Episode 364 Scott Adams: RPOS, The Steel Barrier and Climate Persuasion

Date: 2019-01-07 | Duration: 1:02:17

Topics

AOC is now RPOS, says: “Trump is a racist” Does RPOS support a transfer of wealth from white and Asian Americans to other ethnic groups? Climate change authoritative sources pro and con Both sides use same data to support their position Sifting through persuasive arguments from both sides 22 tree ring experts say Michael Mann results were flawed Michael Mann says he discovered tree ring expert flaw 17 year pause in warming, while CO2 was increasing yearly If CO2 is the main driving force, why the temp pause? Map of temperature measurement device locations Vast majority are in the US Enormous parts of the globe have no measurement devices Until both sides can claim “victory”, no progress on the wall “immoral” painted Pelosi into a corner Are ALL border controls immoral? Are barriers that are easier to breach, more moral? Nancy Pelosi looks like a weak leader because of RPOS

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

[0:10]

[Music] hey everybody I am trying out my new microphone on a different device that wasn't working before so if we have any technical difficulties don't say I didn't warn you but if we get if we get kicked off of this periscope I'll just come back on with a different device so good morning I know I am here you're here to enjoy the simultaneous M please join me raise your mug you cup your glass your chalice your stein your tankard if you will fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me for the cycle teen you said well as many of you know by now on 60 minutes of the woman who I call our POS went on and said that the

[1:13]

our POS went on and said that the president was definitely a racist sending secret racist messages so I've decided to stop calling her AOC and I'm just gonna go with our POS
the first part of our Pia POS is racist because she's decided to go for racist now a lot of people have been asking me Scott now you want to be our POS not our POC our POS why because crap is not as provocative as so here's what I suggest so a lot of people have asked me it's got what is the persuasion response to our POS and I've been saying well there's not much you can do and you know really engaged in that at all a lot of

[2:15]

really engaged in that at all a lot of people have come up with clever nicknames for like I see one going by on the comments occasional cortex but here's my here is my first persuasion advice if you call rpoS stupid it has no persuasive power that this is the most important thing I can tell you calling her stupid or ignorant or uninformed has no persuasive power do you know why because the people who follow her agree with what she says so you can't diminish her power by calling her stupid when the things she says are in complete agreement with the people she's primarily trying to to get on her team so they're calling her stupid partner it just will never get any traction keep in mind that the Democrats called president

[3:17]

mind that the Democrats called president Trump stupid for three years right in front of us they said he was a grand he didn't pay attention to the details did it make any difference to you if you were a Trump supporter and then he heard the other side say that his ideas are stupid like oh it's stupid to have a fence or a wall oh it's stupid to cut taxes did that have any impact on you no no so stop calling her stupid unless you're just talking all right if you're just communicating with a friend or something and it's your opinion that's fine but if you're trying to persuade stupid gets you nothing it's completely inert but here's something that might not be so here's the question I would ask her directly if I were in the media and she's going to get interviewed a lot and not all of the people who

[4:19]

and not all of the people who interviewer are going to be other team so there will be opportunities for let's say unfriendly interviewers to interviewer I think she'll probably go for that she probably won't just live in her interviews to one side although obviously she'll favor them and here's the question on answer I would ask her if given her tax preferences and her climate change ideas that Senator green your green ideas does she favored a transfer of wealth from white and Asian Americans to other other ethnicities that's that's the question that has to be honest ask her directly directly do you favor a transfer of wealth from white and Asian Americans to other ethnic groups I want to hear the answer to the question don't you

[5:23]

to the question don't you because she's gone full racist now and now and now it's on the table now before she called President Trump a racist I would say race wasn't in the question and I would have I would have stayed away from that as well and I think you've noticed right I've talked about our POS quite a bit and I've never been should race that way I thought one of her strengths was that she wasn't that person but now that she's sort of revealed herself to be race centric in a fairly you know deliberate and conscious way then I think the question is fair so it's sort of like a court where if the other side brings up a topic then you can ask questions about it and I think that's the question so does she favor chance for wealth from white and Asian Americans to other groups and how do you

[6:26]

Americans to other groups and how do you answer that question if you're her now if you're a if you're a Republican it's an easy question right no no I would not I would not prefer any policies that transfer wealth based on ethnicity that would not be a good idea but it's kind of gonna be kind of hard for her uh-huh let's talk about this story about you're gonna have to help you with the facts because I'm unprepared who was the was it a special forces guy who's being charged with murder for killing an Isis fighter in in a way that is considered inappropriate apparently what exactly what branch of the service was he in it wasn't a Marine he is a Special Forces so the first time I heard that story I said to myself well this is an easy one oh it's sealed somebody's saying seal all right so a seal and he

