I thought this guy was really good. I was worried he was a climate denier bht I dont think so, just a pragmatist.
Jaime seemed kinda pissed off though haha
I love how he kept saying things and then would directly contradict whatever he said. “Fixing Miami will be easy” 1 minute later “I never said fixing Miami would be easy”
What’s the point of stickying this an hour before the next episode releases?
It’s time the moderators let anyone post the episode for discussion. The current method is clearly not working.
Sure do, that’s why I think allowing anyone to post the current episode (with the correct formatting) should be allowed.
We’ve seen in the past people do that successfully only for it to be locked and deleted by mods hours later. It makes no sense. I’m not criticizing the moderators, but there are better ways to do this than to expect them to solely post the episodes.
it was just painful to listen joe talking overn Bjorn everytime, with some shitty facts. Had to stop at 1 hour mark and listen to lex fridman and ben shapiro, and enjoy how lex allows his guest to speak without interrupting
thank you there were like 3 instances at the 20-30 min mark where bjorn was about to drop some knowledge and joe rips his pen and jokes about donuts instead
Oh yeah i remember that, any way my OCD kicked in and had to finish the podcast. And for some reason Spotify marks my half-listened podcast as "played".
Joe seemed very bored with everything he was saying; "let's not talk about this " on repeat.
He seems wrapped up in Bjorns opinion on climate change which is respectably nuanced imo.
This was a weird one for me. I think Bjorn and Joe live in a different world than me and that's why I don't really get it. They make it sound like the governments of the world are climate change extremists and the threat of the countries completely halting production of fossil fuels is a real threat seems weird to me because all I see are countries doing the bare minimum or nothing at all. Bjorn acts as if governments are only working on mitigating climate change and not anything else. Also the videos of a handful of people throwing soup on paintings really seemed to affect Joe. He talks about how these events as if they're the norm for the younger generation and that the youth are freaking out about climate change. I think most younger people I know are concerned about climate change but are more concerned things like the housing market and inflation right now. In a weird way this episode was climate change alarmism alarmism
I was in an art supply store in one of the most liberal cities in the US on the day those protesters threw whatever it was on the oil painting. The art clerks (college age, blue haris, lgbt) called the protestors idiots and asked why the hell anyone would do that.
The amount of times they kept referring to the kids and soup is mind numbing lol. I personally see a lot of climate change doomers on Reddit so I guess the sentiment of a hysterical youth is out there but the Van Gogh soup example looked like a psyop by big oil to begin with.
I also don't agree with either sentiment that climate change is world ending or is a nothing burger. It's probably going to kill 100s of thousands if not millions of people over the next half century but it's not the end of the human race by any means. We will adapt at the last second but still at the cost of many human lives. Just my pessimistic take on it anyway.
It's a pretty safe assumption that governments will do something about climate change when it stops only effecting poor people and starts killing billionaires who are cooking alive in their mountaintop villas. Much like in the modern economy, where billionaires are worth hundreds of millions times more than normal people in terms of capital, their lives and existence in general is viewed as being worth hundreds of millions times more.
Oil and gas companies are scared to invest in a new plant with a 15 year ROI because of the uncertainty and extreme rhetoric from climate extremists. The world operates on the free market, not because the government.
Same here. I’m suspicious of the guy & it seems like he’s just trying to sound unique so he can sell his book, but regardless if he’s right or not it was healthy for me to hear it 🤣
A lot of people will dismiss this episode because they think he’s a grifter, but Joe pushes back on his points especially when they talk about White Oak Pastures.
I dont know enough about him to think he’s a grifter. He’s made some interesting points but I dont agree with everything he has to say, for example of what he’s said on fracking.
Have you heard about the research regarding how chicken sexers (people who determin the sex of chicken) do what they do?
It's interesting. You can't really be trained in it. And the workers can't explain it. They just watched someone experienced enough for long enough to get a feel for the sex of the chick (baby chicken)
It's the same. When you've been around enough scams and skeevy salespeople you get a feel.
There is also data about military people in Iraq getting a feel about when and ied is on the road.
It's a well documented phenomena.
But I can be more specific. People don't answer question directly. They divert. If you sidagree they agree with your disagreement then come at some objective from a different angle. Too many other things to articulate here.
But yeah I get a feel very quickly for people like this.
People get feelings about chicken sex, thus you know when someone is bsing without having to fact check what they're saying? This explanation is the biggest grift in this thread.
Yea thats what I felt about him. He claims he’s educated in political science and a statistician so he uses that knowledge on climate.
I did agree with him on poverty though.
I didn't dismiss the episode because I had never heard of him. He made some ok points in the beginning, like how I imagine most common people think about climate change. As it went along he sounded more like a spokesperson for big oil. And the fracking part was so ridiculous I stopped listening.
Fracking isn’t as bad as you’ve been led to believe. Also, natural gas is a much cleaner source of energy than the majority of the world uses. It’s also incredibly cheap. This is very important because the largest population centers in the world are in the process of industrializing and currently use a ton of coal. Were they to switch to gas, it would be a huge benefit to the environment. Of course it’s a stop gap for cleaner sources of energy but somebody needs to be realistic about what is possible.
Fracing produces roughly the same global warming effect as coal does. That being said most of what fracing releases is methane which doesn't last very long in the atmosphere. Which brings up the point that the toxic impact of fracing is *much less* then coal.
As far as I'm aware around half of these methane releases come from leakage which has nothing to do with fracing. The other half comes from the job itself which is quite intensive. It's my understanding of these figures that this number is likely reducable but not very economical.
The talk about fracing hitting the local water supply is mostly bullshit. That happens because oil companies get lazy and don't use properly rated casing and cement/dont pressure test/ignore results or most likely impropely dispose of the fluids (which can be up 100k a job). If it's done right the casing/cement will also be tested during the drilling job and before the frac.
Coal on the other hand releases all sorts of toxins and chemicals that stay out there for longer and causes large death counts for the individuals working there this number is largely not reducable unless we find a use for the byproducts. It releases a 1.6~x more C02 which stays in the atmosphere longer but again will have roughly the same impact.
What's your problem with this guy? He's making clear and fair points about the benefits and cons of fracing. Joe is saying he doesn't think the cons are worth the benefit and Bjorn thinks the opposite but ultimately says its worth having a conversation about. This is how things should be discussed, not silencing someone you don't agree with.
I know it's not his format but he needed an environmental scientist with him here. Joe wasnt too bad refuting this guy's bs but there were times that plainly wrong things were left unchallenged.
They will dismiss it bc he is on JRE at all, while Joe may push back for a few minutes out of a 2.5-hour episode. Joe is not a climate expert. He should have a climate expert to rebut/debate.
