Episode 370 Scott Adams Dear Diary, RPOS, Climate Change Persuasion

Date: 2019-01-11 | Duration: 53:22

Topics

Jim Acosta became America’s piñata yesterday He stood in front of the wall and said no problems here! President tweets reply to Acosta, “Dear Diary” CNN contacted San Diego station KUSI for anti-wall content KUSI is pro-wall, CNN decided not to use their content? Fentanyl deaths are being compared to Viet Nam war deaths The border debate is bringing the country together Average person knowledge of the issue increasing Border arguments from both sides…without the politics Drugs, crime, numbers of crimes versus rate percentage VISA overstays Why are there gaps in parts of the scientists climate change stance? The historical data used in the hockey stick graph It shows an earlier point, before CO2, same hockey stick ClimateGate emails are a conspiracy theory, completely debunked Data discrepancies from the past, tree ring experts and proxies From 1960 to present, tree rings don’t track temperatures Tree ring data was good in the past…but not now? Challenge responses about William Happer’s claims and validity Scientists say you can’t look at just some regions, need whole world NASA site “proof” of warming is the Arctic…one area? Some places are warming…but not all? Some are cooling? Can we accurately measure ocean temperatures, today and historically? How much of the ocean are we measuring, maybe 1%? Direct causes of heat, like my car, my fireplace, my heated home Is direct heat causing or responsible for any global warming? RPOS, the person formerly known as AOC… …beginning to get pushback from fellow Democrats A festering wound for hopes of a Democrat Presidency?

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:11]

hey John come on in here pull up a seat unless you're driving your car in which case don't pull up a chair nothing good can come from that hey Andy hey Navin Mark good to see you um you have come to the right place if you were hoping for morning coffee with Scott Adams this is the place and it's time now for the simultaneous zp grab your mug your cup your glass your Stein your chalice if you will fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the simultaneous
sip oh that's good let us start with the favorite my favorite story of the day and I know it's your favorite too so yesterday poor Jim aosta famous critic of President Trump uh turned into

[1:13]

critic of President Trump uh turned into the uh nation's pinata thanks thanks to uh a video in which it's it's it was such an amazing own goal that I actually laughed and and cried when I saw the president sweet about it as you did too I'm sure and so for the for those few of you who haven't seen it Jim aosta did a did a video segment where he was standing next to a border wall that is essentially the steel slat kind that's pretty much exactly what the president is suggesting and he mocks that he doesn't see any kind of Crisis and he's right there on the border standing next to this really tall wall no crisis next to the
the wall now I think Jim aosta thought he was making a point that was against the president but what he was really doing was standing in front of his own goal and driving the ball into the back of

[2:15]

and driving the ball into the back of the net because the president's point is that there's no crisis when you have a wall and he was literally standing in front of the the wall let's call it a slat steel barrier whatever you want so of course the internet had fun with it all day long and president Trump had maybe the most perfect tweet I don't know you you might even say it's one for the ages you know I write humor for a living so you know I I appreciate a well-crafted if you can call it a joke but well-crafted humor so the president's tweet he show he just tweets the video and the only comment he made was dear
diary now I'm a professional and I could not have written that better there was

[3:17]

not have written that better there was something so deliciously dismissive about it while still being tongue and cheek while still acknowledging how hard he was winning the president and and the specific case and he didn't overplay it it would have been so easy to overplay that hand you know he could have said you know big dope Jim aosta doesn't know that he's standing in front of a wall you think of all the ways that that tweet could have just been you know too much thumb on the scale but instead the president and i' I've said this from the beginning his his comic Sensibility ities are extraordinary so he takes it he pulls it back all the way to the the simplest little lightest touch because it was sort of like uh you ever watch a kung fu movie where you know the Kung Fu Master goes to the bad guy and the bad guy is still standing and then then the Kung Fu

[4:19]

still standing and then then the Kung Fu Master goes poop and pushes him over dead because it was just you know the last little push is all it took well with the president going dear diary that was like the last little push you're you already killed yourself I'll just I'll just just push you over just just a little bit that's all that's all it takes so I literally stood in my kitchen after I read that and tears were like falling down on the on the kitchen counter and I had to like clean up the tears of of laughter I and I know a lot of you have the same experience all right let's go to our next big story um I like to maintain my credit ibility wherever that's possible by being critical of both sides or or complimenting both sides of the political world when appropriate here's here's a case of that uh there's a viral story going around this morning everybody's sending it to me about uh