[7:28]

saying seal all right so a seal and he killed killed an Isis prisoner or he'll out of you he's alleged to have let the prisoner go and then kill them or something and when I first heard that I thought I thought killing Isis is sort of what we hired him to do and my first thought was even if the circumstance is a little gray I would definitely favor the seal right if there's any gray area at all or even if he killed this prisoner after releasing him knowing that the prisoner would become you know dangerous and killed more people on our side even if he sort of crossed a line a little bit and killed somebody who was himself a killer it was likely to kill again I was gonna say yeah I think I'd still rather side with the seal but then I heard yesterday that he was turned in by other seals so in other words it was

[8:30]

by other seals so in other words it was the other seals who said he crossed the line and now it's not really a question between the seal that I love and respect and an Isis fighter that I wanted dead and I didn't really care how it happened yeah now it's a seal on seal crime we're accusation anyway so that changes is entirely kill jealousy I don't think so I think that the only thing that could have changed my mind was that the other seals were the ones who said this cross the line and I and I think from their perspective they probably have good reasons I haven't heard of yet but I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna say that we should take that seriously now wait if it you know of course wait for the evidence of Kabam but our taking it pretty seriously now excuse me I will be on David Pakman show later this morning and I think he's gonna divide it into two parts so the some of it is tomorrow

[9:32]

two parts so the some of it is tomorrow if you don't know David Pakman his podcast is popular and he's super super anti Trumper we're going to be talking about all the usual stuff so you might want to catch that I'm going to do that recorded at sea I guess it would be noon Eastern Time but I'm not sure exactly when it airs I'm not sure if it airs live ever it's taped or what well anyway look for that David Pakman bak ma a tak I mean oh I'm sorry David Pakman yes PA que ma m now let's talk about I'm taking I've been taking you on a journey on the climate science topic except I'm not taking the position that either side is taking you know there's generally the you know the alarmist side and then there's the denier side and I'm not on

[10:35]

there's the denier side and I'm not on either their side and the angle that I'm taking on this is as a psychological phenomenon alright so I'm going to study what is stupid on both sides and what makes sense on both sides and I'm going to try to see if there's any way we can get to anything even close to a reasonable opinion given the information that's available here's what I found so far the first thing I can say with confidence is that the people who tell me hey Scott you should do your own research on climate change you know the the Internet has it all go look for it yourself and you will come to a clear conclusion those people are the wrongest people of all so if anybody says that a citizen who is you know let's say an educated person who's really committed to researching it on their own can get to the bottom of it by looking at all the public sources that's not a thing I know

[11:37]

public sources that's not a thing I know because I've been doing this for weeks so for weeks I've been looking into it and you can't get to the bottom what you can do is convince yourself you got to the bottom of it that you can do and the way you can do it is follow either of the silos if you if you read mostly the climate scientist majority opinion it's completely persuasive as long as you ignore the other side but if you say all right well I'll spend five minutes on the other side and see what the skeptics say you're gonna walk away saying oh the skeptics are exactly as persuasive exactly they are just as persuasive which is different from being true different from being right but persuasion wise identical let me tell you how generally it goes so if you're researching around your own and it goes like this one side makes claim a and you

[12:39]

like this one side makes claim a and you say to yourself okay if they're making claim a let's see what the other side says about it then you read the other side and they say Oh claim a is false and here's my chart showing you that it's false what do you do with that I can't go look at the measuring devices I can't go to the satellites and find out for myself what do I do with it I've got to orotate of people showing me two charts that are just opposite what do I do with that and you say to yourself Scott you idiot just go look at the public sources and you can see where they got their data if it came from a authoritative source such as NASA or you know the IPCC or something like that then you believe it and if it came from somewhere else don't believe it and I think okay that's a good idea I'll find out if their source is good they use the same source they

[13:41]

is good they use the same source they use the same source and produce completely different charts what am I supposed to do with that I can't tell which one is right it's the same freakin sources now part of it is that the deniers like you know the the people who are not alarmist let's say like to use satellite data which apparently measures the upper troposphere but I say how good is that because apparently 90% of the warming happens in the ocean are you telling me that a satellite in space can read the temperature below the depths of the ocean in a way that's so accurate we can tell if if the temperature's going up by a degree in 10 years or whatever it is I just don't believe that now yes the argument is oh no we're not measuring the ocean but if you measure the upper troposphere that will at least

