Episode 362 Scott Adams: AOC Derangement Syndrome, Shutdown Persuasion, Wall Funding, and Karate

Date: 2019-01-05 | Duration: 45:59

Topics

Would-be kidnapper chases victim into karate studio Master Persuader AOC is using Trump’s 2015 play EXACTLY She’s controlling the conversation, attention, energy Wall negotiations, setting persuasion “anchors” Pelosi anchors at zero, down from older offer President Trump re-anchors at 5.6 billion, up from 5 Pelosi says “walls are immoral” Shouldn’t we therefore remove ALL border barriers? Building the wall by declaring a national emergency President Trump is branding himself as the reasonable one Some climate change claims are easily debunked Is the Michael Mann hockey stick graph accurate? Is Tony Heller wrong about temperature adjustments? Climate change believers say adjustments went both ways Tony says ALL adjustments went one direction Who is correct? Claim: Multiple ways to measure temps, and they ALL agree Skeptic says Michael Mann’s methodology is flawed Says any random data produces the SAME Mann graph Who is correct? Looking at various climate change claims… Decreasing ice at the poles and the world Rising sea levels around the world Water vapor as the main component of global warming It’s the sun, that’s what is causing climate change

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

[0:08]

hey it's weekend and it's always time for coffee with Scott Adams that's me and if you're here early it means that you will be in time for the simultaneous sip yes it's your lucky day I guess all the planets lined up this time and so if you're here and you're ready and you're prepared please raise your mug your cup your glass your container your tankered your Stein your chalice if you will fill it with your favorite liquids I like coffee and join me for the simultaneous
sip oh
oh yeah so it looks like I'm dressed up but I literally uh just put on a soft warm shirt because it was cold that's it this is like a really soft shirt all shirts should be made out

[1:10]

soft shirt all shirts should be made out out of whatever the hell this is made out of you should you should throw away all your shirts except whatever this is made of and I don't even know what it is so the the the most amusing story in the news if you saw it on the CNN's website is I'm not sure where it was but somewhere in the United States there was a woman who was uh accosted and almost kidnapped by a man in a parking lot the woman broke away from the wouldbe kidnapper kidnapper and ran into the closest yeah into the closest local store that was open which happened to be a karate training center the perpetrator chased her into the karate training center [Laughter] now the best part of this story is you don't have to wonder how it ended it's it's a it's a story where you

[2:11]

ended it's it's a it's a story where you hear the setup and you already know how the story went right so she chases this guy into a karate training center where uh as you might imagine the students are you know maybe not that capable yet but they did have an
instructor and the and apparently the instructor confronted the perpetrator and the only pictures we have of it are the perpetrator being taken out on a
gurnie best advertisement for a karate Center ever in fact uh when this karate instructor red red do his marketing he should just take the the one clip from the news of the perpetrator's feet all you can see is his feet sticking out under the under the gurnie as the the ambulance is taking him [Laughter]

[3:12]

[Laughter] away now apparently the police got into it too so we don't know exactly if the you know the real damage to this guy was done by the karate instructor or the police I assumed that he couldn't have fought with the police unless he was still on his feet enough to fight with with them after the karate instructor was done with them but uh it doesn't make it any less funny because this was a guy who did not know how to pick a fight he lost a fight with a woman a karate instructor and the police in one day all right uh the funniest thing that's happening on social media and in the
the news is an astonishing lack of awareness the kind that just makes your head go
sorry I'm laughing too hard here uh and it goes like this in 2015 do you remember uh people like me and uh Mike cernovich notably were

[4:15]

and uh Mike cernovich notably were saying things like this uh Trump candidate guy is a lot more powerful than you think and when he's making claims such as he's going to deport 14 million people or he's going to cut cut taxes and we'll make it up with our greatest greater uh income collection from from greater profits people like me were saying well none of that's real but could get them elected you just have to not take the extreme stuff too seriously because that's the stuff that gets moderated after you get elected and of course everybody told me I was crazy and told Mike cernovich he was crazy I'm sure and and then we got ourselves president Trump because it turns out that we had correctly identified his persuasion skills and that they are as powerful as you think fast forward to 2019 uh AOC is doing exactly the Trump Playbook

