Episode 374 Scott Adams: Russia, DeBlaisio, Gabbard, Jeff Bozo, FBI

Date: 2019-01-14 | Duration: 1:07:28

Topics

Jeff Bozo and the President’s tweets NYC Mayor De Blazio instituting universal health care Gavin Newsome working on it also for California Important, whether it works out or not Russian collusion outcome seems obvious Both sides will claim they were right all along Eric Swalwell on taking interpreters notes Destroying evidence indicates guilt Hmm…Hillary destroyed evidence Eric Swalwell requesting someone prove a negative Is he assuming his followers are stupid? FBI motivation, investigating President Trump…was vengeance Is there evidence of that, or is it mind reading? Will Tulsi Gabbard be the 2020 Democrat candidate? Simple answer, how is CNN framing her? Watch for who CNN coverage anoints President Trump taking interpreters Putin meeting notes Any chance Mueller hasn’t already talked to interpreter? Big news if he has or hasn’t talked to him No leaks or actions by Mueller if something found? Good reasons President Trump took interpreters notes Was he smart to do it, or very smart to do it? Critics say FBI started investigation of President without cause Strozk himself said “no there, there” Expected value calculations Climate change people and skeptics both shoveling some BS Looking at the BS on both sides for popular arguments Can scientists really measure the temperature of entire world? Can they measure the temperature of all oceans? Validation of imprecise measurement techniques… …by other imprecise measurement techniques? 10 Startups have funding for fusion power development Extremely smart people are in those startups Odds that none of the 10 will create an economic power source?

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

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

## Transcript

[0:08]

hey everybody good on in here I see the facts are safe and I see that that's somebody's actual username facts are safe hello Donna EV irus Joe yvon and Miriam and Max Missy and pigot what kind of a name is that diamond in and Andrew and all the rest of you I know why you're here I know why you're here you can try to hide it but I know why you're here does it have something to do with coffee yes it's time for coffee with Scott Adams I'm Scott Adams and it's time to grab your mug your cup your glass your Stein your beverage container put your favorite liquid in there I hope it's coffee and join me for the simultaneous

[1:11]

sip oh that's the good stuff so my life is uh getting weirder than it used to be and so this is the 30th year of the Dilbert cartoon on comic St and so for most of my adult life I've been fairly famous but but I've also been invisible you know if I went out in public unless it was local nobody nobody would recognize me it was sort of a perfect deal I could be famous and nobody recognized me I had everything perfect situation but now that I'm doing these periscopes um it seems that if I go to the grocery store anywhere else um I get recognized I was walking down the street uh last night in Vegas just take a walk um
um after dinner and or before dinner and it seemed like a lot of people were looking at
at me more so than any other time I've ever noticed and it makes me wonder how much

[2:13]

noticed and it makes me wonder how much my uh you know visual recognition is changing all right let's talk about Jeff Bozo as the president has so named Jeff bezo Bezos uh so if you saw the president's uh cheeky tweet about Jeff Bezos uh divorce he said that uh he said that uh um the Jeff Bezos that there was some reporting by a competitor so the first funny thing is that he calls the president calls the national Inquirer a competitor to the The Washington Post and then he goes on to say that the you know without naming I'm saying that the uh that the national inquire has a better track record on the facts which is hilarious now of course everybody knows that the national inquir has some past relationship with the president that's good and

[3:13]

and so uh I think the president is just enjoying this way too much and then he said something interesting he said uh he you know he hopes that the next owner of the Washington Post you know does a better job and I thought to myself wait a minute who gets the Washington Post and the
divorce now wouldn't his wife get half of
of it right now is and it makes me wonder is there somebody uh yeah there's no prenup right so I would think that his wife would get half of the Washington Post uh or something like that anyway so I'm wondering is his wife dating yet I'm not asking for myself but somewhere in the world there's I think a single woman Jeff Bezos uh X who might own half of the Washington Post or soon or soon

[4:14]

soon or soon might and and if she doesn't own half of the Washington Post she could certainly buy her own newspaper if she wanted to and I wonder if there's any if there's any Republican who's saying I think I'm going to start you know maybe make a call see if I can I can date that that woman so depending on who her next romantic partner is I'm talking about Mrs basos this is now I can't even say it without thinking of Bozo so I'm completely completely ruined on that now but if she marries a republican uh it will be hilarious now somebody's saying it will be sold who will buy it would be very interesting all right let's talk about some other people uh you know Mayor DeBlasio of New York City has said that he wants to have Universal Health Care in New York City and he's trying to make that happen including for all um you know non-citizens who are

[5:14]

all um you know non-citizens who are living there and you might also know that California's Gavin Gavin Nome has announced that he'd like to work toward some kind of universal healthcare in California which is a pretty good reason for me to leave Califoria
cuz I can't imagine what that's going to cost me but here's the thing I think that deblasio's um now let me let me let me say this as uh as objectively as possible I don't know much about DeBlasio so I don't have a A plus or a minus opinion of him he's sort of a non- entity to me in California so I don't have an opinion on him I just know he's a Democrat he's Progressive so most of you are are not fans I'm sure but here's the thing I've been talking for since you've been following me I've been saying that the smartest thing to do is to test things