[14:43]

the upper troposphere that will at least tell you if things are getting warmer or cooler without directly measuring the ocean so I say okay let's say that's true and again notice how quickly I get out of my depth which is my entire point there is no such thing as a well-informed educated citizen trying to get to the bottom of climate change it's just not a thing and I'm showing you how it's not a thing by walking you through this so the you know let me give you my perfect example MIT climate expert I guess he's recently retired but Richard linson right now if you don't know MIT is the smartest of the smart when it comes to science in this country maybe the world if you can go to MIT you're one of the smartest people in the world if you can be a professor at MIT you're really one of the smartest people in the world this professor who worked

[15:45]

in the world this professor who worked in exactly the area that they study climate stuff so one of the smartest people in the world that the highest level credential MIT etc so that's his qualification and watching a video of one of the Twitter money one of my Twitter followers sent me and said look at minute 25 in this video and there is Richard Linton and I had criticized him for an earlier video he did on Prager you where I said he ignored the primary claim of climate science of the majority the primary claim is that the rate of increase not just that it's getting warmer that doesn't mean anything because the climate is always changing so if they were just getting warmer nobody would care or at least they wouldn't be caring about co2 but the fact that it's going up at a high rate I said because Richard linson ignored that he's not credible cuz he ignored the

[16:47]

he's not credible cuz he ignored the primary claim and then somebody showed me a video where he did address it directly and I thought ok that's now that's back on persuasive territory if you don't adjust the primary claim of the rate of increase you got nothing as a critic and so he shows this is a richer linson shows it you know it's it's a video of him giving the presentation and he shows on his field on his chart the the hockey stick claim with the temperatures and then he puts next to it the curve for 1919 to 1940 and it's the same so 1919 to 1940 the co2 from humans was of course much different than what we have in modern times so if it's true that the rate of increase between 1919 and 1940 was the same as our recent

[17:50]

and 1940 was the same as our recent increase if that's true and co2 wasn't much of a factor then doesn't that completely disprove the primary claim of climate science and the answer is only if you stop there so again no matter how deep you go it's Turtles all the way down so if if I stopped my research there and said okay the main claim is that it goes up like this and now here's a perfect example of where it's recent enough that we're pretty confident about the measurements of the temperature it's happened before with with without the co2 being much of a factor we're done right the the entire argument is over if you stop there but is there also a rebuttal to why there used to be a curve and now there's a curve and word now we're blaming co2 but we didn't blame it before can the global warmest people

[18:51]

before can the global warmest people explain that and the answer is of course they can now have I heard their explanation not yet but I guaran-fucking-tee you I'm sorry I guarantee you I guarantee you they can answer that I just don't know if the answer is and if they answered it I guarantee you that Richard Lindsay would say well they got that wrong and here's why and if he said that I guarantee you the climate scientist would say no he's criticizing us wrong and here's why you can't get to the bottom there is no bottom on this well and you know I promise you that's true now here's here's some other interesting things and again I'm only going to be talking about the persuasiveness of the argument because the science of it the truth of it is impenetrable even if you

[19:51]

truth of it is impenetrable even if you try really hard and here's some other things so apparently one of the problems with Michael Mann's theory of the hockey stick curve is that there was some older data and I think it might have been the there was some earlier period that had to be explained there was an anomalous earlier period and if he couldn't explain it then his theory would be bunk but if he could find a way to explain it then his theory would mean would stay and the way he found then again I may have this wrong so if Michael Mann hears about this or somebody who knows his work hears about it I would invite you to correct me on this point because I'm about I think I'm 75 to 80 percent sure I'm right about this but I need a fact check on this I believe that he used tree rings to confirm his theory in other

[20:52]

rings to confirm his theory in other words he looked at the rings on old-growth trees and he determined that they were consistent with his with his theory and that that was sort of like a big point he got those three rings right that agreed with this theory so now it's all consistent in the past it's consistent in the current and he's got a nice consistent reason for his curve and then I read this morning that the tree ring experts said he was wrong so Michael Mann said climate expert but there are also apparently such as such things as you know tree ring experts and the tree ring experts said that that whatever this clever thing that my command did was just wrong
here's my question if allegedly 90% percent of climate

[21:55]

if allegedly 90% percent of climate scientists agree and that being something now of course I don't think it's 97 percent let's say the majority if the majority agree in science that that has some weight doesn't mean it's true they can be wrong but as weight you you have to take that seriously but don't we also tell you seriously if 22 tree-ring experts tell the climatologist he got it wrong that matters doesn't it and there's a great sentence here I've got to read you this part from our technic Technica talks about this situation so there's something about the tree rings being walked by a year I'm looking for the exact quote that maybe laughs I hear it is by using a simple model of tree ring

