Episode 367 Scott Adams: President Trump’s Speech, Pelosi and Schumer’s Taxidermist, More

Date: 2019-01-09 | Duration: 44:59

Topics

Our government is dysfunctional because the press is broken Business model of the press today is different than in the past Press today invokes “hair on fire” viewer responses President Trump failed to persuade effectively Schumer and Pelosi failed to persuade effectively Everyone was arguing about the definition of a word Don’t we need border control, even if Mexico doesn’t pay for it? CNN’s S.E.Cupp demonstrates her mind reading powers She knows President Trump’s secret intentions S.E.Cupp knows what the President “really thinks” CNN fake news making strategies Whiteboard discussion of CNN’s fake news techniques No evidence that CO2 makes a difference in climate change? What is the counter argument? Is CO2 a logarithmic factor in 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

[0:14]

hey everybody come on in here Tyler good to see you Brian dan tre it's all guys today oh no Yvonne okay Lex I angel all right we've got a good mix in here while those numbers piling up oh you're something interesting you may know that patreon is having some problems because they kicked off kick something off for free speech reasons at least that's the argument so my patreon donations of course plummeted because the people who would have normally donated to me got off the platform for other reasons and then my other source of income related to these periscopes and both in both cases it's very small it's not significant but I got my statement for these super hearts so that's where you can do a super hard on periscope and you know maybe a dollar or something for for the presentations

[1:17]

or something for for the presentations and they plunged I think 90% last month now here's here's what I asked you do you think 90% of fewer people hit the super hearts in the most recent month and baby I mean it's possible but we live in the world where you can't trust anything anymore Kevin yeah it was simpler time I would have just said it was the holidays so the numbers are smaller or something like that but but now you see anything that's out of place and your your brain automatically goes to I think it's a conspiracy I think they're after me so just to be clear I have no reason to believe you know I've been targeted at least in this particular sense I've been targeted before obviously but it's it does make me question all right it looks like everybody's here and that me it's time for the simultaneous sip yeah

[2:17]

it's time for the simultaneous sip yeah grab your cup your mug your glass your container your tankard your Stein your Chellis if you will raise it to your lips and join me for the simultaneous it oh yeah well I hope all of you by now either watch live where I've seen the clips of the president's address to the public from the Oval Office not the Oval Office whatever yeah Oval Office and I hope that you saw the response now let me I wanted to jump in last night and give my response but everybody was doing that so I waited to the morning wanted to process a little bit what are the things I like to do is to try to avoid my first impression and see how I feel you know a few hours later let things sink in because your first impression everything is sort of

[3:18]

first impression everything is sort of equal because it's fresh but over time the weaker impressions fade and then you're left with just a few dominant themes so until my brain has done that natural process of forgetting things there for whatever reason did not did not make a mark and and you know then a few things emerge then I can tell what are the dominant themes because they're the ones that last so I don't know if I've waited long enough but it feels like it so you're here the dominant of the themes which have lasted number one our government is broken I'm sure I'm not the first person who ever said that I maybe the three hundred millionth person to say that but rarely have you ever seen a demonstration of such dysfunction just laid out in front of you it was as if the government had said

[4:19]

you it was as if the government had said hey people we want to show you how how dis
dis the government is so we're gonna we're going to have everybody come out and give you a demonstration of why nothing works now I have a different opinion of why nothing works and of course throughout the ages everybody complains about the government and it's always been a complaint that the government is you know corrupt or incompetent so in a sense there's nothing new about the complaints but I do think that the the the base reason for why things are not working may have changed here's what I'm seeing it seems to me that the business model of the press trying to get you to click on things that get you excited and catch your hair on fire which was not the business model of the press in the past but in the past the business of the news was to give you something like the news today it's about getting you to

[5:19]

news today it's about getting you to click stuff getting your attention and that requires a kind of a spin on the news to you know hyper you know hyper excited to catch your hair on fire and in those worlds of course the news media is divided into so you've got your left media and your right media and they're very different versions of the world so in that world the politicians end up you know lining up with one of them sides and then the news media is sort of pulling the chains so in my opinion the reason the government doesn't work is because the press is broken I don't know if I've heard that I don't think I've heard anybody say it the way I just said it correct me if I'm wrong because every time I think I said something new somebody will say well that's just what somebody else said the other day then I realized that it's that maybe it's more