[6:15]

smartest thing to do is to test things small wherever you can so shouldn't we all be happy that DeBlasio wants to test this test the idea of universal healthcare in New York City now I don't believe he's ing the government to pay for it so if they run up a bill I don't know that it's my problem you know if they can't pay for it I don't necessarily think I'm going to have to pick up the difference so I'm actually pretty happy about it and I will go further than that and say it's probably the best move by a potential candidate for a president who's a Democrat now I don't know if you'll ever get to the point where he can implement it because it might be that's just simply too hard but the fact that he's he's taken such a bold step is to his credit because in my opinion somebody needs to try this damn thing and New York City seems like really almost the

[7:18]

York City seems like really almost the perfect place to do it because you know it's the size of a country and it's still you know manageable and probably has very capable management compared to other cities can somebody fact check me on that would it be true that New York City has a more Effective Government than most other places somebody fact check me on that I have no reason to think I'm right except that you know they're big they probably attract more Talent so there you go um so kudos to DeBlasio for even trying and I think the country should be happy that we might have a model that we can look at and say that that failed miserably or that succeeded better than we thought or we learned something now we can try it again a different way so I am A+ on DeBlasio taking a run at that and just see what we learn let's push on it um

[8:21]

see what we learn let's push on it um I'm increasingly convinced that especially with in the age of robots you know we're we're getting close to the point where the robots are going to take a lot of the jobs nobody nobody doubts that will be the case and when that happens you're going to have a lot of people with lower paid jobs and how are they going to afford health care I think we're I think we're heading toward a future where Universal Health Care is almost a guaranteed outcome it just it's just a question of how long you wait and I think if he gets a hold gets ahead of it that would be useful for the country even if it doesn't doesn't work we'll learn something all right let's talk about Russia so I think we see the endgame on the Russia collusion uh did I see nal's tweets about city states I did not but I'll go look at that um so here's what the endgame for the Russia collusion investigation looks like and I would argue that at this

[9:22]

like and I would argue that at this point it's obvious in other words I could be wrong but to me it looks OB obvious how it will come out and here's the
the thinking um you already knew that we live in a world where the outcome of anything like this will be that both sides will claim they were right right so you need a situation in which both sides can claim credibly see we were right all along that the Democrats will be able to claim that they were right about collusion at the same time the Republicans will say see no collusion so you'll you'll have to maintain your two movie world and it turns out that the question about the interpreter's notes might get us there because uh we might reach a situation where at the end of it all meller will say okay we did not find any Smoking Gun we found a whole bunch of coincidences we found lots of contacts

[10:22]

coincidences we found lots of contacts with Russia but none of them none of them you know amounted to anything and then the Democrats will say yeah you didn't find anything because Trump destroyed those interpreter notes and if you had kept the if somehow we saw those notes then in that case we certainly would have found all that collusion because Trump would have been talking about it so so the end the end of this all will be a disagreement about whether anything was proved Republicans will say it was proved nothing happened and Democrats will say aha he destroyed the only evidence that would have shown him guilty his personal conversation with Putin and and the fact that he destroyed him is proof proof I say that uh that he's guilty so here's uh representative Eric swell who is my representative in

[11:23]

swell who is my representative in California and he tweeted this he said talking about uh Trump taking the interpreter notes and he says destruction of evidence is consciousness of guilt now from a lawyer talk perspective he's saying that if a an accused person destroys evidence that's that's uh you know that's strong evidence uh of consciousness of guilt but doesn't that apply to doesn't it apply to Hillary yeah you beat me to it so so if that standard is something we should pay attention to at all then you'd say uh he's not the first person who took evidence off the table there's a better example all right but here's the second part so and I'm Just sh I just shaking my head this morning when I read this anyway this is such an example of loser think the next thing I'm going to say that I actually have

[12:25]

to say that I actually have screenshotted and I'm including it in my book on how to had to not think stupid so representative aswell uh his latest uh tweet will be part part of my book because it's such a bad idea of thinking now to be fair he may not be the one having the bad thinking he may just hope that the people reading his tweet can't tell how stupid it is in which case it would be kind of clever so we don't know if swallow is being clever or stupid but we know what he's saying next and I'll read it to you is very stupid and he says this please show me evidence Trump is not working for Russia this is a representative in Congress somebody who's actually elected and representing the country and he says in public please show me evidence that President Trump is not working with with

[13:30]

Russia now if there's any anybody watch on this Periscope who doesn't understand that you can't prove something doesn't exist that's not a thing that's not a thing you can't prove that he didn't you could prove that he did and you could fail I mean you in other words you could try to prove it and then not succeed but you can't prove something didn't happen so given that he is a he is a a lawyer I I have to assume he's hoping that the his readers are are stupid uh so that gave me a laugh all right I was reading an article on Fox news this morning by Greg Jarrett um well-respected commentator and best-selling author and lawyer and uh he wrote an article in which he says that the FBI's motivation was that they wanted quote Vengeance he that the FBI wanted Vengeance and that's the reason that they opened up the investigation on