[5:19]

everybody's sending it to me about uh CNN apparently contacted a local station in um San Diego called KUSI and according to KUSI their own reporting they say the CNN asked them for some assistance in getting somebody to talk about the border and when CNN was informed apparently in this conversation that the the Border barrier or wall if you will works according to the reporting at this station then this station says that CNN decided not to not to use their their resources or talk to their people because because it didn't didn't fit the narrative I call on this story um now here's the parts I believe I believe CNN contacted them I believe CNN ask them for help and I believe that when they explained that

[6:21]

believe that when they explained that you know they were sort of pro wall that I do believe that CNN changed their mind what is not in evidence is why and here's the context I'm going to add that is not in the story and if you don't add this context it it could be misleading and here's the context when a producer contacts somebody and says you know can we do this or can we do that it's always exploratory but is also dependent upon other stories they're writing about other uses for CNN's uh resources Etc so what is not in evidence is why CNN decided not to pursue this the assumption is mind reading right so KUSI is reporting is essentially mind reading they're saying we told them something they didn't want to hear and then they

[7:22]

they didn't want to hear and then they went away as if that's why they went away now that might actually be entirely true but and this is important it's not in
in evidence the major the primary claim is not in evidence we only know the facts facts are they talked about doing something and then they decided not to that's all we know now I know what you're saying you're saying but Scott you know CNN is biased you know you know that they can't uh they can't do a story that's contrary to their claims that's that might be true but that's not in evidence for the reason that they backed out so I'm trying to be consistent remember I I I criticize almost every day CNN for trying to read other people's minds and say oh the president has evil intentions so if I don't do it in this case I'm not being consistent

[8:22]

in this case I'm not being consistent it's entirely true or it's entirely possible that KUSI is reporting about the mental state of CNN could be true but is not in evidence okay um let me ask you a question when my stepson died of a opioid overdo overdose that included fenel um I likened it to uh the number of people who died in the country to the number of us um military deaths in Vietnam and now I'm seeing that widely used by the president and in other reporting so that the comparison of the the deaths by uh fenel in particular being compared to the number of US military deaths in Vietnam did I start that so that's my question to you because I don't actually

[9:22]

question to you because I don't actually don't know I feel like I was the first one who ever said that because uh I remember the thought process I remember thinking how can I size this and and I came up with that Vietnam thing uh but it may it's entirely possible other people did it as well so
so um yeah now if it's true now a few people are saying no um it's been a thing our whole lives uh if you have another source for that let's say a let's say a Twitter Source somebody who made that analogy first please send it to me or that comparison first because I would like to know whether or not um I was influential the reason I'm asking that is that one of the ways I can test the effectiveness of my influence is by choices of words that I use that that get used by other people so it's like a little

[10:24]

people so it's like a little fingerprint so when I came up with that Vietnam compar I was attempting to create a fingerprint that if that became popular I would say okay people are listening to me cuz I see my fingerprint in the way they're talking about it but since I can't confirm I'm the only person who ever said that I can't confirm it's really a fingerprint so if you can help me on that that'd be great um let's talk about uh what oh let's talk about border secury there there are some surprising things coming out of this border conversation and here's the most surprising thing and contrarian thing you're ever going to hear are you ready this border debate is bringing the country together now that's the opposite of what you think right don't you think that

[11:25]

you think right don't you think that this whole border thing is is driving the country apart well emotionally it is on an emotional level it probably is driving the country apart because the you know it's just another reason to fight but let me ask you this how much do you understand about the real border situation and the real challenges and the real pluses and minuses of walls versus fences versus electronic means how much do you know now that you didn't know even a year ago about how drugs come across how important it is the details think about how much you have learned about the border and the challenge personally I went from not knowing much of anything to knowing quite a bit right and I would say that that's not not just common to one side of the argument both sides are being deeply educated on a topic of high

