Episode 354 Scott Adams: Climate Change, AOC Sexism, Sonic Weapons, Syria and Open Borders
Date: 2018-12-29 | Duration: 33:26
Topics
AOC’s sexist tweet to her critic Sonic weapon used against two of our embassies? Mass hysteria, no weapon or culprit will ever be found Challenge: Find me somebody, anybody who wants open borders I’ve never met anyone who wants open borders, why? Kurds are concerned about US pullout and attack by Turkey Turks consider our Kurd allies to be terrorists Shouldn’t we know why? Nobody seems to report why Is the world safer today than it has ever been? Hyper-connectivity benefits the world, makes us safer Challenge: Provide a link to your BEST article on climate change I’ll tweet the best arguments for both sides Climate change arguments are very persuasive viewed alone “Climate change is a scam” arguments…also persuasive
I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com
> [!note] Rough Transcript
>
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.
## Transcript
[0:11]
oh hey everybody let's get in here it's time for a weekend version of coffee with Scott Adams I'm Scott Adams most of you are not but you probably have a manga stein a couple a glass of container it may have a beverage in it I like coffee and join me now for the simultaneous sip ready ready ready oh all right well we've got a few things to talk about today there was a tweet by aoc Alexandre Octavio no Alexandre okay zo Cortez whose name I will never master and she's talking about somebody who was
[1:12]
and she's talking about somebody who was saying something about her childhood upbringing so there's some conservative Twitter follower who says that she grew up in a nice neighborhood and went to a nice school which conflicts with her story that she piano hard childhood and so her response to the critic is this this is Alexander because you Cortez's tweet she says replying to the Republicans tweet she goes in which a Republican literally tries to mansplaining my own childhood and life to me she's got a few typos here and in true mansplaining form he's doing wrong with a great degree of confidence it begs the question is the GOP really sending us their best now here's the thing the tweet that she's referring to doesn't have any main mansplaining about it
[2:13]
it it's it's somebody who just has a different opinion what is the what is the how do you distinguish between someone who just has a different opinion about how you're about how you are presenting your story versus someone who's mansplaining what what's the difference between having an opinion that differs from yours and mansplaining she's taking this this criticism which I don't know if it's true or not true I don't really have an opinion of whether the criticism is accurate or not and I'm not sure I care you know it doesn't seem terribly important to me but she turned it into a sexist thing so she became the thing that she hates so if sexism is something you hate you're not gonna like this because this is pure anti male behavior and here's
[3:16]
is pure anti male behavior and here's the amazing thing she's totally gonna get a pass for this when it is some of the worst behavior you'll ever see in public can you imagine somebody else and I don't like to do the I don't like to do the imagine you're a Republican thing but can you think of any other context in which it would be okay to criticize somebody just for their gender because that's all this is she's criticizing him for his gender because there's nothing that's mansplaining you about what he's saying she just doesn't like it how in the world would a let's say for example african-american male vote Democrat they've clearly thrown men under the bus in that party and and certainly a black man well you know what it what kind of policies are the Democrats promoting
[4:17]
policies are the Democrats promoting there would be good for black men in this country I don't know what they're offering so that's enough on that so somebody on Twitter tweeted to me and says Scott do you still believe that the Cuban sonic weapon was a case of mass hysteria which was my initial my initial prediction I guess you'd call it now that doctors have confirmed doctors have confirmed that there and I think one other embassy maybe Canada that there is some actual damage to brains and actual health problems now Scott now do you believe that it's a real weapon to which I say no it's more obvious than ever that it's mass hysteria let's talk about how you could tell a mass hysteria from a real thing now keep in mind that if they discover a
[5:21]
now keep in mind that if they discover a weapon well then I'll just be wrong so keep in mind that I'm aware that the majority are all saying one thing and then I'm very conspicuously going against the majority of all the experts so if I'm wrong is should this should be quite evident here's what you would expect with a mass hysteria you would never find the person behind it and you would never find the weapon now you might say to yourself okay but that doesn't prove anything because there are such things as crimes which are unsolved unsolved crimes are not that unusual are they well I would argue that unsolved crimes approach zero when you have this many resources and it's in an area that's full of you know video cameras and you have the entire resources the United States every every
[6:23]
resources the United States every every possible resource you could have looking for this weapon and now it's alleged to have appeared in two different places well maybe it would be hard to find it in Cuba but isn't Canada the other place in Canada surely they have similar situation of video cameras everywhere and you can find DNA and you can track people and so here's the thing my prediction is that there will never be a weapon or a specific person identified as the perpetrator okay so the the theory that it's a mass Asteria says you'll never find the shooter because there is no shooter so so far I'm right because how many crimes of this level you know of this level importance where the entire government is putting all of its resources into it how often does a crime like that not get
[7:25]