[22:57]

is by using a simple model of tree ring growth that simulates artificial records so far do you know what that means by you so the so michael mann used a simple model of tree ring growth that simulates artificial records in other words he used the simulation to validate his simulation does that sound reliable and maybe it is again I'm not a scientist but if you tell me that somebody used a simulation to validate the problem with their simulation I'm immediately gonna record some questions and then it says man and his colleagues found that taking into account taking this into account could produce hypothetical reconstructions that the climate model of predictions so he found that he could make a simulation which the dendrochronologist these are

[23:58]

which the dendrochronologist these are the people who are the experts on tree rings many of the dendritic dendrochronologist who compiled these tree ring records took offense to the idea that they hadn't noticed such an important error in their field so in other words Michael Mann alleges that he made a scientific breakthrough of enormous importance in the field of tree rings that was both obvious and all the expert on tree rings hadn't yet noticed possible right if you assume that he also made a huge breakthrough in climate why wouldn't he be smart enough to make a huge breakthrough in tree rings can't rule that out right but I would note that when we're talking about the science of climate being settled that the dendrochronologist may disagree and I'm pretty sure they're they're scientists

[25:00]

pretty sure they're they're scientists right they're experts so at least the tree ring people have a little disagreement with one of the main supports of climate change but so here's what they say say many of the dendrochronologist the tree ring people who compile these tree ring records took offense to the idea that they hadn't noticed such an important error after all researchers always cross-checking tree ring records with other trade other trees in the area to look for issues like skipped rings and growth variation between individuals trees 23 of those scientists submitted a comment to Nature Geoscience about the manage winters of Rutherford paper in it they outlined that they felt were flaws in the method of the paper and then they go on to question it so here's my question if the tree ring people don't agree with the

[26:00]

tree ring people don't agree with the primary nation of the micro man graph and they are scientists can you say that it's settled because this article if it's true sounds sounds credible the article doesn't would say no now let's stay on climate change but I'm gonna change the topic a little bit now I get I keep in mind that one of the things I'm looking for as I'm studying this Turtles all the way down on climate change is I'm looking for any one thing you could look at and say okay if this is true then what the climate scientists are saying is probably also true but if it's false they're almost certainly wrong like is there is there sort of one thing that you could go to and I would say one of the one things would be Richard Linton's graph that says that the rate of increase we're seeing is

[27:01]

the rate of increase we're seeing is common and it's happened before co2 was a big problem is that true why can't we find out if that's true it seems like that would be something that we can determine but then I ran into this argument so apparently the satellite images show a extended period recently where there's there's a plateau in the warming I think is 17-year pause or something like that now the pause appears to be in the satellite data again I'm open to all fact-checking on this so the satellite checks the upper truck or the lower troposphere so it's checking the atmosphere for temperatures not checking the ocean and it's not checking the land directly it's checking the air and according to that there was a 17 year pause what do the climate experts say explains a 17 year

[28:03]

climate experts say explains a 17 year pause while co2 is going up and co2 is the main driver of climate what is their explanation for the pause do they say satellites can't measures stuff I don't know if they say that do that or do they say well I'll tell you what they say they say the 17 years isn't long enough to determine anything just let that let that soak in for a little while so the the one of the ways that the satellite measured 17 year pause in temperatures increasing as explained is that 17 years isn't long enough to get the full trend you need something closer to 30 you know 30 would be kind of convincing so if you're looking at save the average of this 30 years in this 30 years in this 30 years then you could draw a line that was pretty good but they acknowledge that in any seventeen year period you might have

[29:05]

any seventeen year period you might have some anomalies there let's say that's true what is the most common thing you hear about climate change the most common argument you hear for climate change is wait for it that the temperature has gone up precipitously in the last 17 years now I'm making up 17 but we're talking about recent years so whether you say that's recent 10 years of the reason 20 years it's all the same marketing the entire climate change argument is sort of predicated on the fact that what we're seeing in our recent 10 years is telling us something very important at the same time they're explaining the way the satellite pause in temperature for 17 years by saying that's not long enough to really say anything you have to look at bigger periods so they can't both be right

[30:06]

periods so they can't both be right right now again let me go back to my context my context is not that I'm giving you good information about climate science because I know that's not happening right you should not take anything I say is good no climate for sure I'm coming at it as a concerned citizen who is legitimately trying to figure out what's going on so that I can contribute to the you know the political you know direction I guess and I can't get to the bottom of it and I cannot form an opinion with the information that I have and these are the reasons so here's what I'd love to be an outcome of this I'd love an outcome to be boiling it down to let's say let's say six good skeptical claims and I don't have the six yet but I'm starting to form them if you could boil it down to just six good skeptical claims instead of the twenty-five or