[14:32]

they opened up the investigation on President Trump is that in evidence do we have in evidence that the FBI was thinking Vengeance Vengeance will be mine nope NOP we do not have that in evidence it's possible it's totally possible and in fact I can't prove it didn't happen because I can't prove a negative
um but when you when you read an article and it doesn't matter what news site it's on if somewhere in the first paragraph the writer tells you that they know what a stranger is thinking you don't need toite read the rest of the article you can just stop there so I hope you can see that I'm being fair about this criticism that I that I say often which is you can't tell somebody's internal thoughts from a distance you can only look at what they

[15:33]

distance you can only look at what they did it's all you can do it's all you can do and I'm going to be I'm going to be fair about that on both sides if Fox News does it I'm going to call it out when CNN does it I call it out all right um there's a question of whether uh president Trump has been tougher on Russia than other presidents so CNN was factchecking that you will not be surprised to find the CNN determined that that was not true and they they did kind of a a clever job of weaseling their way to that conclusion so so the piece I was just looking at on their website uh a a smarmy commentator says you know is it true let's fact check this that President Trump is tougher on Russia than other presidents and he starts out by talking about all of the coincidental or not he would he would

[16:33]

coincidental or not he would he would suggest not coincidental contacts between um Russians and the C the campaign before and after the election I guess now what's that got to do with the president being tougher on Russia so in other words in making his case about whether was Trump trump was tougher on Russia or not as tough as other presidents they lead in with a big disc description of all the contacts that the campaign has had with Russians that's not the topic it's just persuasion it's just to make the case that they're convincing you that that something sketchy is happening that's a different topic so when you see such heavy-handed persuasion in the uh you just trying to disguise itself as some kind of news you know you just you just want to throw open your mouth when you see it all right let's talk about tulsy gabard um let me see your opinions of

[17:36]

gabard um let me see your opinions of whether tsey gabard will be the nominee for the Democrats uh I can tell you conclusively the answer to this question and I'll oh there see a lot of NOS interesting so tulsy Gabbert who is a veteran that's great she's got some interesting ethnic combination in her which is uh excellent a good Plus for a Democratic candidate uh how interesting you're all saying no huh I thought some of you would say yes all right we well looks like we're getting um a yes or two somebody asked me if I'm friends with alen dtz no we've never had any contact UM here's why she will not not be the candidate I was just watching uh CNN's coverage about her announcement do you

[18:36]

coverage about her announcement do you know why do you know how CNN covers Tulsi gabard keep in mind she's on their side meaning that she's a Democrat how did how did CNN who loves them some de Democrats how did they cover Tulsi gabard they called her anti-gay
now if CNN decides that you're not going to be the candidate you're not going to be the candidate all right the way the world works is of course not the way people imagine it works I think people have an imagination that you know citizens are making up their own mind by looking at the news or whatever but nothing like that's happening and the reality is that a a small number of people decide what kind of news coverage the the major Medias are are going to uh you know promote and I'm talking about the heads of the networks the heads of the big newspapers Etc so very small

[19:37]

the big newspapers Etc so very small group of people decide what the public will think because if you've noticed it's very rare to find somebody who doesn't have an opinion that's either exactly what CNN says exactly what MSNBC says or exactly what Fox News and drudge say you know and breart so there's no such thing as Citizens with independent opinions that's just a a myth of democracy in our country or myth of the Republic I guess um and so CNN has quite clearly signaled that Telsa gabard is not going to be theirs because instead of saying well she evolved on the question of gay marriage because that's what happened right she was anti-gay marriage and then she changed her mind as a lot of people did she wouldn't be the one person who evolved as they say President Obama did

[20:37]

evolved as they say President Obama did um I don't know who else but probably lots of people so how did they describe someone who evolved from where they didn't want people to be to where they do want people to be which is you know PR gay marriage and PR gay and other sense how do they describe her they describe her as anti-gay he so there isn't the slightest chance that given the way CNN has chosen to frame her that she can get nominated they've already taken her off the field so it's obvious to me that CNN has someone else in mind don't know who yet but definitely someone else that part I can tell you with complete certainty all right
um if your volume is not high enough I can't help you so um Christine isleep in the other

[21:39]

you so um Christine isleep in the other room so I'm speaking low all right um let's talk about the some more about the uh trumpet taking the notes from the uh interpreter during his meetings with Putin now what does it tell you that Trump Took The Interpreter notes from his discussion with Putin does it tell you my God he must be colluding well that's possible can't rule it out right because we don't have any information one way or another my assumption is that is deeply unlikely here's why here's why it's deeply unlikely that what Trump said to Putin is
is problematic unless I'm missing something fact check me on this don't you think Mueller has talked to The

[22:41]

you think Mueller has talked to The Interpreter is there any chance that Mueller has not talk to The Interpreter and is there any reason that that wouldn't have happened now I understand why Congress maybe shouldn't talk to The Interpreter you know because they they might want to subpoena the the notes too but can you see any reason that Mueller would not have talked to The Interpreter when in fact The Interpreter was the person who would most know about the interaction with Trump and Putin how come we haven't even seen that reported have you seen it reported whether Mueller has talked to The Interpreter have any of you seen that reported because it would be big news if he
he hasn't and it would be big news if he has it's big news so somebody says he has but I don't know that that's an Evidence I think you might be assuming all right here's here's my conclusion you can tell how the Russia

