Episode 371 Scott Adams: The FBI, H1B VISAs, Steve King, Terrorist Deprogramming, Climate

Date: 2019-01-12 | Duration: 47:48

Topics

CNN says Steve King said white supremacy is okay Did he think that and say that? He clarified later, said no. Even if true…would he have said it in public? President Trump tweets to promote citizenship for H1B people We want productive people, nothing to do with race Your worldview, should be able to predict the future accurately Look at your worldview carefully if it isn’t predictive Social media companies change our opinions by what they feed us In effect, they’re programming us, brainwashing us Self-radicalized by the CNN silo Self-radicalized by the FOX silo Dogs for immigration patrolling Study: White males most likely to question climate change Study also said, the more they knew about topic… …the more they questioned climate change The topic education process creates skeptics? Fraudulent skeptic chart about CO2 and temperature not tracking Chart omitted the sun. With the sun, they do track The sun matters, it’s included in scientists calculations Invalid rebuttal to say that the climate is always changing Everyone agrees it’s changing, the issue is the rate CO2 increases cloud formations, which increases heat retention Sounds logical, but debate exists, might not be correct Presentation of arguments by both skeptics and believers
Climate models seem closer to BS than science The basic argument seems pretty solid, but not the models 2 dumb arguments…”it’s the water vapor”, “it’s the clouds”

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]

hey everybody I see you come on in here I see many of you are running for your cups your mugs your Steins your chalises your cups your containers your glasses and are you filling them with your favorite liquid I like coffee and are you doing it so that you can join me for the simultaneous zp I think you are and it's time now for the simultaneous zp join
me all right you all want to talk about uh Tulsi Gabbert saying she wants to run for president but I don't have much to say about that except that um anytime Democrats have a strong woman who's got any kind of ethnic interesting thing going on that's their strongest package Kamal Aris tells a gabard those two would be two to watch I

[1:12]

gabard those two would be two to watch I don't know much else about their politics but I don't think it matters and uh unfortunately it doesn't matter I don't think their opinions on anything matters it certainly not yet so let's talk about some other things then um did you all see the story about um Steve King let let me poll you how many of you saw the story about Steve King allegedly being uh uh saying good things about white supremacists so give me a yes or no how many saw the story about Steve King and what I'm doing here is I'm checking your news Silo because this is a story that only exists in one silo if you look on Fox News not there if you look on CNN it's the biggest story right so all right so we're getting a lot of yeses a lot of NOS

[2:13]

getting a lot of yeses a lot of NOS looks like about evenly split maybe perhaps some NOS some yeses yeah all right so for those of you who have read the news today and you did not see the story about Steve King you have to ask yourself if you're stuck in a newss silo are you not
not seeing big news and I think the answer is you need to sample both sides to get a get a sense of what the country is saying now you might say one of those sides is fake news and the other is not but if you don't sample both sides you really you don't have a good sense of the of the world so CNN is reporting that Steve King has been uh he said a number of things over the years and then especially something bad that makes all the other things he said over the years sound bad on race and what he said recently uh I don't have the exact quote

[3:13]

recently uh I don't have the exact quote but it goes something like he was saying that he's wondering why uh why it is that quote white nationalists and white supremacist are are so bad when he sat in classes you know learning that Western civilization was good something like that now if you read it if you read it on its own it appears to say that he's saying white supremacists are are you know good people and I'm not going to read his mind okay so remember my my rule is that if somebody doesn't say it or they don't you know do something it doesn't count internal thoughts generally you should ignore them you know even even if you think you're accurate it's just not a good world if we go around imagining what we if we go around imagining what other people are thinking and we imagine

[4:15]

other people are thinking and we imagine they're thinking something bad however in this case he actually said the words he said the words you know at least in that quote now here's the question I ask myself uh he has also sad that he doesn't he doesn't support any kind of you know bigotry Etc uh if he had been stopped at the moment he said that if somebody had stopped him say wait a minute wait a minute I know you're talking fast and you you kind of Blended some things together there did you intentionally mean to say that white supremacy is okay yeah if whoever he had been talking to it just stopped him and said wait wait I thought you I thought I just heard you say white supremacy is okay would he have said oh yeah that's exactly what I meant I don't think so I don't think there's any chance that if they stopped him and said that's that's not clear you know what are you