[5:16]

AOC is doing exactly the Trump Playbook she goes on 60 Minutes I think and says hey maybe we should have a 70% tax rate on the Super Rich heads explode hair on fire my God she must be stopped it's the craziest thing how impractical is that doesn't she know she can't do math it is exactly Trump 2015 it's his play it worked in 2015 it's working now if you go on social media and you say to me Scott how blind can you be you idiot her plans are bad she's she's just a a young person who has no understanding of the world she does doesn't know policies you are agreeing with me you think you're disagreeing but the more you argue with me the more you're agreeing my point is that she's making you do that if she makes you do that

[6:17]

you do that if she makes you do that that's my point the more you come after me to tell me I'm wrong the more I'm right that's how it works the more energy she creates in you the more I'm right if you come and yell at me five times and tell me that no she's not the real thing that proves I'm right if you come back to me and yell at me 10 times that I'm wrong that means I'm twice as right if you yell at me 20 times that I'm wrong about this I'm now four times as right as I was in the beginning every time you tell me I'm wrong you're proving me right cuz you can't stop talking better and that's the point she's all about the energy she's about the attention and if you're talking about her lack of understanding of how socialism works you are missing the show just like you you the other side missed it in 2015 so it is hilarious to watch the low

[7:19]

2015 so it is hilarious to watch the low level of awareness about exactly what she's doing and how it's affecting people and I don't exactly know how to react to it because I've never seen a case so clear where every time the CL critics complain they're just proving my case all right let's enough about that um so uh let's talk about negotiations to the wall so do you remember that uh it wasn't long ago the news was reporting that Pence said maybe offered that somewhere like 2.5 billion might be good enough if they could reach an
an agreement and then Nancy Peli was saying something like zero money zero money for the wall and the high number that we'd heard recently you the recent High had been 5 billion what did President Trump the master Persuader do in a situation in

[8:19]

master Persuader do in a situation in which the anchors had been co-opted the anchors in this case are the the mental number that people have in their head the number had started at around 5 billion but because other people were getting more attention Pence was getting attention at 25 Pelosi was getting attention at zero and and even the news was saying well maybe it could be 1.5 maybe it could be 1.8 what about three billion these are all bad anchors from the president's point of view because if people are thinking the smaller number then they're they're already thinking past the you know the 5 billion and they're they're thinking toward the low end so suddenly the President says the number is 5.6 billion instead of negotiating toward the middle he raised his first offer in the past two days what number have you

[9:19]

the past two days what number have you heard the most 5.6 he took their small numbers and wiped them off of your brain he re formatted the hard dis in your head and said no no no you got the wrong anchor in there we're going to put a we're going to put even a bigger number do you know why 5.6 is brilliant because there's something wrong with it that's what makes you remember it you know what's wrong with 5.6 why is it higher than five where the where the where in the world did 6 come from do you think there was somebody who did an analysis and came up with ah it's really five .6 these numbers are completely arbitrary the fact that he made it 5.6 instead of let's say an even six or an even seven is also part of the persuasion yeah you've seen this a million times right in your in your normal life if somebody comes to you and says I think it'll cost $10

[10:21]

says I think it'll cost $10 million do you think they've really done the numbers cuz 10 million is like a suspiciously round number but if somebody comes to you and says I think this is going to cost 9,753 th000 immediately you say to yourself oh well at least somebody has a spreadsheet you know they've they've worked the numbers it doesn't mean it's accurate but it means they've really worked on the numbers because they came down to this pretty specific number the president's the president's counter with an higher number that happens to be an you know a weird number it's not a round number know it's an even number but not a round number 5.6 it's wrong it's wrong in your head you immediately you immediately recognize it as moving in the wrong direction wait a minute wasn't that 5 billion supposed to get negotiated lower why is it why is it bigger so it's it's wrong that it sticks in your head it's wrong it sticks in your head

