Episode 407 Scott Adams: Warren’s Apology Tour, Bezos Exposing Pecker, Healthcare, Green New Deal

Date: 2019-02-08 | Duration: 45:50

Topics

Cringe-worthy apologies by Elizabeth Warren She doesn’t appear to have a sense of humor Different handling, could have salvaged her political career Jeff Bezos handling of private pictures that have become public Pushed back against what he calls blackmail, A+ handling Universal Healthcare graph that puts everything in context 1. Current amount of taxes being collected 2. How much more taxes are needed for AOC Green Deal? AOC is over-asking and priming us, softening us up… …just like President Trump does negotiating Will U.S. be selling our climate change solutions to the world? CO2 scrubbers are a good example The good versus weak and bad climate change people Border security committee finally brought in the experts If we don’t see a plan from both sides, waste of time Orange versus blue book cover for my new book Winning cover design is orange with blue bubbles

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

[0:13]

hey Brad come on in here everybody it's time it's time for coffee with Scott Adams I'm Scott Adams and you are probably prepared with your coffee we'll be back to our normal time maybe tomorrow or the next day
and until then please raise your cup your mug your glass your Stein your chalice your thermos fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me for the simultaneous
sip the weather is great it's my last day here in Hawaii heading out in a few hours back home all right so let's
uh uh hi everybody let's talk about some of the things that are happening in the news have you all watched the

[1:13]

news have you all watched the cringeworthy Elizabeth Ellen uh I'm sorry Elizabeth Warren apologies for uh cultural appropriation it is so hard to watch it it she seems too
too sincere and too surrender about the whole issue and I kind of get the I get the main point which is something I didn't know by the way so we learned something we did learn that tribal affiliation is up to the tribe uh so you can't just say I've got a certain certain genetic composition therefore I'm a Cherokee or or anything else I guess it's just up to the tribe to decide who's in and who's out and that makes sense cuz if if it were not up to the tribe then anybody could just say hey I'm a Native American too give me some give me some of those

[2:15]

too give me some give me some of those sweet sweet gambling benefits or something like that but yeah I think her political career is completely toast um I've told you before just a reminder that her situation is identical to my own which is that um my parents told all three of us kids that we had substantial Native American blood and so I grew up believing that and I believe that until one year ago when I did a uh a DNA test and my percentage of Native American blood zero zero um but here's what I think she did wrong um what she did wrong was you know the way she handled it of course but I don't think she's handled it with the sense of humor that it called for don't you think

[3:15]

humor that it called for don't you think a sense of humor was necessary and apparently she doesn't have one remember I told you that one out of three people don't have a sense of humor the smart way to play this would have been to consider it as funny as as the people watching it she should have paced the public because the public thinks this is hilarious and she should have just agreed say yeah uh I I got totally taken you know if you can't trust your family who can you trust and and then the questions about whether uh whether she used it to get ahead she's totally blowing that because the correct answer is when I thought it was true the system allowed me to say it and why wouldn't I um Let me let me make a confession to you today right here remember I told you that I grew up believing that we had substantial Native American blood in my

[4:16]

substantial Native American blood in my family so my siblings believe that when I was ready to apply to colleges um at some point there was a box to check and I thought to myself huh what would happen here if I check this uh I think it was American Indian was the the phrase used back then what happens if I check this box because it doesn't say what percentage so there was a place where you could self-identify and it didn't it didn't have any requirements you just had to say what you were and and that was it so I I thought what if what if I check this box and so I checked the Box uh and what happened was a few weeks later my my mailbox was full with full scholarship offers full scholarship to college because I checked that [Music] box now when the when the scholarship offers came in I thought to myself what

[5:19]

offers came in I thought to myself what the this can't be right and then I looked at myself in the mirror and I thought um I don't think I can take these full scholarships because you know even even I don't feel like a Native American you know I don't feel like anybody was discriminating against me so um from that point on I no longer checked that box and did not accept any of the things that were offered because of it but I'll tell you checking the box back in back in my childhood opened up the heavens and you got you got free stuff so if you tell me that uh as a lowincome guy who is trying to make make it in this world that if I see a form where I can check a box honestly meaning I actually honestly believed I had legitimate reason to check that box um and I could get ahead because of it and I could take advantage of the system in a way that the system was

