Episode 359 Scott Adams: AOC, AGW, TDS, Ye, and Coffee

Date: 2019-01-02 | Duration: 54:16

Topics

Kanye tweets and his upcoming Joe Rogan podcast Elizabeth Warren and Beto attempt to imitate AOC’s live stream Warren cracks a beer, Beto in his V-neck sweater Why so many climate change temperature adjustments? Believers Berkley Earth offer their explanation “Estimating” temperature adjustments is allowed? Climate change Bloomberg article, convincingly debunked Comparing Green Tech and Nuclear Power options Bill Gates vision of a new type of nuclear power plant…in China Can’t be built in US, endless regulations and roadblocks A hosted conversation with me as the referee, NOT a debate Both sides required to answer strong points of other side Climate change risk management (Whiteboard) Expected Value calculation Portfolio Effect Opportunity Costs and timing considerations The Hill article reads like mental illness, not a political opinion Doctors and Psychologists say TDS is a real thing People with a mental illness are writing articles How can TDS be stopped or cured? All the common complaints about President Trump… …individually, they’re all small complaints Prediction: POTUS will swing for the fence in 2019 US debt, could it be resolved by cryptocurrency? Why do people want US dollars? Crypto accepted by US government would have value

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

[0:04]

boom-boom-boom-boom hey everybody I know some of you come just for the humming this would be the humming portion of my presentation pom pom pom I'm not even sure if that's humming that's more like making a noise there's no name from what I do um pom pom hey norm those of you getting your coffee's still getting dressed commuting to work taking a run on the beach you know who you are Joel good morning it's time for coffee with Scott Adams and you're in time to catch it live yes it's time for the simultaneous sip grab your mug your tankard your Stein your chalice your glass your cup your container fill it with your favorite beverage I like coffee and join me for the simultaneous end well for a time

[1:07]

the simultaneous end well for a time with not much news happening there sure is a lot of news happening so let me let me get to all the important news fast there's some news about Trump and Romney getting after each other here's my analysis of that
Romney don't even care I can't I can't get interested in Mitt Romney can you I've never seen a human being who can suck energy and of the environment it's like you could put him into a black hole and he would just make it vanish like all the energy I'm sure that doesn't make any sense in a physics perspective but you know what I mean I'm just saying Mitt Romney is the most boring person in all of politics let's talk about people who are way more interesting way more interesting than Mitt Romney did you see Kanye's tweets

[2:07]

Mitt Romney did you see Kanye's tweets from yesterday they were pretty good so Kanye is back and he's tweeting that he's gonna be wearing his Maggie hat he's Trump all day long that was one one of his tweets was just Trump all day long and the most provocative one he said and this is this is Kanye's tweet not my words he said blacks are 90% Democrats sounds like control to me just what do you think he's done with politics and done with Trump he comes out with the most provocative statements yet so here's the funny thing about that so yesterday Christina and I are taking down Christmas decorations and lights and we had we had a lot of them so we worked for several hours in the afternoon taking their lights and packing things up and while I was

[3:08]

packing things up and while I was working and ignoring the news it turns out I was one of the biggest news stories in the country completely completely outside of my awareness so because Kanye made the news he was covered in the the Washington Post and when he talks about this topic the news brings me in and they bring Candace Owens into the story because there's there's a history of Kanye retweeted some of my periscopes and of course he's retweeted good things about Candace so while I'm taking down my Christmas decorations one of the biggest stories in the country is about me I mean it was about Kanye but I was a big part of the story it's just a weird hasn't there's no point to that it's just a weird experience for me how serious is he I think he also said I think he also tweeted 20-24 like he's running and then the other news apparently he and sorry

[4:14]

the other news apparently he and sorry he and Joe Rogan are getting ready to do a podcast which I think we could predict that if Joe Rogan does a podcast with Kanye it might be the highest-rated podcast of all time it might be because can you even imagine not watching it you know if I told you hey Joe Rogan has a podcast with Kanye are you interested hell yes you're interested you're gonna watch that podcast so that's coming up right I don't think they have a time for that yet but oh my god that's gonna be fun to watch I think I will watch it every second of that you saw the I think you saw that Elizabeth Warren and baito O'Rourke and I think kirsten gillibrand all have copied a OCS technique of doing