[23:41]

conclusion you can tell how the Russia collusion part of the investigation is going to go because if there was anything to it meller would already know what The Interpreter said and Muller would have you know every digital electronic information that you could have on anything he would have already acted if this risk of the president of the United States literally taking the the allegation which is ridiculous on its surface but the allegation is that the president of the United States is taking orders from Putin if Mueller had found even a little of that to be evidencebased he would have acted there isn't the slightest chance he would let that situation linger I don't even think that they would wait necessarily for the political process to run its course it would be far more important for him to go to I I don't know who you go to who

[24:42]

go to I I don't know who you go to who would you go to so here's the question if if the FBI knew that a president was colluding with a foreign power would they wait for the entire legal process to do its thing or or is there somebody they could go to to make an immediate step that's like a temporary step where maybe somebody's perhaps they temporarily removed or temporarily the vice president takes over or something like that is there any kind of process for that I don't know how that works but anyway the point is I'm sure there is Congress perhaps yes um and if Muller had found anything you would have already seen some kind of action and you haven't seen it so I don't think there will be now how concerned should we be that the president didn't want the notes of the meeting uh ever known I would say that now correct me on this also isn't President Trump someone who

[25:44]

also isn't President Trump someone who doesn't use email and doesn't text because he doesn't want conversations recorded in any context is it true that the president prefers verbal conversations and no notes and nothing written down I believe that that's always his preference so if you look at the context of President Trump who doesn't like anything in writing then this is just more of that now if you also look at the context of President Trump what does CNN say about the factchecking of his typical conversation does CNN say yes everything he says is real and just he means no they don't they would tear apart anything he said in that conversation take it and a context and turn it into the worst things in the world now if you're president Trump do you think you might have lied a little bit to Putin if

[26:47]

have lied a little bit to Putin if you're president Trump do you think you might have flattered him for effect if you were president Trump the master Persuader might you have said something during that meeting that you didn't quite mean but it might have gotten you to someplace you want to be could he have used hyperbole in that meeting might he have said a fact that's not true could he have promised something to Putin that he didn't really mean to give him could he have said here's a big opening ask but I'm trying to negotiate to hear could he have convinced Putin to work with him and maybe in exchange actually literally ask Putin what do he want in return would it be would it be treasonous for the the dealmaker and chief to sit down with Putin and say some version of this look here's the deal we don't need to be enemies tell us what you want I'll tell you what we need like legitimately what the United States needs what our big

[27:47]

the United States needs what our big interests are let's see if we can just figure this out so if that conversation happened would that be treasonous I say no I say that's just doing your job you're talking to another leader and you say look we could give you this but you're going to have to give us this and this means a lot more to us than whatever this is right if he said something like that there's no way you want that conversation to get into the public no way because it wouldn't sound right on a context in the context of a long let's say complicated negotiations in which the president is trying to create a a personal relationship with Putin Etc you don't want any any of that conversation ever in public because the President's trying to build trust he's trying to he's trying to get you know some kind of some kind of chemistry going he may have said things which weren't exactly true

[28:48]

said things which weren't exactly true he may have floated some ideas that just were worth talking about but you don't want to get people too excited about you know until you've you've played around with them a little bit so is there a reason aside from collusion where the president would not want those notes to be public and the answer is yes the obvious reason the obvious reason he doesn't want those notes out is that he doesn't want any notes out of any conversations he has period why would this be different and this one especially you wouldn't want out because it's importance to National Security is important you know to to our very survival could depend on this stuff not being taken out of context so if the president had not destroyed those interpreter notes that would have been a mistake the smart thing to do was to grab those notes and make sure that you

[29:51]

grab those notes and make sure that you personally personally held them in your hand and that nobody else even your best most trusted you know you know maybe ianka could see them but that's about it you know so was that smart for the president to take personal responsibility to remove those notes from the table very smart I would say that's not just smart that's very smart and in fact if he hadn't done it you could go so far as to say it would be stupid a person whose you know philosophy is you don't want these private convers ations taken out of context especially this one um you would certainly do exactly what it is alleged he did all right um uh let's see some other points I was going to make so there's there's a criticism of the FBI that they started an

[30:51]

the FBI that they started an investigation over Trump with no evidence whatsoever and I've heard some people say hey that's that's pretty strong proof that the that the FBI was just out to get the president and it was just all political because they started an investigation with no proof but now we're hearing some quotes from the people who were involved like Lisa Page Etc and Jim Baker the attorney and they're saying stuff like we really didn't know we didn't know if there was something wrong but there were were all these all these coincidences that were were uh the coincidences were enough to get our interest and that's why the the stuff was open up I would say that's a pretty good reason uh imagine if imagine if you had a strong hunch that there was at least a 20%

