Listening now, don't think the F16 types are gonna be happy about this guy.

Rogan called that dude out quick. Run of the mill college prof that gives circular arguments for his why his worst case scenario theory is "for real this time". Feel bad for the poor students that lap up this BS

TexjbA&M said:

---

Listening now, don't think the F16 types are gonna be happy about this guy.

---

Based on what? Listen and let us know, using verifiable facts, why this guy is right and they're wrong.

We'll wait.

I'm no expert, but he was assuming 6-9 degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise by 2100. That seems really really high.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

TexjbA&M said:

---

Listening now, don't think the F16 types are gonna be happy about this guy.

---

Based on what? Listen and let us know, using verifiable facts, why this guy is right and they're wrong.

We'll wait.

---

I think you probably misunderstood. They're not going to be happy because he's "representing" A&M and isn't in lock-step with that circle jerk. Whether he's right or wrong doesn't really factor in to the "outrage" he might cause.

I'll give it a listen, but I have to warn you guys, if I consider what he is saying misinformation I am pulling all of my music from Spotify.

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

TexjbA&M said:

---

Listening now, don't think the F16 types are gonna be happy about this guy.

---

Based on what? Listen and let us know, using verifiable facts, why this guy is right and they're wrong.

We'll wait.

---

I think you probably misunderstood. They're not going to be happy because he's "representing" A&M and isn't in lock-step with that circle jerk. Whether he's right or wrong doesn't really factor in to the "outrage" he might cause.

---

Happy to report the outrage was minimal because the guy is a typical climate change philosopher with nothing concrete. Joe called him out and he exposed his unscientific takes.

Instead of having two different people on with different takes, especially considering he doesn't have the background to really fact check either of them, it would sometimes be nice if Rogan would invite both on and mediate a debate. I wouldn't want all of his podcasts to become that because I like his traditional setup, but I'd rather listen to those two lock horns and see who makes more vapid arguments.

I really like listening to Joe.

But his "fact checking" is a bit suspect. He has Jamie sitting off to the side just running google searches and pulling up articles from whatever sites pop up. There's no rigor in his fact checking. He's not running PubMed searches when trying to have conversations with guests in the health and science fields.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Agreed. He's gone overboard with this and its getting annoying.

---

He's in a no win position imo. He has an entertainment driven podcast, where the appeal is to listen to all walks of life talk, no matter their crazy level. It's not really his job to fact check guests, but the internet mafias have gotten mad at him for not doing it. So now he's trying to not only have an interesting conversations with guests from all walks of life, but also have Jamie be a real time version of Snopes while they are talking.

It's people placing too much importance on the ideas of a comedian because of the success of his outreach, and he's damned either way. His left wing detractors equate anyone who likes him as giving him blind hero worship, and his right wing detractors say he isn't going far enough in pushing back on established narratives in media. And he just wants to have a fun time talking to people.

Champ Bailey said:

---

It's people placing too much importance on the ideas of a comedian because of the success of his outreach, and he's damned either way. His left wing detractors equate anyone who likes him as giving him blind hero worship, and his right wing detractors say he isn't going far enough in pushing back on established narratives in media. And he just wants to have a fun time talking to people.

---

This right here.

If you just listen to him like you would a friend on the back porch drinking beers and staring at a BBQ pit, the show is a lot better. But he sometimes blurs the line between things he really knows stuff about (MMA, hunting, etc.) and stuff he doesn't (COVID, social science, astrophysics, etc.). When is he just BS'ing with someone and when is he sharing real knowledge? Sometimes, it's tough to judge.

I like listening to Alex Jones, too...when he was easy to access. His crazy theories are simply entertaining to listen to. But you shouldn't take him seriously. It's just schtick.

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

TexjbA&M said:

---

Listening now, don't think the F16 types are gonna be happy about this guy.

---

Based on what? Listen and let us know, using verifiable facts, why this guy is right and they're wrong.

We'll wait.

---

I think you probably misunderstood. They're not going to be happy because he's "representing" A&M and isn't in lock-step with that circle jerk. Whether he's right or wrong doesn't really factor in to the "outrage" he might cause.

---

How is that "circle jerk" any different than this one? And "whether he's right or wrong" is a pretty low bar.

dodger02 said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

It's people placing too much importance on the ideas of a comedian because of the success of his outreach, and he's damned either way. His left wing detractors equate anyone who likes him as giving him blind hero worship, and his right wing detractors say he isn't going far enough in pushing back on established narratives in media. And he just wants to have a fun time talking to people.

---

This right here.