[6:21]

system in a way that the system was designed to take advantage it was designed for that if if you could check the box honestly you get to have those benefits um I don't think there's anything to apologize for now in my case it was a step too far and I wasn't willing to take advantage of that but I'm not sure I would hold it against her you know if she honestly believed that that she had that uh in her background she wasn't rich either was
she all right um let's talk about contrast how she handled it with how Bezos handled the national inquire um outing him for his girlfriend while he was still married apparently the still married part is not the big problem because I guess he and his wife had already you know decided they were splitting so having a girlfriend was not the not the embarrassing part the

[7:23]

the not the embarrassing part the embarrassing part was that the private messages and some private pictures came out now what Bezos did is instead of uh instead of uh just apologizing and doing whatever people normally do in that situation he uh totally confessed wrote a wrote a public letter and outed the national Inquirer for as he says trying to blackmail him those are those are his words uh and he handled it perfectly in my opinion so I like the way he put it which is if someone like him can't you know can't take on a a blackmailer as he calls it you know who can so that's a pretty pretty noble sounding persuasion um and I just like the the fact that he

[8:23]

um and I just like the the fact that he just went right at it and didn't you know he didn't uh he didn't apologize and he didn't defend his personal actions nor should he nor should he it's none of our business uh but I love the fact that he went directly at it so he gets an A+ for handling his crisis PR crisis I guess uh whereas Elizabeth Warren Gets an f
um all right so the funniest part where the headlin because the uh the CEO of the national Inquirer his last name is pecker and since the subject of the story were these alleged um exposed pictures shall we say of bezos's manhood that the headlines were uh Bezos exposes Becker possibly the best headline of all

[9:26]

Becker possibly the best headline of all time uh you can't get better than that um National choir didn't do anything wrong all right uh today's my travel day so I'm I'm done with vacation today uh all right what else we got going on so uh as we're talking about healthc care and especially in the context of socialism
uh one of the questions I ask myself is how long will it take before somebody on either the pro universal healthcare or the enti universal healthcare side produces the the graph or the statistic that just puts it all in in context here's what I'd like to see I'd like to see somebody inform the public in a way that the public

[10:26]

public in a way that the public understands for how much of of a cost to healthare is and it might be just we just need two numbers one number might be the let's say the uh total amount of taxes that we pay
pay now and then the other number is how much do we have to add to that to pay for Universal healthare so so just just give us two numbers current amount of taxes collected and then how much we would need to collect in order to pay for you know the uh the AOC version of a a green New Deal or whatever we got going on there
um Montana the state went and reduced health care costs for the entire State I don't know what that means uh I mean I know what the words means but I don't know anything about that story

[11:41]

what um all right so the other thing that the so let's talk about this green New Deal for a moment now the the thing that uh I don't know anything about the Alex Jens versus Joe Rogan thing um but I'll look into that so the thing with the green New Deal is that as ridiculous as it sounds on the surface it's part of a longer term persuasion in which things which seemed ridiculous not long ago now seem like just a bad idea so watch The Evolution from the things that are part of the green New Deal going from absolutely crazy crazy stuff to well we don't want to do that right yeah they're they're softening softening up the country so it's it's a trump um yeah it's a trump play so they

[12:43]

trump um yeah it's a trump play so they they're asking for so much that anything they get is going to look like a good idea or going to look like a win so we're all getting primed and uh and they're doing a really good job of that oh man it's raining
um all right so I see socialism expanding in this country no matter what and if it doesn't happen in the uh if it doesn't happen in the next few years it's certainly going to happen when robots take all the jobs all right so we're heading toward a day where that Universal income whether you work or not is going to come so those of you who say my God that's a crazy idea to pay people even if they don't want to work um I would say it might be a crazy idea but it's one

[13:43]

might be a crazy idea but it's one that's going to come it's only a question of when um I think it could be 50 years away could be 100 years away but it could be 25 years away as soon as the robots have the jobs we should have enough stuff for everyone uh as long as some people uh as long as some people don't want much so the yeah we could put up with um people being unwilling to work have you ever worked in a job where half of the people are making things worse and half of the people are doing something productive the half of the people who are doing something productive would be just as H happy if the other half just didn't do anything you know we we we really don't need everybody to do something cuz the robots will be doing enough for us but I think we'll get to a point where there'll be two tracks in