[31:53]

hunch that there was at least a 20% chance that the president was a treasonous spy working for Russia let's just say you thought oh these look like mostly coincidences probably an 80% chance there's just nothing there wouldn't you say that based on what you've heard from the FBI doesn't it feel like even they thought there was an 80% chance there was nothing there because remember stro said it looks like there's no there there and then we know from the conversations they were saying well I don't know maybe there's something there we just better look at it to me looked like they were just covering their bases because if there was something there it was a big deal so there was a low percentage chance of something there but if it was there it was worth a lot do you know what that calculation is called an expected value if you were trying to uh compare risks you know one risk to another risk the accepted way you do it is you

[32:54]

the accepted way you do it is you multiply the odds that you think it's true or the odds you think something will happen times the you know the dollar amount so a you know a 10% chance of something costing $100 you would value it being worth $10 that's 10% time 100 what is the dollar value if you could put it that way of a small chance that the president of the United States is a puppet of Russia like that's a big big big big big deal right right so it doesn't really matter if the FBI thought the odds of it being true was small that small risk times the big big you know possibility of that is still big you know a 5% chance of you know the country being sold to Russia that's big so did the FBI have to look at that I kind of say yes kind of say yes if if

[33:56]

kind of say yes kind of say yes if if the people in the FBI govern together and they talked about it and they said I don't think this is happening but you kind of can't rule it out based on a few of the coincidences and the conversations with Russians and stuff and stuff so I would say the most likely explanation at least for the rank and file you know I'm not saying the leaders were thinking the same way but for the rank and file they gave a perfectly good reason there was a small chance of a very big problem expected value calculation you got to look into it somebody says you're being kind of stupid well thank you for that insightful comment there um so whoever called me stupid I guarantee you is mind
reading all right Scott macab struck Scott so I think what you're saying is

[34:58]

Scott so I think what you're saying is I I can I can feel most of you wallowing in the confirmation bias and the confirmation bias here is that wait a minute there's not just one explanation for why the FBI looks crck crooked it's not just one thing look at all these things look at the email look at Comey look at you know and then look at all these other people your argument let me put it this way the argument that the FBI got together and plotted to take out the president and like that was the only reason they were doing it for political reasons is as solid as the argument that the president actually is a Putin p puppet and by when I say by as solid I mean both of those theories this is the John Turley frame on it so I'm stealing it from him both of those explanations have lots of confirmation bias coincidence bu built into them the

[35:59]

bias coincidence bu built into them the things we do know are that the Democrats obviously were trying to take out the president no I'm not Stone but thanks for
for asking all right um Let me let me close out by as I often do tell you my current stage of looking into the climate change situation for those of you new I am on the fence about how much I should be worried about climate change um uh I have been digging into a a few months and here's my preliminary which is could easily be revised but my preliminary judgment on climate change is that both sides are fullish yet now not 100% fullish yet so it seems to me that um the more I look into it it it's pretty obvious to me that the majority of the skeptical arguments are just

[36:59]

just complete Tim foil hat stuff all right so the ones that are ridiculous um this is my preliminary judgment the ridiculous skeptical claims are that uh that the climate scientist forgot to account for the
sun if you're still believing that all the climate scientists in the world forgot the sun when they were measuring the climate you should not be in the conversation you know if you have some specific thing they did wrong about the sun well maybe that you know I'm not sure I could evaluate that but if you really believe that the climate scientists who are looking at the climate forgot the sun that's not a good opinion right you should not be in the conversation if you think that secondly the famous graph that shows in ancient times that the carbon rate and the temperature were not correlated if that's your argument that

[37:59]

correlated if that's your argument that we have lots of historical information that CO2 and temperature are not correlated you also have been fooled by the side you think you're on that graph is a fraud it's one of the most popular graphs that you'll see from the Skeptics and it's quite easily debunked and the way it's debunked is that uh and here's the funny part the graph leaves out the solar effect in other words the Skeptics are leaving out the Sun so it's the very thing that they're claiming the clim scientists are doing is leaving out the Sun but it's the thing they do to prove their point they leave out the sun uh and when you put the sun into those graphs suddenly they all line up all right the next thing that in in my opinion I feel this quite strongly is the climate is just BS it's nothing but stuff taken out of context the way

[39:00]

stuff taken out of context the way people casually talk sounds worse if you take it out of context that it would mean between two people who know each other so climate gate has been researched the people looked into it found that there's nothing to look at uh here here's another one uh I was looking at it following the debate between other people were getting into it on my Twitter feed and one of them says Okay um why is it that my man the famous climate scientist who created the hockey stick why is he hiding his data if it's real you know why would he hide his detail data and of course there was some Canadian case where somebody was trying to get them to show the data or something like that and and here's what the proclimate alarm commentator said he said here's a link to all of his data it's public so the skeptical claim is that Michael

[40:00]

so the skeptical claim is that Michael man is hiding his data and the response to it is here's a link to it you can see it yourself it's public which of those which of those claims seem stronger the one that says he's hiding it or the one that says H here's a link to it go look at it yourself I think the link is more persuasive right so we can't even tell the most basic fact has is he hiding his data or is this link a link to his data so um all right now that's that's the BS uh just a sample of the BS on the skeptic side on the scientist side there's also a bunch of BS and that is involved with the models and the and the financial calculations about what's going to happen 80 years in the future modeling this level of complexity for even 10 minutes is probably close to Impossible but modeling at 80 years in