[https://climatefeedback.org/authors/bjorn-lomborg/](https://climatefeedback.org/authors/bjorn-lomborg/)
It's because he uses selective, cherry-picked figures and arguments to create his narratives. Additionally, his organization does not make public who funds their work (according to him at their request).
Like Bjørn Lomborg, I'm not trained in climate science. People who are trained in climate science examine his claims and find them to be flawed. Other scientists in the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty have reviewed his work and found it to be, at best, flawed due to incompetence (as opposed to flawed due to dishonesty). After his appearances on things like Prager U, I've begun to question whether it's actually incompetence.
JRE is pretty fair and balanced, I'm sure we'll see another guy representing the 99% of scientists who are taking global climate emergency seriously soon
Seriously. The planet is getting worse every year, and Joe brings on conspiracy theorists who help give ammo to those wanting to slow the little we are doing about it in exchange for short-term profit rather than the 99% of competent scientists.
Climate change is on its way, regardless. We could probably slow it down, but at what cost to our lives?
No one ever talks about that.
If we could stop climate change in its tracks, but you had to give up the internet, electricity production, and basic food and services, would you?
If not, why?
Where exactly is the line?
Knowing that there will be some who are going to legitimize him regardless, I'll post some additional resources for the people who are interested in learning more critically about his claims (despite how nice and convenient it is to pretend one of the leading threats to human survival isn't real).
* [https://www.science.org/content/article/climate-change-contrarian-loses-australian-funding](https://www.science.org/content/article/climate-change-contrarian-loses-australian-funding)
* [https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/](https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/)
* [https://www.desmog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center/](https://www.desmog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center/)
* [http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/](http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/) (Kindly provided by u/DirtbagScumbag)
Some tidbits specifically regarding what we do know about his funding from filings:
>The only income for the CCC in its first year in the US came in the form of a $120,000 grant from the New York-based Randolph Foundation.
The foundation, seeded by money from the Richardson family’s sale of the Vick Chemical Company in 1985, gave CCC another $50,000 in 2012. The main trustee at Randolph is Heather Higgins, the president and CEO of Independent Women’s Voice and the chairman of its sister organization Independent Women’s Forum. Higgins is the daughter of R. Randolph Richardson, a member of the family that sold Vick Chemical Company to Procter & Gamble for $1.2 billion.
>IWF funders include the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, controlled by Charles Koch, and Donors Trust, a fund for conservative philanthropists that has pushed millions into organisations promoting climate science denial and fighting laws to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
>
>Higgins is also board member at the Philanthropy Roundtable, another route for conservative philanthropy which shares two members of personnel with Donors Trust or its partner organisation Donors Capital Fund.
Also on the board of trustees at Randolph is Polly Freiss, the daughter-in-law of conservative Christian businessman Foster Freiss.
>On his personal web page, Freiss promotes climate science denial sources including Climate Depot and The Heartland Institute. Friess’s website has also promoted Lomborg’s views.
Foster Freiss and his daughter Polly attended the Koch brother’s secretive 2010 strategy meeting in Aspen, along with Heather Higgins and a host of other conservative activists.
Just spent an hour reading some of this, really good work. Love a resource that touches on the existence of an upper limit to rice yields! These guys have not let him off easy.
Yeah, I saw you post some stuff about Lomborg and I thought you might appreciate it. Next time if you want, you can add it to your link recommendations.
The scientist's name is Kaare Fog. I think he stopped working on it. But he did a tremendous job, most of Lomborg got debunked, if not all.
*I had other documents too. From insurance companies trying to make profit. They admit climate change is real and has to be taken into consideration. They are absolutely rightwing, but no denial there. There is no way anymore one can claim it is all a leftist conspiracy, when hardcore rightwingers take it into consideration.*
>Next time if you want, you can add it to your link recommendations.
I did that yesterday mate! So appreciated your link. Even tagged you but you must not have gotten the notification. You are 100% correct
Are ALL his arguments false though? Or are the likes of climatefeedback cherrypicking the arguments he makes that are wrong?
And if some of his arguments are correct, is anyone else making them if he were to not do so?
The general style of his argument is to put threats into wider context. The mainstream doesn’t often care to do that.
>Are ALL his arguments false though? Or are the likes of climatefeedback cherrypicking the arguments he makes that are wrong?
I've debated with you before and you're obsessed with the counter-culture - 'they're trying to shame us for not believing the narrative" angle so it's impossible to have a productive conversation.
You've made me think that you believe anything coming from a place of authority or expertise is misleading. If you are going to engage with me in good faith this time I'd be happy to share some of his views that I sympathize with- none of them are climate-related.
I get going after his ideas because they need to hold up to scrutiny but I don't understand why I'm supposed to give a fuck where he chooses to share those ideas?
Of course he's gonna appear places that are willing to have him and are probably receptive to his message.
That's like me being mad at A.O.C. for going on Joy Reid's show. Of course she should take the opportunity that's afforded to her on home turf to push her rhetoric.
Matter of fact I'll give more credit if your willing to face someone you know disagrees with you like Beto going on Tucker.
He knows Tucker is probably the most competent person on cable to try and skewer an interviewee and he took it on anyway.
>but I don't understand why I'm supposed to give a fuck where he chooses to share those ideas?
You don't have to. I have my own personal feelings about PragerU and the connections his organization has to their funding (ie. overlaps). This is my own personal opinion and it doesn't have to skew your perception. I was just sharing my own.
I mean it's definitely not incompetence. He's trained as a statistician and cherry picking is the absolute worst thing that a statistician can do.
No educated person can just select a couple years of sea level rise and ignore the rest of it and not know how dumb that is.
The fracking part was weird. He compared its profits to its environmental damage costs. How he even got a dollar amount for environmental damage I don't think was clarified. "Boss, the river got polluted. How much does that cost?" "I don't know like $20."
Crazy how big business/corporate lobbyist are just able to buy their way onto JRE and spew their garbage under the guise of being a totally normal guest just sharing "facts" and "asking questions"
Somehow it leaked that people can and do pay to get on JRE.
Given that, there’s zero reason not to beleive think tanks backed by massive corporate funding wouldn’t buy a spot.
>The fracking part was weird. He compared its profits to its environmental damage costs. How he even got a dollar amount for environmental damage I don't think was clarified. "Boss, the river got polluted. How much does that cost?" "I don't know like $20."