[5:15]

all have copied a OCS technique of doing a live stream from their kitchen but they didn't all do it right that's the funny part so the more we watch a o'seas persuasion game the more fun it is now I know I know she may not have the politics you like I'm not supporting any of her politics I'm just saying that she's got the persuasion game because she's made three of the most important Democrats absolutely just imitator that is a sign of persuasion if you can make your competitors and their kind of competitors imitate you you're doing something right now here's what elizabeth warren did wrong apparently she was going for the folksy just like the middle class i'm just like you i think i'll crack open a beer now I don't doubt that maybe she sometimes has a beer I mean I don't think it's necessarily you know lacks any kind of

[6:18]

necessarily you know lacks any kind of genuineness but I don't think that's what the leader of future leader of the country or a wannabe leader of the country you should be leading with if you're trying to be a role model and the thing you're running against is the bad role model of President Trump do you want to lead by drinking poison in public alcohol any level is just not good for you why why that just light up a cigarette you know we talk a lot about character and you know whether President Trump is the right role model in character for a president well I don't think you can say enough for the fact that he doesn't drink alcohol it never has and that he does it for the right reasons I think that's a big big big

[7:19]

reasons I think that's a big big big deal and I think that drinking a beer when you're running for president drinking a beer on camera you know what you do in your own time is your own time but as in terms of the message that you're sending about who you are and what's okay to do that is the wrongness message I could ever imagine associating yourself with beer and I get that maybe it makes her more relatable to some people but it feels like a mistake to me feels like a persuasion mistake then my favorite was a beta or orc now now he was a little less genuine coming from the kitchen and he was wearing his v-neck sweater you know some of you have been watching me for a while know that I often make fun of men and v-neck sweaters and here's why a v-neck sweater is usually not every time but usually something

[8:22]

not every time but usually something your wife dressed you in or your girlfriend men typically if if men are single they don't buy a lot of v-neck sweaters it's it's just one of those things I noticed a long time ago that whenever I got into a relationship sooner or later my girlfriend or wife would buy me a v-neck sweater it was sort of like something you do to you know sort of brand your man as domesticated so I have a rule against v-neck sweaters I like me that t-shirt v-neck t-shirts still okay because your girlfriend your wife doesn't buy you a v-neck t-shirt at least not with the intention of you know managing your look so beta O'Rourke has no chance of winning the nomination because he's an adult white male and they're not really very popular in the Democrat Party as

[9:24]

very popular in the Democrat Party as Kanye pointed out with his tweet yesterday the Democrats are no place for a black man I think I think the Democrats still have a strong case for black women so if a black woman votes Democrat I would say that makes sense yeah Democrats our offering you know clearly a bias toward the female centric types of topics so if black women vote for Democrats I would say they've done their homework and their voting their self-interest and that makes sense if black men vote Democrat I have to wonder if they've done the research because I think I think that's the group that isn't being served by the Democrats and they should at least look into the alternatives which is what Kanye is saying and by the way one of the things that makes Kayne special is that he's identified the most important source of

[10:27]

identified the most important source of power as long as the black voters always black always vote in the same direction they don't have any power all they're doing is there's an automatic vote the moment their vote is in play both sides have to compete right now they don't have to compete there's no point in competing so Kanye is a correctly identified a source of power that's being left you know just abandoned and there's no reason for it alright let's talk about temperature adjustments I tweeted just moments before I came on here I tweeted an article written by some people who seem to be very knowledgeable it's Berkeley Earth is the organization and the author of the article was personally involved with climate change temperature management stuff and so one of the questions you often hear from the

[11:28]

of the questions you often hear from the skeptics about climate change is that the the history of temperature has been adjusted and those adjustments tend to be all in the direction that makes it look like it's getting warmer at a higher rate and why is it that the adjustments are never in the other direction ask the skeptics now I don't know a first of all that they're always in one direction that's what the skeptics claim that's not my claim so I thought well this would be interesting to see a scientist acts to explain their side you know somebody who's Pro climate change in the sense that they're with the majority and they actually have worked in the field what would they say to defend about all these adjustments so here's the first thing you need to know about temperature adjustments there have been a lot of them right so it's not a few temperatures you're they're not not just a few stations it's it's a main theme of