[5:16]

that's not clear you know what are you saying are you saying that you're favor of way Supremacy I don't think he would have said yes that's what I meant um and and of course he clarified later uh etc etc so I'm I'm going to frame it this way whether or not he uh you know was thinking it meant it you know whether he was you know telling the truth this time and not the truth the other time I'm not sure it matters in this case in this particular case uh it was sort of a political error that I don't think is recoverable beyond that it's almost a death blow for the the
the wall in other words it is uh it works so well in the the U the opposition parties's narrative that the real reason for a wall is racism It just fits so perfectly within that

[6:17]

perfectly within that narrative that I almost think it killed the wall it it almost made the wall impossible so Steve King may have single-handedly with the help of CNN and whoever else boosts the story he may have single-handedly killed the immigration argument you know Trump might have to just give up at this point I mean you know I'm not saying that Trump will give up that doesn't seem to be his his nature but if you're looking if you're scoring what's a good day for CNN and what's a good day for the president this is a a good day for CNN uh I don't know how he could possibly recover from that but again if you're looking for a standard of how to judge people I would judge them by what they you know what they clarify they mean I would never judge them by what we thought we heard when they were speaking speaking quickly now what I think he

[7:19]

speaking quickly now what I think he probably did was he was talking about white nationalism no well I don't know what he was talking about I don't I can't think of actually a good way to explain that so I won't try but I'm pretty sure it didn't come out exactly the way he wanted it to come out but it doesn't matter it doesn't matter because there I think reasonable people are going to look at that and they're going to say I think he said what he meant to say but ask yourself this do you think that uh a sitting Senator he's a senator right is he a senator or representative I don't know but whatever he is do you think that if somebody said hey why don't you go on TV and tell the country that you're you know you you like white supremacy representative Congressman do you think do you think that he would have consciously made that decision to say that in public and the

[8:21]

decision to say that in public and the answer is not a chance there isn't the slightest chance that in a conscious way he would say those words in public even if he thought they were true so whether he didn't believe it and it was accidental or he did exactly believe it in either case nobody would say those words in public they would they would uh they would know that the repercussions would be exactly what they are so from that perspective it's unlikely that it came out the way he would have said it if he had thought about it carefully uh and in so doing it is created the impression that people know what his inner thoughts are and that they're terrible and I don't know what his inner thoughts are so I don't have an opinion on that but uh I I will say though it doesn't look recoverable it really doesn't so I I won't defend him probably somebody's going to take this out of context later and say uh cartoonist defends terrible

[9:24]

and say uh cartoonist defends terrible person that's not what I'm doing he probably screwed the GOP harder than they ever been screwed uh if if you were if you were a member of the GOP you'd want to get rid of that guy as quickly as possible so not helping he's not helping so that's my opinion all right let's talk about uh president Trump tweeted that he wanted to make it uh easier for the H1B Visa immigrants the people who typically are college educated I think all of them and are working in technology especially and uh it wants to even give them a make the make it simpler to stay and even give them a path to citizenship so this is perfectly timed because it works against the narrative that all he wants to do is keep brown people out of the country now what I'm waiting to see and it feels like this would be an important data

[10:26]

like this would be an important data point and I don't know I haven't seen it reported yet yet maybe some of you know can anybody tell me what percentage of H1B Visa people are uh White and how many are non-white because that's sort of important context isn't it since the discussion about the Border has turned into a racist versus non-racist discussion if the president is promoting H1B
H1B Visa um improvements so that there are more of them and not fewer of them what percentage I see somebody saying 80% are Asian Indian but I don't is that true because there must be a lot of Europeans in that mix right
uh 90% from India blah blah blah all right so uh all I would ask is that our

[11:27]

right so uh all I would ask is that our news sources since they have decided to frame this as a race related discussion you know the entire immigration thing president Trump has said from the beginning no it's not about race we want as many productive people as we can get and we want as few unproductive people and that's the only criteria now if that's true and the H1B Visa is consistent with those past statements that's big news because it would work work very much against the idea that we're trying to keep pound people because of ethnic near skin color and it would it work perfectly within the theory that uh he wanted smarter capable productive people who were adding to the country now remember I've told you many many times that the way you can judge your worldview you know I've said that we're living in different movies and we can live in different

