4 ms·

The description on that episode: >Steven E. Koonin is a theoretical physicist, professor, former Chief Scientist for the BP petroleum company, and former Under

by slg 5y ago

The description on that episode: >Steven E. Koonin is a theoretical physicist, professor, former Chief Scientist for the BP petroleum company, and former Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy under the Obama administration. He's also the author of "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters." I'm not sure "former Chief Scientist for the BP petroleum company" is the person I would go to for "a balanced take" on climate change.

barbacoa 5y ago
>I'm not sure "former Chief Scientist for the BP petroleum company" is the person I would go to for "a balanced take" on climate change. The IPCC is funded and promoted by the UN because their conclusions align with the UN's agenda. It's very hard to distinguish the legitimate environmental concerns from political and ideological ulterior motivations.
- slg 5y ago
  Saying person A is biased does not imply that person B is not also biased. I was responding to a statement that said person A was balanced when they clearly have a bias.
  - barbacoa 5y ago
    It's balanced because both sides have agendas.
president 5y ago
Why not let scientists challenge his arguments then?
- jeromegv 5y ago
  Joe Rogan isn’t exactly known to bring people that will really be challenging him. Often aligns right with his false beliefs.
- slg 5y ago
  Is Joe Rogan a scientist? I might listen if you link to a podcast episode in which Koonin debates other scientists. I'm not going to listen to this episode just to hear Koonin and his views go unchallenged by Joe Rogan.
janto 5y ago
I don't think that's a fair implication, but a "balanced take" means nothing to me on this topic. I want all sides to argue their position as hard as they can and then let me decide for myself.
harpersealtako 5y ago
I wouldn't personally call it "balanced" either (unless "balanced" counts anything between extreme climate change alarmism and extreme climate change denial). That said, I do think it's a valuable contrarian perspective, and if you haven't heard the steel-manned version of the climate change "skeptic" argument, it's absolutely worth listening to just to add some nuance to your existing views even if it doesn't necessarily change them. There are some really legitimate, strong criticisms that he raises in the episode that I personally plan on doing more research on. (also: he was Chief Scientist in BP with their alternative and renewable energy strategy)

by slg 5y ago

barbacoa 5y ago

>I'm not sure "former Chief Scientist for the BP petroleum company" is the person I would go to for "a balanced take" on climate change. The IPCC is funded and promoted by the UN because their conclusions align with the UN's agenda. It's very hard to distinguish the legitimate environmental concerns from political and ideological ulterior motivations.

slg 5y ago
Saying person A is biased does not imply that person B is not also biased. I was responding to a statement that said person A was balanced when they clearly have a bias.
- barbacoa 5y ago
  It's balanced because both sides have agendas.

president 5y ago

Why not let scientists challenge his arguments then?

jeromegv 5y ago
Joe Rogan isn’t exactly known to bring people that will really be challenging him. Often aligns right with his false beliefs.
slg 5y ago
Is Joe Rogan a scientist? I might listen if you link to a podcast episode in which Koonin debates other scientists. I'm not going to listen to this episode just to hear Koonin and his views go unchallenged by Joe Rogan.

janto 5y ago

I don't think that's a fair implication, but a "balanced take" means nothing to me on this topic. I want all sides to argue their position as hard as they can and then let me decide for myself.

harpersealtako 5y ago

I wouldn't personally call it "balanced" either (unless "balanced" counts anything between extreme climate change alarmism and extreme climate change denial). That said, I do think it's a valuable contrarian perspective, and if you haven't heard the steel-manned version of the climate change "skeptic" argument, it's absolutely worth listening to just to add some nuance to your existing views even if it doesn't necessarily change them. There are some really legitimate, strong criticisms that he raises in the episode that I personally plan on doing more research on. (also: he was Chief Scientist in BP with their alternative and renewable energy strategy)