[12:27]

deeply educated on a topic of high interest to the country now what happens when people are deeply educated they start here and here completely opposing forces but as the two forces become educated what is happening have you noticed that the proposed Solutions are growing together all right so the public's opinion of what is practical and not practical started here and is starting to come together now if you looked at the language they use you maybe would notice it because the the Democrats are saying walls don't work walls don't work and Republicans are saying walls totally work they totally work so you on the surface you'd say well those are kind of opposites but if you look under the under the hood just a little bit just a little bit you can see the people say things like such as well it's clear that we don't need the same solution for every stretch of the Border

[13:29]

every stretch of the Border that wasn't always the case when we started this conversation I would say Republicans would have said yeah we just need a wall wall it up when we started this conversation I think Republicans would have said um these walls are going to stop the drugs it's you know really going to make a big difference but we've now learned that by far the vast majority of drugs come through the legal points of Entry you know they're in cars hidden in cars and stuff we also know that there are uh technologies that could help us detect it and that those are being purchased so I don't know exactly the Technologies but you know in addition to sniffing dogs they've got things that can I don't know look through things maybe maybe some kind of X-ray sort of Imaging thing I don't know exactly what the Technologies are we know more about um drones we know more about uh children

[14:32]

drones we know more about uh children being locked up we know we know more about everything and the more you know the closer your opinions become because the crazy stuff the crazy stuff is getting tossed down one by one
one now what the people on the left are hearing is that where walls are put up the border patrol says they work and the towns there subject to those walls say they work and that seems that seems quite consistent doesn't it doesn't it seem to you that the the story is quite consistent that where there's a wall it has at least for that area has made it big difference not even a small difference but just a big difference now we're also becoming somewhat experts about what kind of a wall makes sense we've learned that seeing through the wall matters we've learned that some walls you know even the metal ones can be sawed we've

[15:32]

the metal ones can be sawed we've learned about ladders and everything else and we've learned about tunnels we've learned about the cartel controlling parts of the Border um so I think in this weird way and certainly this was nobody's intention but I think the country is actually coming together on what I call the engineering questions the questions of what what actually could work so I don't think even the government has a real difference in what works so right now the government is locked in nothing but a a political you know uh contest so the president needs this wall for political reasons uh or this barrier whatever he wants to call it the the Democrats need to thwart him again for just political reasons but I think the public has largely come together imagine if you went went to somebody uh on the other side of the debate from wherever you were let's say

[16:34]

debate from wherever you were let's say you were Pro wall from the beginning if you were to have a private conversation with somebody who was not pro wall somebody who was an anti-trumper and you say Okay nobody's listening it's just you and it's just me can we agree that border security matters and you'll both say well yeah all right there's so few people who say open borders any any Democrat you put in a in a room with just you a friend of yours is going to say yeah of course of course border security matters and then you say would you agree with the proposition that you would use different solutions in different parts of the border and then you would both say well yeah duh obviously and then you'd say would you agree that the people who are most capable of deciding would be a combination of the border patrol who have experience plus Engineers that they work with with that tell them what's practical and and what isn't would you say that's the best way to approach it

[17:34]

say that's the best way to approach it they would say yes so you'd be in perfect agreement and then you say let's talk about the budget would you agree that $5 billion is really nothing compared to the budget and again your Democrat will say yeah I mean $5 billion is real money but in terms of the country and the budget it actually is kind of trivial so if you put the the harshest Republican and the harshest Democrat in a room and nobody else was watching and they didn't ever have to explain what they said they they would never have to nobody would ever see their opinion it's just the two of you you would pretty much precisely agree on what is the problem and what needs to be done now this works both ways that let's say the um the Democrat says to you okay Republican you said you want this wall and one of the reasons is to stop drugs coming across would you agree that all the fenel that you need to kill every

[18:35]

the fenel that you need to kill every person in the United States could fit inside this Kleenex box now if the Republican doesn't agree you just show them the link and say okay here's a picture of somebody holding it in their hand in fact um uh Sanjay Gupta did this on CNN the other day yell up a package almost just this size and and talked about it being worth $30 million now if you can make $30 million from a package this size let me let me show you how let me show you how this package can beat a wall are you ready this will be a very technical demonstration watch oh look it just went over the wall all you need is somebody on the other side to catch it right or you can throw it over the wall and then you know if you're you're a serious drug mule you could you could probably find a way to crawl over the wall yourself as well so would the Republican and the

