Episode 396 Scott Adams: Weather, Border Barriers, Schultz, Kamala, Crime

Date: 2019-01-30 | Duration: 1:02:37

Topics

Kamala’s town hall, she expressed her opinion on a topic People explained to her why that opinion wasn’t practical Kamala realized she was wrong and shifted her opinion Changing her opinion to a better opinion, is a good sign Morning Joe slobbered over Kamala’s charisma Her supporters agree, competent answers, strong presence Howard Schultz is on a book tour…and also running for President? If he isn’t fake-running, it might destroy Starbucks Howard Schultz is presenting as a “reasonable” Democrat So CNN has 3 anti-Schultz stories this morning Would you support people OPTIONALLY, anonymously… giving up their personal health privacy… …In return for them receiving free healthcare? Data on health issues, lifestyles, solutions for all Who has a lower crime rate… People who wear MAGA hats? People who have never worn a MAGA hat? Risk management is different than what’s legal Wearing a MAGA hat in public, increases your risk Wearing a MAGA hat in public, is also legal 70% tax rate for the wealthy, will that ever happen? Climate change debate: Dumb skeptic arguments The temperature has always changed, means nothing CO2 and temperature not in sync…fake charts So what if the earth is warming? Warm is good! CO2 is plant food, very true, also very dumb Temperatures are NOT actually going up Climate scientists are all part of a conspiracy! Good skeptic arguments about climate change The science alone is possible, but isn’t compelling The scientists have added BS marketing concepts Photo of a dead polar bear, that’s marketing

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]

[Music] hey everybody fresh Millions how you doing come on in here oh yeah I got my dragon energy on you're right you noticed dragon energy or is it
coffee what are the odds that I would have a periscope show called coffee with Scott Adams at the same time that the founder of Starbucks Howard Schultz is in the news I get to drink coffee while talking about coffee yeah it's the best it's the best day ever and let us raise our mug our glass our our cup our container our chalice our Stein our thermos if you will fill it with your favorite beverage I like coffee and join me for the sign aneous

[1:13]

one so um as you know Camala Harris did a a town hall meeting with CNN in which she
she said in her Preferred healthc Care um proposals of the future that maybe private insurance companies would just go away and then a day later she said well well maybe not go away maybe they can stay around and everybody said my God she's just changing her mind she did not think this through she uh she's a flip-flopper get her get her cuz she changed her mind because she got better information and she clarified her thinking kill her what what kind of world do you want to live in do you want to live in a world where somebody says something that's not a good idea in public and then they just have to stick with it even after everybody tells them it's not a good idea is that what you want you don't want that world you're living in a perfect

[2:13]

world you're living in a perfect situation if a politician says something in public the the public Rises up as one and says oh I don't think you mean that and then they change their change their view and say no okay I'll go with the public is that a problem that's the the opposite of a problem that's that's things going in the right direction now how much how much grief should we give her for not having Health Care all thought out well maybe a little bit but does it really matter at this stage I mean it is so early that nobody really has their policies completely thought out they're all going to change they're all going to morph do you remember when um candidate Trump said in public when asked do you think that women who seek illegal abortions not not legal ones but illegal ones should be punished and the president said yes now he hadn't he was

[3:14]

president said yes now he hadn't he was not obviously uh he was a candidate then but he obviously was not aware of the argument and the argument was that even though in that hypothetical scenario if a woman was were getting an illegal abortion uh so we're not talking about legal abortions here but illegal ones if she got an illegal one Trump thought well of course if you break the law why wouldn't you be punished so his first thought was just sort of the Common Sense thought and then people said no no if you do that it's going to be worse than than than if you punished them it actually would make the world a worse place because it would be punishing the woman who's kind of the victim already so he heard the argument and the very next day he said change my opinion that the the woman should not be punished only the doctor now do you hate president Trump for listening to a better argument listening

[4:17]

listening to a better argument listening to the will of the people and then conforming to it I don't know how you can be mad at that all right it's pretty normal that people have you know a hole in their thinking it gets filled in and then you go oh okay that's my new opinion I better thinking better data stronger argument I changed my mind right away that's a pretty good sign all right um uh that that's not an analogy somebody said it's not an analogy it's a real thing that happened I'm not saying they're identical I'm saying that uh it's normal for people to change their mind so uh while I know you all want to find many reasons to jump on Cala Harris changing your mind about some detail of healthc care 2 years before an election is not really the the thing you want to go for now if you want to go for her for her opinion on abortion or if

[5:21]

her for her opinion on abortion or if you want to go after her for her opinion on Health Care the way it currently stands that's all fair but changing your mind to a better opinion that's something we'd want more of not less of so I wouldn't I wouldn't make a big deal about that all right um I'm fascinated what you thought for those of you who watched the Camala Harris town hall or any clips from it so if you saw any clips from that what did you think of her Charisma um CU you may have seen that morning Joe was uh slobbering all over her performance saying that she filled the stage and she looked like a president and all of that
um yeah so I'm wondering I'm just looking at your comments so most of you are saying um no Charisma bad voice Hillary 2.0