[6:22]

realized that it's that maybe it's more obvious than I thought so the idea here is that the government can't work if the press doesn't work and in that world president Trump's previous some of the press is entirely legitimate it seems and the press who is it that told you that the president should not criticize the press just like a bit think about this question for a moment who told you that is wrong for a president to criticize the press who told you that the press the press told you that it's illegitimate for the president who they've been hammering with fake news to criticize the press think about that you you know you're saying to yourself wait a minute wait it wasn't really the press they just brought people on TV or they reported on people and you know written form and

[7:23]

people and you know written form and they asked them questions and those pundits who do not necessarily work for the press yeah they did their thing and the press just reported it but that's not what really happened because the press gets to decide who's on how much attention they get what kind of questions you ask so the press has pretended that is not the press telling you that the press should not be criticized at the same time the press is doing something so bad to the country that you know if there are a way to make it illegal this should happen but I don't think there's any way to do that within a First Amendment free speech framework so and I'm gonna give you a little bit more of that in a minute but I want to go back to the main theme which is how did the government look so my main takeaway is that the president looked terrible the Democratic response looked terrible

[8:24]

looked terrible I thought that both sides looked weak incompetent bored and old that's what I got weak incompetent bored and old both sides equal the president looked like he was phoning it in the Democrats I don't want to be cruel and I don't I don't love to talk about physical looks but you can't really ignore it because we're human beings were visual creatures and the way things look just makes a big difference it's the reason that doing a doing a an address from The Oval Office has more power than doing it from somewhere else because the look you know where were visual creatures am I'm haunted by the picture of Schumer and Pelosi's standing

[9:26]

picture of Schumer and Pelosi's standing there like the taxidermist had been you know they I have in my mind this I guess because I'm the cartoonist I imagine these little funny stories that got us to where we are and I can see somebody like Miss dialing and saying all right I'm trying to find a makeup artist for Nancy and humor so Chuck come and see they need makeup artist click click click click click hello is this I'd like you to come over and and fix up fancy and Chuck but you've missed dialed and you got the taxidermist and said so the taxidermist shows up and you know puts on this weird and makeup I mean literally Pelosi looked like she had been her makeup had been done by a funeral director they didn't even look like human beings how in the world can your makeup and your presentation be presentation be so bad for two people just think about that if if something

[10:29]

just think about that if if something bad happens to one person let's say one person has bad makeup or one person doesn't look good you say well you know one person had a bad day but what do you put Pelosi and humor up there and they literally look like they came out of the a wax museum that was you know his first day and they hadn't figured out how to make good wax people I mean I don't know what was wrong with Pelosi's face and again I'm not the guy who makes fun of people's looks this is about the politics of it this is about the persuasion of it's about how you felt about it right so I'm not mocking anybody for their looks because I'm not the guy who can mock people for their looks right take a look at this stuff right I got I got no argument for making fun of other people for their looks but it's part of the story Pelosi and Schumer looked terrible I mean yeah somebody said political zombies that's

[11:29]

somebody said political zombies that's actually that's great they did look like political zombies they look like the walking dead cadavers that's exactly and if I'm being fair the president looked like he wished he had been someplace else the you know there was no emotion in it it didn't look like it wasn't his words he was reading some other speech that obviously he approved of it but let's start with the president I think the president failed in what should have been the most important thing he needed to do in that speech the most important thing he needed to do was D personalize it he needed to make the case that there's no longer much disagreement on the facts now he tried to make that case but if fell flat there was like incomplete without also making the case that the that this had

[12:29]

making the case that the that this had become a personal situation about him and he could have said let's find a way to de personalize this let's just hand it off to the engineers let's form a committee of let's say Border Patrol and let's he could have said hey Nancy and Chuck joined with me to meet with wait for it the committee from Border Patrol with border patrol yeah let's meet with Border Patrol together and their engineers and see if they can tell us what this should look like to get the job done something like that could move the bowl but I'm hearing people say oh the president really nailed it the Democrats didn't do well I guarantee you that they're Democrats saying of Nancy and Chuck nailed it but President Trump did not I don't think anybody got persuaded by either side I saw nothing persuasive happening either way except that they

[13:31]

happening either way except that they persuaded us that the government is completely broken now what was the biggest stuff they were arguing about they were arguing about the definition of the word crisis when you voted for your leaders no matter who you voted for were you voting for somebody to help you decide what words mean were you voting for somebody to explain to you what the word crisis means so that you could make a decision on politics oh you'll act this way if we put this word on it but we'll act a different way if you use a different word why are they why why are our politicians helping us with words there isn't a frickin person in the country who cares what word you put on this nobody cares about the word stop talking about it now I realize that if you call it a crisis you can call it a national emergency you know maybe that triggers some different things but that

