Joe Rogan fact checks Bernie Sanders on Global Warming hoax
- Thread starter DrH. Lecter
- Start date
Bernie Sanders doesn't sound very intelligent. He seems like he's always making these broad statements and assuming that everyone is going to nod their head and agree and he almost never comes with data or facts or anything remotely resembling proof of his assertions. Just states stuff and assumes that 'everybody knows that' and we're not to question. But, when someone pushes back on his statements, he invariably has no answer. Just shows up unprepared except to assert 'this is the undeniable truth' and we're all supposed to accept what he says is, in fact, true. And it rarely is and is almost always debatable.
What happened to acid rain? The Statue of Liberty used to be melting away in science textbooks.
Here is the article that JR referred to.
You cannot see that part because that is all covered, under the rising sea level.
You can tell that the science is not going their way in the recent lack of teeth gnashing over the subject. I think that the true believers are trying to find another issue to demagogue.
Joe is right. The graph showing more than just the tip of the history. Its hard to argue that man has caused the temp fluctuation when a more honest reporting of the ENTIRE graph going back thousand and millions of years---tells an entirely different story. As Joe says, there is a lot of money scaring people and running around crying wolf. When that money dries up they just move on to another subject.
Joe is right. The graph showing more than just the tip of the history. Its hard to argue that man has caused the temp fluctuation when a more honest reporting of the ENTIRE graph going back thousand and millions of years---tells an entirely different story. As Joe says, there is a lot of money scaring people and running around crying wolf. When that money dries up they just move on to another subject.
There's a lot of misinformation here. First the graphic in the WaPost article covers 458 Million years on your phone or computer screen.
Humanity has been around for about 300,000 years. If you represented that on the graph it would be less then a millimeter. The graph shows there has been a general cooling over the last 50 million years or so but to represent that "cooling" since the industrial age it would be almost infinitesimal. The extremely tiny bit of cooling has nothing to do with GCC.
You can see a small blip upward at the end which roughly coincides with the industrial age.
Humanity has been around for about 300,000 years. If you represented that on the graph it would be less then a millimeter. The graph shows there has been a general cooling over the last 50 million years or so but to represent that "cooling" since the industrial age it would be almost infinitesimal. The extremely tiny bit of cooling has nothing to do with GCC.
You can see a small blip upward at the end which roughly coincides with the industrial age.
Joe is a great interviewer but he's not a scientist. The fact is the earth has been heating rapidly over the last several years as we can see from this chart which covers the industrial age:
Last edited:
Discussion on global warming should be separated into two categories.
1. Does global warming exist? - yes that is a fact, there is not debate about that.
2. What effects will global warming have on our environment and what is the timeline? - that is subject to a lot of debate and different scientist have different opinions about his. Fair to discuss that, but with all due respect to Joe and Bernie, they are not scientists and all they can really do is repeat what they have heard scientist say.
Joe mentioned money driving opinons but seemed to imply it was the scientific community when in realty it has been the fossil fuel industry that has downplayed or muddied the water about global warming as it's in their financial intrusts to do so, but even they are embracing what is to come now and preparing for it with new products and technogies. For instance Oxydental Petroleum is investing heavily in carbon caputure utilitization storage technolgoy that will remove co2 from the air:
So why would a fossil fuel company be interested in removing carbon from the air unless they not only recognized the existence of global warming but were preparing for the coming effects from it?
1. Does global warming exist? - yes that is a fact, there is not debate about that.
2. What effects will global warming have on our environment and what is the timeline? - that is subject to a lot of debate and different scientist have different opinions about his. Fair to discuss that, but with all due respect to Joe and Bernie, they are not scientists and all they can really do is repeat what they have heard scientist say.
Joe mentioned money driving opinons but seemed to imply it was the scientific community when in realty it has been the fossil fuel industry that has downplayed or muddied the water about global warming as it's in their financial intrusts to do so, but even they are embracing what is to come now and preparing for it with new products and technogies. For instance Oxydental Petroleum is investing heavily in carbon caputure utilitization storage technolgoy that will remove co2 from the air:
So why would a fossil fuel company be interested in removing carbon from the air unless they not only recognized the existence of global warming but were preparing for the coming effects from it?