[6:24]

um no Charisma bad voice Hillary 2.0 Etc and that that was also my my impression my impression was um an almost startling lack of Charisma but do you think that it's being received exactly that way by her supporters I'll bet not I'll bet her supporters were looking at exactly the same movie we were of her town hall and they were saying man look at that look at that command of the stage look at her you know competently answering all these questions look at her going from topic to topic having a you know a confident strong opinion on it my guess is that this is entirely a bias-based opinion so don't make too much of the fact that you don't think she has Charisma cuz she's not really talking to you if you're let's say if you're a trump supporter she's really talking to her base and if they liked it if they liked

[7:26]

they liked it if they liked it might be okay you know I made the same point with the videos um you know she did the video of her laughing and dancing and you know telling telling us what her favorite songs were and stuff like that and and I said don't use your own reaction to that to guess what other people are reacting to because probably that helped her even if it looked a little cringeworthy to people who were biased against her all right let me uh talk about Howard Schultz I didn't think that Howard Schultz was going to be interesting but I'm pretty wrong about that so you can never you can never really know what the news will decide is is the story they can't release on and Howard Schulz apparently is on a he's on a book tour so if you go on a book tour

[8:28]

a book tour so if you go on a book tour there's probably nothing better you can do than saying you might run for president because then you get all the attention in the new world and his book will sell a lot and he doesn't ever need to run for president he can just sort of threaten it and then he's forever the person who could have been president so saying you might run for president is probably a pretty good plan running for president is a different decision uh my prediction on Howard Schultz is that running for president would destroy the Starbucks brand and that's not something I think he could do uh and I say that because he he's built it it's his baby and um it's a public company right and they're so they're uh yeah it's public company so he's got stockh holders that he's obliged to he's I'm sure he has much of his own fortune still in the stock it would be a terrible disservice to the people who work at

[9:30]

disservice to the people who work at Starbucks and the stockholders and all the people who depend on them to destroy the brand and it would destroy the brand you know you're already seeing uh Democrats saying that they won't go to Starbucks if he runs so here's my prediction um he's going to make noise about it he's going to give us our opinions he's going to sell some books we'll probably see a lot from him but in the end it would be too much of an ask for him to destroy his brand now you might say you might say well what about Trump trump had the same situation right he had a Famous Brand he knew that running for office would make half of the country hate his brand and he did it so why wouldn't Howard schilz do the same thing well here are a few reasons number one there's nobody quite like Trump all right so you can't really compare anything he does to anybody else cuz he just doesn't make ordinary choices yeah

[10:32]

just doesn't make ordinary choices yeah and somebody got ahead of me in the comments here the the bigger thing is that Trump the Trump brand is a family business and a family business he can he's got a little more freedom he he can do you know he he can do whatever his family is okay with and he's okay with and you know it's a different level of risk than taking down a public company and and I would say that probably Trump has a bigger appetite for risk just in general um and he's you know he's probably substantially older than uh than Howard Schultz you know it's sort of his his you know big final act you know probably so there's a different situation uh but I love watching uh CNN continually cover Schultz in a negative way so I think today there were either two or three negative stories about about

[11:35]

or three negative stories about about Schultz on CNN let me let me see I'll just call it up uh analysis this is CNN's homepage analysis Howard Schulz is the answer no one is looking for now I haven't read the article but that's the headline on CNN the answer no one's looking for then there's Cole bear roasts Schulz presidential bit so they go to Cole bear to help help mock Schultz out of the office um all right so that's two headlines on Schultz and he's not even in the race yet all right so um one of the things that Schultz is doing is by being a reasonable Democrat he's sort of making the rest of them look foolish by
by comparison and you know what I mean right so if if if Schultz comes in and just says Howard Schulz and just says a

[12:37]

just says Howard Schulz and just says a bunch of reasonable things that even maybe a republican could like a little bit you know um for example he came out and said of course you don't want to get rid of insurance companies so um he's he's sort of making his side look bad and it's going to drive MSNBC and CNN crazy and even funnier I'm watching the Fox News treatment of Howard Schultz how do you think how do you think Fox News is treating Howard Schultz who presumably would be on the the other side from Fox News they're being kind of nice to him yeah Fox News pretty pretty nice to Howard Schultz because they'd love to see him in the race because he probably would guarantee a uh Trump Victory I'm not sure I'm going to say that yet but that's the thinking all right speaking of health care I'm going to throw out a