If you just listen to him like you would a friend on the back porch drinking beers and staring at a BBQ pit, the show is a lot better. But he sometimes blurs the line between things he really knows stuff about (MMA, hunting, etc.) and stuff he doesn't (COVID, social science, astrophysics, etc.). When is he just BS'ing with someone and when is he sharing real knowledge? Sometimes, it's tough to judge.

I like listening to Alex Jones, too...when he was easy to access. His crazy theories are simply entertaining to listen to. But you shouldn't take him seriously. It's just schtick.

---

He asked if Dessler would come back and debate Koonin. He said no.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

TexjbA&M said:

---

Listening now, don't think the F16 types are gonna be happy about this guy.

---

Based on what? Listen and let us know, using verifiable facts, why this guy is right and they're wrong.

We'll wait.

---

I think you probably misunderstood. They're not going to be happy because he's "representing" A&M and isn't in lock-step with that circle jerk. Whether he's right or wrong doesn't really factor in to the "outrage" he might cause.

---

Happy to report the outrage was minimal because the guy is a typical climate change philosopher with nothing concrete. Joe called him out and he exposed his unscientific takes.

---

What's Joe Rogan's scientific expertise?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

TexjbA&M said:

---

Listening now, don't think the F16 types are gonna be happy about this guy.

---

Based on what? Listen and let us know, using verifiable facts, why this guy is right and they're wrong.

We'll wait.

---

I think you probably misunderstood. They're not going to be happy because he's "representing" A&M and isn't in lock-step with that circle jerk. Whether he's right or wrong doesn't really factor in to the "outrage" he might cause.

---

Happy to report the outrage was minimal because the guy is a typical climate change philosopher with nothing concrete. Joe called him out and he exposed his unscientific takes.

---

What's Joe Rogan's scientific expertise?

---

Can we request a better argument than this generic appeal to authority?

JCA1 said:

---

He asked if Dessler would come back and debate Koonin. He said no.

---

The whole interview was a "how to" on how a liberal mind works:

1. Find something to get riled up about. (Climate change)

2. Make shyt up to fit the narrative. (Pulled random studies and made up "facts" that even my simple brain knew didn't add up)

3. Deflect blame. (Whenever challenged he would say things like oh I don't know they did the study. He also had some new fancy phrase that was essentially "my truth")

4. Play victim. (Kept saying how he was going to get attacked on twitter)

5. Avoid challenges that will expose you. (If you are so convinced what you have is right why not debate it?)

6. Accuse the other side of what you're currently doing. (The Tobacco exec analogy was ridiculous. He's the one that has much to gain pushing this nonsense. Not Koonin. Koonin even said, "I've made my money and made my name in both the public and private sector. I'm good. I don't need anything else so I'm not worried if my reputation is destroyed.")

7. Play victim again. (Claiming Koonin would play unfair in a debate)

The university should be ashamed they have someone like this on staff.

Corn Pop said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

He asked if Dessler would come back and debate Koonin. He said no.

---

The whole interview was a "how to" on how a liberal mind works:

1. Find something to get riled up about. (Climate change)

2. Make shyt up to fit the narrative. (Pulled random studies and made up "facts" that even my simple brain knew didn't add up)

3. Deflect blame. (Whenever challenged he would say things like oh I don't know they did the study. He also had some new fancy phrase that was essentially "my truth")

4. Play victim. (Kept saying how he was going to get attacked on twitter)

5. Avoid challenges that will expose you. (If you are so convinced what you have is right why not debate it?)

6. Accuse the other side of what you're currently doing. (The Tobacco exec analogy was ridiculous. He's the one that has much to gain pushing this nonsense. Not Koonin. Koonin even said, "I've made my money and made my name in both the public and private sector. I'm good. I don't need anything else so I'm not worried if my reputation is destroyed.")

7. Play victim again. (Claiming Koonin would play unfair in a debate)

The university should be ashamed they have someone like this on staff.

---

I don't claim to know what the "science" says. But his assertion that the science is settled to the point it's not even worth debating is astounding in its arrogance and, well, unscientificness (is that even a word?). What he's saying is we understand climate so well that we've properly identified every factor that goes into it, not improperly included anything that doesn't actually impact the climate, and are able to say precisely what impact each of these factors have in relation to each other.

To just spitball that, that means he's saying he knows, without question, the exact impact of humans, animals, plants, bacteria, fossil fuels, the sun, the earth's tilt and rotation around the sun, the ocean currents, volcanos, atmospheric conditions, etc., etc. on the climate. Literally our whole world. But he knows all of this and none of it is even worthy of debating. Just ridiculous.

Macarthur said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

Corn Pop said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

He asked if Dessler would come back and debate Koonin. He said no.