The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.
science.nasa.gov
Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Science
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the
science.nasa.gov
It's almost as if Joe Rogan heard a headline, didn't read the article at all and just assumed it agreed with him. Based on the summary I read, it most definitely does not.
Did he interview Tim Pool and have it rub off on him recently?
Did he interview Tim Pool and have it rub off on him recently?
There's a lot of misinformation here. First the graphic in the WaPost article covers 458 Million years on your phone or computer screen.
Humanity has been around for about 300,000 years. If you represented that on the graph it would be less then a millimeter. The graph shows there has been a general cooling over the last 50 million years or so but to represent that "cooling" since the industrial age it would be almost infinitesimal. The extremely tiny bit of cooling has nothing to do with GCC.
You can see a small blip upward at the end which roughly coincides with the industrial age.
So Joe is right.
The global temperature is not and has never been static.
We are currently in a global cool period.
There are many factors. The big hot ball in the sky is primarily the reason. I believe in the first half of last century it certainly was.
Actually, the Little Ice Age ended in the mid-1800s and, in order to revert to the long term mean, the earth should be warming.
To assert man is the cause of global warming is not science - it is 100% conjecture. The sun and the rotation of the earth around the sun (not a perfect ellipse) are orders of magnitude more influential on global temperatures than anything man is being accused of doing.
Mankind needs to be better stewards of the globe re: pollution and I'm all for spending the necessary funds to keep the earth clean. Carbon capture and carbon credits and all the other malarkey surrounding global warming hysteria is pure theater, imo. 97% of scientists believed the sun revolved around the earth, too. 97% of scientists believed Einstein's theory of relativity was the last word in physics. Science is the never-ending search for truth. The whole idea of 'the question is settled' and 'if you question it, you're a denier' is the antithesis of science.
Carbon dioxide makes up .04% of the earth's atmosphere and is critical to plant life on earth. Since plants take in CO2 and give off oxygen, doesn't it make sense that, within reason, we as a species should desire MORE CO2, not less? Wouldn't that make the earth even more fertile? Who among modern scientists is wise enough to determine what the 'ideal' level of CO2 is and what level would be catastrophic? How would such levels even be able to BE determined over an ecosystem as large and complex as the earth's?
Stating that the oceans have risen so many inches (I've read 9" more recently) in the past 20 years is so laughably stupid it should be considered a parody. The oceans are vast and ever changing. And changing the land masses they crash against. The average depth is 2.3 miles. That's > 144k inches. 9 inches represent .01% of the average depth of the ocean. Do you think 1) it's possible to accurately measure the vast body of water to that accuracy, and 2) that maybe, just maybe, a deviation of .01% of the level of the ocean is to be expected over the thousands of years that natural cycles almost assuredly occur?
Neither Joe nor Bernie are scientists, obviously. But Bernie and the global warming cult certainly want everyone to believe that there is no dissent, all the evidence is consistent with their viewpoint and to question anything about the subject is to be 'uneducated' and 'a denier'. Science has never progressed unless someone questioned the prevailing opinion.
To assert man is the cause of global warming is not science - it is 100% conjecture. The sun and the rotation of the earth around the sun (not a perfect ellipse) are orders of magnitude more influential on global temperatures than anything man is being accused of doing.
Mankind needs to be better stewards of the globe re: pollution and I'm all for spending the necessary funds to keep the earth clean. Carbon capture and carbon credits and all the other malarkey surrounding global warming hysteria is pure theater, imo. 97% of scientists believed the sun revolved around the earth, too. 97% of scientists believed Einstein's theory of relativity was the last word in physics. Science is the never-ending search for truth. The whole idea of 'the question is settled' and 'if you question it, you're a denier' is the antithesis of science.
Carbon dioxide makes up .04% of the earth's atmosphere and is critical to plant life on earth. Since plants take in CO2 and give off oxygen, doesn't it make sense that, within reason, we as a species should desire MORE CO2, not less? Wouldn't that make the earth even more fertile? Who among modern scientists is wise enough to determine what the 'ideal' level of CO2 is and what level would be catastrophic? How would such levels even be able to BE determined over an ecosystem as large and complex as the earth's?