[13:38]

of health care I'm going to throw out a health care plan for you okay um I might throw out some other health care plans as as time goes on and the context for anything I say about Healthcare is that I'm no healthcare expert but it does seem to me that we're locked into too few choices we've got one hand uh Medicare for all and on the other hand let the market do it and we don't really talk about much else all right every once in a while a little bit but I want to throw some ideas in here that are that are sort of so far out of the mainstream that they might they might make you think a little bit uh it might improve it might improve the portfolio of ideas even if you don't like my idea okay it makes just make you think different differently suppose suppose um the government sponsored maybe maybe they don't manage it but maybe they just allow it or promote it so don't get hung up on whether the

[14:40]

it so don't get hung up on whether the government is behind it or not um they could just be promoting this let's say there was a lowcost health care plan for people who wanted to give up um all of their privacy but without their name on it so in other words let's say people wanted to give up all of their health care records as well as all of their lifestyle choices as might be measured by you know a Fitbit or sensors or their smartphone or you maybe they fill on a survey now and then so the idea would be that in in return for free health care you would give up all of your privacy but here's the key it would all be encrypted without your name so that you'd be giving your Healthcare information but your name would not be attached to it and that and that information would be available to uh other researchers now why is that a good

[15:41]

other researchers now why is that a good idea now first of all let me say anybody who reacts to this by saying it's a stupid idea because you wouldn't give up your health care you wouldn't give up your privacy that would be a stupid response cuz it's optional right so if you say my God I would never give up my privacy therefore it's a bad idea you're not even in the same conversation because nobody's saying it's it's mandatory it's purely optional in return for free health care you don't have to do it if you don't want to but suppose you had that what would be the value to the country for not only having more people on Healthcare but the value of that information well let me give you an example let me give you an example I am personally aware of several situations in which people had very

[16:41]

situations in which people had very long-term serious medical problems that they could not figure out what the problem was once they did figure out what the problem was there was an easy solution but it could take years and years of not knowing why you have a problem and I'm being generic here cuz I don't want to give away anybody's Health Secrets but had we had a big database of all the things that people were doing all the health problems they had and all of the things they tried to solve it the problems I'm talking about would have been solved in an hour so instead of decades or years to solve a you know lifelong Major Medical problem it could be solved in an hour if we had enough data about what other people are doing to solve the same problem cuz somebody's going to hit on it by accident right somebody's going to be you know eating more leafy greens

[17:42]

you know eating more leafy greens somebody's going to be you know to give up their cat and you know the just a lot of people doing a lot of stuff so if you had big data you could find that so the first thing I'm going to state is that giving away healthc care lifestyle information without your name attached to it it's all just encrypted nobody knows it's you but in theory somebody could connect it to someday if they tried hard enough um so that's the Privacy risk probably would have tremendous value that would lower healthare costs for the other people that's the key all right so if one group gave up all of its healthc care information and then we could learn for example that hey if you have this problem you should eat more eat more vegetables whatever whatever the answer is that all of the other people who did not give up their health care information still benefit from what we learned so it could lower Everybody's

[18:43]

learned so it could lower Everybody's Health care costs here's the second part suppose you were in this lowcost health care plan and you had to always agree to the following that if you needed certain types of Hospital tests and let's say just noninvasive ones invasive ones so if you needed say an x-ray if you were in the free healthcare plan you had to agree to get two X-Rays one using the normal technology and another using a startups technology that was looking to build let's say the the lowcost version of the X-ray or the low cost version of an MRI or the low cost version of a lab test or the lowc cost version of a of a skin test so for almost everything that's got a big margin of profit there's a startup already working on the alternative but the alternative is not yet approved and you don't know if the

[19:45]

yet approved and you don't know if the alternative is going to be as good as the original you know might might the alternative missed some things that the original could have done better so for a while what is best to get the new stuff into production is to test it in parallel with the old one so somebody comes guinea pig uh nonivasive all right a guinea pig would be somebody who took a drug all right nothing I'm saying would cause any kind of a change in the in the customer all right so nothing I'm suggesting would change the body or the health of the customer they would simply have a choice of you get the regular x-ray but then just walk across the room to the other room and we will give you the alternative X-ray and you'll have two x-rays so it takes a little longer but nobody's touching your body right you you you don't have any you're not taking a drug you're not you know you're not having anything removed from your body

[20:46]

having anything removed from your body just nonin invasive stuff um and then who would pay for your tests the startup so the startup needs to test their technology so the startup could pay pay for your startup test and also pay for your X-ray your standard x-ray or your standard test whatever it is so now you've got two things going on that are free for this lowcost health care you give up your privacy you report on some of your outcomes you have to take two tests in only the cases where there is a non-invasive test and there is a startup locally if there isn't one then it's just free um and then lastly maybe some kind of uh you know uh what do you call it uh crisis health care for the real expensive stuff which would be lower cost so I just throw that idea out there I'm not saying that's a good idea but it's different than what you've heard so it might stimulate somebody to come up with a better