---

The whole interview was a "how to" on how a liberal mind works:

1. Find something to get riled up about. (Climate change)

2. Make shyt up to fit the narrative. (Pulled random studies and made up "facts" that even my simple brain knew didn't add up)

3. Deflect blame. (Whenever challenged he would say things like oh I don't know they did the study. He also had some new fancy phrase that was essentially "my truth")

4. Play victim. (Kept saying how he was going to get attacked on twitter)

5. Avoid challenges that will expose you. (If you are so convinced what you have is right why not debate it?)

6. Accuse the other side of what you're currently doing. (The Tobacco exec analogy was ridiculous. He's the one that has much to gain pushing this nonsense. Not Koonin. Koonin even said, "I've made my money and made my name in both the public and private sector. I'm good. I don't need anything else so I'm not worried if my reputation is destroyed.")

7. Play victim again. (Claiming Koonin would play unfair in a debate)

The university should be ashamed they have someone like this on staff.

---

I don't claim to know what the "science" says. But his assertion that the science is settled to the point it's not even worth debating is astounding in its arrogance and, well, unscientificness (is that even a word?). What he's saying is we understand climate so well that we've properly identified every factor that goes into it, not improperly included anything that doesn't actually impact the climate, and are able to say precisely what impact each of these factors have in relation to each other.

To just spitball that, that means he's saying he knows, without question, the exact impact of humans, animals, plants, bacteria, fossil fuels, the sun, the earth's tilt and rotation around the sun, the ocean currents, volcanos, atmospheric conditions, etc., etc. on the climate. Literally our whole world. But he knows all of this and none of it is even worthy of debating. Just ridiculous.

---

I have not listened to this, but this strikes me as you grossly misrepresenting his position to build up an easily defeated strawman.


If he is saying that the science is settled that the climate is warming, I really don't see how any reasonable person can disagree with this.

And then you go on to put words in his mouth, it appears to me. Could he be saying that we know ALL the INPUTS, instead of your intimation that we know everything about all the inputs? We do know what the variables are, but I there can be reasonable debate on the effects of those variables.

---

Well, maybe listen first before accusing people of things.

He said he would not debate anyone about the science of climate change, only the policy of how to deal with it, because the science is settled and no longer worthy of debate. For the science to be settled, to the point that it's not worth debating, you would have to know precisely what I outlined, at a minimum.

You should probably listen before defending. He literally said that's humans account for 100% of the worlds climate issues. When he was challenged he doubled down on that. I don't pretend to understand all this, but try and look at it from a logical perspective. Like looking at the elites pushing the message while also buying up beachfront property. Also one side of the argument is riddled with what if doomsday scenarios and a whole bunch of I don't knows while the other is met with reasonable data to back up the argument.

He made some outrageous claims with absolutely no data to back it up other than that "this is my truth" phrase he kept using. I don't remember the exact phrasing.

From that to his claim that renewables were just as efficient and cost effective as fossil fuels, his whole interview was one big headline grab with absolutely no substance.

Macarthur said:

---

Can someone give me some time stamps? I don't have 3 hours to dedicate but would like to focus on just the part referenced above.

---

Staying true to his word, Joe Rogan brought Andrew Dessler the “other side” on to represent the mainstream narrative on climate science.

When asked if he would ever debate Dessler states “I won’t debate the science, the science is set”.

Sound familiar? pic.twitter.com/fAuMVIvvqg

— Mythinformed MKE (@MythinformedMKE) February 17, 2022

"The science is set. Temperature is warming. Humans are the cause."

Actually, I just saw that.

I can see why Dressler probably doesn't want to debate because I don't think that would be his strong suit. regardless of your knowledge (or rightness) of a subject, debating is a skill that not everyone has.


I think the point he tried to make, admittedly not very well, is that a typical debate format would not be sufficient to debate the 'rightness or wrongness' of peer reviewed material. And he is 100% correct about that. And it would be a waste of his time.

I mean this is where he's coming from


A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. Papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Macarthur said:

---

Actually, I just saw that.

I can see why Dressler probably doesn't want to debate because I don't think that would be his strong suit. regardless of your knowledge (or rightness) of a subject, debating is a skill that not everyone has.


I think the point he tried to make, admittedly not very well, is that a typical debate format would not be sufficient to debate the 'rightness or wrongness' of peer reviewed material. And he is 100% correct about that.

---

He explicitly said won't debate because "the science is set. Temperature is warming. Humans are the cause." That is much more than claiming a debate is an ineffective format. And that sidesteps the question of exactly how these issues should be discussed if a moderated debate between experts with differing views is somehow inappropriate. I mean, if not that, what? I get the sense he's not willing to defend his opinions in an adversarial setting under any format.