Stating that the oceans have risen so many inches (I've read 9" more recently) in the past 20 years is so laughably stupid it should be considered a parody. The oceans are vast and ever changing. And changing the land masses they crash against. The average depth is 2.3 miles. That's > 144k inches. 9 inches represent .01% of the average depth of the ocean. Do you think 1) it's possible to accurately measure the vast body of water to that accuracy, and 2) that maybe, just maybe, a deviation of .01% of the level of the ocean is to be expected over the thousands of years that natural cycles almost assuredly occur?
Neither Joe nor Bernie are scientists, obviously. But Bernie and the global warming cult certainly want everyone to believe that there is no dissent, all the evidence is consistent with their viewpoint and to question anything about the subject is to be 'uneducated' and 'a denier'. Science has never progressed unless someone questioned the prevailing opinion.
Last edited:
Imagine believing that if you hand a multimillionaire your hard-won liberty and property, he will control the climate for you. This, literally weeks after revelations of massive waste and fraud in federal spending.
At this point, it’s an IQ test.
At this point, it’s an IQ test.
Let's review the last couple threads by the OP:
In one, he found a religious tweet from someone who believes we're living in a simulation and Elon Musk is our sim lord and we must follow him. The thread is worth reading and so are the tweets from the "genius man." In one, Musk is photoshopped as if he's a character from a Matrix sequel. That's the guy we should be listening to apparently.
In this one, he wants posters to not really respond to him but rather a shortened clip which cuts off in the middle of a conversation between Rogan and Sanders. Rogan can be entertaining but you won't be taken seriously beginning a debate with an edited clip from an account who again, seems obsessed with Elon Musk.
The OP keeps starting these threads but wants us to respond to clips from X and tweets from grown men obsessed with Elon. Some will talk of cults yet I've never seen adults fawn over Rogan and Musk as a handful of posters here do. And it turns out, those here obsessed with them follow other guys online who are obsessed with them. Sounds like a real bro circle.
In one, he found a religious tweet from someone who believes we're living in a simulation and Elon Musk is our sim lord and we must follow him. The thread is worth reading and so are the tweets from the "genius man." In one, Musk is photoshopped as if he's a character from a Matrix sequel. That's the guy we should be listening to apparently.
In this one, he wants posters to not really respond to him but rather a shortened clip which cuts off in the middle of a conversation between Rogan and Sanders. Rogan can be entertaining but you won't be taken seriously beginning a debate with an edited clip from an account who again, seems obsessed with Elon Musk.
The OP keeps starting these threads but wants us to respond to clips from X and tweets from grown men obsessed with Elon. Some will talk of cults yet I've never seen adults fawn over Rogan and Musk as a handful of posters here do. And it turns out, those here obsessed with them follow other guys online who are obsessed with them. Sounds like a real bro circle.
The "its the sun" theory has been debunked many times.
Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA Science
No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps
science.nasa.gov
No one is buying the bullshit anymore Deefense, and thats exactly what it is, BS.The "its the sun" theory has been debunked many times.
Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA Science
No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps
Currently KY is under a heat advisory, yet we haven't met the criteria for being under one. It's hot, no doubt about it, but it isn't unusual heat for Summertime.
We also are having power curtailments, and why is that? Because the same folks crying about global warming, have lead the charge on shutting down fossil fuel plants. So now, a 93 degree day in the KY and TN summer means power companies can't produce enough power to maintain the grid. Luckily, that's all changing, but it's a slow process.
OK, I guess NASA scientists need to start getting their info from Joe Rogan 🤣
There’s a fundamental flaw in your logic that should be evident.
One volcano eruption can spew more co2 than all of human history. There are countless eruptions over the course of history.
Whatever is happening, if anything, humans have an unbelievably minute level of impact it is probably undetectable.
Whatever is happening, if anything, humans have an unbelievably minute level of impact it is probably undetectable.
Volcanic eruptions are often discussed in the context of climate change because they release CO2 and other gases into our atmosphere. However, the impact of human activities on the carbon cycle far exceeds that of all the world's volcanoes combined, by more than 100 times.
To put it in perspective, while volcanic eruptions do contribute to an increase in atmospheric CO2, human activities release an amount of CO2 equivalent to what a Mount St. Helens-sized eruption produces every 2.5 hours and a Mount Pinatubo-sized eruption twice daily.