[14:46]

point where there'll be two tracks in this world one track you can live a reasonable quality life on free income and free healthcare uh but you won't have much you you'll have the the most basic phone you won't have any you know you just you won't have your own transportation so there just be lots of stuff you won't have and the people who want that stuff that extra stuff are going to still work so um I think we're heading toward that Universal Universal income sooner or later might be 50 years away but we're we're going to have that all right right um did you notice that there are two headline stories today about bodies being stuffed in
suitcases I can't even make that up there are two headline stories about bodies being stuffed in suitcases one is the chogi thing is coming up again

[15:48]

the chogi thing is coming up again because there's more evidence that the crowned Prince uh had wanted him dead so it became a headline again today and then there's some woman who was tragically murdered who was also stuck in a suitcase like how many stories could there be about dead people in suitcases that's a weird thing yeah so part of the green New Deal is that uh they want to do away with air travel in favor of ground travel uh with railroads and you know some kind of high-speed railroads and I don't know I'll listen to that argument uh you know obviously you're not going to have a high-speed railroad across the oceans or maybe you can I don't know maybe somebody figured out a way to do that but I don't think

[16:58]

um oh here's another question for you yeah if let's say let's say you accept that climate change is coming and that it's dangerous so let's say you've accepted the notion that it's going to be a problem for the world one of the things I'm wondering is will it be an equal problem for all countries because I'm starting to think that the United States is going to make a profit on climate change other countries might be in a lot of trouble but I feel like the United States is going to make a profit on it and here's how uh if we get to the point where um let's say things are not that bad in this country the United States but there are other countries that desperately need to solve climate we'll probably be selling them a lot of stuff you know China is going to need some CO2 scrubbers and you a lot of things are going to need to be remediated and people are going to have to buy things to replace Place stuff

[17:59]

to buy things to replace Place stuff they lost I'm wondering if we're heading toward a situation where the United States because we're real good at figuring out how to make profits on stuff I wonder if we're going to make a profit on this well maybe the rest of the world um is suffering CU it wouldn't be the first time we figured out how to make a profit on change let me put it in more general terms anytime there's a big change whatever that change is you have to spend a bunch of money so if the climate changes or the industry changes or just anything big changes somebody's spending a lot of money and it makes me wonder if the United States will be so far ahead of this that we'll be selling all this Green Tech and you know Carbon scrubbers and you know ocean maybe desalinization maybe fusion um

[18:59]

fusion um so it'll be interesting to see if we make a profit on it all right um I tweeted out today another example of what I've been teaching you about climate change which is that the idea that you and I as Citizens can do our own research on climate and come to a reasonable result is an illusion it's an illusion that you can do your own research as a citizen and come to an informed decision on climate change it can't be done and I I tweeted another example of that and it's on the basic question of whether historically um CO2 and temperature moved in lock step and specifically whether or not the the CO2 came first before the temperature changes because there two schools of thought one is that um CO2 is driving the temperature and the other is that it is

[19:59]

the other is that it is not
not and if you look at the climate experts they'll say yes we' figured out the past you talk to the Skeptics they'll say no you got the past wrong you talk to The Experts again they'll say no Skeptics you think we got it wrong but we included more than you think so it's actually right and then I just uh tweeted again Tony hel's response to the response to the response which is completely convincing which is the problem both sides are completely convincing if you're listening to the right critics some some of the Skeptics are not convincing they're they're just terrible but the Tony hellers the uh um Richard lindson um the uh Judith Curry you there there are several Skeptics who if you listen to them last they're completely convincing but then you listen to the

[21:02]

convincing but then you listen to the response to the response to the response and you you can flip back and say oh okay the other side is more convincing now but there's no end to it until you reach a point where you don't understand what they're talking about and then what do you do so there is no situation in which citizens can figure out the truth of this Lord monton would be one of the least credible will peer I would put him on the low credibility scale which is different from being wrong I want to make a careful distinction when I talk about credibility it means when you listen to them do you say oh yeah they sound they sound believable even if they're wrong I would say that uh monton is not even slightly credible uh even if he's right he might be

[22:02]

right um yeah I mean I don't think I'm going to start ranking them all but there's a there's a pretty big difference in credibility all
right uh climate alarmist are seeing something that others are not good point so I remind you of the Bigfoot rule if there are two people standing in a field and one says Hey look it's Bigfoot right in front of you and the other one says I don't see him now in my example let's say Bigfoot is not hard to see he's just standing 10 ft in front of you according to one of the people so one of the people says it's Bigfoot right there in front of me the other one says I don't see any Bigfoot there which one of them which one of them is more likely say the same person is the one who doesn't see it and so it's generally true that