[12:29]

movies and we can live in different movies because confirmation bias will make it seem as though everything that's happening is just exactly consistent with our completely different movies and you've you've seen that in real time but I've said that um the way to test your worldview is with prediction so if one world viiew predicts accurately what will happen and the other world view predicts incorrectly what will happen consistently that should tell you something the worldview that says that the president is concerned about National Security and immigration and crime and that it's not racist would have predicted and did predict that he would be trying to improve the number of you know uh ethnic groups coming into the country as long as they were in the qualified group so his statement about the H1B visas is completely consistent with the movie that says no he's being misinterpreted this this is just normal immigration

[13:31]

this this is just normal immigration control normal looking out for the country it's about qualifications it's about making sure that we know who's coming in it's about making sure that they add to the country and not subtract so that movie is completely consistent with him saying hey yeah let's make the H1B Visa process better and even give them a road to citizenship completely an unnecessary step right um but the other movie this is completely inconsistent cuz how can you explain that he would want more of the people that your entire point of view depends on him not wanting so they've got a problem explaining their world view they have pivoted to this very convenient Steve Steve King thing because the Steve King thing fits perfectly in their worldview now the other movie where the president is not operating on a race

[14:31]

president is not operating on a race basis but on an immigration basis has to explain why they can tolerate Steve King so that's a problem now now of course they it's typical for the president to just support everybody who's Republican no matter what the hell they're doing because it's just political convenience to have as many Republicans as on your side in this case he's got a real problem so this this Steve King thing uh is a problem for the president you probably you may NE you may never even you might not even see it reported on the conservative news sites I I wonder if they'll even talk about it today uh but it's going to be the big news on CNN and it will be uh big problem all right um what are the other topics we wanted to talk talk

[15:36]

about Scott got Hawk Newsome wrong did I get him wrong no I have a difference in strategy my my differences with h Nome were on strategy and his strategy that he preferred which is to make it about race was just not one I could be associated with so uh and if your strategy is race-based that's racism all right yeah I saw B yeah bet oror apparently uh did he live stream or did he just take photos but anyway he was doing social media while he was getting his teeth clean so he had his mouth open and it was a picture of his face with his mouth open and I thought to myself all right when when rpos did her live stream where she was cooking that was Innovative and clever and fun but then Bo took something that was

[16:36]

then Bo took something that was Innovative and clever and fun and he took it to the dental office and showed his he showed his teeth that's a little too personal thank you but we'd like less of that let let's give us a lot less of that so I don't think beta Beto has quite the Instinct doesn't quite have the Instinct for this um now let's talk about I think I had at least oh yeah let me let me ask you this so we keep hearing about um there are two stories that we keep hearing about and it's funny how they come together one story of course is that uh terrorists are getting radicalized on the Internet some would say they're self- radicalizing meaning they're going to the internet and reading all the wrong things and it radicalizes them and some are saying that they're being radicalized by people on the internet but in both cases let me ask you this can the social media companies

[17:39]

this can the social media companies identify somebody who's who's looking around for radical stuff and the answer has to be yes wouldn't you think don't you think that our social media companies and and therefore the CIA and the FBI don't you think that they can identify people who are who are in the beginning stages of radicalization or self-radicalization now the only way that they couldn't do that is if if all that's going on you know behind some kind of you know weird encrypted situation but I don't think that exists does it I mean you know if you're trying to self- radicalize you're probably leaving a pretty big footprint now here's the problem we can't go arresting people just because they Googled the wrong stuff cuz I will tell you that I've Googled the wrong stuff i' I've certainly looked at some I've tried to find some you know Isis stuff online once in a while just

[18:40]

stuff online once in a while just because I'm trying to figure out what's going on so you wouldn't want to you wouldn't want people to get in trouble in the real world for essentially a thought crime somebody just Googling a topic even if the topic might radicalize them you wouldn't want to have that risk but but don't we also believe that the social media companies can change our opinions by what they feed us is it not in
in evidence that advertising works is it not in evidence that the the ratio of stuff that you consume makes a difference if you see more of this and less of this it will make a difference so we know that the social media companies can effectively program people we know for example that if you watch CNN you will come to hate the president if you watch Fox News only you'll come to think he's doing a great job so we know without any