[21:46]

come up with a better idea um I want to talk
about here's here's a question just a thought experiment um one of the things that people say about uh immigrants whether they are legal or illegal people say and I would imagine this is probably true anecdotally it it looks true to me but I can't prove it they say that the crime rate with immigrants both legal and illegal if you put them together is lower than the crime rate among the the citizens who are who were legal citizens now or or among the non-immigrants um now some people are saying it's false some some people are saying it's true that isn't my point for today I'm just saying that that's a conversation all right I don't have I don't have the data anecdotally it feels like it's true okay so so many of you calling BS

[22:47]

true okay so so many of you calling BS on it I'm going to have to call BS on your BS which I wasn't planning to do but here's the argument a lot of the immigrants in this country are uh college educated folks who came over to get jobs in Tech you know all right the people who came here from India with Advanced degrees to get jobs in Tech probably have a low crime rate wouldn't you think I'm pretty sure that's true right so so people who came here for jobs with high educations did everything legally of course they have a better lower crime rate that would be the same as if we looked at our own college educated people with high-tech jobs probably a low crime rate right secondly uh having worked in the restaurant industry for a while I I did come into contact with vast numbers of people who you never know but you assume some percentage of these have fake

[23:48]

percentage of these have fake documentation so I assume I've come into contact with lots of people who were not legal one of the things they all had in common is they like to stay on a trouble because they had a double a double penalty crime and deportation so it it was far worse to you know you didn't even want to get caught for speeding because you would be deported or you had that risk so anecdotally again this is not Based on data but anecdotally it looked true to me that that they the immigrants seem to be minding their own business pretty hard you know trying to stay dle now uh which is not to say that there isn't plenty of crime or too much one of the dumb things that people like to do is is if there's a number of something and there's also a percentage of that same thing you just ignore the one that doesn't go your way so the Democrats are ignoring the number of

[24:49]

Democrats are ignoring the number of crimes that come in through illegal immigration the the acting like the number of crimes doesn't matter as long as the percentage is low which doesn't make any sense because if somebody murders you you don't really care that the rate of murder is low do you you kind of care if you got murdered so if you can reduce crime it shouldn't matter that much it shouldn't matter that much that the percentage is low if you can just make it go away um but here's my provocative thought if if I were to say to you here are here are two populations which of them is likely to have the lowest crime rate are you ready who has the lower crime rate people who wear Mega hats or people who
don't I'm just going to let that sit there for a

[25:50]

there for a minute if you were if you look at the crime rate of the United States if you look at the total crime rate of the United States including all of the legal residents and all of the illegal ones too you can throw the immigrants in there just to lower the crime rate according to the people on the left all right who do you think has the lowest crime rate people who wear Maga hats or people who have never worn a Maga
hat think about it right I I almost guarantee you that the people who wear Maga hats are the least likely to cause trouble now I can't prove that but uh it feels true doesn't it and and doesn't that it kind of changes your whole just putting it in that frame just completely changed the argument in your head at least now of course you know people who

[26:51]

least now of course you know people who hate the meah hats are certainly not going to buy into that argument but I want some I want some of you to try it out and I I'll tell you what made me think of this um no I'm not going to tell you what made me think of this because I just realized it could be misinterpreted so I'm not going to tell you um so try that out try try try out the uh the notion that people with mega hats have by far the lowest crime rate it doesn't even need to be true it just feels like you're probably is true and it's funny um and and by the way I'm going to say at at the same at the same time I'm going to say uh that if you wear your maggot hat in public oh let's talk about this so there are three things that got conflated when people were talking about uh people who

[27:54]

people were talking about uh people who wear Maga hats and the Covington kids Etc and and that provoked the comparison to uh when women are told that they should not wear provocative clothing because some people will say oh if you're dressing like that you must be asking for it and then it was also compared to um Trayvon Martin Trayvon Martin who was wearing a hoodie and then people said oh if you wear a hoodie you're going to be looking like a criminal so maybe you're asking for it so there are three examples in which somebody said well if you do that you're asking for it they'd say if you wear your mega hat you're of course you're asking for trouble if you dress provocatively you're asking for trouble if you wear a hoodie you're asking for trouble now uh here's the bad thinking on all three of them there we we tend and we do this for a lot of topics we tend to conflate the legal responsibility in

[28:56]

conflate the legal responsibility in other words who goes to jail for what with common sense all right and we act like somehow they're the same thing and they're not
not legally if somebody attacks you for wearing an article of clothing which is a totally legal article of clothing from a legal perspective that is 100% the responsibility of the attacker 0% of legal or moral responsibility is assigned to the victim and should be right the person with the Maga hat should not be blamed if they get beat up the person provoc dressing provocatively absolutely should not be blamed legally or morally if they're attacked even though they were dressed provocatively and likewise the person in the hoodie or let's just say somebody who's you dressing uh in a way that other people say looks like a gang and