What do volcanoes have to do with climate change? - NASA Science
Volcanic eruptions are often discussed in the context of climate change because they release CO2 and other gases into our atmosphere. However, the impact of
science.nasa.gov
You are ate up with this garbage, let it go man. The Tonga volcanic eruption increased the moisture in the earth's atmosphere by 20% instantaneously. Water is an actual greenhouse gas, Co2 is not, yet over the past 4 years has there been any serious discussion at all about the consequences of the Tonga eruption. I have no doubt you'll find some obscure article, but the chorus has continued to be the idiocy that man is causing routine weather patterns. Such as 90 degree days in the summer.Volcanic eruptions are often discussed in the context of climate change because they release CO2 and other gases into our atmosphere. However, the impact of human activities on the carbon cycle far exceeds that of all the world's volcanoes combined, by more than 100 times.
To put it in perspective, while volcanic eruptions do contribute to an increase in atmospheric CO2, human activities release an amount of CO2 equivalent to what a Mount St. Helens-sized eruption produces every 2.5 hours and a Mount Pinatubo-sized eruption twice daily.
What do volcanoes have to do with climate change? - NASA Science
Volcanic eruptions are often discussed in the context of climate change because they release CO2 and other gases into our atmosphere. However, the impact of
All I'm doing is letting you know what NASA, NOAA and other scientific organization have to say on these issues. It's the opinions of their scientists, not mine. If you find fault with what they are publishing you'll have to take it up with them.
Did Covid teach you nothing? Govt funded scientists will say whatever is necessary for funding, they'll change their beliefs, write papers, go to the media to keep the money flowing. Any Scientist that steps out of line will be publicly shunned and berated, their work demeaned.
Luckily, the people are waking up to the BS, finally. As a 75 year old Canadian lawyer that dabbles in climate science, I would assume you'd have figured this out by now...
I think you are asking the wrong question with No. 1.
Does global warming exist? Yes. Does global cooling exist? Yes. We have evidence of both.
And? The climate on earth has fluctuated throughout its existence.
It appears you are really asking: “Is the world now perpetually warming?”
Or, are your asking, “Are we currently in a warming period of earth’s long fluctuating climate history?”
If temps are perpetually rising, we will definitely need to modify behavior, ways of living, and technology to live comfortably.
Finally, we have evidence of the scientific community skewing data and promoting fear and can assume there is a secondary gain for those behaviors. Not just the oil industry.
One edit here to address your final question. There can be multiple reasons, but $$$ is the most likely. Right? If the world blames the oil you hold in your hands and wear on your body and that protect you when you drive and sleep, then why not alleviate that fear so you can make $$$$?
You rarely if ever see any reporting on the positives of CO2 and warming. Those aspects have to be forced into discussions. If this was JUST science, that would not be so. But, it is not just science. And, that is why it is often easily dismissed. People see that the presentation is not objective and then see the political powers offering “solutions” that are just ploys at controlling people. Not to mention all of the big voices screaming, but still dropping huge focking carbon footprints thinking we don’t notice.
This plays to politicians and virtual signalers. There are probably a handful of people who truly believe and have changed their livelihoods dramatically to other part. A handful.
Damn, I wanted to give a post over and under contest regarding when the Hall Monitor would step in and make this personal with a politically charged attack on the OP.
Sorry folks, the Hall Monitor can sniff these out and make them politically caustic in a warm second.
The great shame game continues. What a happy person the Hall Monitor must be. 😢
Oh goody. I have a stalker. Would you like my autograph?
I'm sorry but any 'study' that says the sun does not affect the temperature of the earth is fiction. It is, in fact, the SOURCE of heat for earth. How can anyone with half a brain state that the sun's fluctuations have no affect on the earth's temperature? I don't have to have a PhD in climate science to use just a bit of common sense to know that's unadulterated BS. The earth's path around the sun is not a perfect ellipse - would these same scientists state that being a bit closer or further from the sun would also not have any effect on the earth's temperature? You can quote all the 'scientific research' you'd like but common sense refutes much of what is 'settled science' - an oxymoron if ever there was one. What did 'settled science' tell us about the COVID vaccine, reactions among young/healthy individuals, efficacy of the vaccine, etc.?The "its the sun" theory has been debunked many times.
Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA Science
No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps
I am not denying that the earth may, in fact, be warming. I struggle to trust that we have the technology to accurately assess whether it is and to what extent as the earth is a damn big ecosystem. However, to disregard the SUN and blame 'global warming' on man is where I throw up my resistance. It is a political issue more than an science issue. And, singling out CO2 as a huge culprit is, as I stated above, asinine. Let's take CO2 levels to zero and see what happens to life on earth. So, there is some level of CO2 that is necessary. Is it .04%? How would one go about determining that? If mankind somehow reduced CO2 levels to .03% - what would the outcome be? A rebirth of Garden of Eden? Or worldwide famines with millions/billions of humans starving to death? If CO2 levels were .05% - how would that change the ecosystem? Would the changes be positive or negative for human life? I don't believe we have the ability to model situations like that with any expectation of accuracy. And, to restate, I am 100% in favor of preserving and enhancing the environment. Spending trillions of dollars unnecessarily to put the world's economies into a New Stone Age is species suicide, imo.
Academic research has, for years, been accused of reaching conclusions that the funder of said research is looking for. If Big Oil funds a climate study, does anyone believe the researchers are going to conclude anything other than fossil fuels do not affect the climate? And the converse is also true. If Big Pharma did a study on COVID vaccines, I'm guessing I can tell you what the conclusion will be before the first egghead begins to gather data. There is a whole industry dedicated to 'climate change' and 'alternative energy' - why? Because there is potentially trillions of dollars to be made in the transition. If all these eco-terrorists were serious about CO2 and the environment, why aren't they championing nuclear power generation and hydrogen combustion engines, etc.? Because it's NOT about the environment. It's about $$$$$. How many eco-catastrophes have been dreamed up in my lifetime? About 25 and counting. 'Global warming' is just one more in a long line. There will be others - trust me.
You must have skipped over the first sentence: The Sun CAN influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades.
LIke I told Bill you will have to take your arguments to NASA, I'm just posting what their scientists say FWIW
He must be a really old stick in the mud fart, because he clearly does not know that he can put you on ignore and never see another thread you start. Because we know he understands that fact, stalking is the most likely explanation. He is obsessed with you. Good luck!
It depends on the period you are discussing. A loaded word like "debunked" does not extend to the early half of the 1900s where there is scientific "consensus" that the sun did in fact go through a warm cycle based on sunspots etc... that did warm the global temp as much as 1-deg. That means the sun is/was responsible for HALF of the warming since 1850.The "its the sun" theory has been debunked many times.
Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA Science
No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps
But those making money off of global warming hysteria cannot find a way to manage solar output. I personally think science can find a way to "shade" us enough to keep the global temp at some human preferred goldilocks temp....but that could end very badly.
I'm not characterizing what happens I'm just posting and referencing data which supports that we are now in an accelerated period of warming.
Agree
I think you are talking about that email thing. That's been address on here previously and fact checked to show the conversation which mis understood. At any rate I choose to accept the opinions of the world climate scientist and reputable scientific reorganization over a questionable email. You and others are welcome to arrive at a different cnclusiton.
I do not accept that most scientific agencies and climate phDs are dishonestly rendering false options for money.
Here is a list of major scientific organizations worldwide that have publicly stated that global warming is real and primarily caused by human activities. I don't think they are all dishonest.
- American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- American Meteorological Society (AMS)
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Geological Society of America (GSA)
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
- United States National Academy of Sciences
- United Kingdom Royal Society
- Australian Academy of Science
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- European Academy of Sciences and Arts
- European Geosciences Union (EGU)
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
- International Council for Science (ICSU)
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
- German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina
- French Academy of Sciences
- Indian National Science Academy
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Science Council of Japan
- Brazilian Academy of Sciences
- African Academy of Sciences
- Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
- Royal Society of Canada
- Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
- Royal Irish Academy
- Swiss Academy of Sciences
- Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
- Finnish Academy of Science and Letters
- Polish Academy of Sciences
- Hungarian Academy of Sciences
- Academy of Science of South Africa
Right, because if you go back say a century there was no accelerated warming trend. The data shows it increasing more rapidly in the last two decades.
The question is what % humans have caused. People want to say that they are all saying it's 100% and that isn't what they are saying. I've seen several scientist that would say we contribute but we likely are only to blame for 10% or so temp rise. You look at the opportunity cost of trying to stop co2 injection into the atmosphere as opposed to developing tech ways around any problems and it's pretty clear its way more political and financial than it is science.The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.
Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Science
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the
Similar threads