[41:00]

Impossible but modeling at 80 years in the future is just persuasion and and Ridiculousness right so the modeling part of the climate scientist claim is ridiculous and here and here here's the worst part I don't even think it's necessary if it's true that we can observe that the temperatures and the CO2 have already sharply turned up why do you need to even model that into the future how hard is it convince me that if the temperature keeps going up at this rate everybody's in trouble right you don't need the models the models are just taking a strong argument and weakening them let me say that again the climate science argument is really really strong until you talk about the models and once you throw the models in there they're so clearly ridiculous that it degrades the other arguments by association and I think that's one of the big problems with

[42:01]

that's one of the big problems with climate as a you know as an argument um so uh or then one of the skeptical claims is that uh that CO2 doesn't have the physical properties I guess might be the wrong word the scientists claim in other words it's not going to do what people says it does which is caus as much warming as it does that it's not not it's not an important um an important element of the of the uh you know of the warming but I would think that might be the easiest thing the scientists could test so that skeptical argument seems the weakest maybe that's really weak that scientists can't figure out how CO2 works because I think we've known that since the 1800s and there have been lots of lots of tests from lots of different angles to find out that CO2 really is a greenhouse gas Etc so when Skeptics say

[43:04]

greenhouse gas Etc so when Skeptics say no it's not a greenhouse gas doesn't matter it's it's Trace um somebody says they have tested it and it doesn't do what they say the odds of that being true that statement you just made are so close to zero that I don't I don't even know what to do with it it could be true all right um the big issue is what if anything can we do about it well I'm writing about that in my new book there are I think there are five or six uh companies that are up and running um startup type companies that are already building ways to take CO2 out of the air in bulk so you've got several companies already working on that the the other issue is what if all the um all the warming is real and it really is CO2 and we know that things are going to go up um are we better

[44:04]

go up um are we better off working like crazy to try to change that or just keeping our economy strong and and mitigating any problems as we see it nobody knows the answer to that um now I suppose the the big issue would be not just warming but whatever it does to the oceans so I think the wild C here is if you told me that the temperature in 80 years would be what did they say 2° warmer or something 4° warmer I'm not sure I would notice would you notice let's say if suddenly the average temperature in your town went up by 3° would you know would you know the difference if the average temperature went up 3° would anything be different in your town so somebody says they would notice I don't know because I don't think I would notice it's going up a degree right I

[45:05]

notice it's going up a degree right I haven't noticed that but the the risk I would think as a non-scientist is that if you ruin the chemistry of the ocean you got a real problem right if if the heat reaches a point where you ruin the the chemical balance of the entire ocean well I think we're probably all dead so that's not a question of you know let's get a little more air conditioning that's more of a question of a a yes no for survival of the planet but I don't know if science quite understands what the ocean is doing and let me go on record is say I don't believe the scientists can measure the temperature of the world that that doesn't pass the sniff test to me um do you how many of you think that science can accurately measure the average temperature of the world in a way that you can really tell if it's

[46:06]

way that you can really tell if it's going up or down by a degree or two in in 10 years um I don't want to be the like I don't want to be the person who says the flight the you know the right bullet brothers can't fly I don't want to be the person who says we can never put a person on the moon I don't want to be the doubter but I'm just looking at you know know looking at it from the outside there's nothing I've read and I've read a lot on how things are measured Etc you know for example tree rings do you believe you can tell the temperature a 100 years ago from a tree ring I don't believe that I don't believe that at all do you believe that we can measure measure the temperature of the ocean like the average temperature of the ocean I don't believe that I do not believe the scientists no matter how hard they try with current technology anyway can measure the

[47:07]

technology anyway can measure the temperature of the ocean I don't believe it now I could be wrong about that right couldn't we be wrong because we're not scientists so let's uh let's apply at the same time I'm saying that my I can't wrap my mind around it like it doesn't pass the sniff test to me even slightly it's also true at the same time you should put some humility on what you know and what you don't know all right let's let's let's make sure we don't lose our humility about what we can know about what science can do science can surely do more things than I assume they can do but I'd be if I had to
to bet somebody's saying ice core proxies are better are they how do you know your ice cor proxies are better um now if the reason we know that is because we have let's say uh

[48:08]

is because we have let's say uh landbased um thermometers from 100 years ago and we've got some ice core samples from 100 years ago and you look at the ice core samples and you look at the thermometers and hey it's about the same and you can reproduce that then I'm willing to say okay we could probably go back to 200 years with ice scores and probably still good but can you go back a million years can you go back a million years and take an ice score sample and pull it down and say h according to this ice score sample it was about 78° that year on average can you do that really can you do that because I don't think you can do that take um carbon dating carbon dating is real you know I don't think there's any doubt that it basically Works can you tell me how accurate is carbon