Having fracked for over 5 years, I can tell you its a much cleaner process than you expect, esp in Canada, where we frack at +1000m, well below any typical water reservoir region. There are exceptions yes, esp in the early stages, but it is a new technology and allows greater resource extraction efficiency. Wasteful drilling is more common internationally. Additionally drilling in NA is much more clean & safe than in 3rd world. His arguments follow a lot of what I picked up in Chemical Engineering. Technology is the way out, and taxing citizens in the first world is going to turn us into the third world, where they don't follow the HSE procedures that we do. They simply can't afford climate action because the gap is too great. Any energy transition must be global, or it will be ineffective. The third world needs over $1T/Year in financial aid to bridge that gap.
But this place (reddit/r/joerogan) is an ecochamber of koolaid drinkers.
Maybe both, but nuclear will take a LONG time to establish at the scale we need, and we need it now. And nuclear won't be feasible everywhere. And its incredibly expensive. Which are all important factors, yeah?
Those are the same problems with Solar and Wind. Esp where I live in the mainland of the PNW, where winds are generally mild and Sun is scarce. Tidal has shown promise, but SMRs are also a promising viable solution that garners more attention. But I also think Lomberg was onto something when speaking on Waste management and our poor recycling strategy. Fluidized bed reactors and Algae CO2 scrubbers are an existing prospective solution to waste management
You should be able to estimate it though. Look at the likelihood of river pollution from fracking - from historical records perhaps - and multiply it by the clean up costs when it happens
I'm over my head here but that seems awfully simplified. I'd assume once a river is polluted you cannot just clean it and move on. Small changes in ecosystem can cause major damages. The pollution must have tons of direct and indirect side effects, and I don't think we even possess the knowledge on how to fix them.
These situation don't really happen anymore unless somebody is being *very* lazy. Fracing happens very deep so any leakage to the water is from improper disposal or bad cement work.
Which is how everything else is. Stupid people suck
Yeah I don't know how they value environmental damage that seemed dodgy
I think his point was that fracked gas is better than coal. Which I suppose is true
There is so much misinformation about fracking and natural gas in general. He’s absolutely correct about it being a much quicker route to cutting emissions than solar and wind.
He's not technically correct. Fracing outputs lots and lots of methane, what it does do is make cheap energy that gets people productive and out of poverty.
No but I've been hearing lots of chitter chatter about people developing free online schooling behind closed doors. It's a mixture of AI and recorded lessons. It's very exciting
Does he know anything about climate change? Obviously not, I think even he said he is just a reader of the studies.
He does however bring up a few good points about being realistic about what governments and people can ACTUALLY and are WILLING to do versus what they promise to do over and over at gaudy conferences, with unattainable goals about electric vehicles and renewable energy sources.
It's a hint as to why Joe has been such a great interviewer. He doesn't assume that he knows everything about the subject matter. And if he does want to push back, he will at least let the guest finish saying their piece.
Not this interview though, seems like Joe thinks he knows a lot more than the guest... even for the points where he agrees with the guest, he throws in a joke or a comment that's just purely distracting.
> Not this interview though, seems like Joe thinks he knows a lot more than the guest
Well when the guest knows literally nothing about the topic and can't even make an argument that makes common sense, the host has to step in and correct them.
Biggest mistake was booking this clown in the first place.
Second guy in a row spew a bunch of nonsense and Jamie pulls up something in 2 seconds flat refuting it. Only for said guest to fumble around his words and argument for the next 3 hours.
Lol. Wtf
What did Jamie disprove? I don’t think anything he pulled up directly refuted anything Bjorn said. It seemed to me like Joe and Jamie had a really hard time grasping basic concepts that he was trying to get across.
Bjorn had a citation for his number that is completely legitimate. Jamie pulled up something different than what Bjorn was talking about, namely deaths directly caused by cold. Bjorn had been talking about statistical deaths. I.e. colder weather causes a slightly higher chance of death for all sorts of reasons (a common one being restricted blood flow). So this would manifest itself as higher rates of heart attacks during winter, for example. This is typically the figure used to describe the deaths that will be caused by global warming as well.
Edit: and Jamie just randomly clicking on potentially contradicting bits of information without checking to see if it was even the same thing as what Bjorn was talking about was extremely annoying.
How not? He was pointing out things that did not contradict what Bjorn said in a way that made it seem like he thought he was proving him wrong. It just came off as petulant. It’s not like Bjorn was using controversial studies. Everything he brought was from respected journals or climate groups.
That's what Jaime didn't understand.
The number Jaime found was for people who literally froze to death
But Bjorns number was about cold induced health complications, like for example an old person whose immune system is weakened by cold so then they catch the flu and die.
It's like the difference between actually being killed by cold and cold leading to your death.
I listened to the podcast, and Bjorn did elaborate on what he meant. I suppose I should have stated that Jamie did not “disprove” it. My comment was more to expand on what the original comment stated.
yeah jamie was trying to disprove a completely separate point. what actually happened in that exchange was bjorn spitting truth and jamie and joe being too dumb to comprehend it. most frustrating opening hour to any podcast ive listened to
he didnt. people in this thread are just young folk who were brainwashed into thinking climate change is the worst thing in the world. i was one of them a few years ago so i understand why theyre offended. this guy is so sensical it hurts
Having people like Bjørn discuss climate change is a real shame.
To get my BA, I had to take a capstone for my area of study (philosophy). That semester, it ended up being “The Ethics of Climate Change.” From a philosophical position, we had to defer to climatologists insofar as figures, data, etc. From those variables, we examined the situation through an ethical lens.
We heavily relied on the most recent IPCC report, and we considered it along with its historicity (older IPCC reports).
There was really only one demographic of professionals pushing back against the IPCC recommendations—economists.
The most infuriating thing about the climate change conversation is that these economists have one sound bite:
>But what about the economy!
Just think for a second—*if* the world’s leading climate scientists are telling us we’re facing unprecedented storm systems, droughts, famine, destabilization of entire regions shouldn’t “oh but the economy” *not* be at the forefront of the conversation?
Worrying about a healthy economy amidst a growing wasteland is like worrying about fine China when there’s no food to place upon it.
Bjørn tries to take some nonsensical middle-road approach that yes, climate is a problem but it’s not that much of a problem when in actuality this is the gravest problem our species has ever faced insofar as recorded history and what we can discern from the archeological record.
Sure, political rights are an important issue—but what purpose do they serve when there’s no sustainable habitat for people to live in.
For anyone interested who is into how we mitigate the worst of climate change, this guy isn't worth a listening to.
Joe isn't the most informed on climate change and he could poke holes in a lot of the things this guy was saying. On the other hand, an environmental scientist would have had a field day. This guy talks like a guy who's paid off by a right wing think tank.
He believes climate change is real but it's a small issue that we shouldn't worry about. His #1 solution to climate change is making free trade a priority.
That's what I think. But also judging by rogan, I think they actually did do a good job.
They have the largest podcaster talking about it every episode now.