[31:07]

claims instead of the twenty-five or fifty that you hear all the time and imagine that the climate experts suppose they could explain away in in a satisfying way the six strongest claims would you be willing to say that the twenty five other claims you have that are weaker maybe don't mean that much would you be willing to do that and likewise if the if the experts can't explain the you know maybe the top three or top six or let's say they can only explain three of the top six claims if you have three strong skeptical claims that can withstand the best challenge from the scientists that would mean something wouldn't it it would mean it's not as settled science as you think and I don't know which way it would end up I don't have a prediction right now I suspect that the climate scientists could explain all of the skeptical

[32:09]

could explain all of the skeptical things if you gave them time to do it and if they were interested in doing it but I think we can get it down to a few claims that are the strong ones now let me give you an example of a weak claim there's there's a claim that all of this climate stuff is really a all scam and the reason for the scam is that there are globalists who are using it as a smokescreen to transfer wealth from I guess rich people to poor people is that the transfer do I have that right so it's a it's a globalist scheme and that the whole climate stuff is completely made-up now I would consider that one of the dumbest opinions so that one doesn't pass any sniff test by me here's what's wrong that in order for that to be the case that climate change is nothing but a clever scam all of the

[33:11]

is nothing but a clever scam all of the scientists working on it would have to be in on it somebody says the IPCC admitted it well I've seen a meme in which the picture of a guy I don't know is is what do you call it when you put words on top of it and somebody put words on top of it that appeared to be a quote from him saying that that's what they're all about maybe you've seen it too do you know that those are usually just made up right it's either an ik context or made up or he's just a critic or something it is very unlikely that the IPCC said that and I know you have a source for right and you're going to send me a source that's a quote taken out of context if you can't send me a video of somebody saying it with full context I'm not going to believe that's true because it's it's ridiculous on the surface and it's ridiculous all the way down the the scientists working on climate change are

[34:12]

scientists working on climate change are not doing their job to satisfy a secret cabal of people cleverly running the world through a fake scam called a climb escape climate change Al Gore is not part of a secret clever plan to get something else done by by climate change that's the dumbest opinion on climate and and believe me there are a lot of dumb opinions on climate let me give you another one here's another terrible opinion on climate this was not dumb as much as uninformed and it goes like this that people are still building on the coast and people are still getting loans and getting insurance for a living on the coast and therefore they can't be that worried about sea-level rising because they're building there and they're putting the money exactly where you would not put a house if the sea

[35:13]

you would not put a house if the sea level was rising that's a terrible opinion it doesn't understand banking it doesn't understand insurance it doesn't understand and most importantly rich people so first of all people are not that smart to connect nuts people are not good at managing risk so if you had nothing but the normal situation where people are just bad at making decisions you would still have plenty of people building on the coast if all of the smart people who believed in climate change and let's say they're all right in this hypothetical they're all right climate change is bad sea levels going up if you took all of those people who would have built on the coast and said and move them inland how many people would be left a lot there are so many dumb people in the world that if 80% of all the smart people decided not to build on the coast because of climate change there would still be millions and

[36:14]

change there would still be millions and millions of people who are not smart enough you'll always have people who will do dumb things there's no exception to that you have so many people that if 99% of the dumb people I'm sorry if 99% of the smartest people moved inland it would still be plenty of people to buy real estate on the coast and there will be plenty of banks to make them loans and plenty of insurance companies to make bad decisions and give them insurance now on top of that you don't understand that rich people work if you're a billionaire and you want a beach house you don't really care if it's only gonna last five years it's not financially important to you and you know and maybe it won't be underwater you know because the sea level goes up in different different ways in different places so and if you're a billionaire you just throw away that house or you have insurance or something now why does bank

[37:14]

insurance or something now why does bank give you a loan for that house well the bank also is not terribly worried about something that'll happen in 30 years secondly people who are rich enough to buy in the Coast often don't need loans they just pay cash if I bought a beach house I probably shouldn't tell you this but well I guess I can tell you this I did once buy a condo right on the beach and did the bank give me a loan for my condo that was right on the beach this was in Maui I don't have it anymore but while ago I did did the bank make me alone for my beach property no they didn't because I paid cash because that's what rich people do I just paid cash so would an insurance company give