[12:31]

a few stations it's it's a main theme of the temperature history is adjustments so adjustments are normal common a lot of it is happening so it's not it's not a minor point so if the adjustments are wrong then all of climate change predictions are wrong if the adjustments are accurate meaning that their estimates come in pretty close to reality then it's very important because it would indicate that the earth is warming at a higher rate according to the majority of scientists and so we should know that right so I I dig into this article and you should too by the way it's one of the most illuminating things you'll ever see on the topic and I tweeted it so you can find it in my Twitter feed and I just weave in it so it'll be towards the top so what they talking about is the reasons for why they have to make estimates and some of the reasons are this in some cases they

[13:33]

the reasons are this in some cases they moved measuring devices and it turns out in a lot of cases there are quite a few cases where they had the measuring instrument in one place but for various reasons they had to move it to some other place and then they had to do a manual adjustment to correct for the fact that the location was different they also changed the devices so the type of measuring device you know there's the old type and the modern type you know in in just simplifying this and there are cases where the old one was replaced with the new one and then again they had to make some adjustments to correct for that and then of course there are you know the concrete urban island effect right the fact that if your measuring device is somewhere in the woods and then over time a city is built around you this is the oversimplified version then the the heat from the city itself and the concrete would influence your measurements so

[14:34]

would influence your measurements so even though the world didn't necessarily get warmer except on that little island it might over represent the the warming so you have all these good reasons why the the past day that had to be adjusted if you dig into what method they used to adjust it and you start reading like you know how they've done it it's a judgment that's it so so you probably thought that the climate temperature data that everyone is using the skeptics are using it that yeah the the climate scientists are using it you probably thought that's a pretty close estimate of what the actual temperature was but once you learn how it was done

[15:34]

learn how it was done it's completely unreliable and this is and keep in mind here's the important point I'm reading a pro Climate Change opinion of why the estimates are reasonable estimates and when I'm reading that it is so not persuasive that these are good estimates if you've lived in the real world and you read how they actually make these estimates you cannot believe that these are real numbers anymore from and and again I'm not I'm not reading the skeptics I'm reading the climate scientists themselves or somebody who was involved in it hold on a second and
it completely changed my opinion of these adjustments because if you've lived in the real world and you've ever adjusted numbers as I have I've done lots of financial projections in my prior careers and if you're estimating

[16:34]

prior careers and if you're estimating temperature you're not doing science you they've created that because estimates are allowed in that in the data Corrections the fact that they're allowed at all and that's very complicated and there's lots of personal incentive to get a certain answer the credibility of the temperature data it's close to zero I actually thought it before I read this article defending the data I thought probably it was pretty good but when you read you read it it's like oh my god you have to read it yourself I can't I'm not going to describe it just read it yourself and if you're over I'm gonna make a prediction if you're under 30 and you don't have much real-world let's say business experience you might read this article and say that seems reasonable scientists made estimates they probably make estimates

[17:36]

estimates they probably make estimates all the time they know what they did it's peer-reviewed it's probably pretty good if you're over 30 and the more over 30 the better and you have experience with big companies and how numbers are estimated and and how people make projections and how the human the human brain works and how big organizations work if you have that level of experience and you read this article about how how how temperature is estimated in the past you will not believe in climate science anymore I don't believe anybody with a real-world experience can read how this is done and they wouldn't believe that is even a little bit credible now this is a big problem because as I've said before I'm still on the fence about a firm opinion about climate change I I think I agree with the vast majority of

[18:37]

think I agree with the vast majority of both skeptics and scientists and the fact that the world is probably getting warmer I think they can figure that out you know there must be enough different sources that they can figure that out and that co2 has as a role I just don't know how big it is so you really have to read that article all right some other things are related to that I I had pinned to my Twitter feed a challenge for links that are two of them are Pro climate change being a problem and two of them are from skeptics and the challenge was to read both sides and decide who you thought was credible and I included a Bloomberg article there because Ansem graphs showing you how well co2 fits the temperature curve whereas other things like volcanoes and Sun activity and tilt of the earth do not according to NASA which is what Bloomberg was reporting and then I read