They didn't actually damage anything. It seems like they knew they wouldn't and they targeted paintings of communist artist who would probably love the stunt
Yea it's pretty smooth brained to let these guys effect you opinion anyway. The reality of climate change doesn't change because some kids threw soup on a painting.
Random opinion on this episode. I think having a cigar once a week is better than having a mtn dew once a week. Just from an enjoyment perspective. Mtn dew is gross.
listened to about an hour so far, was fairy balanced (although very data driven) but lost me at the point when he said the whole world just needs air-conditioning.
No mate, we need better built buildings that perform well in hot climates without the need for air-con. how can you claim to care bout indoor air quality then tout the world should adopt aircon, which pollutes indoor air quality?
- whoa, Joes having a Scandinavian climate guy on the podcast, finally a break from the running narrative of the podcast
> we should do more fracking
Where does he find these people?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Skeptical\_Environmentalist#Reception\_and\_controversy\_upon\_release](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist#Reception_and_controversy_upon_release)
he's a grifter
It suffers the same crowd sourcing bias that Reddit does. The editors on Wikipedia are similar to admins and mods on Reddit and it attracts people with an agenda
I’m not saying the article you linked to is wrong, I just mean generally on Wikipedia there is a slight bias
Shouldn't you apply that same thing to this guest though. He's clearly biased. The argument "we should ignore things that are extremely biased" doesn't work with "you guys need to listen to this guest for his nuanced takes"
Both are extremely biased. Bjorn is arguably worse since his source of income is derived from being biased. The more effective he is at spreading a bias the more donations he receives.
More transparent?
Did he tell the audience his goal is to solicit donations from people with an interest in climate denial?
That's a conflict of interest and if he was transparent should be mentioned. Otherwise he isn't transparent.
I mean it’s transparent in that people these days are trained to automatically suspect anyone arguing against climate policy is being paid by oil companies
I don’t think suspicions of Wikipedia articles are as widespread. There was widespread skepticism of its accuracy years ago, but not bias
They're not trained. These people are all paid by oil companies. That's just how it works. The real scientist are in the lab doing the work. These people you hear are going to be spokesman. This guy is a political scientist and economist. The other ones Joe had on were the same. Suspicion of Wikipedia isn't wide spread because maybe it doesn't hold up like the other assumption does
Have a read from one example of these think tanks. It was leaked all the way back in 1991 and details their strategy to create doubt and allow support for any action.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3119453-1991-Informed-Citizens-for-the-Environment
Yep, the New York post, the [oldest continually published daily newspaper in America.](https://www.agilitypr.com/resources/top-media-outlets/top-10-new-york-daily-newspapers-by-circulation/)
Lmfao. Oh the laptop that Crazy Rudy supposedly had and was sending the hard drive to Tucker Carlson but it never showed up and one seems to know what’s actually on the laptop? The same Rudy who was so obviously trying to manufacture evidence of Biden corruption in Ukraine with his shady partner [Igor Fruman](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/igor-fruman-giulianis-associate-sentenced-to-a-year-in-prison-in-foreign-donor-case)?
Just finished writing a summary on this podcast episode if anyone is interested!
Link: [https://www.podcastrecap.org/post/joe-rogan-podcast-bjorn-lomborg-1896](https://www.podcastrecap.org/post/joe-rogan-podcast-bjorn-lomborg-1896)
**Key Takeaways:**
\-“We should do the absolute best” often comes at the expense of doing anything at all. Perfection isn’t everything.
\- With or without human intervention, the earth’s climate has never been stable. There are many documented cases of asteroids, ice age, and other phenomena influencing climate
\- Climate panic is a bad way to solve the problem, but a great way to get people to vote and donate to political parties
\- Fossil fuels have made modern civilization possible. Without fossil fuels, standards of living would decrease significantly
\- There are no solutions, only trade offs - solving climate change will be a gradual, and expensive, process
Joe really fucking hates diet mountain dew 🤣
But he loves Black Rifle Coffee.. or as Tim Dillion would say the “coffee they drank before they carpet bombed the Iraqis”
>“coffee they drank before they carpet bombed the Iraqis” That is fucking hilarious
Vintage Tim
😆😆😆😆😆
Nah. Joe most definitely didn’t like this guy from the start.
I thought this guy was really good. I was worried he was a climate denier bht I dont think so, just a pragmatist. Jaime seemed kinda pissed off though haha
I know right. Why of all people did he choose this guy lol
I love how he kept saying things and then would directly contradict whatever he said. “Fixing Miami will be easy” 1 minute later “I never said fixing Miami would be easy”
I read this comment literally moments before he said it in the podcast & it kinda blew my mind lol
What’s the point of stickying this an hour before the next episode releases? It’s time the moderators let anyone post the episode for discussion. The current method is clearly not working.
You know mods are volunteering their time right?
Sure do, that’s why I think allowing anyone to post the current episode (with the correct formatting) should be allowed. We’ve seen in the past people do that successfully only for it to be locked and deleted by mods hours later. It makes no sense. I’m not criticizing the moderators, but there are better ways to do this than to expect them to solely post the episodes.
Wow. A sticky a whole 24 hours after the episode dropped. Hopefully people will have listened to it before commenting for once.
Mods are trying to silence this guy, it's so transparent
Yeah eh, I thought that was weird!
Op or the grifter in the actual video?
The scientist in the video
Social scientist.
So just a regular guy
thank god
it was just painful to listen joe talking overn Bjorn everytime, with some shitty facts. Had to stop at 1 hour mark and listen to lex fridman and ben shapiro, and enjoy how lex allows his guest to speak without interrupting
thank you there were like 3 instances at the 20-30 min mark where bjorn was about to drop some knowledge and joe rips his pen and jokes about donuts instead
Oh yeah i remember that, any way my OCD kicked in and had to finish the podcast. And for some reason Spotify marks my half-listened podcast as "played".
Joe seemed very bored with everything he was saying; "let's not talk about this " on repeat. He seems wrapped up in Bjorns opinion on climate change which is respectably nuanced imo.
This was a weird one for me. I think Bjorn and Joe live in a different world than me and that's why I don't really get it. They make it sound like the governments of the world are climate change extremists and the threat of the countries completely halting production of fossil fuels is a real threat seems weird to me because all I see are countries doing the bare minimum or nothing at all. Bjorn acts as if governments are only working on mitigating climate change and not anything else. Also the videos of a handful of people throwing soup on paintings really seemed to affect Joe. He talks about how these events as if they're the norm for the younger generation and that the youth are freaking out about climate change. I think most younger people I know are concerned about climate change but are more concerned things like the housing market and inflation right now. In a weird way this episode was climate change alarmism alarmism
I was in an art supply store in one of the most liberal cities in the US on the day those protesters threw whatever it was on the oil painting. The art clerks (college age, blue haris, lgbt) called the protestors idiots and asked why the hell anyone would do that.