[38:16]

cash so would an insurance company give me insurance for a place on the beach even in the context of climate change risk yes they would because insurance is renewed every year they will give me insurance for as many years as they're confident that next year won't be that much different which probably could be years and years and years all right so if you're saying that people wouldn't buy on the beach if climate change were real because the bank's the insurance company and the rich people themselves would make different decisions completely wrong that is completely bad analysis there will always be people on the beach because even if the smart rich people left the dumb poor people would come and say hey free beach built built here you know I can get at least ten years out of this so that is the worst argument it's the worst argument is that people wouldn't build on the beach and by the way when you

[39:17]

on the beach and by the way when you when you dig into the climate change stuff and you try to do your own research like that's that really works you'll find two facts that I have so far not been able to negotiate one of those facts is that the sea level is definitely rising and the other fact is that the sea level is not rising those two facts are both out there and can be found from credible sources if you do your own research who is it who said that there's no evidence of the sea level rising from climate change do you know a source that was the IPCC in 1990 said they didn't have evidence of sea level rising because of co2 in 1990 and by then certainly they were paying attention to climate change so maybe they found it recently what I'm saying

[40:19]

they found it recently what I'm saying is that you can you can search forever and you'll just find competing versions of truth and you will not have the capability or the time or the expertise to figure out which one is right and indeed if you have the time and you have the expertise you would be like the two people who have different opinions because apparently you having the expertise does not make everybody come to the same opinion so there's nothing you can do to get down to the reality you can't get there from here all right
so the idea that that people can read tree rings oh and using of the problem with tree rings as a temper your proxy apparently people can look at tree rings and just have different opinions I mean just think about that imagine you're looking at a tree ring

[41:20]

imagine you're looking at a tree ring and you're trying to tell the temperature in you know 1990 from a tree ring do you look at you go uh looks like it was a kind of a sunny weather that summer I mean I do get that the tree rings are approximate you know stories why are they ever really going to be good enough to tell the temperature a hundred years ago I don't know I'm skeptical all right
we're just looking at your comments here for a moment
yes and then there's the issue there's the issue that there can be oh yeah that I talked about this yesterday so the Medieval Warm Period is explained away

[42:21]

Medieval Warm Period is explained away because one part of the world was unusually warm while another part of the world was not now have you ever seen a map of where all the temperature gauges are around the world excuse me if you've seen the map but it shows the globe and then there's a little red dot for where all the places are we we have terrestrial monitoring and including in the oceans it's I think it's like 95 percent in the United States am I wrong about that 95 percent of the measuring devices are just in the United States and the rest of them are just a dot here and there in the world and a few other concentrations and if that's the case so here are the two facts we have that the the terrestrial measuring devices are the the primary argument for climate

[43:22]

the the primary argument for climate change because the satellite stuff is a little more ambiguous because it shows that you know that plateau etc but we also know that the the medieval warming period was localized there was one part of the world say the climate experts that got much warmer while other part of the world got much colder and then you look at a map of where all the temperature measuring devices are and there are these enormous parts of the globe that are not measured how do we know those aren't the cold parts I mean could we really measure 10% of the earth and be pretty confident that there are no big warm or cold cold spots that we missed it just doesn't make sense to me but again when I say it doesn't make sense to me what I mean is you can't get to the level of understanding it as a you know I'm not saying that there's no scientist who can explain it I'm just

[44:22]

scientist who can explain it I'm just saying I could never get there because I'll just find another scientist who says the opposite and then I can't tell the difference all right that's where we are for now same question how often do you get recognized in public that's an interesting question and a good change of topic oh we're going to talk about the steel barrier in a moment I get recognized in the public farm or now because of these periscopes so prior to doing the periscopes it was rare I would say close to never but sometimes if I checked into a hotel sometimes it would recognise me my name but before before doing periscopes almost never recognized by sight and now if I travel the odds of me being recognized in public now or a high so I do get recognized in public let's talk about the steel barrier as I have been

[45:26]

about the steel barrier as I have been telling you for now a few months the only way this will ever be settled this border wall / fence situation is when we can come up with solution that is neither wall nor fence but is both and the steel barrier is a whence it's sort of a wall like fence the winds at the moment we're still in the the stupid zone so the stupid zone is where politicians do engineering and tell you what a barrier should look like and where it should be etcetera so we have to get past stupid to get the the government opened now when I say we have to get past stupid I don't mean that the people who were involved are stupid people but what they're telling the public right now is clearly stupid right now they're engaged in a negotiation there