[29:57]

other people say looks like a gang and if they get in trouble it should not be not even any it should be zero responsibility legally and morally of the person who wore those clothes cuz those clothes are for sale you can wear clothes they're legal to wear clothes but a separate question is whether it's smart if you're going to do your own uh risk management is a good risk management to wear the wrong gang colors in the wrong neighborhood well it's legal it's legal but you're going to get your ass kicked so you need to separate risk management from what is morally and legally okay it's totally morally and legally okay for me to wear you know red in the Crips neighborhood or what whichever is the bad one I forget Which Way gets you killed it's either red or

[30:57]

Way gets you killed it's either red or blue uh but is it good risk management for me to say I'm going to go into this this gang neighborhood I'm going to wear whatever I want because legally and morally legally and morally I get to wear whatever I want and then they kill you and you say darn it didn't you know that I'm legally and morally able to wear whatever I want in your neighborhood and the person who killed you said yeah I didn't care so um here's my point on that arguing who is legally and morally at fault is all well and good we're probably all on the same side on that but you still have to talk about risk management it's your life here you're risking so I would say uh if you're wearing your Maga hat in public given the current state of politics you are inviting risk but if somebody attacks you that's

[31:58]

risk but if somebody attacks you that's completely on them you know morally ethically legally it's on the attacker 100% it's not on you but if you wear your hat in public you have increased your risk so don't you know don't complain to me if somebody if if you know if somebody attacks you I'm on your side but you're also a dumbass you know if you thought it wasn't going to happen you're a dumbass now having said that there are certainly going to be some people who are going to wear it almost for that reason you know to make a point because they think they they want to extend their you know let's say freedom and if you're doing it for that reason I'm okay with that right if you're wearing your magga hat with the the understanding that your risk is higher and you're doing it to to make a point you're doing it to make a political statement you're doing it to broaden the right for other people who might want to

[32:59]

right for other people who might want to wear that hat if that's important to you I'm all for it but just know you risk all right um I saw that Byron York used a uh interesting term for Democrats he's calling them uh border barrier deniers that denier term tends to be it just creeps into a lot of things and it really works um and I and I was thinking about you know the uh Democrats like to accuse the Republicans of being science deniers for on a number of fronts right and they're not wrong by the way uh the Republican side does have far less let's say belief in science that's maybe the harder to demonstrate kind of science right if if you can't demonstrate it in a lab or demon it with math it's tougher to get

[33:59]

demon it with math it's tougher to get Republicans to buy into it that's I think that's generally true uh but I was looking at the things that Democrats deny and being a a wall denier just feels kind of stupid doesn't it how can how can you be Pro science and deny the walls
work how is that oh yeah there's and the antivaxers are uh uh are science deniers as well essentially but they also deny uh
uh capitalism if you're a Democrat yeah they're they're economics deniers right so it seems unambiguously true that capitalism has produced everything that the Democrats want to steal from people who have money only exists because there was capitalism at one point right like you can't even have socialism until somebody made a bunch of money to

[35:01]

bunch of money to steal I'm simplifying it just for fun but the only reason the people are talking about raising taxes on the rich is that we had some kind of a system that made people rich as soon as you take away the the money of the rich you don't have that system anymore uh I would definitely lose leave the country let let me say this as clearly as possible if my taxes go to 70% I'm leaving the country that's a promise all right if my taxes go to 70% I'm out of here I'm freaking out of here now um and why wouldn't anybody what what person in the right mind would pay a 70% tax yeah we forget that in the old days when there were 70% tax there were all these writeoffs so it wasn't really 70% it was you know you do all these write offs and and clever things until it was down to like 30% or something but

[36:01]

it was down to like 30% or something but if you don't have all those writeoffs and it's just 70% I'm finding me a new country and and but that's completely serious you know I don't think we'll ever have a 70% tax on at least my income but I wouldn't stay around for that who the hell would all right uh let's talk about the worst arguments on climate are you ready now this is a public service and I I realize that I'm talking to mostly people who are skeptical about climate science because that's the type of crowd that has been attracted to my periscopes and my personal opinion is that 60% of everything you hear on both sides both the climate scientists and the Skeptics around 60% of it is to me transparently ridiculous what I don't know is which

[37:03]

ridiculous what I don't know is which side has the the 40% that's true I haven't figured that out yet so in other words one of the two sides the Skeptics versus the majority of climate scientists one of those two sides is probably completely right meaning that either things are warming up because of CO2 and it's going to be dangerous or not right one of those two is right but what I know is that the majority of what we see in the arguments and here I'm only talking about the argument not not the underlying reality but in terms of the argument my current conclusion is that about 60% of everything we see from both sides is just flat out ridiculous so I don't know what to do with that yet I'm still digging down but let me tell you the most ridiculous arguments about climate change are you ready if you're using any of these arguments you need to go deeper or get out of the argument cuz these are just dumb arguments