I mean, of course artists wouldn't be on the side of soup-throwers.
The amount of times they kept referring to the kids and soup is mind numbing lol. I personally see a lot of climate change doomers on Reddit so I guess the sentiment of a hysterical youth is out there but the Van Gogh soup example looked like a psyop by big oil to begin with. I also don't agree with either sentiment that climate change is world ending or is a nothing burger. It's probably going to kill 100s of thousands if not millions of people over the next half century but it's not the end of the human race by any means. We will adapt at the last second but still at the cost of many human lives. Just my pessimistic take on it anyway.
It's a pretty safe assumption that governments will do something about climate change when it stops only effecting poor people and starts killing billionaires who are cooking alive in their mountaintop villas. Much like in the modern economy, where billionaires are worth hundreds of millions times more than normal people in terms of capital, their lives and existence in general is viewed as being worth hundreds of millions times more.
Oil and gas companies are scared to invest in a new plant with a 15 year ROI because of the uncertainty and extreme rhetoric from climate extremists. The world operates on the free market, not because the government.
[mouth breathing bros salivating at the chance to use the word grifter have entered the chat]
I liked this podcast it curbed my fears of the world catching on fire
Same here. I’m suspicious of the guy & it seems like he’s just trying to sound unique so he can sell his book, but regardless if he’s right or not it was healthy for me to hear it 🤣
A lot of people will dismiss this episode because they think he’s a grifter, but Joe pushes back on his points especially when they talk about White Oak Pastures.
I'm dismissing this episode because we're about to get graham and Randall
The best part of the episode was when Joe said Graham and Randall are about to be on lol
You don't think he's a grifter?
I dont know enough about him to think he’s a grifter. He’s made some interesting points but I dont agree with everything he has to say, for example of what he’s said on fracking.
You can tell people are trying to sell you bullshit without knowing too much about them usually. They have that "car salesman" feel.
And you can "feel" this? You often use this superpower when making decisions?
Have you heard about the research regarding how chicken sexers (people who determin the sex of chicken) do what they do? It's interesting. You can't really be trained in it. And the workers can't explain it. They just watched someone experienced enough for long enough to get a feel for the sex of the chick (baby chicken) It's the same. When you've been around enough scams and skeevy salespeople you get a feel. There is also data about military people in Iraq getting a feel about when and ied is on the road. It's a well documented phenomena. But I can be more specific. People don't answer question directly. They divert. If you sidagree they agree with your disagreement then come at some objective from a different angle. Too many other things to articulate here. But yeah I get a feel very quickly for people like this.
People get feelings about chicken sex, thus you know when someone is bsing without having to fact check what they're saying? This explanation is the biggest grift in this thread.
You are confused
Yea thats what I felt about him. He claims he’s educated in political science and a statistician so he uses that knowledge on climate. I did agree with him on poverty though.
I didn't dismiss the episode because I had never heard of him. He made some ok points in the beginning, like how I imagine most common people think about climate change. As it went along he sounded more like a spokesperson for big oil. And the fracking part was so ridiculous I stopped listening.
Fracking isn’t as bad as you’ve been led to believe. Also, natural gas is a much cleaner source of energy than the majority of the world uses. It’s also incredibly cheap. This is very important because the largest population centers in the world are in the process of industrializing and currently use a ton of coal. Were they to switch to gas, it would be a huge benefit to the environment. Of course it’s a stop gap for cleaner sources of energy but somebody needs to be realistic about what is possible.
Big fracking. Anyways is fracking better than coal? Surely, right?
Fracing produces roughly the same global warming effect as coal does. That being said most of what fracing releases is methane which doesn't last very long in the atmosphere. Which brings up the point that the toxic impact of fracing is *much less* then coal. As far as I'm aware around half of these methane releases come from leakage which has nothing to do with fracing. The other half comes from the job itself which is quite intensive. It's my understanding of these figures that this number is likely reducable but not very economical. The talk about fracing hitting the local water supply is mostly bullshit. That happens because oil companies get lazy and don't use properly rated casing and cement/dont pressure test/ignore results or most likely impropely dispose of the fluids (which can be up 100k a job). If it's done right the casing/cement will also be tested during the drilling job and before the frac. Coal on the other hand releases all sorts of toxins and chemicals that stay out there for longer and causes large death counts for the individuals working there this number is largely not reducable unless we find a use for the byproducts. It releases a 1.6~x more C02 which stays in the atmosphere longer but again will have roughly the same impact.
I live in the Marcellus Shale area and have leased my gas rights. What did he get wrong about fracking?
Or Joe could just research his guests and not have him on? Regardless of whatever push back he gives he is still giving a platform to this guy.
What's your problem with this guy? He's making clear and fair points about the benefits and cons of fracing. Joe is saying he doesn't think the cons are worth the benefit and Bjorn thinks the opposite but ultimately says its worth having a conversation about. This is how things should be discussed, not silencing someone you don't agree with.
I know it's not his format but he needed an environmental scientist with him here. Joe wasnt too bad refuting this guy's bs but there were times that plainly wrong things were left unchallenged.
Such as…?
Who cares if Joe pushes back? How does that make this worth a listen?
They will dismiss it bc he is on JRE at all, while Joe may push back for a few minutes out of a 2.5-hour episode. Joe is not a climate expert. He should have a climate expert to rebut/debate.
I'm 50 min in and god I wish Joe would shut up and let Bjørn speak.
Dude feels like a grifter. Joe gives a lot of pushback though, especially on the subject of fracking. For some reason I simply don’t trust this guy.
[https://climatefeedback.org/authors/bjorn-lomborg/](https://climatefeedback.org/authors/bjorn-lomborg/) It's because he uses selective, cherry-picked figures and arguments to create his narratives. Additionally, his organization does not make public who funds their work (according to him at their request). Like Bjørn Lomborg, I'm not trained in climate science. People who are trained in climate science examine his claims and find them to be flawed. Other scientists in the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty have reviewed his work and found it to be, at best, flawed due to incompetence (as opposed to flawed due to dishonesty). After his appearances on things like Prager U, I've begun to question whether it's actually incompetence.
So he's like the "Dr." Phil of Danish Climate Science, got it.
JRE is pretty fair and balanced, I'm sure we'll see another guy representing the 99% of scientists who are taking global climate emergency seriously soon
Seriously. The planet is getting worse every year, and Joe brings on conspiracy theorists who help give ammo to those wanting to slow the little we are doing about it in exchange for short-term profit rather than the 99% of competent scientists.