[19:38]

Bloomberg was reporting and then I read an article that I think I read just retweeted that this morning in which somebody who knew more than I do dug into the bloomberg reported numbers and completely debunk them and you know with an argument that I can't I can't judge independently but if you were to look at the Bloomberg numbers and then the last thing you looked at was the article debunking how they calculated it the D bunker is way more credible doesn't mean it's true right when I talk about credibility today or any other day credibility is not about what is true credibility is when you hear it and consume it do you believe it the critics again and this is the thing that's been bothering me the most this is the most important problem in the world say the people who are on the side that it's a problem if it's the most important problem in the world and in fact Bernie

[20:40]

problem in the world and in fact Bernie Sanders tweeted I think yesterday that we should treat climate change like a world war like that's how much of a problem it is that's so much resources and attention we should give it if it's that big of a problem why is it that the people who say it's not a problem are so much more convincing which again does not mean they're it's true let's talk a little bit more about this I was talking well I was communicating yesterday with a very smart person who invests in green tech and I won't tell you it is but some it's a name you would have heard of so somebody who really knows investing and really knows really knows that the world works so a very smart knowledgeable high-end you know top-level investor type person who said to me that green tech has more

[21:44]

who said to me that green tech has more promise economically and even in terms of timing than nuclear power it creates more jobs and it gets you to you know a greener stable place than even nuclear power now the reason of course is that nuclear power plants take so long and they're real cost I think is underestimated is the argument so that the the benefits of green tech are may be underestimated and look real good for taking over the majority of stuff but nuclear is overrated too expensive could take decades to complete and in the meantime if you would really put a focus on green technology you could have you know you'd have this big safe green technology industry before you could have your first new nuclear power plant is that true don't know how would I know okay google it but I'm not sure I would know I would believe what I'm seeing now

[22:45]

I would believe what I'm seeing now let's compare that so that's one very knowledgeable very successful person who has invested personally large amounts in the green technology which also means he's biased now that bias may have happened before the investment but you can certainly say that after somebody's invested in an area if they say that area is good after they put their money in it you unfortunately have to discount the opinion because there's too much money behind the opinion all right so it might have been a clean opinion before he invested like that was just he looked at all the data it was the best thing to do put his money into it but unfortunately you and I are looking at it after the fact so the investments been made so I go hmm I want to believe this it makes sense I don't see a particular hole in it because I don't have the knowledge to find any holes in anything like that but

[23:46]

find any holes in anything like that but you have to discount it too because there's money involved now look at the other side bill gates this is another story from today Bill Gates wanted to build a new type of safer power plant using that our depleted uranium or something a new type of technology that's not like the old nuclear power plants but he was trying to build it in China because the regulations are too severe in the United States so China would have allowed him to use this technology the United States would have tied him up in regulations forever so they just couldn't get there from here so he wanted to do it in China but here's the problem the trade war ruined his idea because apparently he can't get it done in truck in China now because of the the trade tensions and he can't get it done in the United States because there are too many regulations and so I tweeted what a lucky situation at the

[24:48]

tweeted what a lucky situation at the very time that Bill Gates one of the smartest investors is saying that nuclear power is has a you know great potential which by the way is the opposite of what the other investor that I just talked about was says now Bill Gates is putting his money behind these nuclear plants so I've got two people who I would consider at the very top of being straight you know straight players like straight talking credible smart successful in various fields like really really top-level thinkers completely opposite opinions on nuclear but they've also put their money behind their opinions so if the opinion came first and then the money that maybe that means something different than they're talking about things they've already invested so that's a problem because they have money in it but it's also a positive thing because if they didn't put their own

[25:49]

because if they didn't put their own money behind their own opinions well maybe maybe you shouldn't take them as seriously but both so there there are serious people who have serious money on opposite bets one betting the green technology will always be better than nuclear at least in our planning horizon and the other that nuclear is the savior and we better get behind it now it turns out that President Trump is the most regulation cutting president of all time I think that's probably true don't you you know you can fact check me on this but probably we have the most regulation cutting president of all time at exactly the same time that Bill Gates who is no Republican Bill Gates is not a Republican I don't think he identifies with a party but if you have to assume it would lean more left a lot of things so he and Bill Gates suddenly have that