[38:05]

these are just dumb arguments okay number one I've seen this five times in 24 hours just random people on Twitter people saying the temperature has always changed historically it's always going up or it's always going down therefore the fact that the temperature is going up means nothing that my friend is the dumbest argument in all of this in the entire topic that is the dumbest argument let me tell you why yes temperature has always gone up and always gone down but scientists will tell you exactly why they'll tell you how much CO2 there was in the past they'll tell you the you know the position of the earth which makes a difference they'll tell you about you know what the sun was doing and they'll put all those things together and they'll draw a graph and they will explain completely through lots of different proxies how the temperature is understood why it did what it did in the

[39:06]

understood why it did what it did in the past now you've probably seen you've probably seen the skeptic chart that shows that CO2 and temperature were moving in different directions or they're not correlated right most of you have seen that it's a very there there are famous skeptical charts that show that CO2 and temperature were not correlated in the past those are fake right if you believe there is a chart that's that's a correct one showing CO2 in temperature and a phase you've been duped by a fake chart all right the reality is that if you put in the correct variables that science knows very well that they're actually correlated right so don't be fooled by the fake charts showing CO2 and temperature not correlated in the past that's been completely explained with a high level of precision by scientists

[40:06]

high level of precision by scientists okay um secondly the reason that they think there's something different about today compared to the fact that temperatures were always going up and down in the past what's different is that they can account for all the variables that have been going on for hundreds of thousands of years and those same variables don't explain the next 100 years unless you throw in man-made CO2 right so the CO2 change is the only thing that scientists can find that existed forever that's an a whack and correlates perfectly to the temperatures going up right now keep in mind I'm not telling you I'm taking a side in the argument CU I can't get to the bottom of it I'm just saying that if you're saying temperatures have always gone up and down you you're you're so far from a good argument that you should abandon it there might be good arguments there might be good Arguments

[41:07]

arguments there might be good Arguments for skepticism but this isn't one of them you should just abandon it right away um the other let's see here are the worst arguments uh the next worst argument is that warming is good a bunch of a bunch of uh people were saying yesterday well what so what if the Earth is getting warmer warm is good now that is maybe the dumbest argument of all time would somebody please answer in the comments so that I'm not the first person that you hear this from why it's a dumb argument to say what's wrong with warming warming is good please in the comments will somebody somebody tell me why that argument is [Music] dumb there is obviously a limit thank

[42:09]

dumb there is obviously a limit thank you in the comments uh and somebody else gets uh credit also for saying it's the rate of warming so we're not talking about it goes up 2 degrees and stays there we're talking about it just keeps going up until all hell breaks out Loose if you take a live Lobster and put it in a cold pot of water and then turn up the heat does the lobster say hey warmer is better yes it does for a little while and then the lobster gets boiled so if you're saying that warmer is better you you should just not even ever talk about weather if somebody says what's the weather today you should say I I prefer not to say anything if you if you're going to stick with that argument that is so bad that there's no limit to how much warmer it can get and is still better hey it's still it's better it's better yep the warmer it gets still better okay all the crops died yeah the the oceans

[43:12]

all the crops died yeah the the oceans have have bar you know the ocean has risen uh it makes me crazy when people say warmer is better cuz obviously there's a limit and nobody's going to say nobody says it's going to stop I mean nobody on the climate science says it's going to stop it's going to keep going here's the next one that is a bad bad argument I mean so bad it's like I SLA myself in the head because these are arguments in which you don't need to know anything about climate science to know these are bad arguments here's another one CO2 is plant food tell me why that's a terrible terrible argument it's true now tell me why it's a terrible terrible thing to say it's like it's just dumb it's true CO2 is essential and they actually pump it into uh green houses why is that a dumb

[44:20]

argument uh it's true why is it a bad argument
God okay well apparently I have to tell you to the answer of this I thought this would be a little more obvious here's the
the problem CO2 is good for plants everybody agrees scientists agree Skeptics agree if the CO2 keeps Rising what happens to the temperature eventually gets too hot according to the scientist now again here I'm here I'm accepting that the science is true which I can't validate I'm not a scientist but I'm talking about the argument all right we can't get to the truth but I'll just talk about the argument the argument is that as CO2 goes up there's a place where it's great and then there's a place where there's too much and the too much might not directly affect the plants but

[45:20]

might not directly affect the plants but it will affect the temperature according to the scientist again that's the part you might disagree with but the AR argument is that as the CO2 goes up the the heat goes up and that if there's too much heat you got a lot of problems so anybody who says CO2 is plant food you stop talking just stop talking if you can't follow that chain of logic to more CO2 causes more heat and eventually there'd be too much heat and and then you've got problems with everything if you can't follow it to that simple place you should just stop talking all right then there's the argument that the temperatures haven't actually gone up and that they're they're just being measured wrong and that the scientists uh are part of a big old plot um I'm going to say tentatively that that's probably a

