Candace Owens did nothing wrong
Joe Rogan is great. His epic encounter with Bret Weinstein and Jordan Peterson is the sort of thing that used to be on late night British television in the eighties: a three-hour long, free and open, meandering tour of his guest’s thoughts and insights on a range of topics, brilliantly shepherded by a host seemingly incapable of being out of his depth. And not only is Rogan sharp, he’s not boring either. It can only be that JR hasn’t had time to fully research the climate debate, therefore, that in the following clip he repeats the invalid claim that the vast majority of scientists believe climate change is happening and that this should be enough to make us all extremely worried. Candace Owens, his antagonist here, despite being unable to marshal much beyond her instincts that something is rotten in the climate change industry, is right to be sceptical ‘because it got so politicised’.
Let’s hope Candace sticks to her guns and keeps this up. As mentioned in a previous post on Jordan Peterson, it’s currently quite rare for this massive subject to get a look in on the thousands of YouTube hours devoted to political correctness, social justice and free speech. Which is a shame as scandals in the academy related to climate science make the Wilfred Laurier affair look like (gender-themed) child’s play.
I’m confused (this gets easier and easier): who is the bad guy? Who should we boo and hiss at? Joe Rogan for repeating the chestnut that “the vast majority of scientists believe climate change is happening and that this should be enough to make us all extremely worried” (first part correct, second part not so much)? But he was praised higher up the paragraph. Or is it Candace Owens for not being able to marshal much beyond her instincts that something is rotten in the climate change industry. Is this sufficient to become a latter day climate heroine? I’ll armour up and charge at the target, just point me in the right direction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alan, it’s Joe Rogan for letting himself down. And Candace Owens for letting the opportunity slide. Ah yes, I see what you mean.
‘because it got so politicised’.
There’s a new article in the WSJ on this.
Climate Change Has Run Its Course
Its descent into social-justice identity politics is the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality
Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers….
The real opportunity is to build a system to identify, provide education and enablement to people whose gut instinct is to question climate hype.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m British, and never really heard of these people.
What I see is JR seemingly liberal not screaming at Candace Owens a Trump supporter.
That is some kind of progress in a world with a bully epidemic. Through people demonising their opponents, and therefore licencing themselves to bully them.
Think of the way the way Antifa became the biggest bullies on the block.
The article mentioned by Paul above is paywalled at theWSJ but available here
It quotes at length an analysis of movements like climate alarmism – from 1972!
I don’t believe Steven Heywood, author of the WSJ piece “Climate Change has run its course”. Steve, a Berkeley Scholar writes that climate change, like other political issues, will rise and fall in public perceptions following a five stage route. An analogy with environmentalism is suggested, which Steve seems to believe is politically moribund. Steve also believes that falling into the “abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality.”
I have been told here many times (heatedly) that I am incompetent to comment upon politics, but here goes.
Mr Heywood appears to be basing his opinion (for their is little evidence – some wording in the Paris Accord, results of opinion polls where climate change comes last in lists of concerns of the American public) upon what is happening in America alone. If my memory serves, climate change has ALWAYS appeared last or near last in lists of public concerns, so this is now no evidence supporting any decline in interest. I would also dispute that environmentalism is on its final legs – the recent furore about plastic shows it is as strong as ever. Opposition to fraking and nuclear power appears as strong (and as misguided) as ever. If there were a massive decline in the numbers of students opting to do environmental science at university I would be more convinced. In any case much of the political capital was probably subsumed into climate science. To my mind support for the climate science scare story resides in hands of those wielding the levers of power and influence – government, academia and even religion, the rest are sheep. I perceive little indication (outside of Trump’s America (and even there there is stiff more localized resistance)) that those levers have been relinquished or that the grip upon them is weakening. I find Steve Heyward’s thesis unproven and unlikely, and more likely a desire seen as a mirage.
You are correct, sadly:
The climate consensus, like the EU, is well dug in tick and is not close to being dislodged.
Alan, I do understand your scepticism (ahem) on the current state of play in the so-called climate wars.
A voice like Candace Owens will help keep the pressure up though; she is a passionate debater with an old head on her young shoulders. I have written to her (via Turning Point USA) to express support and to offer one or two links she might like to follow up:
Paul Homewood on the 97% scam (https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/category/97-scam/), Judith Curry (https://judithcurry.com/),
and Thomas Sowell ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvdWTcZ4XG8 ).
Miss Owens is no doubt very busy, but if she absorbs even a little from those three, she will be that much better informed on climate matters.
Conservative elected officials politicized this as a hoax. The scientific community says otherwise. I’m not sure how this is still debatable.