[26:51]

so he and Bill Gates suddenly have that opportunity to do something that no no nobody else could do yeah how long have you been hearing that it's too hard and too expensive to build a nuclear plant in the United States one because the technology and the risks but two because of the regulations all right we've been hearing that for decades right who are the two people in the world most capable of overcoming those obstacles as luck would have it President Trump the most costs are the most regulation cutting president of all time and Bill Gates the most effective smartest you know you know billionaire investor trying to help the world guy of all time right if those two can't get a nuclear power plant built when China just turned them down and the smartest thing we could ever do is take that project on in the United States if those two characters can't get that done that it

[27:53]

characters can't get that done that it just can't be done alright so if if President Trump and Bill Gates can't get a new type of nuclear reactor built a safer type that Bill Gates is promoting if they can't get that done then I would say that the green tech investor is absolutely right if those two guys can't get this done can't be done you know I shouldn't talk in absolutes but the odds of it getting done go way down somebody said Elon Musk yeah I'd love to know what Elon Musk's opinion on the new technologies for nuclear I'd love to hear his opinion on that but I don't know what it is now on the same topic there is a report that Lockheed has a new patent to build small-sized fusion reactors because they've got some kind of a special technology that they claim and apparently have patented that will control the reaction which is the hard part yeah no nuclear scientists but I guess

[28:54]

yeah no nuclear scientists but I guess the hard part is figuring out how to magnetically control you know contain the reaction and they say they have some novel way to do that now it's reported like they've already figured out everything they need for fusion and some skunk works and we're just finding out about it now and they could just go build this thing and plan to I think we have to be a little skeptical about anything you see on this topic because it's always being reported by reporters and reporters are not nuclear scientists and they tend to get a little optimistic about these stories so I'm gonna say I like that you know as being worked on by Lockheed I like that they have a patent and that they're enthusiastic about it well I don't know what the odds are that they could actually get it done all right I will really reiterate my claim I'm gonna make the most arrogant claim you've ever

[29:54]

the most arrogant claim you've ever heard you ready for it I've probably said plenty of arrogant sounding things on my periscopes and in my writings but I doubt you'll ever you'll be this will top them all this will be the most arrogant thing I've ever said climate change and the risk of it is one of the biggest problems in the world or not and you need to know the answer to that because you can put massive resources in one direction or the other and those those resources will be so massive and the risks are so big they you can argue it's the biggest thing we need to know in the world now the people who say it's not a problem wouldn't you like that to be proven wouldn't you like it to be proven that it's not a problem so that we can invest in all the smart ways that you would if it's not a problem so you'd like to know how big of a problem this is I contend that I'm literally the best

[30:59]

is I contend that I'm literally the best person in the world to get that answer so there's my most arrogant statement I'll ever make and it's only an accident of history and circumstance I'm in a very unique situation and here it is my specialty is explaining complicated things in simple ways all right so first of all nobody can help you if they can't do that you the best scientists in the world is useless to the political conversation if they can't simplify it and say it persuasively so I have that skill maybe as good as anybody's ever had it I'm literally for 30 years I take complicated I put them in simple sentences in cartoons and blogs and in in periscope it's what I do best so there's that secondly I'm in another unique situation and that I really don't have a firm

[32:02]

and that I really don't have a firm opinion about whether climate change is a big problem or not I'm honestly on the fence so how can you find many people who have spent as much time talking about it and looking at it who really don't have a firm opinion yet because you kind of need that right you need somebody who's not clearly in a camp now I've talked mostly about the skepticism and I've said that it's more persuasive but I'm always careful to say that being persuasive is completely different from being true all right and I know that which is important because somebody somebody who is trying to help you get to the answer needs to know the difference between something that's persuasive and looks exactly like confirmation bias and something that's true and I've offered my services for free to do it on camera if I could find some experts to do it with me and I've