[46:21]

tentatively that that's probably a terrible argument now I've seen a lot of the Tony heler stuff um and I would say he's the most one of the most capable of the Skeptics so he seems to go the deepest has the most sources presents his argument in the most coherent way but I'll just tell you where I am on this I don't believe that with all the scientists working on this and all the ways that they have to measure temperature that uh I don't believe that scientists can't figure out if the temperature is going up in unprecedented way it feels to me like that's the sort of thing they could figure out but I'm not convinced yet because you know had for example if 90% of the temperature uh change is in the ocean how do you really measure the temperature in the ocean worldwide and get an average so it doesn't feel to me

[47:22]

get an average so it doesn't feel to me like like I'm as confident as the scientists are in terms of our ability to to measure things so I'll say that's still an open question all right so let me summarize the terrible arguments against climate science that you should never use are it always changed in the past that's a terrible argument because we know why it changed in the past and those things don't explain why it's changing in the present CO2 does all right uh CO2 is plant food a terrible argument because because the point is more CO2 raises the temperature and it's the temperature that's the problem nobody's arguing that a little more CO2 isn't good for your plant they're arguing that your plant will fry all right so stop saying CO2 is plant food everybody agrees with that it's not a thinking um and uh what's the other one oh and then the other

[48:23]

the other argument um apparently there's like a conspiracy theory argument that the the real reason for climate change is uh has to do with socialism and there's there's always some um there's always some quote taken out a context from some obscure or semi obscure person who is involved with the United Nations from some other country who said something like the real reason for climate science is to redistribute wealth or something I don't believe any of that stuff and here's why even if it's true that there are some big wigs in some international organization that would like to see you know uh income redistributed even if there are some intellectuals who think that there isn't the slightest chance that that thinking is so common within

[49:24]

that that thinking is so common within the climate scientists that all the the clim of scientists are part of this this worldwide conspiracy right that is so ridiculously unbelievable that I can't I can't can't even get near that opinion somebody's saying it's true it's true well keep in mind that we all believe conspiracy theories we're we're we're all taken in by them just different ones by different people and I will I will say with I would be willing to bet that among the scientists not not talking about any intellectuals who are you know in the UN or part of the ipcc or whatever I'm not talking about those guys the actual scientists are positive that they don't go to work saying how can I fake these numbers to get a little more socialism that's not happening the the scientists of the world certainly not the scientists of the United States are

[50:25]

the scientists of the United States are not going to work and making up fake numbers to redistribute their wealth to other people because scientists make good livings right the the top scientists who are who are studying things you think that they're they go to work every day and make up data and completely discredit their their own field that they've chosen so that they can secretly have this clever plan that they've colluded with people people in the UN that who we've never heard of it's all part of a plot to to uh to figure out a way to transfer money from the scientists to other people it doesn't pass any sniff test it really doesn't all right um I know I know some of this is uh tough love for some of you um probably something like 40 to 60% of you have

[51:26]

something like 40 to 60% of you have embraced the arguments I just told you were terrible arguments I'm trying to help you right I'm trying to be constructive you need to release on the obviously bad arguments let me tell you the arguments that are good in terms of criticizing um climate science here's the good argument the science is probably pretty solid not 100% in my opinion because I can't really penetrate it so I can't give you an dependent opinion but probably pretty science uh meaning that CO2 raises temperatures Etc but the the projection models and the economics that they that they do on top of those should be seen as marketing not science they use scientific thinking to make the models but you really have to look at the projection models as how the scientists are trying to Market their their their beliefs the things that

[52:28]

their their beliefs the things that they've discovered so if you were to look at let's say a a product and the product works really well would you judge whether the product works by the fact that the marketing campaign is uh is transparently BS well no you wouldn't because it's typical that the marketing is a little bit of BS even if the product is entirely good so my best work belief which is also subject to change is that the basic idea that CO2 is causing us a problem and we should worry about it probably true but they can't sell that because it just sort of lays there so instead they add a marketing level on top of that which is the hockey stick pictures and the graphs and the and the predictions and the and the the talk of Doom and the the the pictures of the oceans r Ing and and all the things that they do and

[53:28]

and all the things that they do and here's a dead polar bear that's all the marketing so when I look at the science I'm really looking at the marketing I'm not really looking at the science I can't penetrate the science I've never seen the science science is something that somebody told me they did I can't see it but I can see I can see all the marketing and the marketing is transparent BS so even if the science is right and CO2 is a problem temperatures going up we need to worry about it even if all of that's true what we see of it is just clearly marketing likewise the skeptical arguments that you know warming is good up to any level or the CO2 at any level is good those are just ridiculous so if you're part of the team that's saying hey I don't care how warm it gets that's just nice or if you're part of the team that says CO2 at any level is good it's good for

[54:29]