[23:05]

see it and so it's generally true that the person who sees a positive thing that someone else doesn't see and they're looking in the same place you can almost always believe the one who doesn't see it so so long as they have the same information the same point of view um in climate change we're seeing that the climate alarmist are looking at you know events and and um records being set and saying well there it is there's the signal the signal is clearly visible at the same time the Skeptics are looking at exactly the same stuff and saying no it isn't the signal might be there we're not saying it's it will never be there but it's not there now so you have two sides looking at essentially the same data one sees a lot happening and the other sees nothing I would side with the people who see nothing but that doesn't tell you

[24:05]

nothing but that doesn't tell you whether climate change is uh real Andor dangerous it just tells you that the the signals might be you know over interpreted at the moment which is completely different from there are no signals um so I don't think you can make too much of the fact that somebody sees something uh in the current environment cuz most of climate change is about what's going to happen in the future
anyway the climate is so complex I do not believe we have detect to predict it all right that that reminds me of a um I wanted to talk about how you would persuade let's say you were a climate scientist and you wanted to persuade people that there was a big problem there the the the worst way to persuade is to do these complicated complicated prediction models because by their nature they're

[25:06]

models because by their nature they're not believable right so people who have experience in the real world see a complicated model that's predicting what's going to happen in 80 years and we're automatically out it's like okay I'm out if if you're going to make your case with a complicated model predicting something I know can't be predicted I don't want to hear anything else you have to say so the prediction models are bad persuasion for people like me probably good persuasion for half of the country but for people like me as soon as I see that model I'm like okay that's there's something BS about that if you can't make this case without that model I'm not so not so worried about it so here's how they should have done it they should get rid of the models and they should just say in the past 100 years the temperature has gone up whatever a degree or whatever it is is um we know all of the things that cause temperature to change and we don't find any of them to

[26:09]

change and we don't find any of them to be um correlated except CO2 in the past 100 years so we know all the factors and we've looked at them all and the only one that's correlated is CO2 and it's going up one degree in say 50 years or whatever it is then you say if it kept doing this we're going to be absolutely dead but we don't know if it's going to be in 20 years or 100 years we can't tell now if you come to me and tell me that story and say we we've narrowed it down we know all the reasons and there's only one one possible thing left over and it fits all it checks all the boxes and we've already seen it raise the temperature and the the amount we're spewing into the atmosphere will almost certainly raise it more and we're going to be dead we just don't know if it's in 20 years or 100 now you give me that argument and you're going to scare the pants off me

[27:10]

you're going to scare the pants off me and then suddenly I don't have anything to argue with right that would be a solid argument that I would find persuasive but as soon as you show me the hockey stick and start talking about how you knew what the temperature was 10,000 years ago I started saying well do you do you really know what the temperature was 10,000 years ago uh here here's another uh explanation which I heard recently you probably heard that the the uh landbased temperatures have been adjusted and that if you didn't if you didn't adjust them it wouldn't look like so much warming has happened it's the adjustments that are making it look like like the warming has happened and then you look into that little that story a little bit more about why they were adjusted and here's what I think is the story I'm not 100% sure I've got this right but this is what I I think so far

[28:12]

right but this is what I I think so far there were lots of land-based thermometers some of them happen to be where cities or airports grew up after the thermometer was there which means that the temperature around that would would be warmer because of all the Concrete in the airport or the or the city around it so scientists noticed that some of those thermometers were being influenced by things around them so they took those thermometers and moved them so that they would be away from these warming centers but what do you do with the the measurements from those thermometers that were wrong you know you've got years of wrong measurements now but only for some thermometers well apparently what they do is they look at the other thermometers and they say for example okay the other thermometers that are in this area that were not affected went up by one degree so let's just adjust this other one and say that if it had not been next to an

[29:14]

say that if it had not been next to an airport probably would have gone up one degree also cuz you don't need you know millions of thermometers you know a a sample is probably good enough and I'm sure that they know what that sample looks like so once you do that you've got a new set of adjusted temperatures and the Skeptics say that's no fair cuz those are not real temperatures those are adjusted temperatures so the the question you would ask yourself is what does it look like if you were just remove all of the adjusted thermometers if you just took all of the adjustments and threw them away and ignored all of those thermometers forever what would it look like and what would look like like is the curve that scientists um publish it would look exactly like the hockey stick uh so we know or this is the scientist's argument that although many