[33:02]

some experts to do it with me and I've suggested that the best format for that would not be a debate but a hosted conversation in which I would act as a referee and I would say you say X what do you say critic critic says here's my answer and I cut them off I say no no you're not answering the question you got to answer the question and if you're not going to answer the question you don't get to talk anymore all right so you need a referee not a debate you know you need somebody to be questioning both sides so I offered to do that I don't think it can get done because I don't think you're going to put two people in the same room but I will make this claim until until the global warming people who were most concerned are willing to address the most powerful skeptical complaints don't expect the like to get on your side if your

[34:03]

like to get on your side if your approach to how to motivate people and how to add a politically persuade people to do the right thing as you see it for climate change if that involves avoiding the strongest arguments from the skeptics which which if looked at alone are more persuasive than the argument for climate change again doesn't mean the right completely different topic but they are more persuasive the skeptical argument the good ones are more persuasive now the skeptics also have lots of bad arguments I would say the worst arguments are that it's just the Sun causing it that's a bad argument you know the earth wobble volcanoes because they can kind of measure that stuff and and they can see that it doesn't fit the graph etc so there are a lot of bad arguments from the skeptics but the good arguments are really good they're really good doesn't mean it's true just means

[35:04]

good doesn't mean it's true just means they're more persuasive now let's talk about when I talk to people who are learned about climate change I'll make the skeptics argument they'll make the Pro Climate Change argument and you end up in sort of a tie because I'm not a scientist and whoever I'm talking to is usually not a scientist and you get the situation where you kind of can't change either each other's mind and there's make sense that you couldn't so often the climate alarmist types will default to the risk argument and the risk argument goes like this if there's even a 1% chance the climate change is a calamitous risk shouldn't you go hard at it so that's the argument yeah we can't tell for sure if it's a if it's a extinction event but if there's even a small chance that it can you know desam

[36:05]

small chance that it can you know desam not decimate but you know really taking out a big part of the earth you gotta cheat that seriously right here's my response to that and yes I'm gonna double white board you there's a big reveal on the back wait for it wait for it all right I'm trying to get the glare off here so here's the economists would call this way of thinking an expected value calculation and I'm going to show you what it is and I'm going to show you what's wrong with it when it's applied to climate change my opinion and by the way I could be wrong about this so if anybody wants to jump in and correct me I would welcome that so this is climate change risk management now here's the math that you have to understand and then I'll tell you what's wrong with it so the math of it is if you had a 1% chance of something costing a trillion dollars or it wouldn't matter if you're saying does it cost you a trillion or did it doesn't give you a

[37:05]

trillion or did it doesn't give you a trillion dollars of benefits the bath is the same so if you have 1% of a trillion it's worth 10 billion dollars if you had a 99% chance of making a billion it's really a billion because it's 99% chance which if you had these two choices and you had to pick one let's say it was an investment one of the investments would be a 99% chance of making a billion and the other one would be a 1% chance of making a trillion which would be worth 10 times as much as this on average which one do you make which way would you go if those were you two choices here's the trick if you only ever had one choice in the world there were no other things you ever had to do there were no opportunities missed there are no other decisions the smart person takes takes to the 99 percent chance of making a billion because Billy's a lot

[38:06]

making a billion because Billy's a lot of money it's probably all you need but suppose you were making a hundreds of choices over dozens of years if you had a portfolio of choices lots of different choices you might take the 1% chance of trillion because there are so many of them they you know one Anna tend to come in for it to be as good as this so if you have only one decision ever you probably want to take it it looks like okay but if you have a portfolio of decisions you want to use this logic because over time if you could be good at your your estimating the risk that is that's going to pay off now let's go to the back so let's apply this to climate change and see if it works problem is you've got a

[39:09]

see if it works problem is you've got a portfolio effect that I just described which is if it's only one decision you would take the ninety nine percent chance of getting a billion dollars but if you're making lots of decisions use the expected value calculation because over time you'll have enough winners to pay for the losers but you also have this issue of when to start because addressing climate change is not just a binary do everything you can right away or do nothing and that's the way we treat it but it's not like that because the other option that might make a lot of sense is to wait five years maybe wait 10 years and then your technology options will be far greater so if you started 10 years from now you might finish quicker you might get a better result because you saved your save your gunpowder so to speak kept it dry until you could really make a difference if we spend a trillion dollars today to battle climate change it might make a little difference but we don't really know how to make a big difference