CO2 at any level is good it's good for plants you're not credible you you just really should stop talking about the topic because th those are embarrassing opinions because you don't even need science to know they're embarrassing because nobody is claiming that the temperature is going to go up one degree and stay there nobody makes that claim nobody would make that claim you're arguing against your own imagination of something ridiculous right so I'm trying to clean out the ridiculous arguments on both sides as best I can I don't know how deep I I'll be able to get in terms of penetrating the actual science but don't believe the models and don't believe that CO2 is plant food so it's all it's all fine and I wouldn't I wouldn't believe the N the international conspiracy stuff um oh let's let's talk about the phrase settled science uh uh that's sort of word thinking I call it word thinking you you

[55:30]

thinking I call it word thinking you you take a word and you try to make an argument but really all you're doing is playing with the definition of a word what does settled science mean all right when people say it's settled science or it's not settled science they're trying to win the argument by defining a word you know the settled part that's not how you win an argument or it shouldn't be because both sides agree that science is never really settled because you could always have a new new discovery right and that and science is often surprised and they often think they have the right answer and then they revise it because that's science so if you're arguing that something is settled science or is not settled science you're that's a dumb argument both sides both sides those are opposite sides and I'm telling you both sides are stupid arguments because all agree if you were to just remove those words we'd all agree that we could be

[56:32]

words we'd all agree that we could be surprised the scientists would agree with that the scientists would say as as far as we can tell we're very confident about this but that's happened before we've been science has been very confident about things and then found out it wasn't quite what they thought totally common so if you're even arguing at all that it is settled science or it's not settled science or even if if you're just mocking them just don't even talk like that cuz it means nothing we're all on the same side that we could be
be surprised all right um I know you hate it when I talk about uh climate science because I I I criticize both sides so it doesn't matter which side you're on you're you probably just got a little a little triggered by this but I'm trying to improve the way you look at it all right I don't have a I don't have a conclusion I'm trying to steer you toward I'm just trying to help you get past the the ridiculous stuff all

[57:37]

past the the ridiculous stuff all right uh so some of you like it well let me let me ask a question as I'm seeing some mixed mixed opinions do you like it when I talk about climate science in in the way that I talk about it talking about the quality of the arguments talking about the persuasion part talking about the marketing of it okay so some of you do like it looks like more of you like it than not or at least you're being nice to me
okay um somebody says I don't for the people who say they don't is it because uh and I would like to I would actually like to understand for the people who don't like it I like to understand why is it because just the topic isn't interesting in general is it because you think I'm wrong or do you think it's dangerous in some way so for those of you for those

[58:40]

some way so for those of you for those of you um who don't like it give me give me an idea why which would be fair by the way if if you've just heard too much of it or you know I'm not going to argue with your reason I just want to hear your reason um
makes me thinking I'm a scientist that's like the best that was the best that might be the best compliment I've ever received somebody just said uh that they're a scientist but they they like this conversation because it makes them think that's that's exactly what I'm trying to do I'm trying to get out of the out of the science level because I don't understand the science level and to talk about how it's presented how we how we process it how we argue it um it's unsolvable I'll bet it's not unsolvable the the other thing about the predictions uh about climate science is

[59:40]

predictions uh about climate science is that the IP PC I always get that wrong is there two C's or 2ps but uh if it's really only a 10% hit to GDP over 80 years that's pretty manageable and in 80 years we're going to have a lot of technology to change the world [Music] uh no one is giving up their
lifestyle yeah um lomborg who is famous for being the let's call him an economist I don't know if he calls himself an economist but uh that's the domain he plays in um showed that in a survey of the world the climate change was like toward the bottom in terms of what the world cares about if you talk about citizens citizens all over the world it's dead last in the things they care about because what people want are you know

[1:00:41]

because what people want are you know jobs and water and less crime and things that affect them right away and it would be
be insanely uh cruel to those people who are trying to climb out of desperate poverty into something more surviv able to to make that harder um it seems far more ethical to let as many poor people climb out of desperate poverty to you know at least survival or maybe maybe have a good life level get as many of those as you can through a strong economy and then if the people toward the top are being uh challenged because they're losing their beach homes and you know the the GDP is down 10% compared to what it should have been so your your 401k is a little lower than you hoped let those people eat it you know people like me um are probably going to be paying for whatever the problems of climate science are because we're the ones with

[1:01:42]

science are because we're the ones with the money poor people are not going to pay the bill to move beach houses poor people are not going to be paying the bill to clean up the hurricane at least not in in the tax sense uh it's going to be rich people so if we don't deal with climate science and we keep our economy humming at the maximum it's going to be raising people from Desperate situations to less desperate and then someday we're going to have to pay for that but it won't be these people the people who got who who who rose up to a survivable level are not the ones who are going to pay the bill in 80 years it's going to be the people who made tons of money and they can afford it all right uh I'm going to end here and I'll talk to you later bye for now