[49:09]

accurate is carbon dating does somebody have the answer to that if I do a carbon dating does it tell me oh yeah this this tree this tree uh you know went to seed or let's say the the seed sprouted and it was the year uh it was a
Tuesday yeah how close does carbon dating get you because I got a feeling yeah I got a feeling that these ice core samples sort of get you in the ballpark am I wrong about that am I wrong that they're not exact so it seems like we've got all of these bad
bad measures that are being used to validate the other bad me measures so in other words you hear people say well how do you know the ice score samples are accurate well you check them against the tree rings I'm making that part up I don't know if they do that and then you say well how do you know the tree rings

[50:09]

say well how do you know the tree rings are good obviously the tree rings are good because we checked it against the coral Decay or some damn thing so you've got a whole bunch of not so accurate ways to measure things that are all being used to validate the other not so accur accurate measurements and it just doesn't feel like something science can really do and um that's an argument that I don't think that they've done a good job of making uh so I'd like to be talked into it now bottom line is CO2 dangerous to the
planet I would say that science has the better argument at this point that CO2 is is dangerous if it keeps going up that it does force the temperature I would say that the again um since I don't know if I can ever know what's happening I'm just trying to give you my current sense of The credibility

[51:12]

you my current sense of The credibility of each argument given that both sides have a good healthy dose of and and I'm trying to like work my way through the BS to get to something good so here here's what here's what I I hold as the best current skeptical arguments or not not a skeptical argument here are the things that I want confirmation of so there's the Richard Linden he's a skeptic um argument that the current rise in CO2 no the current rise in temperature not CO2 so he argues that the current rise in temperature is precedented before there was much CO2 and that you can look at the official graph it's not in his graph it's just the official graph and you can see it right there on the graph look it did this before in in recorded history is that true can somebody fact check that simple point because it's such a simple point it should be the one

[52:13]

such a simple point it should be the one thing we can actually get to the bottom of is it true that the official uh science approved numbers show that the temperature has risen this rapidly in the past true or false can somebody get me a link that tells me that's true or at least or at least produce the you know the graph and then is there an argument for that what do the climate scientist say when somebody says look your own graph disproves your own argument then what do the scientist say I'd like to know the answer to that question so that's outstanding so I don't have a decision on that that's outstanding argument um and then there are a number of Tony heler arguments Tony heler who writes as Steve Goddard U and blogs on climate he has the most

[53:14]

has the most robust um skeptical claims because he's his um his framing is that he's looking at NASA's own numbers he's seeing how they've adjusted them and that it's obvious that there's something going on there that's not scientific but I don't see the counters to his arguments um so I'm so I'm uh so I would say the Tony heler arguments about the data not being reliable I would say that those arguments stand at the moment because I have not yet seen a counter to them so it looks like the comments just turned off on their own somehow oh they're the back um yeah and Tony heler shows the newspaper articles that show uh that the data must have been different in the past because it was reported differently than it's reported now

[54:16]

than it's reported now but uh Tony hel's arguments are only questioning the rate of warming it gets to that right yeah the Tony heler arguments question the data and they get to the they they get to the question of whether it's really rising or not so so that's an open question I would say this I I have not seen a scientific debunking of his claims about the evidence the only debunking I've seen is that there's a claim about all of the adjustments are in the same direction and then a climate scientist shows a graph that shows that's clearly not the case so I've seen a debunk on the question of all the adjustments being in the same direction and it appears that they're that they're not but I would guess that Tony Heller would have a response to that response so I would say this one's still open that's an open question um the next thing that I would say I can't get to

[55:17]

thing that I would say I can't get to the bottom of
uh there is good evidence you are correct
um water is much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 all right so here's another bad skeptical argument so the bad skeptical argument is that water vapor is the thing that matters not CO2 because for every little bit of CO2 there's this much water vapor and this much water vapor has is a greenhouse you know effect too so this is bigger than this therefore uh the scientists are looking in the wrong direction because CO2 is this much but water vapor is this much and they both affect the temperature that's a terrible argument it's complete ignorance about the argument so it's actually um that argument ignores the

[56:20]

actually um that argument ignores the actual climate um the climate scientists claim it's not even on the same page as the claim the claim as I understand it and again I want you to fact check me on this is that CO2 changes how much water how much cloud formation there is so the claim is that the water is the big mover of of temperature and that the amount of water in the air is largely determined or enough determined by the amount of CO2 so the question is not is water a bigger effect than CO2 everybody agrees with that everybody agrees with that everybody both sides agree the water the clouds are the big controllers of the temperature but the claim is that CO2 is what's driving the amount of water in the atmosphere am I wrong about that um

[57:30]

is it positive or negative feedback well that's out of my um that would be out of my range so the question of whether CO2 causes cooling or warming I've heard people say that because apparently you're getting in some some a little bit more complicated modeling and science to determine just exactly if that's good or bad because I guess it depends what kind of clouds you're you know you're creating with your CO2 or they high level or low level then it makes a difference um that part we I don't think we non-scientists could
determine prove a rise in temperature is bad okay here's the other terrible terrible argument the the terrible arguments on the side of the Skeptics are that more CO2 is better it's a terrible argument because there's no such thing because if it's true that CO2 is