[19:35]

well so would the Republican and the Democrat come to an agreement that the drug cartels are pretty clever and if you make it harder to use one way to get to the United States they'll just use another way because again it's this big there's no wall that's going to stop something this big from getting from 10 feet over there to 10 feet over there that's just not a thing right secondly or not secondly um you might talk about crime now you go into the room the Democrat and the Republican and you've been arguing for a year about the impact of crime the Republican say crime is cing across the border the Democrat says well um I agree that there's some crime coming across the border so we're in agreement on that but the crime rate is lower for immigrants of all types legal and illegal than the people who are already here they're actually lowering the crime rate to which the Republican says I

[20:35]

rate to which the Republican says I don't care about the rate if I'm dead it doesn't matter that they come from a group of people with low crime it matters that they rob my house or that they they sold drugs or they they murdered somebody so would you agree Democrat that if you could take the crime rate down to zero simply by following our laws that that would be a good idea it doesn't matter what the rate is it just matters that you have a way to to bring it down would you agree that Bringing Down the Bringing Down the number of crimes not just the rate but the raw number of crimes is a good thing and would you agree that you know lots of people are getting raped trying to come across the border Etc in very short order if you if you presented it that way You' find that the Republican and the Democrat as long as nobody else was watching and they didn't have to answer to anybody afterwards would both say okay I get you the crime rate is not that high but you know

[21:38]

rate is not that high but you know that's not really the important thing the important thing is if there is crime and it is substantial and you know and if we're talking about murder and rape any amount is substantial there's no such thing as a little bit of rape being okay right that's not a thing nobody in the room is going to say well you know a little bit of murder it's it's just not as much as the average so a little bit of murder can't be that bad nobody's going to say that you're going to agree that if you can do something about it you do it doesn't matter that the rate is lower than normal all right so here's my point I believe that this debate has drawn the citizens to almost exactly the same opinion and I didn't think that would ever be possible and it happened through massive accidental education so we have been massively accidentally uh educated about the southern border now the other thing that might happen come up in the room with the one

[22:39]

come up in the room with the one Democrat and the one Republican is that the one Democrat might say hey Republican the the big problem is people coming in from the airports and overstaying their visas by far that's you know much bigger in terms of numbers and the Republican would say you're right we should do something about that also but wouldn't you agree we should solve all of our problems why would you only solve you know why would you only care about the big one that we don't really have an obvious answer for when you can solve a small one and we have an obvious answer for that why why wouldn't you do that and very quickly you end up being on exactly the same page so it's only a political difference at this point it's it's no longer legitimately uh a difference in opinion in the country it's weird but the the citizens are all on the same page or they would be if they spent 5 minutes talking to each other all right um let's talk

[23:40]

right um let's talk about um I don't I'm trying to decide if I want to talk about Jeff Bezos and his upcoming divorce
um you know given that I have uh my income is largely dependent on amazon.com uh treating me
fairly I got feeling that I've got a feeling that maybe I'm going to stay away from that uh but I you do have to ask the question is it a coincidence that uh that Bezos is having these troubles assume there are no coincidences in the world and that if you're the head of a major media organization and you've been attacking somebody for 3 years and there are people within that organization who have the ability to attack back there may not be any coincidences

[24:41]

back there may not be any coincidences in the world but I have no way to know that all right let me uh talk about climate change now if you're if you're new to me talking about climate change I do not have an opinion whether it's uh it's a big old hoax or whether it's real uh and I've been doing a deep dive over weeks where I'll take one Topic at a time and try to see if I could figure it out as a non-scientist now I'm not trying to look at the science I'm just trying to understand the arguments so my filter on this is persuasion and I have so far determined that that a fairly big number of the skeptical arguments are just complete right I I'll I'll list a few but there are others that I have not debunked in a way that is persuasive to be but I think maybe that's possible likewise there are a few things on the pro-science side that seem to be clearly or they're presented in a way