[30:15]

scientist's argument that although many of the thermometer temperatures have been adjusted that even if you took them out of the question you still get the same answer so it doesn't matter whether they were adjusted or not because the adjustments are public they're well understood all they did is use the averages of the other thermometers that were nearby pretty solid pretty solid method now have I explained that correctly I guarantee you that a skeptic who knows more than I do will say Scott you just explained that wrong and that the real thing they did is X furthermore I guarantee you that as soon as the skeptic tells me why I got it wrong and gives me a persuasive reason why I was wrong the person who does the measurements is going to come in and say no no the skeptic got it wrong because this is what we did um
um so you can't really get to the bottom of it as a as an ordinary citizen you

[31:17]

it as a as an ordinary citizen you cannot get to the bottom of this um now the other thing that people say is that the satellite measurements that we've had since 1979 are the good ones and you can ignore all the landbased thermometers you can ignore all the the buoys you could ignore all of the ice core samples you could ignore all of it and just look at the look at the satellites but here's the problem the satellites only measure atmospheric temperature which is only about 10% of where CO2 warming seems to go most of it goes in the ocean so if the satellite are measuring the atmosphere and the atmosphere is not showing uh a problem that probably doesn't mean anything because the warming wasn't going into the atmosphere anyway or at least 90% of it wasn't so pretty much

[32:18]

least 90% of it wasn't so pretty much everything that the Skeptics say is easily debunked but everything that is said in the debunking is also easily debunked Etc forever so they they have infinite debunking possibilities both ways all
right um compare the temperature of your pool to the outside air well if the if the result is that the atmosphere should eventually reflect the ocean temperatures
um then would it be true that 90% of the heat is going into the ocean can those things both be
true um the atmosphere should reflect the ground temperature but would that be true if

[33:18]

temperature but would that be true if 90% of the warming ends up in the ocean I I don't feel like I can square those two things
then there's the question of the uh Coral so one of the one of the stronger Arguments for climate change being a problem is that the coral is bleaching bleaching means it turns white because there's stress on it and that the uh the great um Barrier Reef in particular is turning white it looks like it's going to be dead pretty soon countering that is apparently that there are some corals that are more resistant than others yeah so I'm getting there to the debunked part so there are Skeptics who debunk the coral stuff by saying there have been lots of bleachings in the past and coral is very hearty and and it knows how to adjust in in in real time it doesn't even need generations to adjust

[34:20]

doesn't even need generations to adjust it can adjust in real time to changes in temperature um but there are people who debunk the debunkers on that I have to think though that since we do know how to seed um coral and we do know how to find cooler water feels like we could fix that you know it it feels it feels well into the category of fixable problems because if the coral doesn't fix it itself we could give it a little boost you know and uh take some Coral eggs and and spray them where it's a little bit cooler or at least uh we can breed the more resistant ones in the lab and then seed the original area with the more resistant ones uh the coral bleaching Netflix documentary is hfic and somebody else says it's the

[35:21]

hfic and somebody else says it's the acid it's not the warming well there is some dispute on that but I don't think the climate scientist believe there's a dispute yeah the Australian Professor who published a paper about the good health of the reef was fired but that doesn't mean he was right yeah it's easy to say he was fired he must have been a whistleblower well maybe two reasons he could be fired one is there's a global conspiracy or he was wrong and they were embarrassed by it it's one of those two things
all right Affair um is there anything else I should have been talking about today so I heard that the the committee that's talking about the border security um oh yeah we'll talk about that so the committee that's talking

[36:21]

that so the committee that's talking about border security apparently brought in the experts I don't see a report on that but have the experts already informed that committee because I want to see if the the media reporting on this border security funding committee I want to see if they're doing an honest job because I want to see a picture of what the experts produced then I want to see what they come up with and I want to see what's the difference oh yes um we'll talk about my book cover
so if you don't see pictures of what the teams are coming up with then they're they're just worthless complete waste of time which I expect I I don't expect any kind of agreement to come out of this meet this working group all right