how often does a crime like that not get solved pretty much every time it gets solved doesn't it now we haven't waited long enough perhaps maybe give it another year but if five years from now we still haven't found this sonic weapon which theory looks better to you now keep in mind there is no motive so if you had a crime that had no motive including insanity right because whoever would whoever would be capable of having a sonic weapon probably is not insane in some classic way likewise if somebody is insane in the classic way they might want to you know just kill a bunch of civilians or something you said it would be a weird weird crime for an insane person to do so there's that there's no motive because who really wants the United States yeah you know the who
[8:26]
United States yeah you know the who wants the political people from different countries to be injured even the host country doesn't want that do you know who didn't need do you know who didn't want Americans to be injured in a Cuban based embassy nobody wanted them to be safer than the Cubans the Cubans do not this problem there's nothing good in this for Cuba who else would want to do it well I don't know I can't think of anybody can you think of anybody who would want to do this crime I can't now if it was let's say it was a clever terrorist attack wouldn't we see a lot more of these because whoever it is has this great weapon that apparently you can use that will and and nobody nobody ever gets caught so some people are saying China but to what purpose they'd have to have a reason can you imagine China getting caught attacking
[9:30]
imagine China getting caught attacking our ambassadors in an embassy can you imagine that I don't think China would do so now the people now the real argument here is that the doctors have found lots of real problems so here's the question have we done any kind of a controlled test with these same doctors who have analyzed the the people who say they're afflicted because if you took I'll just say hypothetically suppose you took a hundred normal people who did not have any kind of association with these embassies and you told the doctors that they might have been affected by a sonic weapon that might have affected their brains what would those doctors find when they analyzed their brains I'm pretty sure the doctors if they thought they were looking for brain problems would find them somebody's saying next topic please I'm gonna block you so
[10:37]
topic please I'm gonna block you so anyway so I'm gonna triple down on my prediction that that's a mass hysteria I also have a challenge I have a challenge to find I have a challenge to find me somebody who really wants open borders now I don't doubt that there's somebody in the world who actually wants real open borders but I think that it's a mass hysteria meaning that I don't really think there are actual serious people who want an open border because it would be really weird that I've never met one and I can't identify one and I can't put a name to anybody and yet it seems the entire Republican Party believes that this is a wildly popular notion why can't I find one person to
[11:39]
notion why can't I find one person to say that to me in person to say yes I like open borders I would like to get rid of all the borders get be one person just one person who's an American you know not somebody from another country but one ordinary American voter who wants open borders you know you're gonna name people like AOC they don't want open borders that's crazy but and here's the test it doesn't count if you're just pointing to somebody else I want to talk to that person so if you would like to if if you can find one of these people see if you can get them on my app on the interface by one hub app and right after right after I'm done I'll check and I'll see if there's an open borders advocate and if there is I'll called I'll talk to them in person and I'll find out if there's any serious person who believes in open borders my
[12:40]
who believes in open borders my challenge is I don't believe it exists and look how easy it would be to prove me wrong just one person well I I need to talk to them myself I'm gonna say that's my test but just one person and then I'll believe there is such a thing as people who want open borders watch this not happen there's a lot of news this week about the tragic shooting of a police officer by in illegal illegal alien I guess who is a gang member I prefer not talking about the anecdotes so as useful as these stories in are for selling selling various political purposes I've talked to Nick Gillespie somebody just said Nick Gillespie I don't think that he would say what you think he's gonna say you know I I've spent time with him personally so I
[13:42]
I've spent time with him personally so I don't think you're characterizing his view right because I think his view is more hypothetical than practical like in a perfect world we'd have open borders I don't think he says that it's a practical thing but we could check we could test that so the reason I avoid the anecdotal news is that it's nothing but persuasion so it is very persuasive to show a real live person well a real disease person I guess who is the victim of a tragedies if you're just trying to persuade it works really well but if you're trying to present the news it's worse than worthless because it it biases you to think that there's more of a danger than there really is now the danger is real but it makes you think it's even bigger than it is when you focus on the anecdotes so that's why I don't do it so a lot of people will ask
[14:44]
don't do it so a lot of people will ask hey why don't you talk about that policeman who got murdered or that young woman who was killed and I avoid those stories intentionally because they are nothing about persuasion and I don't need to amplify them all right story about the curves so the Kurds who fought with us against Isis in Syria our concern because we've announced that we're gonna pull out our troops and that would leave them exposed to a presumed attack by Turkey who considers the Kurds terrorists now here's the first thing that's missing in the reporting I've seen check me on this I've seen many news stories which say that the Turks consider the Kurds who fought with us to be terrorists what I haven't seen why why is it that the Turks regarded those particular Kurds to
[15:47]