[19:43]

doing a great job so we know without any question that our media can I'm going to say brainwash us and that we're all being brainwashed all the time and quite effectively now we have some choice about which Silo of information we watch so we can self- radicalize as CNN Watchers or we can self- radicalize as Fox News Watchers but here's my question let's put those two things together people are self- radicalizing to do bad things they might become terrorists at the same time our social media can totally identify those people by their behavior and can program those people any way that we want are we and if we're not why not are we not intentionally sending messages to the people who are trying to self- radicalize to Simply brainwash them back to
to harmlessness and if we're not doing

[20:43]

harmlessness and if we're not doing that why not uh it seems to me that we have the technology we could you know we could test it you know there there are ways that you could test your messages you could even test test it with you know if you're the government you can put all kinds of resources into the test right you could take people who are let's say you've identified as potentially radicals you can put some brain scans on them you can send them different messages you can see which part of the brain lights up you could probably find out through a rigorous process of testing that some messages will effectively uh deradicalize somebody who is trying to self- radicalized or they're getting radicalized um for Isis or whatever so it seems to me that artificial intelligence plus the impact of social media and and how it could

[21:43]

of social media and and how it could send selected me messages and test them should be able to deprogram somebody from terrorism before they get too far into it now can anybody tell me that's not technically possible or even impractical it's not too expensive right it's not technically impossible it's not expensive and I don't see any downside somebody saying it's unethical but keep in mind that we're all being U brainwashed and manipulated all the time by all of our media sources and by the government so we live in we live in a world in which you don't have a choice of being unhypnotized nobody has a choice of being the one who is not being manipulated you don't get the option of being the person who's not being brainwashed nobody gets that choice we

[22:44]

brainwashed nobody gets that choice we we're way past the point where there are some people being hypnotized and brainwashed and some people are not we don't live in that world we are all being brainwashed consistently all day long by different forces and for different reasons and with different levels of intensity and different levels of Effectiveness but it's all happening and to all of us all the time I don't see why we couldn't use the same technology to make sure that if anybody gets a gets a toe into the Isis messaging that they are then immediately surrounded with everything from advertisements to images to uh story choices to things that come up in the top of their search until everything that else they see works against the messages that Isis is giving them now you'd have to do a lot of testing to find out the most effective anti-terrorist messaging but that's all really doable it's the the stuff we can

[23:46]

really doable it's the the stuff we can we can do most easily so I just put that out there now I want to give you the most fun idea that I've had recently are you ready here's the most fun idea I've had had recently I believe that there is a the theoretical number of dogs that could solve immigration dogs there is a theoretical number of dogs we could train to not need a border wall now I'm not saying you that you train the dogs to hurt people in fact you should trade them the opposite they should actually stay away from people but imagine that you you you beef up the number of sniffing dogs all right so you got lots of sniffers so that's the first thing I'm sure there's some kind of shortage of training dogs the second is would it be possible just to have lots of dogs who sort of live and are but but are taken care of they're trained dogs who just sort of live on the border and

[24:48]

who just sort of live on the border and look for people and if they see people they bark you know that's all they just see people and they bark and then they point at the people they've got a they've got a sense and a GPS on their neck so you're sitting back in the home office and a dog barks its bark collar activates because it knows the dog is barking it knows which direction the dog is looking and then suddenly you got a couple of other dogs in the area and they're barking in the same direction and you've triangulated a human being who's coming across the border now the dogs don't approach them the dogs just identify bark and then you know go go along go on their business CU you don't want them to have contact you don't want them to try to kill the dog you don't want the dog to get in a fight Etc now I know it's my worst idea possibly that I've ever had oh somebody saying robo dogs yeah I think I think it won't be long before uh literally autonomous robots are patrolling the Border areas I'm not sure

[25:50]

patrolling the Border areas I'm not sure that that's Kinder and gentler than Border Collies somebody said Border Collies nicely done
all right um uh let's talk about climate science I will do this at the end of my podcast so that people who are tired of this topic don't need to watch it now for those of you who are new you know that I don't have a take on climate science in terms of you know which side I'm on I'm on this fence and I'm doing a deep dive while you watch to see my experience as I'm figuring out what is a conspiracy theory what is ridiculous what is reliable and I'm taking on you know they're probably 25 different topics I'm trying to take them on one at a time and see where we get one of the interesting things that came out of this was somebody sent a study that said that the people who are most likely to doubt climate science are white