[37:24]

um Nancy is not holding the meetings I don't know what that means
um so I want to tell you a funny story about my upcoming book book cover uh I don't have pictures to show you or maybe I do let's see if I have a picture on my phone to show you we'll go lowte here so we tried a number of uh a number of pictures and came up with this one which let's see if I can find an angle that you can see this probably H you're not going to be able to see it sorry you'll have to take my word for it there's a oh let me take down
the take down the brightness see if that makes a difference that oh that helped okay so this is the one I approved so this is this is the one we're going to go with um you're seeing a version in

[38:24]

go with um you're seeing a version in which uh Brian added a hand so the hand is not part of the design that's just to show what it looks like and here's what's funny about this um so I had a blue color that was like similar to the blue in the bubbles and then I had an orange cover and I showed people two different covers and I said do you like the orange or do you like the blue and and the the vote was kind of split there were people who wanted blue there were people wanted orange so I said to my editor at the publisher I said hey people like seem some like one some like the other is there any way we could do two covers could we have one ISBN which is you know the it's um it's like the social security number for a book but can we have one identifier number but two different covers and people can buy the one they want now it turns out that's impractical for a number of reasons so for publishing reasons it just doesn't work but my I was unclear in describing

[39:28]

work but my I was unclear in describing it so when I said can we have two covers I said it in an unclear way and my editor interpreted it as can you combine the two colors can you combine a cover that has orange and blue and so they came back with a cover that was combined and it turned out that was the good one now you can't really see the the color is washed down on here so this is more of a it's more of a vibrant orange than what you see the the back cover um so here's the fun part of the story The Winning design was completely accidental because it's it it wasn't what I asked for but what I got was better than what I asked for so the designer taking this new Direction which was a complete miscommunication on my part came up with the best one yet so uh anyway you

[40:29]

with the best one yet so uh anyway you can't you can't see it clearly uh on the phone because the colors get washed out here but um people seem to be liking it so that was the psychology that went into it
um put a coffee ring on the cover yeah yeah maybe I should have put some coffee on there that would have been a good idea all right um anything else happening anything else you want to know
about all right designers are like that somebody says yeah it was a happy accident oh uh shiff colluding with Glenn Simpson so apparently we know that Adam Schiff had a brief conversation with it with the uh the guy who put together the

[41:31]

with the uh the guy who put together the dossier um but we don't know if that was a substantive conversation they were just happen to be at the same event so I just don't know how any of that matters at this point volcanoes somebody's saying have we considered volcanoes under the ice caps cuz if the volcanoes are warming up the earth that could be what's going on here and uh I don't know the answer to that do we have a way of knowing what kind of volcanic activity is happening everywhere under the ocean is that a thing do you know that McAfee's clone thing is McAfee cloning himself now I can't wait um so I'm I'm going to try my first split screen um with Bill P on Monday so we're going to get an update on the urban blight and I'm going to show you some ideas for what to put there and

[42:32]

you some ideas for what to put there and some of those ideas might have an implication for climate change everything's connected it's an indirect connection but I think you'll see what I mean all right um Nadler and the acting AG um I'm not really paying too much attention to that except if if I I were the attorney general and somebody asked me to testify uh at Congress I'm pretty sure um uh I'm going to I'm going to answer your CBD oil question minute uh I'm pretty sure I would resist testifying to Congress at all costs I don't know what what is the penalty for not testifying in or for showing up and just taking the fifth is there is there any is there any kind of

[43:33]

there is there any is there any kind of penalty if if you just show up for Congress and say I agreed to show up but I'm just going to say I'm not talking to me it would be flat out stupid just flat out stupid to answer even one question in front of Congress I guarantee if Congress ever calls me in front of them I'm not going to answer any questions would you would you answer a question in front of Congress it would be the dumbest thing anybody ever did I would figure out what is the penalty and it's probably better just to take the
uh yeah so we'll we'll see what happens there somebody asked is CBD oil uh hoax um I wonder that myself but probably and here's here's my

[44:34]

myself but probably and here's here's my provisional opinion subject to change my provisional opinion is that CBD oil is probably uh effective for a range of things so my guess is based on everything I've seen the CBD oil has been tested enough that we know it does have certain number of benefits and anecdotally people talk about it all the time time but probably uh people are claiming too much probably people are claiming too much about CBD oil but that that's just my provisional opinion but I think it does have benefits
all right just looking at your comments the art of the Dale that would be a that would have been a funny that would have been a funny

[45:41]

title all right uh I think we've said everything we need to say for now and I will talk to
to you later