[46:27]

there aged in public opinion building they're engaged in persuasion so the people doing the stupid stuff are not themselves stupid President Trump is not is not stupid the way he's running this he's actually running it pretty well in my opinion and Pelosi is not stupid she is doing her job pretty well and that's exactly why there's a problem you have two people if I may say so Pelosi and Trump are she's a good nemesis right she's she's a solid solid politician and the reason you have we have a you know what the reason we're stuck is that they're both so good but the current view of both of them for public consumption is just stupid because in no world do you let politicians make engineering decisions so they do need to figure out how to

[47:27]

so they do need to figure out how to have a gap from stupid to let the engineers do it and that that gap they've not figured out yet and maybe it's not time to figure it out because remember it's not just about making an engineering decision it's about the politics of it it's about who wins it's about 2020 it's about all that stuff but and but you're not gonna see an end to this until somebody suggests the bridge and the bridge might be something like a budget with some restrictions built in so for example they could say we'll give you the you know five point six billion or whatever number they end up with but it's not fully approved until the engineers have brought us a proposal that explains what's wall and what's fence you're done because both of them can claim victory send it off to the engineers the engineers will come back guaranteed with something that looks

[48:28]

guaranteed with something that looks like you know a variety of solutions across the board depending on the need and the you know eminent domain and a whole bunch of other things
and then when it comes back and that may be you know months from now both sides can say well we're not going to go against the engineers and they say put this steel barrier in some places and do other solutions in other places and let's let's do what the engineer say that will give both sides the ability to claim victory and if you don't get to the point where both sides can claim victory you don't get to anything so look for that when when they start talking about how to budget it with restrictions and the restrictions being that the that the engineers have to come back with a specific proposal that will be approved when they have the proposal that's when it gets serious now it's

[49:30]

that's when it gets serious now it's just and it's just politicians trying to convince the stupid public of a stupid point now I tweeted yesterday that there's this weird disconnect on the the Democrats opinion about the wall they say two things about it number one the wall will not work number two walls are immoral but if they don't work who exactly loses it's just a waste of money right it can't it can't be true simultaneously that it's immoral and it doesn't work unless you're assuming that the intentions of the people who want to build it are moral and that's not in evidence I'm pretty sure the intentions are people want to stop crime control the border you know all the usual stuff they could be right or they could be wrong but it's not immoral they just want a wall so Nancy Pelosi has painted herself

[50:35]

wall so Nancy Pelosi has painted herself in a corner with this immoral thing and here's the way you should get out of it somebody needs to ask Nancy Pelosi if all forms of border control are immoral and sort of drill down on that because the opinion falls apart because she said she's in favor of border control and if the if the / wall that's being considered is this steel barrier that you can see through is that is that a you know is that an immoral fence or whence or wall you know Leonard let her I would show her two pictures one is all or three maybe a wall an existing fence so we have you know less impressive defenses right now I'm sure a concrete wall a fence that we don't have a fence that we do have and then the winds you know the steel structure show her those

[51:37]

know the steel structure show her those three pictures and say which ones are immoral is it just the concrete one or the others a little less than immoral because it's easier to climb over I would just you know get her to some specificity in that because if that's her primary objection it's not really she she wisely did not make the case that it's too expensive you know I think she said that but she's not dying on that on the hill if it's too expensive because the budget is so big compared to this ask so she's painted herself in the corner I think we should show her three pictures concrete wall Steel's and steel lattice thing and existing fences that are already on the border and let her judge the morality of each of those solutions and I would like to see your answers let me tell you the dumbest argument for a wall alright I think my value to you is that you can trust that

[52:39]

value to you is that you can trust that if something doesn't make sense I'm gonna call it out no matter which team it is right so there's something that the trumpet team says that is ridiculous it's the worst argument for a wall and I'll bet every one of you have used this argument and the argument is that they built a wall on I know El Paso over wherever it is and it took the illegal crossings down to zero all right I'll say it again just so you know what the setup is so the argument is the walls work because we built a wall and I think it's El Paso and it took the illegal crossings down to zero wherever it was it doesn't matter where it is the the arguments the same is that a good argument somebody says I lived there and it's true it's true and it's stupid it's true as far as

[53:42]

true and it's stupid it's true as far as I can tell they built a wall when it stopped the illegal immigration down to zero here's why it's stupid you don't think those people just went somewhere else and crossed do you think do you think that people walked up to a wall that's that's you know let's say it's five or ten miles long or whatever it is you know it's it's just a little piece of the border do you think people walked up to that structure and set up there's a wall here in just this little place I guess I can't cross the border I guess I give up now somebody's saying the friction argument the friction argument is that whenever you put up some friction you change behavior in every field it doesn't matter if you're talking immigration and gun control whatever if you make it harder for somebody to do something then they're gonna do less of it does it really make it harder to cross the border if the people who are likely to cross the border talk to other people and they say oh we used to go across El Paso but now they have a wall there so now when you