[26:55]

males and and I thought to myself well that's kind of racist even if it's true and then in the same article it said uh and it was sent to me as sort of a mocking thing to say hey isn't it a coincidence that it's only the white males who who are opposing this and in the same article they sent it said in another paragraph that uh the more people knew about climate science within this group so it's I think it's just the white males but it said that the more they reported that they knew about climate science the less they believed it and I thought about that and I thought huh I wonder if you could reproduce that wouldn't you love to see a a test where you have people's self-report because this was based on self-reporting imagine if you had a test where you where people self-reported how much they know about climate change and then after that you educate them so you just give them you know you give them a lot of

[27:56]

them you know you give them a lot of information you tell them the skeptical argument you tell them you know what the scientists say to debunk the skeptical argument and a little back and forth and you just give them as much as you can of the better skeptical arguments along with the most solid and well represented scientific consensus arguments and then you test them at the end and you ask are you more convinced that climate change is a problem and caused by humans or less what which way do you think that would go do you think that people who went through this education process would be like this one study found that the more they knew the more skeptical they were or would it be the opposite the more they knew the more convinced they would be that the the scientists got it right which way would it Go and would it be the same for every demographic group in other words if if you're an older person would you come to the same conclusion as if you were younger I don't know

[28:59]

uh I'm going to get rid of the people who say stop talking about climate change blocked all right I'm I'm telling you in advance that I'm going to talk about climate change for a long time it'll be at the end of the periscopes if your comment is that it's boring I'm going to block you because you have the option of just not watching right I'm not going to change the content for a few of you who are who are telling me it's boring that you're you're not welcome if that's your point let's and let's face it it is literally the biggest problem in the world or not don't you want to know the answer self-reporting is not reliable yeah that's so somebody said a self-reported self-reporting about how much you know about climate science is not reliable and you are exactly correct which is why I'm wondering if you could reproduce it in a way that was a little bit more reliable so you give somebody a test maybe test them to see how much they know and then test afterwards um now here's the next topic

[30:02]

afterwards um now here's the next topic I've gotten to so so I've been drilling down on all of the various skeptical charges I'll tell you the ones I've rejected I've rejected climate gate as being a good skeptical argument it's just stuff taken out of context it's just people talking in a casual way I give it no credibility now again remember when I talk about this topic I'm talking about what is persuasive and what looks credible to me a non-scientist who has a legitimate concern and wants to understand the topic right I'm not a scientist I'm a citizen trying to understand it because it's important right so if I say something is credible that doesn't mean it's true it just means that it's the winning argument in my mind at the moment so at the moment I would reject that I would also reject um changes in the sun people say oh it's a son it's a son I reject that having looked at both arguments

[31:03]

that having looked at both arguments because it is sort of crazy to think that the scientist hadn't considered the Sun so the Skeptics who say oh my God you've got it all wrong it's just the sun is absurd and ridiculous on the surface you have this enormous industry of people who are studying the climate and the idea is is they hadn't figured out that the sun makes a difference and that the you know the differences in the sun cycles and stuff indeed if you look at a little bit of the climate science you will see that they have calculated in the sun they have rejected it as the explanation for the past and then it comes into this next Story how many of you have seen the famous um skeptical chart of the ancient history you know not the last hundred years but the last you know many millions of years and where it shows that the graph for CO2 doesn't match the temperature and

[32:04]

CO2 doesn't match the temperature and therefore if in the past CO2 and temperature were not aligned it's probably not true today either how many of you have seen that skeptical chart and and and therefore concluded as I did the first time I saw it was like whoa is this true right that skeptical chart is a fraud and apparently it is one of the most persuasive frauds in this uh topic here's why it's a fraud do you know what the Skeptics left out from their chart that shows that CO2 and temperature are not aligned what did they leave out the sun that's right if you calculate in um sun and what we know the sun was doing then apparently the sun was less bright 4% less bright and some millions of years ago and now it's getting slightly brighter if you calculate that in CO2

[33:07]

brighter if you calculate that in CO2 and temperature are in lock step so if you have been convinced the CO2 can't be the reason because you say there's that old chart where CO2 and temperature don't match up then you are forgetting about the sun because once the sun is matched put in they match all right right so I debunk that claim and I would say that's that's a pretty strong debunk but everything I say should be judged as
preliminary um let's see what are the other things we've debunked so far um yeah so so the question is not that the sun matters or doesn't matter that's the wrong question the climate scientists say the sun definitely matters and that when you calculate in the sun's the sun's impact today and in the past it does conform with their climate