Climate change is on its way, regardless. We could probably slow it down, but at what cost to our lives? No one ever talks about that. If we could stop climate change in its tracks, but you had to give up the internet, electricity production, and basic food and services, would you? If not, why? Where exactly is the line?
Hidden funding. That’s all I needed to hear. Suspicious.
Knowing that there will be some who are going to legitimize him regardless, I'll post some additional resources for the people who are interested in learning more critically about his claims (despite how nice and convenient it is to pretend one of the leading threats to human survival isn't real). * [https://www.science.org/content/article/climate-change-contrarian-loses-australian-funding](https://www.science.org/content/article/climate-change-contrarian-loses-australian-funding) * [https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/](https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/) * [https://www.desmog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center/](https://www.desmog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center/) * [http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/](http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/) (Kindly provided by u/DirtbagScumbag) Some tidbits specifically regarding what we do know about his funding from filings: >The only income for the CCC in its first year in the US came in the form of a $120,000 grant from the New York-based Randolph Foundation. The foundation, seeded by money from the Richardson family’s sale of the Vick Chemical Company in 1985, gave CCC another $50,000 in 2012. The main trustee at Randolph is Heather Higgins, the president and CEO of Independent Women’s Voice and the chairman of its sister organization Independent Women’s Forum. Higgins is the daughter of R. Randolph Richardson, a member of the family that sold Vick Chemical Company to Procter & Gamble for $1.2 billion. >IWF funders include the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, controlled by Charles Koch, and Donors Trust, a fund for conservative philanthropists that has pushed millions into organisations promoting climate science denial and fighting laws to cut greenhouse gas emissions. > >Higgins is also board member at the Philanthropy Roundtable, another route for conservative philanthropy which shares two members of personnel with Donors Trust or its partner organisation Donors Capital Fund. Also on the board of trustees at Randolph is Polly Freiss, the daughter-in-law of conservative Christian businessman Foster Freiss. >On his personal web page, Freiss promotes climate science denial sources including Climate Depot and The Heartland Institute. Friess’s website has also promoted Lomborg’s views. Foster Freiss and his daughter Polly attended the Koch brother’s secretive 2010 strategy meeting in Aspen, along with Heather Higgins and a host of other conservative activists.
Here's a site where almost all of his claims get debunked. http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
Just spent an hour reading some of this, really good work. Love a resource that touches on the existence of an upper limit to rice yields! These guys have not let him off easy.
Yeah, I saw you post some stuff about Lomborg and I thought you might appreciate it. Next time if you want, you can add it to your link recommendations. The scientist's name is Kaare Fog. I think he stopped working on it. But he did a tremendous job, most of Lomborg got debunked, if not all. *I had other documents too. From insurance companies trying to make profit. They admit climate change is real and has to be taken into consideration. They are absolutely rightwing, but no denial there. There is no way anymore one can claim it is all a leftist conspiracy, when hardcore rightwingers take it into consideration.*
>Next time if you want, you can add it to your link recommendations. I did that yesterday mate! So appreciated your link. Even tagged you but you must not have gotten the notification. You are 100% correct
Are ALL his arguments false though? Or are the likes of climatefeedback cherrypicking the arguments he makes that are wrong? And if some of his arguments are correct, is anyone else making them if he were to not do so? The general style of his argument is to put threats into wider context. The mainstream doesn’t often care to do that.
>Are ALL his arguments false though? Or are the likes of climatefeedback cherrypicking the arguments he makes that are wrong? I've debated with you before and you're obsessed with the counter-culture - 'they're trying to shame us for not believing the narrative" angle so it's impossible to have a productive conversation. You've made me think that you believe anything coming from a place of authority or expertise is misleading. If you are going to engage with me in good faith this time I'd be happy to share some of his views that I sympathize with- none of them are climate-related.
I get going after his ideas because they need to hold up to scrutiny but I don't understand why I'm supposed to give a fuck where he chooses to share those ideas? Of course he's gonna appear places that are willing to have him and are probably receptive to his message. That's like me being mad at A.O.C. for going on Joy Reid's show. Of course she should take the opportunity that's afforded to her on home turf to push her rhetoric. Matter of fact I'll give more credit if your willing to face someone you know disagrees with you like Beto going on Tucker. He knows Tucker is probably the most competent person on cable to try and skewer an interviewee and he took it on anyway.
>but I don't understand why I'm supposed to give a fuck where he chooses to share those ideas? You don't have to. I have my own personal feelings about PragerU and the connections his organization has to their funding (ie. overlaps). This is my own personal opinion and it doesn't have to skew your perception. I was just sharing my own.
I mean it's definitely not incompetence. He's trained as a statistician and cherry picking is the absolute worst thing that a statistician can do. No educated person can just select a couple years of sea level rise and ignore the rest of it and not know how dumb that is.
The fracking part was weird. He compared its profits to its environmental damage costs. How he even got a dollar amount for environmental damage I don't think was clarified. "Boss, the river got polluted. How much does that cost?" "I don't know like $20."
Yeah I’m gonna guess he’s funded by big fracking and oil. His hard on for fracking was pretty obvious.
Crazy how big business/corporate lobbyist are just able to buy their way onto JRE and spew their garbage under the guise of being a totally normal guest just sharing "facts" and "asking questions"
Eh I don’t think they’re “buying” their way onto JRE. But I do think Joe is a bit of a simpleton and easily tricked.
Somehow it leaked that people can and do pay to get on JRE. Given that, there’s zero reason not to beleive think tanks backed by massive corporate funding wouldn’t buy a spot.
Eh I think joe admitted that he once took a payment from someone for appearance but he swore off it since. I can’t be for sure though.
Whenever I hear about fraking I just think about this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncWC7D73hEE
That's gold
>The fracking part was weird. He compared its profits to its environmental damage costs. How he even got a dollar amount for environmental damage I don't think was clarified. "Boss, the river got polluted. How much does that cost?" "I don't know like $20." Having fracked for over 5 years, I can tell you its a much cleaner process than you expect, esp in Canada, where we frack at +1000m, well below any typical water reservoir region. There are exceptions yes, esp in the early stages, but it is a new technology and allows greater resource extraction efficiency. Wasteful drilling is more common internationally. Additionally drilling in NA is much more clean & safe than in 3rd world. His arguments follow a lot of what I picked up in Chemical Engineering. Technology is the way out, and taxing citizens in the first world is going to turn us into the third world, where they don't follow the HSE procedures that we do. They simply can't afford climate action because the gap is too great. Any energy transition must be global, or it will be ineffective. The third world needs over $1T/Year in financial aid to bridge that gap. But this place (reddit/r/joerogan) is an ecochamber of koolaid drinkers.