[54:43]

they have a wall there so now when you want to go across I just go down there totally wide open the argument for a wall slash border only works if you're doing all of it or all of the easy parts if you have a fence across all of the easy parts you have a strong argument it doesn't matter if you have not a wince or a wall in whatever you have but if you have a strong border control on all of the easy parts to get across that's a strong argument if if that looks like it reduced immigration I wouldn't even have to I don't think I'd even have to look at the data to know that that was a good idea because if all this left are the hard parts to get across that's friction that's real but if you've got a border this this big and you've built a wall that's this big and and you found that zero people across that little wall that little area and of all this you don't know a freaking thing you don't know anything if all you know

[55:44]

you don't know anything if all you know is this little piece of wall stop people from going over the wall because you don't know if they just went to the other places and walked in and I assume they did right so I hope that gives me a little bit of credibility with you and damn you stink somebody said I hope that gives me a little bit of credibility because dumb is dumb no matter which side it comes from and and that whole wall argument being on two percent effective if you build a little bit of it is just done now is it wrong for them to say it no it isn't because the border control people and President Trump and his administration are in the they're in the business of persuasion now if a full good border security were a bad idea I would say my god they're being dumb and they're using evil persuasion to get a bad result then I would not be in favor of that but if they're persuade

[56:47]

of that but if they're persuade persuading in a way that is as I like to say directionally correct then I'm generally okay with it and it is directionally true that walls work that's directionally true it is directionally true that if we had enough border security and it was better we could reduce immigration I think that's just absolutely true we don't need but that very specific thing we built a wall in El Paso and it took immigration down to zero that's just ridiculous people just obviously just learn to go around the wall so there's that I don't see any chance that the government will reopen really really soon it feels like both sides need to take this as far as they can because they both need to explain they need to explain why they didn't fight hard enough if they lose so both sides have

[57:49]

enough if they lose so both sides have to just take this longer so anything that happens in the next you know a few days maybe it might even be weeks I don't know probably doesn't matter because neither side really wants to solve it we're not calling her AOC for those of those of you who were joining I've changed her nickname to rpoS racist piece of because she's going full racist she's gone full hawk Newsome white people are bad with her latest comments on 60 minutes so now I think she has to be challenged on that so I I have personally just to make this as clear as possible I was amused and appreciated her persuasive power and their ability to get to get attention etcetera but now she's crossed a red line for me which is calling half of the

[58:51]

line for me which is calling half of the country racist because when you tell when you say that Trump is you're really saying that his followers are as well and so rpoS is dead to me but I don't mind talking about her the specific thing I'd like to talk about her more is I think Nancy Pelosi must be challenged to explain her so Nancy Pelosi has to explain why there's somebody in her party who was making Nancy Pelosi look like a chimp sorry rpoS is getting all the attention she is doing everything that you is essentially she's moving the brand of Democrats and Nancy Pelosi looks like a week really ineffective leader because she's letting that happen so the fight

[59:51]

she's letting that happen so the fight should be between the Democrats because Pelosi is just being totally kneecapped by our POS and and she's making and I don't know if Nancy Pelosi is saying these things about President Trump at the moment I'm sure she has in the context of politics in the past but you don't see Pelosi going after Trump as a racist lately am I wrong about that doesn't it seem that Pelosi is trying to be productive and trying to make stuff work you know whether you love her or hate her it seems like Pelosi generally wants to make things work and she wants her version of things to work but she seems like on the productive you know road not the unproductive road and I think Trump and Pelosi can get on the same Road eventually but she's being kneecapped by her own side so she's gonna have to get our POS under control if she wants to be

[1:00:55]

our POS under control if she wants to be effective all right am I surprised Bart rpoS not really ninety percent of Democrats agree yeah I didn't say it wasn't popular Pelosi apologist
well she got a new nickname today rpoS I think she has to answer for that every time she speaks forever she's gonna have to she's gonna have to answer why does she want to take money away from white people and Asian Americans and transfer it to other ethnicities and if she doesn't want to do that she should say it directly all right oh my interview with David Pakman is at

[1:01:59]

oh my interview with David Pakman is at 9:00 a.m. my time which would be noon Eastern Time but I'm not sure when it airs I'm not sure how much is live and how much is recorded but I'll link to it as soon as there's a link to it so you you'll catch that all right that's enough for me bye for now