[14:32]

triggers some different things but that is so the wrong way to approach a problem to approaching a problem by arguing about what the word means come on that is a broken government but again to my earlier point if you're just joining us the government didn't break itself the press changed its business model and its business model it requires breaking the government just the way you saw all right
the the amazing thing and the reason that maybe my faith in government has reached at least a temporary low is that this is a disagreement without a difference everybody agrees that good border control just Orton Democrats Republicans everybody grits so you have a you have a disagreement over a complete agreement everybody agrees that we currently have you know metal barriers on the border

[15:33]

you know metal barriers on the border and that they were important and they work everybody agrees the president is saying hey let's get let's get some you know metal more barriers sort of similar to the ones we already have but maybe improve them a little bit you know maybe they're taller in some places or whatever complete agreement and and if you're talking about how much it cost that's not really the problem here is it the problem is not the cost the problem is are we putting the money on something that makes sense and since both sides agree on what makes sense border control makes sense steel barriers make sense the president has already met them in the middle and then they left the president came to the middle and then everybody left because he was in the middle they couldn't handle the fact that he had done something reasonable

[16:33]

that he had done something reasonable they didn't have to deal with it now what is the there's one part of the the Democrats response that frankly makes me angry every time I hear it and that's not true for most political responses because mostly it's just blah blah blah blah right but when the when the Democrats chided the president for saying that Mexico would pay for the wall that's not the problem today is it that is not the problem the the Democrats have not ever held the position that you should not improve the border unless Mexico pays for it and in fact that's the way I would turn it around Schumer and Pelosi have actually stood in front of the nation and said they don't want to improve the border unless Mexico pays for it that's kind of what they said Trump said he would get Mexico

[17:33]

they said Trump said he would get Mexico to pay for it but if you can't make that happen right away and he wants us to pay for it because it's a priority the president's position is completely sensible first choice see if you can get Mexico to pay for it if you can't it's still important then you pay for it and maybe you figured out later how you could make them pay for it directly or indirectly but the president's path makes complete sense with what he said in the past makes complete sense now first choice Mexico pays for it but we don't have a current way to do that so let's get it done maybe they can pay for it later maybe we can figure that out maybe we can't it doesn't matter because we still need it the Pelosi Schumer approach is that they don't want to improve the border apparently because Mexico won't pay for it that makes me mad because it's not even a good political attack they it's

[18:36]

even a good political attack they it's the clearest signal that this is just about mocking the president when they bring up the Mexico paid for the wall thing all they're doing is personalizing it and they're showing us that they can't do their jobs because we didn't hire them to mock the president because it feels good or make sure people feel good it's just not doing their job period all right I wanted to teach you how CNN creates news and of nothing and I'll read you from my tweets just before I got on I was tweeting a article by se cups commentator on CNN and here's something she actually said in an opinion piece today she said and this is quote from se Cups she said but for any of what Trump said to resonate in other

[19:37]

of what Trump said to resonate in other words for you to believe what Trump said you'd have to pretend you don't know what he really thinks mind reading her entire opinion and apparently that of CNN because they seem to talk the same way is that they can literally read his mind and that they're going to ignore what he does and what he proposes in favor of what they think he secretly thinks really this is the media being broken and I wanted to teach you how CNN comes up with their news shall I go to the whiteboard yes I shall so I noticed that on slow news days or when CNN just wants to hammer on the president they have a number of techniques which they use for news making one is read Trump's

[20:42]

use for news making one is read Trump's mind how many stories have you have you heard on CNN that goes something like this the president is epileptic the president is very worried the president cares mostly about they have lots of language to do it but in every case they are telling us that they can discern his inner thoughts and when his inner thoughts are in conflict with what he's doing they prefer his inner thoughts take for example take for example there are inner thoughts about how he feels about immigrants coming across the border here we have a policy which is in complete agreement with past and current Democrat philosophy that you need to reinforce the border he's come down from

[21:42]

reinforce the border he's come down from his Mexico pays for it he's come down from the house a big concrete wall - exactly where they are exactly what the Democrats wanted they wanted to spend money to improve the border no matter who was president no matter who was president the Democrats were going to spend money voluntarily to improve the border using probably steel structures but here's the reason they won't do it they won't do it because they have read the president's mind and they've determined that his intention his intention is racist so in other words his proposal to do exactly what Democrats want to do improve the border using steel structures if they had done it it would be moral because in fact they have done it many times and nobody is complaining that it's in world when it has been done in the past but