[11:22]

head it's wrong it sticks in your head because it's a little bit wrong it strikes you as something out the place so the president has cleverly gained the anchor so he's reanchored it at 5.6 which gives the other side room to negotiate down to five which is hilarious now you might say to yourself wait a minute Scott the fact that all of this is so obvious to everybody isn't it obvious what he's doing yeah it is it's also obvious what Pelosi is doing it's obvious what everybody's doing it still works that's sort of the magic of pers persuasion it doesn't matter that you know the technique and you recognize it being used against you it still works because persuasion is operating on a non-rational level uh and that's great now the President also has people debating the nature of the barrier will it be steel slats will it be concrete if they're talking about that they're

[12:22]

they're talking about that they're already thinking past the sale of some kind of a physical border so he's got that working for him so he's got two little persuasion advantages going uh so far now we've also got the um who wins when the government is closed I've heard some people say that most of the government employees are Democrats I don't know if that's important um because they're they're humans right the the the more important factor here is that they're human beings and they're Americans so I don't think it's terribly important that maybe more of the employees are Democrat than Republican cuz clearly there'll be enough Republicans in the mix that that's not the biggest Factor but take a look at their brands the Republican brand is let's have less government now this Clos down doesn't really get you less government because whenever it starts back up you'll be right back where you were and they'll be paid back back wages Etc so in any real

[13:26]

paid back back wages Etc so in any real sense there's nothing happening that would make the government government smaller but when you close the government and nobody notices I haven't noticed most of you haven't noticed um doesn't that play into the Republican brand a little bit better it's like we could just close this thing for a year if we want so the other thing that President Trump has said is that he's put the anchor at a year because when you were thinking about this closedown of the government weren't you thinking in terms of a day or two maybe a week could be two weeks that's probably what you were thinking about right cuz everybody's brain was sort of in that in that period the president just said how about a year I could take it for a year now I don't know if he can but I love the fact that from a negotiating perspective he said I can wait a year months year absolutely we could definitely do

[14:27]

definitely do that that Ely puts the Democrats at a slight disadvantage because their brand is being nice to people their brand is more government so the longer the shutdown goes the more it works against their brand of kindness and getting the government working and the more it works in favor of the Republicans who are more tough love and do we really need this much government anyway so that's good now the other important factor here is that Nancy py has uh I didn't think I wasn't sure she was going to double down on this but she has made one of the worst persuasion mistakes I've ever seen uh now I could be wrong about this so maybe this will play out differently than I expect but I'd be surprised so Nancy Pelosi has talked herself into an irrational Corner she said that walls

[15:27]

irrational Corner she said that walls are immoral now the first time she said it I thought to myself ah she's just testing that out and when it falls flat which I thought it did she's going to back off of that or she'll you know clarify it to mean something else but it turns out she doubled down and tripled down she's saying it clearly and publicly walls are
immoral now what happens when somebody asks her and it might take a while because the mainstream media is you know more on her side than not but what happens when somebody asks her in an interview can you clarify this opinion that walls on the border are immoral because we have lots of fence on the border do you suggest that we take down the borders that we have because it wouldn't be expensive all you wouldn't even have to take down the whole fence right you just walk to the border and

[16:28]

right you just walk to the border and you you know snip a hole in it and you move this fence which by Nancy Pelosi's view would be immoral so that whatever Border Construction we already have should be a moral according to this Theory so why isn't somebody asking her if we should get rid of the barriers we have because that you can't answer the question if somebody asks her that question it it will reveal her uh her primary rejection of the barrier as
as being purely political now I think people get that it's purely political but it still matters if you can embarrass people in public uh so I think she's talked herself into a corner and I don't exactly know how she gets out and the and the way to a solution is that she's going to have something that looks like a win at the same time that the president

[17:29]

president get something that looks like a win so how can she win if she's taken an absolute stand against barriers you almost have to embarrass her off the stage in other words you can't you can't treat it seriously and still find a solution because if you treat it seriously that barriers On the Border are immoral you kind of have to get rid of the ones you have you kind of have to stop you know even asking questions at at border crossings don't you so I think the path forward is that she has to be humiliated and embarrassed off of that position which is completely unsupportable and I don't know how long it will take the mainstream media to realize that they have to ask that question you know if Fox News is the only one asking it she can just ignore it but you kind of have to give CNN and MSNBC ask the question what exactly do you