[40:10]

to make a big difference 10 years from now we might have a better idea what's causing climate change in case that changes anything but we might also have new technologies there are technologies for scrubbing stuff and and at the atmosphere etc so when to start is not is not built into the the expected value case unless you explicitly do it then there's the opportunity costs we don't live in the world that has exactly one extinction risk you have all kinds of things that could take out mankind let's call it humanity because it sounds less less sexist all right we might have asteroids heading our way shouldn't we spend a trillion dollars to build asteroid direction changing missiles with nuclear tips so that we can identify them and shoot up a missile and maybe change their course so it doesn't destroy earth what are the odds that will be wiped out by a meteor is it

[41:13]

that will be wiped out by a meteor is it more or less than the chance of global global warming yes of war couldn't we spend way more money way more money in the military to reduce the chance of nuclear war even smaller so shouldn't you make the same argument if we're spending hard on climate change isn't it exactly the same argument for spending hard on the military because they both take your risk from well 1% chance will be destroyed too smaller what about the risk of cyber attacks couldn't we spend enormous amounts of money to take whatever risk we have which is pretty big down to a smaller risk because if the power goes out we're really screwed and that's the risk of cyberattacks what about a pandemic couldn't we prepare the world with huge investments so that if the next incurable pandemic comes up everybody has a process they all go into

[42:14]

everybody has a process they all go into their secret hidey holes to avoid exposure you know we've got a advanced process for figuring out the you know how to build a cure for it etc so if you have lots of risks that you can't quite judge how bad they are but they could all take you out and you have a limited amount of money you can't spend unlimited amount of money on a number of different things you just don't have the money so when you're saying so when you say of climate change yeah we don't know the exact risk but because the risk is you know close to like an extinction event it would be so devastating to the world if it's true don't we have to treat it like it's true and the answer is not if there are other things that are also the same level of risk and also could be minimized by using that exact same money because we don't have unlimited money all right so

[43:16]

don't have unlimited money all right so that's so those who say that risk management is a reason that you should go with the climate change alarmist even if you don't quite believe they're that credible I don't think that thinking holds up it only holds up in a in a very it holds up in a philosophical way but not in a real-world way all right there's an article in the hill switching topics in which they they described the the world's worst 20:19 and it's all Trump's fault I tried reading it put it read like mental illness and I can know when I read the you know the long articles from the Trump derangement syndrome folks I don't know if this is your experience but I used to read them as a political opinion and I used to read them as okay maybe I don't agree with everything here but it's an opinion it's just an opinion but

[44:18]

it's an opinion it's just an opinion but it doesn't look like an opinion anymore does it doesn't it look like mental illness too you know I'm no experts at diagnosing mental illness well I will tell you it sure looks that way it it just has all the tells for actual mental illness and I was reading an article just the other day in which a real doctor was saying that Trump derangement syndrome is really messing up people's mental health now here are the facts we know professionals meaning doctors therapists and psychologists are confirming they're confirming that there is a mass mental illness going on right I'm not wrong about that right you can fact check me it is true we've seen lots of articles and there's lots of data now to say that people are legitimately having mental illness because of the president Trump

[45:20]

because of the president Trump experience and we should take that seriously now if we've already confirmed from the experts that there is this mental illness going on what are we supposed to make of articles written by the people who have this mental illness apparently again I'm not a doctor but if you're reading an article that looks more like mental illness then it looks like an opinion at the same time that the experts are saying yeah this mental illness is real and there's a lot of it and it's affecting you massive amounts of people why would we assume that that's not affecting the people who are writing articles have you noticed if you notice that disconnect because the the anti-trump media is selling you to stories that are funny when viewed together the first story they're telling you is that President Trump is making people crazy like actually mentally ill

[46:22]

people crazy like actually mentally ill you know we hope it's short term but actually mentally ill and at the same time they're reporting that they're running articles by these people who are clearly mentally ill again that's my opinion has nobody noticed that they're that they're saying the experts agree there's a lot of mental illness around how people are seeing this presidency well let's run an article by one of the people who has the mental illness that's what the the hill article look like to me but I could be wrong I could be wrong all right uh how can TDS be stopped Oh interesting question and I'm glad you've asked if you're president Trump what is your best strategy given that you have infinite critics biting at your ankles so you're the president and there's a