[25:43]

or they're presented in a way that makes them look like that which is puzzling in itself so that's part of the mystery the mystery is for someone who's legitimately on the fence which I am I'm legitimately on the fence um why is is it that the people who are the majority of
of scientists can be so unpersuasive in specific parts of the argument not not necessarily the whole argument but why are there parts of it that are so clearly smell like BS look like BS I haven't figured out why um I have some hypotheses but we'll work through it let me tell you my so here's today's current
learning um and again I'm I'm begging for factchecking because what I'm going to say next doesn't sound like it could possibly be true but it's my understanding so I'm going to tell you my understanding I'm going to admit that

[26:45]

my understanding I'm going to admit that it doesn't sound like it could possibly be true and then you tell me what's wrong with it because I don't know what's wrong with it so my understanding is this that in order to draw the graph that shows the temperature and CO2 are in lock step and that the current rate of increase is unprecedented let's call that the Michel man hockey stick that in order for that graph to work they had to have enough historical um you know historical data to show that the current situation is unprecedented okay now the first question I ask is uh one of the Skeptics I think it was haer um no it was L I think it was Linden shows the Michael man graph that shows that you know in the recent years the rate of increases on precedented and then he says look at their own graph their own graph shows that within recorded history the rate of increase

[27:45]

recorded history the rate of increase has happened before you just look at the graph the the claim they're making that there's nothing like this rise in history is refuted by the graph that shows that rise now I look at it and I say to myself what the hell wouldn't that be the simplest thing to either prove or disprove if the official graph has two unprecedented unprecedented changes and one of them was much earlier in the CO2 history in other words there wasn't as much CO2 how can I be looking at the official graph that disproves the official graph I don't know the answer to that now it could be that the the skeptic is misleading me in some way but I'm looking at the official graph I'm not looking at the Skeptics graph I'm looking at the Sciences graph you know the the consensus how do you explain that here's the other part that

[28:47]

explain that here's the other part that I think I understood but there's a problem so uh this morning somebody sent me a clip of a climate scientist who was debunking the various uh what he call conspiracy theories against climate scientists so he was debunking the Skeptics and he started out by saying talking about the so-called climate gate where an email was discovered in which one of the climate scientists working with uh Michael man were trying to um they were trying to explain shall we say that's the most neutral language they were trying to explain why their Theory didn't seem to make sense given that there was some warming in the past that was not CO2 related and the the email said that somebody one of the scientists used Michael man's quote trick to quote hide the you know hide the decline I I guess it's the opposite they were trying to

[29:48]

it's the opposite they were trying to hide the fact that some temperatures were declining in some period and
um and my opinion on that is that that is a conspiracy theory meaning that there's nothing in evidence from those emails that I find problematic all right if you heard if you looked at those emails and you concluded that they were illegitimate scientists doing an illegitimate thing and trying to conceal their treachery that's not in the email the email is the way two people who know each other talk if I said I'm using your math matical if I'm if I'm emailing a friend I don't say hey friend I use your mathematical uh you know formula to get a result I say I use your trick you know I use your trick to get a result so they use word trick in casual conversation it doesn't mean it doesn't mean

[30:49]

doesn't mean it doesn't mean treachery and they said to hide the decline but of course that was the problem they were working on they were trying to figure out how it could be with within scientific you know within within the realm of science how could you make that go away so the you know the climate gay thing has been completely debunked as uh I think that is just a conspiracy theory but then the scientist who was trying to debunk the Skeptics went after the tree rings here he did not do so well let me give you the argument as it's presented again acknowledging and I'm going to say this as clearly as possible I must be wrong about what I'm going to say next so everything that comes out of my mouth in the next couple minutes has to be wrong but it's what I'm seeing it's what I'm seeing as the argument the argument goes like this that in order for the current measurements to to make sense in terms

