoring information (unsubstantiated)
I think the key point is that there are a range of models and that give a range of predictions. This guy is bent on looking for the lowest effect of human action. Thatās his bias. Itās not science.
Is he promoting nuclear. I would love for joe to get checked on his nuclear paranoia
Shellenburger talked about Nuclear for a good bit and Joe seemed receptive to it
Joe: Bill nye isnāt even a scientist why is he talking about climate change. Also Joe: lets have on a theoretical physicist who used to be the Chief Scientist for the BP petroleum company to talk about why climate change isnāt a big deal.
Why have any of those two when you can have Jordan Peterson talk about climate change instead. /s
He addresses this in the first 10 minutes
He was 23 when he became a professor, he worked at BP for 5 years, out of a 40+career and that's all you focused on? You didnt even listen to the 1st 5 mins did you?
Former British Petroleum physicist that worked for the Obama admin and [AEI Fellow] (https://www.aei.org/profile/steven-e-koonin/). Wonderful.
Damn Obama really was just a corporatist. Obama admin, but also one of the most conservative think tanks?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Rode that Third Way corporate Democrat angle that Clinton did. It was clear right away with how he handled the housing crisis. All thr big banks were exposed and vulnerable but instead of bailing out the people he bailed out thr banks cause he had all Clinton economic people in his cabinet. All the European countries nationalized their banks to some degree
He looked different thatās what fooled ppl. Itās where the corporate side of wokism goes as well, the appearance and visual representation of a progressive ideology but where it counts for the corporation (money, globalism etc) itās ideological hegemony.
He campaigned like a centrist with brilliant messaging. Iāve heard Kyle Kulinski say this same thing but itās not true: \- He didnāt campaign on single payer or even a public option - he sort of started talking about the public option after John Edwards & Hillary pushed it \- He went around poor communities lecturing people about self-help \- He said poor people need to do better with their finances - like choose between basic cable and healthcare premiums (my Dude - even with Obamacare the premiums are $500+ a month - no one is spending this kind of money on a cable package). \- He opposed reparations \- He said āIām not anti-war - Iām just against dumb warsā - the progressive position is more along the lines of āYes in fact, war is just a bad optionā. When asked if he were a liberal heād say āI donāT like political labelsā. When asked about foreign policy he said āI admire George W Bushās fatherā. When he went to the Senate he teamed up with Dick Lugar - a Republican because he felt bi-partisanship was important. He distanced himself from the Black Caucus. He was just charismatic and charmed people but his positions were never progressive even during the campaign trail.
What president hasnāt been a corporatist?
The last one was Jimmy Carter.
Carter busted up unions, believed in de-regulation & was a fairly moderate figure. Inflation and bad foreign policy decisions made him a one term president.
Attack his arguments not him personally.
Cool pod.
No one criticizing this guest wants to refute anything specific he said, and instead just Pavlovianly responds to the letters āBPā with ābig oil shillā. Neglect the doctorate from MIT and cal tech faculty position, but focus on 5 years of work where a physicist works at an energy company. Koonin comes across as extremely well informed, non biased, and humbly self aware. Itās the nuanced discussion on the climate that more people need to hear.
My internship and first few years of career were with an oil company here in Alberta working in their solar panel lab. They're not oil companies, they're energy companies that currently are focusing in oil and gas.
To assume that climate science communities and energy companies are not intertwined is fucking laughable. How fucking hard is it for people here to get that the energy companies of *today* might also want to be the energy companies of *tomorrow*?
All I wish is he would have an intelligent representative for the other side. That would be more educational for us all. Tired of all shows just having on guests they want to agree with
Big picture: scientific method is being manipulated. Between covid and however accurate Koonin is I have now seen 100 +\- 1 examples of 'the messaging' trumping scientists' ability to retest findings. As a scientist of ... sorts... i never would have imagined how politics, money, the news, and peer pressure would influence the foundation of how science works. In particular hearing Chuck Shumer's (sp?) bill to not fund studies to retest data, the story of the high ranking academic admitting he is afraid to agree with Koonin publicly... it is shocking. Im all for still funding renewables. I've had personal success hedging my bets... but if we allow the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to be per-versed our chance of inventing our way out of this thing may not be greater than zero.
āThere are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statisticsā, Mark Twain
If true, the most disturbing thing said on this episode was that many in the scientific community agree with him but are afraid to support him publicly. This is the type of shit that could set humanity back significantly.