[47:22]

so you're the president and there's a million little cuts they're trying to get you with this Cohen thing they're trying to get you in a little Russia get you with a little man afford get you with a little a little you're impulsive if you fire too many people what what do all of these complaints have in common there's there's a common thing about all of the complaints about the president the common complaint is or the common thing that they all have is that individually they're not that important there's just a lot of them right if you looked at any one of the things about President Trump that the critics are coming up with it's like hey collusion well not really and it wasn't a crime anyway so there are all these things that aren't quite a big problem but there's so many of them so what do you do if you're president Trump and your and your problem is not one problem not two problems now three but like a hundred of them but they're all small

[48:23]

hundred of them but they're all small the best strategy is not to do a solid good job that is not the best strategy he's capable of that he could just be a solid president but it wouldn't make the critics go away as we've seen his best bet is to swing for the fence and that's what I predict you will see in 2019 in 2019 you're going to see Trump take on some challenges that you didn't even think were take on Apple for example I think things with North Korea are gonna look really good in 2019 and it's and people even his critics are gonna say you know we doubted him but honestly I don't know if another personality could have gotten this done and it matters I think you could see him swing for the fence in the middle east and I would argue that that's already begun I think

[49:23]

argue that that's already begun I think he's looking for a bigger a bigger outcome in the than just you know a little improvement around the edges I think he's swinging for the fence in the Middle East when I mentioned the the Bill Gates situation with nuclear power and the fact that we have the only president who's famous for cutting regulations and the biggest obstacle is too many regulations President Trump could swing for the fence and just say I hear all you people complaining about climate change and you hear us saying that there's a lot of skepticism but we could probably all agree that clean safe nuclear energy in the United States could help everybody so he might swing for the fence on that he might swing for the fence on something like health care but I doubt it doesn't seem like it so I would look for him and of course if he

[50:24]

would look for him and of course if he is supposed to president Trump gets the trade deal done with China and it looks good because it's kind of going in that direction right it's sort of looking good so if this president gets a trade agreement with China that protects our IP at least better than it was and he gets peace with North Korea in 2019 and he worked something out with Putin that's let's say it's productive in the Middle East all that little stuff about the president is going to not amount to anything so the best strategy against your opposition having a million small complaints about you is to do some things that are so big you just stopped caring about the little stuff now here's an idea that I say from the end of my periscopes and I want to put this out here I think this is a terrible idea but I can't figure out why and I also

[51:24]

but I can't figure out why and I also don't have the details and the ideas like this if you imagine that the one of the biggest problems to the country and therefore the world because as the United States goes the rest of the world tends to go is our debt let's say you're including student debts purse that government debts etc but let's let's just look at student debt and government debt let's say you think those are the biggest problems in the world could you under any circumstances eliminate that debt by creating an official United States cryptocurrency
and I'm not sure exactly the details of this but the whole point of a cryptocurrency is that you create value and of nothing that's what bitcoin is bitcoin is not based on anything it just has value because people think they can spend it now here's the most interesting thing you'll ever hear about crypto or even currency the reason that money has

[52:25]

even currency the reason that money has value or let's say the reason the US dollar has value is in part because people want it but why do people want the US dollar one of the biggest reasons that the US dollar has value is that the US government will always accept it in payment for taxes there will always be taxes and the US government will will always think the US dollar in payment so as long as the US government guarantees that it will take it dollars dollars always have value suppose the US government said we're gonna wipe out debt by just creating a bunch of money we'll just create this crypto and we will accept this crypto as payment for some kinds of things let's say we'll accept it for student debt now I'm pretty sure this idea has gigantic holes in it but here here are the basic facts

[53:28]

in it but here here are the basic facts the US government could create a cryptocurrency that is solidly based on something that won't change which is the government will agree to accept it for paying your taxes if you do that you're not Bitcoin anymore and you're not a regular crypto you are something with strong backing couldn't you create something out of nothing and couldn't it be big enough to pay off student debt for example let's just say student debt let's say so anyway I think there's some way to do that but I'm pretty sure that I don't have the details right all right think about that and I will talk to you all later