[31:51]

measurements to to make sense in terms of CO2 being the driver of of temperature it has to be true in the past as well but there was some discrepancy in the past that would have made the current theory look like it was wrong so in Michael man's work to try to explain the discrepancy he went to proxies and one of the proxy actually the main proxy he used for figuring out the temperature in the past where there was a gap in the record was tree rings he so use tree rings to fill in that Gap because the size of the tree rings will tell you something about the temperature and then it it all fit now there were tree ring experts who debated that which is a separate problem the tree ring experts said hey you did it wrong but the bigger problem is that tree rings from 1960 to the present do not track with temperature they're not even close they diverge so the question is why do uh you

[32:52]

diverge so the question is why do uh you know why is it that tree rings worked in the past but now we know for sure I at the moment there's no question about them that they do not track temperatures in the present so how could they be useful in the past do you know what the climate expert said to explain why tree rings were good in the past but they're no longer good in the in the present he said we're working on that that's part of what he said we're working on it meaning they don't know but here's the suspicious part he said we can tell that the tree rings used to be good because of other proxies so in other words they used other temperature proxies to match the tree rings in the past to find out that they were correct in the past what's wrong with that thinking here's what's wrong if they had other accurate proxies why did they need tree rings in the first place the one and only reason

[33:55]

the first place the one and only reason that tree rings were used in the past past is because they didn't have a better way to do it do you think if you wanted to measure the temperature in some past year that your best way to do that would be to measure tree rings if you had any better way to do that wouldn't you use those better ways so the the scientific explanation of why tree rings used to work but now they don't is completely refuted by the argument about why they work you can't say they matched the proxies in the past while also saying there were no proxies in the past worthy of using now again I'm asking you to fact check me why don't I understand that that's the argument that was given and and if somebody's going to miss the argument by I mean that's a terrible argument all right here's another terrible argument I sent around a challenge the other day on Twitter um it was a skeptic

[34:56]

other day on Twitter um it was a skeptic let's call him a skeptic I think that's close enough uh Dr haer and so he was talking about the um illegitimacy of the models so the video in question was only about how the models are not good because you couldn't possibly measure the stuff that was the the basic point and I asked people to to debunk what he said because he was pretty specific about his criticisms and here are the here are the debunkings that I got people people sent me to other things he said that were debunked think about that I said tell me what's wrong with this argument and the only argument I got was there was some other related unrelated thing that people said he got wrong and there were several of them but they weren't they weren't the point all right here's the other argument people said uh but we know that he's uh he's been paid by the oil

[35:56]

oil companies all right and therefore he's not credible because the energy companies have paid him now I agree with that I agree that if somebody is being influenced by money you can't trust their opinion who else in this story is influenced by money every climate scientist every person in the story on both sides is apparently motivated by money so you can't say that haer is not is not credible because he gets paid or has been paid in the past by energy companies if you're not also willing to say that money is an influence on the other side it's either true that money influences or it's true that it doesn't you just have to pick a side and if you want to be compatible with science you have to pick the side that it does influence because that's what science will tell you all right

[37:03]

um uh there's also I'm seeing in the news u a recent report that says the ocean is warming faster than modeled and other words the models were wrong and that the ocean is getting warmer much faster this is being this was reported as both proof of climate change and also so proof that is wrong the same information is being presented as proof that is right and proof that is wrong and so the proof that is right is that hey we told you that warming was going to get dangerous and sure enough it's even more dangerous than they thought so we proved it at the same time the people who don't believe the models say well if your model wasn't even close to predicting this have you not just disproven your models because the model the most important thing that the models could do would be to C to figure out what the ocean is

[38:05]

to C to figure out what the ocean is doing because the ocean is the biggest Factor right by far what happens in the ocean is going to be the thing that matters so it can't be simultaneously true that we missed our estimates and it's much worse than we thought while at the same time hey our models are Dependable they just can't both be true here's another one um and here you'll have to fact check me but uh I I'm hearing from Skeptics that the temperatures in the United States happen to be not as warming not warming the same as the average of the globe and coincidentally we have the best measurement in the very place that is unique and that it's not warming now what are the chances that the places we have the best measurement is also the only place that it seems like it's not getting warmer what do the scientists say about that first of all I'm not entirely sure that's true but that's the