[18:31]

ask the question what exactly do you mean by its immoral which isn't really good enough cuz if you ask the question in the in the abstract can you explain why walls are immoral she'll say something like well we're a country built on immigration that's not really the answer is it so you can't ask the general question because that will allow her a general weasel answer you have to ask a specific question Nancy do you think our existing fences and and barriers on the border of which there are many there are many miles of existing fences and borders do you think we should put a gate in them and open them up because they're immoral is that your position so you've got to get her down to that level of specificity to embarrass her off the point because that's the only only way you're going to be able to negotiate something and then secondly um somebody sooner or later is going to suggest as I've been telling you now for a month or so sooner or

[19:33]

you now for a month or so sooner or later somebody on one of this one of the teams it'll either be Trump or or his team or it will be Pelosi and Schumer or their team somebody's going to say at least whenever they're ready to negotiate somebody's going to say let's let's turn it over to the engineers and let them decide what borders make sense because politicians should not be engineering soon as they do that as long as you get rid of this immoral thing uh so you have to embarrass that off the stage which is easy if you ask the right questions and then you've got a chance so could take a while could be fast we don't know all right the president's also said that he believes he has the authority to declare a national emergency and instead of getting funding through the normal way he could divert funding from other National Security buckets and just build that border because the crime coming through the

[20:34]

because the crime coming through the border and the risk of terrorists coming through Etc even though we haven't seen terrorists come through at least successful ones um the argument still SS that they could come through and therefore it's a national emergency he obviously doesn't want to do that that's going to be the last chance the last choice but he does have the option uh the problem with that option is that the public doesn't see it as an emergency and when I say the public I mean the side who doesn't want to wall in the first place uh half of the public does see it and they would agree but they also agree with him on most stuff so I don't think that's the best plan because it's going to play into the dictator it would play into the whole dictator thing it's like ah he's ignoring the laws and declaring an emergency that's just what dictators do so he's wise to uh put that out there as a possibility but without without

[21:35]

a possibility but without without pushing that button too hard uh I think he is wise to say you don't want me to do that that's a good play all right um so that's the most thing most fun that's going on um I want to mention again that when Trump was asked about um freshman Congress person uh what's her last name uh TB I'm not sure how to pronounce it but the one who called them a uh MF and the president's uh and the president's response was that she uh she embarrassed herself and disgraced the country and uh and he basically took the position that's opposite of of what he normally takes because he's usually on the the other end of this conversation but I thought it was um it was transparently political

[22:36]

it was um it was transparently political and it was obviously persuasion and yet still works because the president is trying it looks like he's trying to craft a reputation for being reasonable notice that he's gone from concrete wall to well American Steel is even better I'm not backing down from a concrete wall I've upgraded the plan from which isn't that good to steal which is even better so I think that's a good play too uh but he's acting flexible and what he wants to call this border he was acting flexible and talking to people and he's he's sort of taken this whole uh his whole um I would say his vibe from a Defcon 10 where he's the dangerous crazy guy insulting people down to more like a six it might take a while for the rest of the world to notice cuzz he's going to have to he's going to have to stay on you know on this Lane for probably a month or two before it's going to look

[23:39]

month or two before it's going to look like a a real change and uh if he does and he keeps getting good material from the other side if the other side keeps going uh talking about impeachment and calling him an MF and these things they're going to look like The Crazy Ones in the conversation If he if he turn Tunes down his
his he a crazy persuasion it looks like he has all right so I think that's fun to watch um now at the end of my periscopes I like to do um small digestible bits of climate change discussion because the topic is so big that if you try to talk about it all all you get is whack-a-mole like both sides have infinite wack-o things so if you say well let me debunk this point they'll just say well what about my other point point so nobody can ever get anywhere cuz there's it's too big a topic but I want to see if I could boil this down to just a few things that are actually objective and can be checked the just