[22:43]

when it has been done in the past but now it's immoral not because a steel structure is bad by itself not because protecting the border is bad nobody makes that argument nobody serious makes that argument instead the entire argument is based on their thoughts about the president's inner intentions which are not in evidence except that they've read the tea leaves so they think they can read his mind all right here's another way that they manufactured news I always laugh when they bring commentator David Gerken on have you ever seen him on CNN they bring gurgaon whenever they need to have somebody give them attitude so if there's no new news they bring him on and I will do a deal impression of him the president he always looks beaten down doesn't he he looks like he's exhausted by all the badness the bad news has me exhausted this president he's doing

[23:47]

exhausted this president he's doing things that we've never seen in the asked all the things he's doing there it's just beyond the pale it's beyond the pale it's non-standard it's non-standard it's something we've never seen before it's unprecedented it's unprecedented and he can talk for an hour without saying a damn thing it's just like this pure attitude play about how the world used to be better and maybe it will come apart and perhaps we should be worried in some vague way about a trend that will continue but if we could read people's minds and candy you know and look into the future and possibly something will go wrong but I'm certainly beaten down and man do I have an attitude about it but the only thing I know for sure it's president Trump's fault that's how you make news that nothing the other way they make news is if president if President Trump has a good

[24:48]

president if President Trump has a good day they that they break the glass and take Paul Manafort out they go he's got a good day president and what may it be coming out a little bit ahead here get man afford get matter for Manford Manafort matter so you see they're they're they're whipping Manafort again today because you talked to yet another Russian what is the one thing we know about every single Russian there's one fact that we know about every Russian they are associated with Russian intelligence can you show me one fricking Russian who is not associated with Russian intelligence when was the last time you saw a news story about a

[25:48]

last time you saw a news story about a Russian who was not associated with Russian intelligence they they all seemed to know somebody who knows somebody at least they're all associated with intelligence and by the way this this Manafort guy might actually be associated with Russian intelligence I'm not even telling you it's false I'm just saying that it's kind of a coincidence that every Russian we are about is associated with Russian intelligence some of them probably don't have their phone number so with with Manta Fort Sam or whatever whatever comes out of that is likely to be more about Manafort than about anybody else then of course there's the charlottesville hoax whenever they need to you know whip up opinion they pretend that the president literally said that the that the neo-nazis marching and saying anti-semitic things that he said they were fine people no of course that is Feynman's what the

[26:49]

no of course that is Feynman's what the president said was that there were people on both sides of the statue debate and that there were some good people on both sides of the debate the media only turned that into I think he just praised Nazis no that didn't happen he said the the statue debate had good people on both sides CNN reports of this fact the racist piece of yes rpoS racist piece of tweeted it herself as for number one reason that the president is a racist her number one reason is fake news not only is it fake news it's really obvious fake news now I'm gonna tell you something that I probably shouldn't tell you I have had a private conversation with somebody as CNN I will I will leave that name an event in which

[27:49]

I will leave that name an event in which I have explained that the Charlottesville thing is fake news so and let's just say it's somebody s CNN news high and high enough up that their opinion would would have some influence yeah I'm not going to tell you who it is but I know the opinion has reached then they've at least heard that this is fake news and once you hear it it's kind of obvious as fake news because the alternative is that the President of the United States was praising people who wanted to deport his own daughter for being Jewish that didn't happen or they imagined that the president United States thought it would be a good idea to praise neo-nazis who are literally chanting anti-semitic things and that he's also the guy who's Israel's best friend and he's also the guy who moved the embassy to Jerusalem I

[28:51]

guy who moved the embassy to Jerusalem I mean none of this makes sense there's no way in the world yeah his grandchildren are Jewish obviously he's close with the Jared none of it makes sense and yet they still report it and and it wouldn't matter if it were just an ordinary story if it were just a small ordinary story you'd say well they got that one wrong big deal but it's the number one reason they use to condemn them the number one reason and it's completely made-up the other thing that they do to make news is argue that the percent of whatever the story is matters more than the absolute number so for example they say yes the immigration brings crime into the country but it brings them at a lower rate than the crime rate among the locals so the people who are already here have a higher crime rate than the people who come in if you include both the illegal