Turks regarded those particular Kurds to be terrorists against Turkey are they because I'd like to see why they think that shouldn't it matter to us that our allies have labeled somebody a terrorist now I get that they fought on our side and I get that madness probably made them certain guarantees of safety and we should take that all very seriously but shouldn't we also take seriously if one of our military allies has labeled a group a terrorist group now that might be unfair and we might not want them to label them that but can't we see some examples can we not see why turkey is labeling them that isn't that missing from all the stories as any has anybody seen has anybody seen an explanation of why Turkey would have such a you know such a death wish against people in another country and is
[16:49]
against people in another country and is it because they're allies of Kurdistan and what has Kurtis Tim done to Turkey now I'm biased in favor of the Kurds because they've been good allies of us for us for a while there right so I'm biased in favor of them but isn't the isn't the news lacking isn't there something that's just missing in this so that's my first observation that the story is incomplete that said it appears that the Kurds started negotiating with the Syrian government to come in with their forces and present some somewhat of a defense in case Turkey was of attacking turkey would be far less likely to attack the actual government of Syria their forces especially with the Russian backing so the question is with the Kurds be safe under this situation or would they just be
[17:52]
situation or would they just be victimized by the Syrian government eventually you know once we lose interest well the Syrian government try to round them up and kill their leaders 'we don't know so there's a lot we don't know over there it's sort of hard to have an opinion about what's happening on the ground and in men be that's the name of the town man bein Syria so I think any opinion that we have about that area has to be temporary because there's probably a lot we don't know about the situation but here's the question I asked you if I had said to you five years ago just imagine here's the mental experiment we'll go back five years in time and I say to you hey the the government of Syria is going to control a town in Syria that's a big problem isn't it I
[18:52]
Syria that's a big problem isn't it I would say what why would it be a problem if the legal government of Syria has control over something that's the legal property of the country of Syria how does that make me less safe because it seems like Syria does own Syria why would it make sense that they wouldn't own their own country now we know of course the reasons that things are the way they are but why is it that why is it that it feels so dangerous to us when if we'd gone back five years and just said of course Syria controls that territory it's Syria that wouldn't have sounded so dangerous what it isn't somebody say you are so done without any reasons we'll get rid of you now and by
[19:53]
reasons we'll get rid of you now and by the way for those of you who might be do I'm always open for a different opinion but the people who come in like Dale and say you're so dumb you're so dumb I don't need reasons we don't really need you so if you have reasons I would love them because my entire point is that my entire point here is that we don't know what's going on over there we could use more information but on the surface of it it's hard for me to see it's hard for me to see oh boo is behind me I thought you were I thought people were mad at me because everybody started saying boo yeah like Oh am i doing something wrong and everybody's booing me but it turns out you're talking about my cat who his name is boo behind me so I don't know what to think of the whole Syrian
[20:54]
what to think of the whole Syrian situation but it does look like the Kurds have more than one way to get safe and we hope that they succeed there's a little debate online I'm having I'm not sure I call it a debate but there's a question about whether the world is safer or less safe today than it has ever been now clearly it's safer in terms of let's say eating because the poverty rate went from like 40 percent desperately poor during the Reagan administration to something like 9% desperately poor now and it seems like the desperately poor number will will shrink to zero when in a decade or two so that's all good but there I made the argument that because of our extreme connectivity connectivity meaning that all the countries have you know Communications as well as travel as well
[21:56]
Communications as well as travel as well as commerce that those connections will keep us safe and other people say no no it's that hyper connectivity that actually creates more systemic ripple effect kind of risks that you know if there's a problem in one place that affects a replace or something like that or somehow it Cascades some kind of cascading problem but I gotta say it sounds like professorial little masturbation to me and one of the arguments is that oh this is what we said before world war one and it's the same thing we said before world war two and it wasn't true then so it's not true now here's what's wrong with that and I will use an analogy to make my points let's say you wanted to drive let's say I wanted to drive to Tahoe from my house and I put half a tank of
[22:57]
from my house and I put half a tank of gas in my car and I run out of gas halfway to Tahoe should I conclude therefore that there's no way to get to Tahoe by putting gas in the car because I put a half a tank of gas in my car and I only got half way there therefore should I conclude there's no way to get to Tahoe no I should conclude that it depends how much gas you put in your car likewise when people say well history repeats and if if we had connectivity in World War one and that didn't stop World War one and we had a connected world in a world war two and that didn't stop World War two therefore it's dumb to think that it would ever stop it today well I would say world war one was about a quarter tank of gas World War two was maybe half a tank of gas in terms of how can I did we are and now we're closer to a
[23:59]
did we are and now we're closer to a full tank of gas at some point the level of connectivity just makes it a different thing you know you you can't generalize from having a little bit of connectivity that having a lot of connectivity is exactly the same that is bad thinking and that's the argument I seem to be hearing from people but and as I'll say for the billionth time because I know I need to say it over and over again analogies are great for explaining a new idea a concept the way I just used them but analogies are not good as reasons in themselves so they're not persuasive as reasons all right I just tweeted right before I got on periscope I tweeted a challenge and it goes like this I challenge people on Twitter to provide to me in the comments the best link to an argument in favor of