[24:41]

objective and can be checked the just the strongest points and I've got some candidates here for the strongest points and and they're two things that the strongest points need to have they need to be you know solid points but also something that the other side could check whichever the other side is depending on the point right so it has to be checkable and a strong point um and let me let me give you a few
few examples so the strongest argument on the climate alarm side I wish there were another name for it but let's call it that uh because that's a bias name if you call them climate alarmists you've already you've already biased the label you know it would be better to say that they're I don't want to call call them let's just call them the consensus let's say the climate consensus CU it takes the bias out of it alarmist gives too much opinion so the the climate consensus people say that the uh Michael man

[25:42]

people say that the uh Michael man hockey stick graph where the warming goes like this and then suddenly it turns up is their strongest evidence because it's based on actual data now here's the argument the argument is some people say well but the temperature measurements were were manipulated but uh the people who counter the Skeptics say the following things that there were adjustments but the adjustments actually make it look like it's less warming not more so the first thing you can check is these two starkly opposites opposite statements about objective facts these are all facts which apparently are public so there are public facts that that the Tony heler side says look at these facts they are public you can see that every time an adjustment was made it made the

[26:42]

time an adjustment was made it made the warming look like it was greater in the current period what are the odds that every adjustment would be in the direction that would make it look warmer the climate consensus people say that Tony her is just wrong and that you can look at exactly the same information and you can see very clearly that it's the opposite of what he says that those adjustments make it look less warm than it would have been if they had not adjusted it now those two things are looking at the same data and they're saying up and one is saying down how in the world can we not settle that the looking at the same data one says it's going up in terms of how it would change the graph one says it's going down that's got to be checkable now I can't check it because I don't have the the skill I don't have the depth

[27:44]

the skill I don't have the depth wouldn't have the context but surely that can be checked so let's put that on the list of things that they're Stark disagreement with and I think it can be checked you know and this is different than say the climate models cu the climate models are complicated and you know there a lot of judgment in there it's a little harder to check now the other thing that the climate consensus says is that the uh the adjusted temperatures in the past the ones that are taken from thermometers and and temperature gauges that are spread out around the world they say that those are confirmed by other types of measurements so ice cores confirmed it and tree rings confirm it Etc so they're saying we're not just looking at this every way that we can measure temperature and there might be five different ways I think satellites included every way that we do it gives us the same answer we still get the same graph I'm getting to the fun

[28:46]

the same graph I'm getting to the fun part all right so the climate consensus says no matter how you measure it you get the same answer hockey stick things of warming at a higher rate here's the the fun part I just saw a skeptic who said and they they look like they were smart people who dug in pretty far so it wasn't just crazy people it was you know academics and scientists academics at least they looked at Michael man's method they sort of dug into his method and here's what their claim is are you ready for this this is the most fun thing you've ever heard their claim is that the way he the methodology he used used to construct his hockey stick graph you get the same graph with random
data you heard that right you can take any data just random data and put it into his methodology and then draw a graph and it looks like

[29:49]

graph and it looks like this and they proved it by putting random data into his methodology and Publishing the graphs and they look just like his
now I'm not going to say who's right all right so um I'm already getting getting a lot of push back on on social media for they think I'm taking a side so they they think I'm a denier which is not at all what I am I'm a citizen who is not a scientist who can't tell the difference I can't look at climate science and decide what's true and what isn't I can look at the models that are projecting 80 years out and I do have the the background and the knowledge to know that those are not reliable but they're also mostly in the service of persuasion all right so the the models are used for persuasion and for that they work so um but when you're looking at you know the more basic science of have you measured

[30:50]

more basic science of have you measured this correctly and now that you've measured it have you put it on a graph and does it tell you you know does it at least explain the the past and the and the recently observed present so that part I have no visibility on I have no expertise I don't know if I'll ever know what's true in that domain so I'm coming at it as a true let's say skeptic because um skeptical equals scientific you know in the way I use it skeptical and scientific are really the same thing so I'm right in the middle I can be convinced either direction I could easily be convinced that this that the scientists are right about all of it except for the models which are ridiculous but I could be convinced it's a huge problem we have to deal with I could be convinced it's not I don't even feel like I'm leaning in One Direction at the moment but here's where I'm going there