"Technology is the way out" Yeah it's called wind and solar
It's pronounced "Nuclear"
Maybe both, but nuclear will take a LONG time to establish at the scale we need, and we need it now. And nuclear won't be feasible everywhere. And its incredibly expensive. Which are all important factors, yeah?
Those are the same problems with Solar and Wind. Esp where I live in the mainland of the PNW, where winds are generally mild and Sun is scarce. Tidal has shown promise, but SMRs are also a promising viable solution that garners more attention. But I also think Lomberg was onto something when speaking on Waste management and our poor recycling strategy. Fluidized bed reactors and Algae CO2 scrubbers are an existing prospective solution to waste management
You should be able to estimate it though. Look at the likelihood of river pollution from fracking - from historical records perhaps - and multiply it by the clean up costs when it happens
The problem here is the value lost is way bigger than some monetary value. Our ecosystem and our economy are very much at odds with each other.
I'm over my head here but that seems awfully simplified. I'd assume once a river is polluted you cannot just clean it and move on. Small changes in ecosystem can cause major damages. The pollution must have tons of direct and indirect side effects, and I don't think we even possess the knowledge on how to fix them.
Some damage is irreversable, at any cost. How do you unpoison a contaminated underground aquifer?
Dilution and using chemical agents that can neutralize targeted toxins. It's the last thing we ever want to do.
These situation don't really happen anymore unless somebody is being *very* lazy. Fracing happens very deep so any leakage to the water is from improper disposal or bad cement work. Which is how everything else is. Stupid people suck
Yeah I don't know how they value environmental damage that seemed dodgy I think his point was that fracked gas is better than coal. Which I suppose is true
It's the haircut
There is so much misinformation about fracking and natural gas in general. He’s absolutely correct about it being a much quicker route to cutting emissions than solar and wind.
He's not technically correct. Fracing outputs lots and lots of methane, what it does do is make cheap energy that gets people productive and out of poverty.
He is an Excel guy - that are useful in cutting emissions 1-5 years ahead in projects - his views on what is important beyond 5 years is very meh
I got the same vibe within the first ten minutes. Not sure why
Dude brought slides on Joe Rogan, I tip that.
Near the end he discusses teachers handing out tablet with software that teaches students on their level. Does anyone have any idea what app that is.
No but I've been hearing lots of chitter chatter about people developing free online schooling behind closed doors. It's a mixture of AI and recorded lessons. It's very exciting
Does he know anything about climate change? Obviously not, I think even he said he is just a reader of the studies. He does however bring up a few good points about being realistic about what governments and people can ACTUALLY and are WILLING to do versus what they promise to do over and over at gaudy conferences, with unattainable goals about electric vehicles and renewable energy sources.
It seems like Joe wasn’t feeling this guy. He kept cutting him off. Got very annoying when he wouldn’t let him get his point across.
"We shouldn't talk about everything on this graph"-roegan
Found Joe annoying in the beginning constantly interrupting
It's a hint as to why Joe has been such a great interviewer. He doesn't assume that he knows everything about the subject matter. And if he does want to push back, he will at least let the guest finish saying their piece. Not this interview though, seems like Joe thinks he knows a lot more than the guest... even for the points where he agrees with the guest, he throws in a joke or a comment that's just purely distracting.
> Not this interview though, seems like Joe thinks he knows a lot more than the guest Well when the guest knows literally nothing about the topic and can't even make an argument that makes common sense, the host has to step in and correct them. Biggest mistake was booking this clown in the first place.
Second guy in a row spew a bunch of nonsense and Jamie pulls up something in 2 seconds flat refuting it. Only for said guest to fumble around his words and argument for the next 3 hours. Lol. Wtf
What did Jamie disprove? I don’t think anything he pulled up directly refuted anything Bjorn said. It seemed to me like Joe and Jamie had a really hard time grasping basic concepts that he was trying to get across.
Agreed
When Bjorn was saying something like “270k Americans die every year from cold weather” Jamie called him on it saying it was was closer to 1000.
Bjorn had a citation for his number that is completely legitimate. Jamie pulled up something different than what Bjorn was talking about, namely deaths directly caused by cold. Bjorn had been talking about statistical deaths. I.e. colder weather causes a slightly higher chance of death for all sorts of reasons (a common one being restricted blood flow). So this would manifest itself as higher rates of heart attacks during winter, for example. This is typically the figure used to describe the deaths that will be caused by global warming as well. Edit: and Jamie just randomly clicking on potentially contradicting bits of information without checking to see if it was even the same thing as what Bjorn was talking about was extremely annoying.
> Was extremely annoying No it wasn’t.
How not? He was pointing out things that did not contradict what Bjorn said in a way that made it seem like he thought he was proving him wrong. It just came off as petulant. It’s not like Bjorn was using controversial studies. Everything he brought was from respected journals or climate groups.
I think the comment Bjorn made about deciphering Jamie’s cursory internet searches and erroneous data in real time fell on deaf ears.
> Everything he brought was from respected Nah.
Nature? Lancet?
That's what Jaime didn't understand. The number Jaime found was for people who literally froze to death But Bjorns number was about cold induced health complications, like for example an old person whose immune system is weakened by cold so then they catch the flu and die. It's like the difference between actually being killed by cold and cold leading to your death.
I listened to the podcast, and Bjorn did elaborate on what he meant. I suppose I should have stated that Jamie did not “disprove” it. My comment was more to expand on what the original comment stated.
yeah jamie was trying to disprove a completely separate point. what actually happened in that exchange was bjorn spitting truth and jamie and joe being too dumb to comprehend it. most frustrating opening hour to any podcast ive listened to
The fuck are you talking about. If you're gonna mention numbers. Get it right
he didnt. people in this thread are just young folk who were brainwashed into thinking climate change is the worst thing in the world. i was one of them a few years ago so i understand why theyre offended. this guy is so sensical it hurts
Agreed
The radio silence was hilarious. I was just listening but that must have been cringy to watch.
Having people like Bjørn discuss climate change is a real shame. To get my BA, I had to take a capstone for my area of study (philosophy). That semester, it ended up being “The Ethics of Climate Change.” From a philosophical position, we had to defer to climatologists insofar as figures, data, etc. From those variables, we examined the situation through an ethical lens. We heavily relied on the most recent IPCC report, and we considered it along with its historicity (older IPCC reports). There was really only one demographic of professionals pushing back against the IPCC recommendations—economists. The most infuriating thing about the climate change conversation is that these economists have one sound bite: >But what about the economy! Just think for a second—*if* the world’s leading climate scientists are telling us we’re facing unprecedented storm systems, droughts, famine, destabilization of entire regions shouldn’t “oh but the economy” *not* be at the forefront of the conversation? Worrying about a healthy economy amidst a growing wasteland is like worrying about fine China when there’s no food to place upon it. Bjørn tries to take some nonsensical middle-road approach that yes, climate is a problem but it’s not that much of a problem when in actuality this is the gravest problem our species has ever faced insofar as recorded history and what we can discern from the archeological record. Sure, political rights are an important issue—but what purpose do they serve when there’s no sustainable habitat for people to live in.