[39:08]

entirely sure that's true but that's the claim um what do scientists say about that they say well the world does not warm up every place in the same way the world warms up you know maybe really hot over here this place could actually get a little cooler but on average so you can't look at so here's what the scientists say they say you can't look at one region and conclude anything and you can't look at a handful of regions and conclude anything if you're not looking at the whole thing you're not really looking at the problem because it's the average that's going up not not this place this place this place all right so let's accept that let's accept that the average could go up and it would be meaningless to look at a certain Zone and say well this Zone isn't like the average that doesn't mean anything at the same time you go to the NASA site where they're trying to tell you all the proof of climate change and what is one of their major proofs they tell you that in the certain

[40:08]

proofs they tell you that in the certain region the Arctic the temperatures are above average and there's there's more ice melting now of course the Skeptics uh refute that but that's not the point right now the point right now is that one of the major claims of climate science is that you can't look at one area and say this is telling you something you have to look at the whole at the same time they say you can't look at one area because that could be an outlier they use as one of the primary proofs hey look at this one area look at the Arctic it's melting can't have it both ways either the Arctic is a good proxy for the rest of the world or like the United States it's just an area like any other area on Earth and you can't tell a lot from that one example so this is why I'm on the fence because it's very clear that a number of the skeptical arguments are just total tin foil hat BS that's

[41:12]

just total tin foil hat BS that's obvious but not all of them some of the skeptical arguments have still stood up yeah and and I would say that so far Tony heler has the strongest case so there uh the the case about the models being inaccurate I think a lot of people have a good argument for that and and frankly you know that's I I believe the models are not accurate which is different from saying we don't have a problem I'm still in the fence on whether this is a big problem or not um but um but Tony hel's um focus is not so much on the models but rather whether the data is being accurately collected and and and used in a in a good way on a graph Etc so so far I would say the Tony hel skeptical argument is the strongest one but and there's a big but here um he also attributes

[42:16]

here um he also attributes intention to what he reports on and the intention I would argue is not in evidence it's mind reading so it's one thing to say that NASA used to report this temperature but now they report this and that you know coincidentally seemed to work in their favor
um sorry I lost my train of thought um all right now here's my My ultimate skepticism the entire climate change debate comes down to the question of whether we can accurately measure the temperature of the ocean and we can uh measure it accurately enough historically to know that whatever we're seeing is unprecedented do you believe that science with all its awesomeness can measure the temperature

[43:18]

awesomeness can measure the temperature of the ocean both today and historically at a level of precision that would be useful now maybe you know I I'd hate to be the you know I'd hate to be the guy before the right Brothers flew who said ah well there's no way you know science will tell you there's no way that an airplane can fly that's not a thing you know I hate to be the guy who says that science can't do what it's going to do tomorrow you know I don't want to be that guy but I cannot wrap my head around the fact that we can measure uh the temperature of the ocean at all the levels that we need to and account for all the movement now so here's the question I ask how many measurements or let's put it this way what percentage of the ocean do we have to measure with let's say buoys because satellites are really just

[44:18]

buoys because satellites are really just going to do some surfacy stuff but what percentage do we have to measure in order to become confident we've measured the ocean's temperature like what what do you think that would be cuz I'm guessing we measure 1% of it would you say do you do you think that the thermometers get a Direct Read to something like 1% of it or maybe something far less um somebody says all of it
100% you you think that we measure we measure 100% of the ocean how I don't think
uh so the hockey stiff graph correlates to the production all right let me ask you the I I don't remember if I asked you this on in public before I want to ask you the most naive question that that I think is just

[45:21]

naive question that that I think is just scientifically naive but I don't know the answer to it and I have no sense of embarrassment so I'm going to ask ask you the most naive scientific question and here it is the uh CO2 is pretty directly correlated with our industrial growth right with the number of cars and energy and smoke stacks and how much coal we use and all that stuff so our industrialization follows you know the line of CO2 fairly directly isn't it also true that the Industrial Age directly adds warming in other words uh when I run my fireplace I'm I'm not only Rel reducing I'm not only creating CO2 because it's a gas fireplace but I'm also warming things I'm I'm directly warming things you know my car engine is warm I'm warming my house my body is warm are we not directly adding heat somebody