[34:08]

does conform with their climate theories right so the scientists are not ignoring the sun they absolutely have to include it or else their Theory doesn't work so the Skeptics saying you're forgetting about the sun they're the worst Skeptics because that's the opposite of what's Happening they're very much including the sun now uh so the remaining things which I have skepticism on are whether we're accurately ma measuring the temperature and AC accurately measuring sea level and let's say ice and the the other argument that is the worst skeptical argument goes like this the climate is always changing therefore the climate is still changing that's the worst argument why because the climate scientists are not making the argument that the climate is changing that part everyone agrees on the Skeptics agree the scientists agree

[35:09]

the Skeptics agree the scientists agree the CL the the experts are saying it's changing at an increasing rate and when you control for all the other variables we know to control CO2 seems to be the one that's matching the line right so that's the argument it is not a rebuttal to say that the climate always changes the rebuttal would be does it always change at has it ever changed at this rate before because if that's the case then you You' got a problem with the theory um as I said before I think it was uh uh which skeptic uh ly Linden Richard lindsen who shows the official climate scientist graph and says if you're worried about the rate going up here here on the same graph you can you see that it went up the same rate before now I haven't seen that skeptical claim debunked so if anybody can give me a debunk to that very specific point I'd

[36:09]

a debunk to that very specific point I'd like to see it so so here's here's the debunk that uh lindsen is using the official climate scientist data which they would agree is the correct data he's saying that you can't say that the rate is what's important because you can see on your own graph there's another point earlier in the century I guess when the rate went up as quickly let's see a debunk to that the other thing that I'm looking into is the idea that CO2 actually has the um actually has the impact on the environment that the science assumes so science says some version of this this is the non-scientist version that the CO2 in the atmosphere will cause more cloud formation and then the cloud formation will cause the warming or something like that that's that's close enough for non-scientists other skeptical scientists say that that has never been

[37:11]

scientists say that that has never been demonstrated to which I say what that must be the most easy thing to demonstrate and the experts will say yes we can demonstrate in the lab anytime we want that putting CO2 in a in a box and adding air adding heat warms up the box the Skeptics say but Earth is not a box Earth is an open system where where heat radiates out into the universe now the CO2 and the cloud cover that are are sort of linked with CO2 those things become a a semi insulator but still a lot of heat gets out but the semi insulation would be enough to warm up the the earth now there's actually debate on whether that the most basic mechanism is even true so I think uh haer he's a famous skeptic says that from a a physics standpoint it's just not not

[38:11]

physics standpoint it's just not not true uh I'm sort of digging into that a little bit I want to see the argument on both sides um the part that I'm having trouble believing is that we can model what's happening with the clouds because apparently there are certain types of clouds which will make it warmer than other clouds and I'm thinking to myself can we really model the Earth well enough that we know what type of cloud and what height 80 years into the future and how all this is working and I say to myself on the surface that doesn't sound like a credible claim that we have the technology to model clouds and oceans and we know what the temperature is the bottom of the ocean Etc so uh it would be hard to convince me that we can do that with the Precision we need but that's the story so I'm digging I'm digging down I'm still on the fence um but I will say uh let me

[39:12]

the fence um but I will say uh let me tell you this I will say that the critics the the skeptical arguments about climate change um are seem in some ways just as bad as the climate scientists claim from what I can tell or let let me put it in in another way there are some claims that both the Skeptics in the scientists make that are a bit impenetrable to me in other words there are things that you know as a non-scientist who isn't studying the topic and doesn't know all the related things it'd be hard for me to know what's true and what isn't but yet both the Skeptics and the scientists make lots of claims that are somewhat easy to have an opinion on even if you're wrong that look like BS so it looks to me like both groups have a lot of BS in the way they're presenting the material so that's why I'm on the fence I I would say neither group is reliable

[40:15]

I I would say neither group is reliable at this point completely reliable all right both groups have some good points but neither group is completely reliable at this point all right um
yeah I don't think I'll write a book on this topic but I'm going to I'm going to have a chapter in which I talk about how we think about it so I'm more interested in how we think about climate science than I am well I'm also interested in the in the answer of
course the alarmists have to make the case well they have the alarmists have made their case and they won the the dominant opinion in the country is that climate change is real right and a problem so they made their case and they
won uh the skeptical arguments that you call bad were addressing specific stupid points made by alarmists