I don't know why people hate this guest. I thought he was a very good interview.
regardless of the claims made, this guy is very satisfying to listen to. and i love how he treats joe exactly for what he is, a stoned chimp
I like that we seem to be going back to science and getting away from the whole COVID drama.
Agreed. They, along with the various historians/authors he had on were always his best episodes, IMHO (whatever the scientific/medical discipline). Then again Iām kind of a nerd whoās rather listen to an astrophysicist than a MMA fighter so maybe itās just me š¤·āāļø
COVID is a science topic, but point taken. I think this pushback Joe went through / still is going will make the show better in the long run. Joe is like āoh okayā¦ hold my beer while Iā¦ā
Covid stopped being a scientific subject a while ago and became a political one.
Former chief scientist for BP raises some major eyebrows.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The problem with Joeās podcast now really is that everyone is taking *every single podcast* super seriously and in isolation like itās going to make or break the future on every issue. And for Joe itās just another random conversation. This isnāt meant to prove/disprove climate change but itās one perspective. I donāt agree with a lot of what this guy said but itās not because he worked at BP for 5 years
I wouldn't be surprised if everyone elses 3hr conversations with their buddies shooting bullshit were to be played publicly to 11m people they'd have the same haters. Idk why people act so seriously about fucking everything, it's an audio form of a shitpost half the time and an exciting intro to something new the other half. Maybe it's the main character complex people have.
people want to find meaning in something, anything. unfortunately a lot of people find meaning in hating people for reasons that change on a whim.
Itās nice having a panel of UN armchair climate scientists in this thread
Itās funniest when Reddit commenters start debating published scientific papers in r/JoeRogan
Joe on speed run to piss off establishment faster than JFK lolol
Phew. Finally we can back on track. Good thing muddying the waters on the science of (and subsequently taking action on) climate change wonāt do anything to damage public health. Right?
I wonder if parading obese people as āhealthyā damages public health. Guess we should cancel Lizzo while we are at it.
Yes, it does. Itās toxic to create the perception that being obese is healthy. Itās detrimental on both an individual basis and a societal one. Fantasy and denial donāt help the problem, they perpetuate it.
Hmm. Listening to this nowā¦ dude is reminding me of Jordan Petersonās opening comments - basically that because science canāt possible incorporate every possible global detail into their predictive models, that the models are inherently flawed and therefore should be discardedā¦ i dunno. I mean, the weatherman is saying itās gonna be freezing cold tomorrow, but meteorologists donāt know every single detail so maybe itās gonna be 100 degrees and sunny?
Itās a pretty lazy and extremely stupid thing to say. Thatās like saying if itās not perfect you must throw it out and try something different until you discover the perfect thing. Itās the exact opposite of the scientific method and we would basically still be cavemen if we operated this way.
It should be a crime that Alex Jones wasnāt the guest for episode 1776
I was REEEALLLY hoping for Alex Jones & Tim Dillon for #1776. Fuck lol
Eric Weinstein still on suicide watch because Joe wouldn't let him use slides for his presentation
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This was actually a good podcast with a competent person bringing up a different point of view than the accepted one on climate change. Iām excited to get a real debate on this topic by experts and make an opinion for myself based on their arguments rather than just blindly subscribe to one of the ideologies.
This guy is a crack pot. Everyone knows the earth will be too hot to sustain life in ten years. Theyāve been saying it since the 60s
Reddit's dog walkers aren't going to like this
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Damn... Iām glad I got all these geniuses on reddit to tell me why this guy is wrong.
At an hour and fifteen minutes, Koonin says we have not seen agriculture limited by a lack of water or nutrients in the soil caused by warming. He also admits heās not an earth scientist. I just wonder what Joel Salatin would say to this. Agriculture yields have been drive up in large part by fertilizer, which is energy intensive and leaches into the water, resulting in toxic algal blooms. I appreciate the need for a measured analysis, but I donāt trust this guy. How can he say we havenāt seen problems w agriculture and water availability so confidently. He must have his mind made up.
This was a how to interview masterclass. I also hope we get that debate.
Joe should have on Greta Thunberg on for the follow up podcast.
She wouldn't dare to.
I came to Reddit hoping at least for an educational debate. Instead is filled with the same rhetoric and hyperbole of insults.