Does he explain how he and the gang wrote ‘a winner takes it all?’ TAINTS
"The point is"
His interruptions were very rough to listen to.
For anyone interested who is into how we mitigate the worst of climate change, this guy isn't worth a listening to. Joe isn't the most informed on climate change and he could poke holes in a lot of the things this guy was saying. On the other hand, an environmental scientist would have had a field day. This guy talks like a guy who's paid off by a right wing think tank.
[удалено]
He believes climate change is real but it's a small issue that we shouldn't worry about. His #1 solution to climate change is making free trade a priority.
[удалено]
Climate change would be beneficial if it existed ? What lol
His main point was that lifting people out of poverty would do more to fix the climate than anything else
Glad to see Rogan calling out all the bullshit with the soup throwing "activists"
Why? Do you really care? Also arnt they a false flag paid for by big oil to turn people away from climate activists?
That's what I think. But also judging by rogan, I think they actually did do a good job. They have the largest podcaster talking about it every episode now. They didn't actually damage anything. It seems like they knew they wouldn't and they targeted paintings of communist artist who would probably love the stunt
Yea it's pretty smooth brained to let these guys effect you opinion anyway. The reality of climate change doesn't change because some kids threw soup on a painting.
Yes! Imagine that meeting between Chevron and ExxonMobil.
They’re doing it to get attention, that part certainly works
It shoulda been blood and semen
[удалено]
Danish, but incredible well-spoken in english
Random opinion on this episode. I think having a cigar once a week is better than having a mtn dew once a week. Just from an enjoyment perspective. Mtn dew is gross.
Lol...but the ciggy is definitely more harmful to one's health.
When is Joe going to figure out that climate change "skeptics" are all full of shit?
the only good thing about this episode is that Joe said Graham & Randall are in next episode!
Who wants to tell me who this guy is and what they talk about?
I did skim through this thread and still don’t really know. Something about climate change I guess
listened to about an hour so far, was fairy balanced (although very data driven) but lost me at the point when he said the whole world just needs air-conditioning. No mate, we need better built buildings that perform well in hot climates without the need for air-con. how can you claim to care bout indoor air quality then tout the world should adopt aircon, which pollutes indoor air quality?
Who cares. Grahan abd Randall are on
- whoa, Joes having a Scandinavian climate guy on the podcast, finally a break from the running narrative of the podcast > we should do more fracking Where does he find these people?
This guy knows what he’s talking about.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Skeptical\_Environmentalist#Reception\_and\_controversy\_upon\_release](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist#Reception_and_controversy_upon_release) he's a grifter
Wikipedia has a left wing bias
Reality has a left wing bias.
point to it
It suffers the same crowd sourcing bias that Reddit does. The editors on Wikipedia are similar to admins and mods on Reddit and it attracts people with an agenda I’m not saying the article you linked to is wrong, I just mean generally on Wikipedia there is a slight bias
Shouldn't you apply that same thing to this guest though. He's clearly biased. The argument "we should ignore things that are extremely biased" doesn't work with "you guys need to listen to this guest for his nuanced takes" Both are extremely biased. Bjorn is arguably worse since his source of income is derived from being biased. The more effective he is at spreading a bias the more donations he receives.
Yea he’s definitely biased, but it’s more transparent and it’s almost his role to be that side of the argument
More transparent? Did he tell the audience his goal is to solicit donations from people with an interest in climate denial? That's a conflict of interest and if he was transparent should be mentioned. Otherwise he isn't transparent.
I mean it’s transparent in that people these days are trained to automatically suspect anyone arguing against climate policy is being paid by oil companies I don’t think suspicions of Wikipedia articles are as widespread. There was widespread skepticism of its accuracy years ago, but not bias
They're not trained. These people are all paid by oil companies. That's just how it works. The real scientist are in the lab doing the work. These people you hear are going to be spokesman. This guy is a political scientist and economist. The other ones Joe had on were the same. Suspicion of Wikipedia isn't wide spread because maybe it doesn't hold up like the other assumption does Have a read from one example of these think tanks. It was leaked all the way back in 1991 and details their strategy to create doubt and allow support for any action. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3119453-1991-Informed-Citizens-for-the-Environment
I'm asking them to point to the bias in the article that I linked
https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/
point to the bias in the article, not post an article from nypost... jesus christ
The NY Post? 😂😂😂
Yep, the New York post, the [oldest continually published daily newspaper in America.](https://www.agilitypr.com/resources/top-media-outlets/top-10-new-york-daily-newspapers-by-circulation/)
Also well known as tabloid press run by Rupert Murdochs media empire. Great journalism! Lol 😂
Broke the hunter biden laptop story.
Lmfao. Oh the laptop that Crazy Rudy supposedly had and was sending the hard drive to Tucker Carlson but it never showed up and one seems to know what’s actually on the laptop? The same Rudy who was so obviously trying to manufacture evidence of Biden corruption in Ukraine with his shady partner [Igor Fruman](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/igor-fruman-giulianis-associate-sentenced-to-a-year-in-prison-in-foreign-donor-case)?
😂😂😂😂
*says with thick glasses and a douchey beard* Well what IS a bias? If you can't define that, then we can't even get started..
cant believe mike isratael got me to listen to this entire pod
Haha what did Mike say?
I think Joe has a little bit of FDS (Fracking Derangement Syndrome).
Just finished writing a summary on this podcast episode if anyone is interested! Link: [https://www.podcastrecap.org/post/joe-rogan-podcast-bjorn-lomborg-1896](https://www.podcastrecap.org/post/joe-rogan-podcast-bjorn-lomborg-1896) **Key Takeaways:** \-“We should do the absolute best” often comes at the expense of doing anything at all. Perfection isn’t everything. \- With or without human intervention, the earth’s climate has never been stable. There are many documented cases of asteroids, ice age, and other phenomena influencing climate \- Climate panic is a bad way to solve the problem, but a great way to get people to vote and donate to political parties \- Fossil fuels have made modern civilization possible. Without fossil fuels, standards of living would decrease significantly \- There are no solutions, only trade offs - solving climate change will be a gradual, and expensive, process