[46:23]

not directly adding heat somebody mentioned concrete isn't isn't the amount of concrete that we're adding to the
the world isn't that making a difference you know wouldn't we expect that the result of lots of lots of activity that directly causes heat you know you if if there were no such thing as CO2 wouldn't you still expect human activity to vastly increase the temperature CU I'm giving off heat all day long and if I had not been born I wouldn't be where's that Heat going now now the the reason it's know somebody's saying it's insignificant but you would also think that about a CO2 wouldn't you I mean it's a it's such a trace little gas you know the the fact that your common sense says well maybe that's not enough I don't know I'm adding quite a bit of heat to take take right now for example my entire house is full of heat it's got to go somewhere right doesn't it go

[47:25]

to go somewhere right doesn't it go somewhere so I I guess I don't know the you know I don't know the science well enough to know why the actual direct heat isn't isn't the obvious explanation of why things are getting warmer all right and again I'm not making a claim uh this will be taken out of context probably and somebody will say you know you're claiming it's because your fireplace is making the world warmer I'm not claiming that I'm just wondering why doesn't it it's just a question of curiosity all right have I talked about everything I wanted to talk about oh one of the skeptical claims that I don't agree with is that we can't predict hurricanes even two days in advance the direction of hurricanes that's one of the great CL skeptical claims if and if you can't predict a hurricane two days in advance how can you predict you know the climate you know decades in advance I think that's probably a bad

[48:26]

advance I think that's probably a bad example it might be persuasive but I'm not sure that you know the logic of it holds because um a hurricane is a is a single event and the climate is the average of lots of events and I would think that it it doesn't seem to me completely inconsistent that you would have trouble figuring out a hurricane because it's an individual event but you still might be able to figure out average temperatures if you could measure that stuff so I'm not sure that's the strong argument all right um let's talk about rpos um rpos and I think you know who I'm talking about uh 29-year-old new member of Congress I'm trying not to talk about her as much because I don't like giving uh energy to racists but there is something interesting happening that I can't I can not mention so it turns turns out that

[49:27]

not mention so it turns turns out that the Democrats are starting to turn against rpos because she's sort of making them look bad and she's not playing well with the rest and I thought to myself uh a while back I thought you know Fox News and the other the other conservative sites they need to stop talking about her if they don't want to boost her power and I thought why are they boosting her signal you know of course I was doing it at the same time but in my context I talk about persuasion so I I have a better reason to do it um and I thought that's probably a mistake if what you want is more Conservative Republican policies the last thing you should be doing is boosting her signal and then I realized that what Fox News did is by boosting her
her signal uh in part you know obviously CNN and the others are boosting it too but they weaponized her and then they turned

[50:29]

they weaponized her and then they turned her loose inside the Democratic party to cannibalize her from the inside that what should have been a perfectly good Case by the Democrats has turned into an unworkable proposition thanks to her and and I have to ask myself did Fox News know what they were doing did they know that by weaponizing the least let's say the least um what would it say the least sellable argument by trying to help the Democrats Embrace her they would be embracing the least sellable propositions and maybe that was maybe that was just sort of a genius uh genius level strategy I don't know but the point point is that imagine imagine the Democrats without

[51:31]

Democrats without rpos imagine that most of the energy and the reporting about Democrats was about how they're the same people compared to this crazy impulsive president Trump now if if Democrats simply ran a pretty good candidate you know somebody who meets their demographic and whatever other interests but is also just capable you know pretty good campaigner as long as that person seemed sane and not a racist they probably have pretty good luck against the president because he's been painted in such a Negative light but because they have to defend now why they're the party of rpos oh rpos is uh she used to be called AOC but when when she went full racist uh I renamed her to rpos the the r is for racist POS does not does not stand for point of sale so you can you can do the math

[52:34]

you can you can do the math um so I think she's she may be succeeding in completely ruining the Democrats chances of ever having a president at least in the next number of years so I have to point that out that she's become uh a festering wound in the Democrat those festering wounds make it yeah rpos the festering wound within the Democratic party
uh Pelosi is still the power player
and and we'll uh we'll see where that goes all right that's uh that's enough for now and I'm going to talk to you all later