[29:51]

come in if you include both the illegal and the legal No yeah both the illegal and legal immigrants I believe now that might be true and in fact it seems to me likely to be true because in my experience the people who are undocumented don't want to get in any trouble they don't want to get a speeding ticket you know they don't want to they don't want to get deported so it does make sense that they would be unusually law-abiding and in fact the vast majority of them came here just to work they didn't come here for crime so I completely believe you know and of course in a world of fake news you can never know what's true but it makes complete sense to me that the entire population of undocumented folks in this country probably have a lower crime rate and maybe even a lower violence rate but does it matter that the percentage of their average is a little bit better than the citizens who

[30:53]

little bit better than the citizens who are here does that matter let me let me put it this way if you lived in a town because you know analogies are great if you lived in a town where the crime rate was a little bit below average not a lot let's say you lived in a town oh I live in a town I live in a town where my crime rate is probably let's say I'd say my crime rate here is at least ten percent below the average for the rest of the country should I then therefore not lock my door because my crime rate is ten percent less than everywhere else in the country so therefore according to CNN if I lock my door I'm kind of a racist Who am I locking my door from why do I think people are going to Robbie my neighborhood is 10% safer than the rest of the world well people don't protect themselves based on percentages they

[31:55]

themselves based on percentages they protect themselves based on whether something might happen so if I'm walking in a neighborhood that's ten percent less dangerous than a more dangerous neighborhood that doesn't make me safe so I think that the CNM types they like to make sure that their their lead message is that they're not trying to discriminate against that group of people and I support that I do think it's important that every time we have this conversation and and I would say this very strongly every time we have the conversation about immigrants and crime it is worth noting assuming it's true and I imagine it is true that their general crime rate is lower than the average we should say that every time that's a good thing to say it's good for all it's good for everybody if it's true and I assume it is but that

[32:56]

if it's true and I assume it is but that doesn't make the argument the argument is if you can stop if you can stop a crime why don't you do it if you can stop it you do it doesn't matter if it's lower than the average that makes no sense at all alright let us change the topic a little bit - I'm gonna end a lot of my periscopes talking about climate change and for those of you who are new I do not have an opinion on climate change whether it's real or not real in the sense of being a crisis there's that crisis word whether it's dire so I don't have an opinion on that I'm in a process of trying to drill down as much as I can to find out what's real and what is it I have some preliminary conclusions subject to being changed for example the the skeptical arguments that say the Sun is behind it has been debunked in my

[33:59]

is behind it has been debunked in my opinion the skeptics don't have an argument with the Sun because you can just look at the graphs and they're not correlated with temperature save the experts as I think they are probably right about that so I've sort of one by one I've been picking off these skeptical arguments because I'm trying to get down to the strongest skeptical argument so I don't want to waste time debating a climate scientist about stuff that's just ridiculous so the Sun is behind it the theory is just ridiculous there are a number of other ridiculous theories but one one that is the most outrageous claim I haven't seen the argument against so again this is not my argument I'm telling you I've only seen one side and I'd like to see the counter-argument and and this is the a surprisingly robust claimed by the skeptics and when I say

[35:00]

claimed by the skeptics and when I say surprisingly rid of bust I mean only until somebody tells me the other argument and it's weird that is missing it's weird that it isn't obvious to me what the counter-argument is and this skeptical argument goes like this co2 is not an important greenhouse gas it's like the literal opposite of the claim so the main claim is the co2 is the the big lever that's moving the temperature there are other things moving the temperature of a co2 at the moment is the main driver that's the claim of climate scientists so much so that the temperature is going up at an increasing rate and the skeptics a co2 isn't even a possibility it's not so the skeptics would say the co2 shouldn't even be in the lineup of Skepta lineup of possibilities because there isn't any physical possible scientific way the co2 could make a difference to the temperature this is such a small

[36:01]

temperature this is such a small percentage compared to water vapor right and water vapor is the bigger player now reiterating as many times as I need to that's not my opinion I'm just saying with the skeptical argument is now what do you do with an argument that just says it isn't there's no evidence to makes a difference now I've seen people say well it's it's only a few molecules and of thousands or whatever but that doesn't convince me because there are lots of cases where a few molecules makes a difference if you had a few molecules of fentanyl it would kill you so I'm not I'm not persuaded by the fact that it's a small percentage yeah try putting a 1% fentanyl into your body so as a percentage of your total body weight just just figure out what 1% of your total body weight is find out how much fentanyl that is and then inject it see if it makes a difference ya know so