[41:15]

alarmists well that's a general statement if you get you have something specific I'll listen to it uh yeah so being skeptical about what's going to happen in the next years is quite reasonable but questioning whether or not we can see this warming all right so here's um the the worst argument from the climate scien scientist perspective is that we have these models and they've worked in the past and we're pretty sure they'll work in the future that argument is largely nonsense because it follows the scam pattern of having lots of models some some of them are going to make fit the future because you have lots of models and so of course something's going to fit and they've also also been adjusted to the past and tweaked as much as they can until they fit the past so the the the claim about the models is completely noncredible so I I have a preliminary

[42:17]

noncredible so I I have a preliminary conclusion that the climate scientist models are far more than science that's different from saying they're wrong because their main case seems to be supportable without any models at all and the main case is that it appears things in the last 100 years have warmed up at a rate that can't be explained by any other variable we can isolate that's a pretty strong claim and I would say that the climate scientists have the stronger argument about the basic thing which is hey you better watch out if it keeps going up like this we're in trouble that's all I need to hear as soon as you throw that model in there I'm I've lost I've given up all credibility in the argument but the basic argument seems pretty pretty solid it's called water vapor now how many of you are aware that the the clouds are at least uh in some

[43:20]

the the clouds are at least uh in some part caused by CO2 so those of you who say it's the clouds you idiot or it's the water Vapor you idiot do you not know that the argument is that the clouds in the water vapor are being influenced by the CO2 so if you keep saying all right so here's the dumbest skeptical argument and you're seeing a lot of people saying it right now and I hate to I hate to call it dumb but there's no other way to put it to just say it's the clouds and the water vapor is simply dumb because the argument that you're arguing against is that it's the clouds in the water vapor right so let me say this again the clienti the scientists are saying the CO2 is influencing you know the water in the air that's the whole point that's the whole point they're saying CO2 is influencing how much water is in the air and that's that's what's changing the warming if your argument is it's the water vapor it's the clouds you

[44:22]

it's the water vapor it's the clouds you are agreeing with the scientists if you can't go to the next point which says the CO2 does not cause water vapor to change which I think you would be disagreeing with literally everyone in science ever if you can't get to that point you shouldn't talk in public about climate
science all right somebody says clouds are a negative feedback versus a positive feedback and what that means is that somebody's saying that the clouds are would cause more cooling than warming the problem problem is is some types of clouds cause some warming some types of clouds and I think it has to do with the height of the cloud uh cause some Cooling and that we may not be able to model that now that's a fair point if your point is we can't model the differences in the clouds I would say well that's you're on strong territory there you might be right you might be wrong but at least that's a fair thing to say if the if the if the only depth

[45:23]

to say if the if the if the only depth you can go to in this argument is to say it's not CO2 it's clouds then you don't even understand the argument which is CO2 is affecting the clouds which is causing the
warming uh alarmists haven't shown the CO2 affects clouds I would say um that claim is the one I'm going to drill down on to all right so somebody said here that the scientists have not demonstrated the CO2 actually doesn't even change clouds at all
my assumption without digging down is that that's probably a ridiculous skeptical claim I would think and again I haven't looked into the the next level of argument but if I had to guess you know gun to head have scientists figured out that CO2 can change cloud cover in any way I'm going to say that that's

[46:25]

any way I'm going to say that that's probably close to 100% likely but the the Skeptics are very strong in saying no that that impact hasn't been made so I'm going to listen to the argument and I invite somebody to send me uh a reputation of that to show me that there's no impact on clouds from CO2 uh and then I'll look for the the scientific argument against that but that's that's the next thing to look at all right so that's what I'll look at next uh can you block everyone saying clouds maybe I will uh because we've ruled that out at some point I'm going to make a list of all the things I've ruled out um I may not may not ever get to you know the full story here oh yeah somebody's asked me to talk about the FBI and the so the New York Times has a new story that says the FBI opened the investigation in part because uh Trump made that joke during the uh during the

[47:26]

made that joke during the uh during the debates about hey Russia if you have those Hillary's emails uh I don't know that there's anything new in this story it just feels like they they're finding any excuse to just regurgitate more Russia collusion story so it feels like a big nothing anyway that's all I got to say and I will talk to youall later