[31:50]

moment but here's where I'm going there are some few things that we can just check and find out who's right the critics or the consensus of scientists and here's one that can be checked can you put random data into Michael man's methodology and would it always give you the hockey stick that's a very specific claim and it seems to me that objective people could dig into this and confirm whether the critics who make this claim are right or whether that's complete BS wouldn't you like to know and again I don't if you told me to uh you know bet my life on who was right Michael man that he used you know reasonable temperature data that has you know multiple backups meaning there are five ways to measure the temperatures and it all says the same thing if is that the case is he right or are the critics that

[32:50]

case is he right or are the critics that they put random information into his methodology and got the same curve let's check it out let's find out I'd love to know that the other things that are interesting are um when you talk about the amount of ice on the world you can find two opinions one mostly coming from NASA and the ipcc basically the the scientific consensus is that the ice in the poles is reducing and reducing at a fast rate faster than could be explained by historically normal processes in which temperatures go up and
and down isn't that something we can I'm sorry I wanted to swear again but it's frustrating that that that's even in dispute because when I look at the Skeptics they they tend to be pointing to articles that seem to be scholarly or that you know it

[33:53]

seem to be scholarly or that you know it seems to be credible but you know I can't tell and when I look at the NASA stuff it looks credible to me but so do the Skeptics so it seems to me the question of do we have more or less ice recently are you telling me we can't even figure that out in a way that the public can can decide what's the true story you know you're always going to have disagreements but it seems like that would be kind of objective I feel like we should be able to figure that out but maybe not and then there's the the sea level can't we just say and I've said this before can't the climate um consensus say look here's the deal we're going to make 10 I would consider this Fair we're going to make 10 sea level predictions meaning for 10 locations on the planet now if you don't know this sea level does not go up at the same amount

[34:53]

does not go up at the same amount everywhere on the planet if the ocean is warmer in one place it expand so it would go up there so you don't get even you know even um uh sea level rises so let's say that the climate uh people say okay we're going to pick 10 places and tell you our best guess that these will have higher Rises than other places and that it'll be a fast rise compared to what we know historically and then we wait 5 years and if they get let's say they get seven and a 10 right would you consider that persuasive because I would if the if the climate consensus made 10 predictions about sea level 5 years out and they got seven n a 10
10 right I'd kind of agree with them at that point if they get five and of 10 I don't know maybe that's a little little sketchier um yeah and so let's I tend to ignore

[35:56]

um yeah and so let's I tend to ignore the anecdotal stuff somebody said the Mel Dives meles are rising not lowering anything about one Coastline one Island one hurricane one storm one year that was high or low anything that has one in it I'm not interested all right if you're telling me about one of something that happened not interested um somebody says 5 years with somebody is questioning my wife 5 years why not 5 years we could certainly measure it in 5 years if it's real we're going to see it in 5 years and if it's not real I think we'd know in five years predict air temperature which changes faster um yeah maybe so so the trouble with the air temperature stuff is that then you would have to get back to our measuring devices accurate and

[36:58]

to our measuring devices accurate and you know have they changed over the next five years that sort of thing all right here are the um I'm going to add to my list of bad arguments one I just saw by
by water so one of the worst uh not say worst one of the weaker skeptical arguments is that uh water vapor is the strongest component of warming I I would consider that one of the weaker arguments it's one of the most popular ones too because it seems to me the climate consensus would have figured that out so here's a weak argument um let's say I'm trying to think of well an analogy is just going to make things worse uh it's a weak argument because it's the most obvious thing that the climate consensus would look at the Skeptics act as if they're

[38:01]

look at the Skeptics act as if they're the ones who discover that water affects temperature I'm pretty sure that the entire scientific Community has figured out that water vapor is a factor so those of you saying nope they they hadn't figured out about water that is so not credible as a complaint because well let me put it this way the the complaint that they're not considering water vapor would be a complaint like um saying that they're not even scientists like they're not even trying now again I want to be very careful here it could turn out that the you know inability to calculate the water vapor you know is true and and the point is valid but it is not not true that the few the few Skeptics who say hey it's