[37:03]

see if it makes a difference ya know so analogies are good when they're explaining a new concept the new concept is that a little bit of something routinely can be dangerous it's very normal for a small percentage of something to make a big difference so so the argument that it's a small percentage of something is not an argument at least is not a persuasive one the other argument that the skeptics make that doesn't work is that there has there has been higher co2 in the past with lower temperatures and therefore and I'm not really terribly concerned with what the earth was millions years ago because there were other variables in play so it just doesn't seem like apples and oranges so here's my challenge my challenge for today is what is the counter-argument to the skeptics who say there is literally no evidence or maybe no proof the co2 is even a

[38:05]

or maybe no proof the co2 is even a variable that it's even a variable that makes the difference now I think everybody including the skeptics agree that adding co2 adds some heat so nobody is arguing the co2 adds nothing the argument is that it's a trivial amount
and I want to hear the counter-argument to that yeah which I assume exists I'm just alright that's all for now somebody says there's no evidence that evolution is real well I wouldn't say that
how are the drums coming along pretty well pretty well I should tell you that I've been taking online drum drum classes and it's working pretty well for me I like I like the whole process of it

[39:06]

me I like I like the whole process of it so yeah I've I've got to the point where I can do a beat and I can do a fill and I can have fun playing my drums I can't quite do a whole song yet so I haven't seen the clip of my interview with David Pakman has anybody seen that did anybody see that video so I did that was it yesterday co2 is a logarithmic effect exactly so the point I meant to say that actually so thank you for reminding me yes the argument that slight increases in co2 should have no impact on the temperature are not persuasive because the argument was co2 is that you you reach a point and every little bit makes a big difference so that's the way of saying logarithmic I guess that the that after you get to a certain base level of co2 the argument

[40:07]

certain base level of co2 the argument is that every little bit extra makes a bigger difference than the first the first 10% I don't know if that's true but you know cu2 is 10 times higher in the past again I reject that argument number 1 all of the climate scientists know that what you just said is true and it has no impact on them and it's the most famous thing that people say therefore I'm pretty sure they have a good explanation for that but my common sense Malaysian is that there were so many other things that were likely to be different different in the past I have to assume that the atmosphere is sort of always changing so I'm not going to buy any argument about what it was like a million years ago I'm just just not interested in that persuading me it never would

[41:10]

no I'm saying that any for me personally anything beyond modern measurement and modern times I would say anything before recorded history probably wouldn't influence me too much so if the only place we saw a risk was a million years ago I don't know if I'd I'd be worried about that all right the hockey stick blah blah blah yeah so here's the thing I've been trying to figure out about the way they major climate you know I'm trying to figure out I can't tell and I'm getting stuck on the logic of it but it goes like this there are about ten ways that the climate scientists can measure temperature some of them better than others so tree rings are kind of debatable whereas you know satellites or maybe the higher level and then the direct measurements are here and then

[42:11]

direct measurements are here and then you know everything from coral to I don't know some other some other natural stuff to think of major and what they'll do is they'll say okay we've got this one measurement let's say it's the physical measurements measurements and let's say that we've got a gap here because I know for some reason we we changed the way we're using them or we found the problem in order to fill in the gap from one of them the measurements they will look for one of the other of the ten measurements that can fill in the gap so they're using each of the 10 ways to measure measure to fill in the gaps that the other ways have because they all have you know they all have a weakness and I'm trying to figure out okay does that make perfect sense that if you have ten ways to measure things if some of them have gaps you will use the other measurements to fill those in as an estimate on some

[43:13]

fill those in as an estimate on some level my thinking is yeah I see why that would make sense but here's the other thing I'm thinking doesn't that open it up to a lot of opinion in other words doesn't it take measurement to opinion because you're deciding what things are reasonable proxies for the gaps and I'm not entirely sure that's valid well certainly not as valid as just having a good measurement so I don't know how much to trust that and I imagine it's the sort of thing that if you were you were working you know and you were deeply involved in it maybe you'd have a better opinion anyway and then somebody

[44:15]

better opinion anyway and then somebody just said another myth here so one of the myths was that the skeptics say that all of the adjustments are in the direction of making the warming look worse the climate science what scientists will show you the graph of all the adjustments and you can see that roughly half of them are adjusted down half are adjusted up and that they they make a good case that that's just not true it's just not true that everything was adjusted in one direction so I will believe the climate scientist on that question of fact all right that's enough for me I will talk to you all later