[25:00]
the best link to an argument in favor of climate change alarm in other words I wanted to see a link to the one best argument that makes the case most convincingly the co2 that humans are creating is warming the planet at an alarming and dangerous rate you might be wondering why am I asking for this link because I'm going to do what I think no one has ever done before or at least I've never seen it and I've been looking I have in my possession the most persuasive climate skepticism link I've ever seen and I'll present it to you when I get the the other side first but I want the best argument in favor of climate change and when I have it I'm going to tweet it and the same tweet with the best argument this says it's bogus have you ever seen that have you
[26:02]
bogus have you ever seen that have you ever seen the two best arguments in the same place no you haven't you've never seen them now I keep arguing that why can't we see the the two experts on the same stage and it turns out that the reason seems to be that either nobody wants to host it or the the Pro climate scientists people say I don't want to be on the same stage because I would be legitimizing the other side and maybe yeah Tony Heller is exactly who I'm going to tweet I saw extended presentation of his yesterday and let me tell you this if you only see the climate scientists point of view if that's all you see it is really persuasive if you didn't view by itself it is completely persuasive if you see Tony Heller's
[27:04]
persuasive if you see Tony Heller's presentation of his claims of what is bogus in climate science if you watch that you will be completely persuaded that it's a hoax so those two there's two different sides are completely persuasive viewed alone so I'm gonna do what nobody apparently has ever done I'm gonna put them in the same tweet and I'm gonna I'm gonna challenge the world to read both of them I'm gonna say spend ten minutes looking at this side and the best argument and then 10 minutes looking at the best argument on the other side and I've done that right so I've I have spent time looking at the Pro and the con arguments and I'm going to tell you the the argument that climate change is is literally a hoax well hoax is the wrong word literally a scam let's say in other words that
[28:06]
scam let's say in other words that people are doing illegitimate things to get this result the argument that that's true is really persuasive now I want to be really careful because I'll be taken out of context here when I say something is persuasive that does not mean it's true all right there's a difference something can be really persuasive and just be complete BS and I wouldn't know the difference but here's the interesting part if you put the two arguments side by side my my prediction is that anyone who reads the two arguments side by side will become a skeptic and I don't think that I know anybody who believes in climate science who has ever looked at the good argument by a skeptic because there are lots of different skeptics right so some of the skeptics say oh
[29:08]
right so some of the skeptics say oh it's all solar activity they are not credible so if you compare these solar activity people to the regular climate scientists the climate scientists win again I'm not saying what's true I'm only saying what's more persuasive so the people saying it's all solar activity are not persuasive they could be right I would have no way of knowing but they're not persuasive the people who say that co2 is good in any amount and that it doesn't matter how much we have it's a it's a trace gas etc well not the trace gas people but the people who say that any amount of it is gonna be better they're not really credible because it seems as some point there should be a problem I don't know what that point is it might be a hundred times more than we're forecasting but at some point you're gonna have too much aren't you
[30:08]
gonna have too much aren't you until I hear that argument the the side that says more co2 is just fine it's not credible it's like an incomplete argument but the are the arguments that is most persuasive is showing historical records that the temperature that you to be reported by NASA used to be different than what they're reporting now and that case looks pretty solid now what's interesting is the case the best skeptic and I think Tony Heller is the name of the gentleman is an engineer by training so the best skeptic is not a scientist using an engineer by training now you might say to yourself hey that's no fair because an engineer is not a scientist how can the scientist evaluate scientific claims and the answer is he's not he's not he's not evaluating any scientific claims he's just looking at the information that the scientists
[31:09]
the information that the scientists themselves have presented so he doesn't do anything except use the public information and he shows you the public information and you look at it he go okay you didn't make up any of that that is from the actual NASA records it's from the news stories from NASA it's from you know sources that he shows you he explains every source so you could check it yourself it is really really persuasive is it true don't know that's why I'd like to put the two arguments together so I'm hoping both of them will be video links because I just make it equal because one of them is a video link so I'd like both of them to be video links because there might be a difference between video persuasion and text persuasion did you share that video link on Twitter now I'm gonna wait until
[32:09]
link on Twitter now I'm gonna wait until I get a link from both sides Scott you losing me on this one you can give a reason tell me what you tell me what your problem is was my dad an engineer know he was a postal employee
the first principles I don't know what that is in this case what's the dumbest experiment in history according to Yale on musk I guess I don't know what that means all right I did not watch Ukraine on
[33:11]
all right I did not watch Ukraine on fire read Michael Crichton's I've read Michael Crichton's stuff alright I will talk to you all later