[39:02]

few the few Skeptics who say hey it's water vapor are smarter than the majority of scientists who say we've we've you know we've got control of that variable it's just not believable even if it's right and again I always like to remind you I'm different from everybody else you're listening to who tells you what is right or wrong I don't know what's right or wrong I'm telling you what's credible based on the way it's presented so if you present to me that the main scientists who were the biggest experts in the world thousands and thousands of them have all neglected the biggest variable in the calculation which is obvious to everybody including me that's not credible even if you're right again you could be right but it's not it's not
there it is again water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2

[40:03]

important greenhouse gas than CO2 period guess what makes your argument look stupid if you want to look stupid with your argument and again I'm not talking about the truth of your argument here I'll just talk about the way an argument is presented your persuasive if you want me to think you're stupid put period in words like p e r i o d at the end of your unsupported statement water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas period or I'd like to say it this way because there's a Dale on every side of the political Spectrum it's water vapor period period water vapor okay and again if if a year from now the client the climate scientists all say oh my God we didn't realize it's all wa water vapor I'm going to say you're right that when you said water vapor is

[41:05]

right that when you said water vapor is the big thing and they haven't gotten right I'm going to say my God I was I was wrong about that you're right but you're still stupid because of the way you're presenting it if you want to present a link to something scientific Etc then okay but if you say it's just water vapor period I I don't want to hear it because you're just acting stupid and you don't belong in the conversation here's another one would you like to see another one just like it it's the sun Scott do you see how big the sun is here's a picture the sun is this big the planet is this big the sun is a big flaming ball of heat that's where all of our energy comes from it's the sun it's the sun's got do you not understand it's the Sun

[42:06]

period stupid opinion all right so I would say the people saying that's the water vapor period and the people are saying it's the sun period have the worst opinions at least the way they're being presented do you think the scientists had not taken look at the Sun so do you think that the best scientists in the world have not considered that water and Sun have something to do with the temperature please please stop saying that I I I'm going to beg you to stop saying it's the sun and the water vapor even if you're right because you don't know but I'm pretty sure the scientists have looked into this let me tell you something else is that uh makes me crazy
why do we need climate models that go out 80 years why do we need any complexity in

[43:09]

years why do we need any complexity in climate science here's here's what would completely convince me what would completely convince me is showing me the temperature for the last 100 years and to show me that the Michael man curve really happened because if the Michael man in hockey step curve is real you don't have to show me um your complete BS model of the future I'm going to be I'm going to be looking to change something right away you do not have to convince me about the future if the Michael man hockey stick is real that's all I need just make that real and stop talking stop degrading your argument with these models so I would say if I could uh make this if I could make this recommendation to the World on both sides if both sides stop leading with their dumbest arguments we might get to

[44:09]

might get to something the dumbest argument on the um on the climate consensus is that we've run a model for 80 years and and we have a result that's just dumb that's not real the dumbest argument on the uh skeptic side is that it's the Sun as if the scientists hadn't thought of that or it's water vapor haven't thought of that because here's the thing if it's if it's water vapor the you know the temperatur is still rising and there's still something that's causing it and I don't think we have that much water vapor that we didn't have before are we getting more water vapor than we used to have so I I'll agree with with the argument that says the models are useless because you can't model water vapor so I think that's true so I think if if what you're saying is I don't believe the future will models because

[45:10]

believe the future will models because you can't you can't model water vapor I would say I agree with that but if you're saying that the water vapor explains Michael man's hockey stick graph of the things we can already see then I say to you why did water vapor become a problem suddenly didn't we always have water vapor pretty sure we had water vapor in the 20s all right so stop those bad arguments all right um that is all I have to say and I would love to know if you can get the same hockey stick curve with random numbers as one skeptic claims or some some some Skeptics claim and that's all I have for now and I'll talk to you I'll talk to you later there