[58:33]

thing because if it's true that CO2 is causing temperature to go up somebody saying can you prove that higher temperatures are bad yeah I can here here's a little test for you put your hand on the oven and then slowly turn it up or here's better put your hand in a pot of water and then slowly turn it to burning so that the water is heating up while your hand is in the water
now and then ask me ask me again can you prove that more that more heat is always bad yes I can because your hand will burn off anybody who says that more heat is good it's just a stupid argument it's stupid to say more heat is good because while it might be good good to get an extra degree maybe two degrees is better it could be the 5° just makes everything better what about 25 you know at some point clearly

[59:35]

25 you know at some point clearly there's too much heat right so the the the climate alarm point is not that a little bit of heat is going to ruin the world nobody's claiming that one degree will will ruin the world it might even be better I think even the scientists would say yeah it might even be better a little more CO2 get a little more Greening yeah it's fine but what happens when you give five degrees what you know does the does the the coral all disappear does the chemistry of the O the ocean change do we generate super hurricanes does it cause massive droughts that kill Millions if your argument is prove to me that a little bit of heat is a bad thing that is the dumbest argument honestly it's just the dumbest argument nobody's saying that one degre is going to ruin the
the world two degrees maybe not so bad but there's some amount of heat some amount of heat that's going to be a problem

[1:00:37]

of heat that's going to be a problem with the chemistry of the earth nobody could doubt that right all right um You seem to be making up your own argument well who's going to do it for me if I don't make up my own argument I don't know how the hell um global warming or climate change what a
a joke so some people think that because they changed it from global warming to climate change that therefore they've shown their argument is empty no not really that's just marketing just marketing if your argument is that global warming is the problem but you know that the public is going to see that there there are records being set for cold in some places wall records are being set for hot in other places and that what matters is that the average is going up if that's your situation and you're trying to convince the public that there's a problem you would from a

[1:01:37]

that there's a problem you would from a marketing perspective change the name of what you're talking about from global warming which would be confusing confusing to climate change which is easier to explain you say yeah average is going up and the climate is changing sometimes it'll be colder than normal sometimes it'll be warmer than normal that's our Theory all they did is changed the marketing that does not tell you anything about the science the fact that they changed the names doesn't tell you anything about the science it's just marketing
um oh yes so there's funny so the president had some funny tweets about Elizabeth Warren he was mocking her at her uh her video where she was doing a live stream and she drank a beer and then her husband comes in and the president's tweet was mocking her for saying you know I'm glad you're here and the president was

[1:02:42]

saying and the president was saying of course they live there why wouldn't he be in his own home now of course none of this is important in a political sense it's just uh it's just it's just fine funny it's just funny that the president would would continue hammering on Elizabeth Warren he's having a good time with his critics this week uh and then what was it uh and then we talked about Jeff Bezos right all right anything else
happening somebody says we cannot affect the globe in such a way because it's so large that's a ridiculous statement it's obvious that human and humans can affect the the planet that's
obvious um we talked about

[1:03:45]

DeBlasio so do you know how many Fusion startups there are how many how many startups have different approaches and have enough of a good idea that they got funding to build small Fusion reactors which would save the whole planet change everything you know literally just the whole society and civilization would change how many 10 there are 10 different startups and I would assume more will more will be coming they have you know different approaches for how to control I don't know the plasma or whatever the hell they're trying to control there there are 10 of them now let me ask you this do smart people work on fusion power startups or dumb people if you were to look at the employees who are working on Fusion startups would they be some of the dumb people in the country or would they be

[1:04:45]

people in the country or would they be the smartest people in the whole freaking planet yes you are correct the people working on the fusion startups if you were to put their IQs
IQs against against the IQs of let's say Facebook or the IQs of you know Twitter or the IQs of Google or anywhere else the average IQ of of the scientists working on Fusion startups is just through the roof so the smartest people in the world think it can be done let me say
again most of you believe that Fusion is Not Practical because you know we've been talking about it for years it's sort of the flying car of of energy right it hasn't worked yet so I guess it won't work in the future but keep in mind compare your IQ

[1:05:47]

future but keep in mind compare your IQ and what you know about fusion power to the people who have started startups on fusion power whose IQs are probably you know clicking 160 or something a piece I mean the smartest people in the world disagree with you the smartest most knowledgeable people on this topic disagree with you now of course you could find tons of smart people who say they can't do it but who would you bet on let's let's say you had 50 scientists who say something can't be done and then you have 50 scientists who have put their own um careers and skin in the game to work on it to make it happen which group do you bet on do you bet on the people who say they can't do it or do you bet on the people who say they already figured down how to do it I'm going to bet on the startups every time now you you wouldn't bet on

[1:06:47]

every time now you you wouldn't bet on any one startup but 10 startups what are the odds that none of the 10 can get to the next level which in this case the next level would be you know economic you know an economic power source what are the odds all 10 of them and probably by you know the end of the year maybe there are 20 of them you know there going to be a lot of startups working on this I don't think they're all going to fail they could it's not impossible but they could all right that's all for now I'm going going to talk to you later bye for now