Episode 430 Scott Adams: Racist Spike Lee, CNN Starting Nuclear Wars, More

Date: 2019-02-25 | Duration: 26:31

Topics

Spike Lee is racist per President Trump Spike Lee movie perpetuates the Charlottesville Hoax CNN flamethrower attempt to DERAIL PEACE with North Korea
Did they just discover the old story? Timed to derail peace? AOC is interesting, intriguing, watchable, consistent Is it immoral to bring children into this world? People on the left should STOP having children President Trump is seeking to educate both himself and the public Climate Change meeting MUST be public and transparent Genuine open-minded process is key to acceptance Climate Change Debate Questions Unprecedented rate of rise for key temperatures CO2 is the only variable rising that fast. Therefore the cause The climate scientist’s graph is SELF-REFUTING on this

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

[0:06]

bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum hey everybody yes I know I'm coming to you a little bit early but I have something scheduled it a little bit so I'm gonna just slide it into your periscope life a little bit early but not so early that we can't have a simultaneous sip because this is coffee with Scott Adams you are here to enjoy the simultaneity up at all and if you are if you're baird if you're prepared early grab your mug your cup your glass your stein you're jealous your thermos if you will fill it with your favorite liquid didn't join me I like coffee for the simultaneous Ed let's talk about the Oscars there's a funny story about Spike Lee having too much to drink and losing the funny thing is this is the second

[1:06]

the funny thing is this is the second time he's lost and in both cases he lost to a movie that was blacker and better now actually I don't know the movies he lost to were blacker but apparently people thought they were better one was Driving Miss Daisy Morgan Freeman and the other is the green book which is weirdly a similar movie so in both cases he lost to as he says it somebody driving somebody which is very funny now the funnier part is that the president tweeted him some shade he says so the president says be nice if Spike Lee could read his notes or better yet now I have to use notes at all when doing his racist hip piece on your president so he's calling Spike Lee a racist I also call Spike Lee a racist so I joined the president in disavowing who Spike Lee for his racist ways who has

[2:07]

Spike Lee for his racist ways who has done more for us so he's talking about himself now the president this who has done more for african-americans criminal justice reform lowest unemployment numbers tax cuts etcetera than almost any other president now my understanding is that Spike Lee's a piece of crap movie includes the Charlottesville hoax and the president's comments after it which means I haven't seen it and don't plan to which means that no doubt that the centerpiece for this movie is a racially divisive racial hoax not well I would say worse than the Jessie small that to hoax because if anybody's new here the president after Charlottesville said there were fine people on both sides of the debate about statues the illegitimate press and now apparently Spike Lee have decided to turn that into something that didn't happen which as

[3:10]

something that didn't happen which as they reimagine that or reframe it as the president saying that the the neo-nazis marching and saying anti-semitic things were fine people according to the president that never happened the president was talking about there were good people on both sides of the statue issue he was not complimenting anti-shah he was not complimenting the neo-nazis fake news still reported as if it's true this piece of Spike Lee makes a movie out of it to worsen race relations in this country based on a hoax Spike Lee should be disavowed in the strongest possible ways he is he is a terrible force for the country a divisive opportunistic pieces yet um if I if I do say something now speaking of good movies by coincidence I watched on my phone with my little headphones on

[4:10]

my phone with my little headphones on the movie a star is born with Bradley Cooper and Lady gaga I will tell you that I only got to watch the first third of the movie and then I stopped I'm probably not gonna watch the rest of the movie is it because I did not like the movie it is not I'm gonna give you the strangest movie review you've ever heard the first third or so of the movie a star is born is so good that I'm not willing to watch the rest of the movie and let me say that again as clearly as possible the first 1/3 of a star is born in the movie with Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga is so good that I don't want to watch the rest of it and I mean that in the literal sense is not hyperbole I probably won't watch the rest of it it made me cry for about 15 minutes in a

[5:13]

made me cry for about 15 minutes in a beautiful way not a sad way crying was sort of like a happiness emotional feeling there there is an emotional I'm not going to give anything away but obviously a star is born and tells you that somebody turns into a star here but the first part of the movie is so well done that it was jaw-droppingly beautiful it was probably just about the best directing and acting you're ever gonna say it's perfect casting and then the part of that eye that I was amazed at is Bradley Cooper in his you know performance as a musician oh my god
and here's the funny part part of the reason I had hesitated to watch the movie is that I'm not a fan of Bradley Cooper Bradley Cooper has historically been cast in roles where he's a certain type of Bradley Cooper guy and I don't really like that character that he typically

[6:16]

like that character that he typically plays he's a he's a little too handsome you know he's a little little too much of whatever but and this he plays against type he plays a a heavy drinking musician who's got kind of a sadly a voice like this and from from the first second of this movie he nails this character so thoroughly that you can't even imagine it's Bradley Cooper it's I don't know I don't know if he want anything last night or not and then Lady Gaga was so good that's it's just crazy so quite literally I wept for 15 minutes at the beauty of the first third of this movie and I think I'm not going to watch the rest and part of it is because the structure of a movie is that there's something bad coming you know it's not really a movie until the third act something bad happens and then they have to figure out how to fix it and I don't think I could live through the bad thing because the the first part was so beautiful so watch the movie it's

[7:17]

was so beautiful so watch the movie it's one of the best things you'll receive your life but here's my recommendation watch the movie with headphones in so that you've got them or a really good sound system if you're in a theater situation I guess that's okay but the the actual quality of the music is is mind-boggling it's just so good alright enough about that CNN is reporting that kim jong hoon had used flamethrowers to execute people now why why is it you asked the CNN is running stories right now today this morning showing Kim jong-un flamethrower using a flamethrower to execute people now I'm not going to say if it's true or false I don't know and I'm not going to say if it's good or bad that they you know report these things in general but ask yourself why it's happening today because I don't think this was the only

[8:18]

because I don't think this was the only thing they could have found out about it it does seem to be working against the national interest but it's also working against President Trump and it feels to me like this is yet another obvious example where CNN is literally and I don't mean this in any hyperbole it feels like they've taken a position against the American public you know I know that I wish I could say that with more doubt in my voice as in the question Jia are they taking a position against the American people but it's sort of obvious that that's what they're doing now I don't know if they internalize it that way you know I don't know if they say to themselves well we're really gonna screw the public I hope they don't but it's so obvious that this is the wrong week to run that story it's not in the interest of the American people it doesn't give us information that we really just deeply

[9:18]

information that we really just deeply need to know this week as we sort of basically knew that there were bad bad stuff happening in North Korea all it does is put it in our heads so all it does is bring to front of mind the most destructive thought in terms of supporting whatever kind of deal that may or may not come out of this it's it's shocking that we could imagine that they're a news organization because whatever this is is so plainly destructive to American interests and indeed world interests that I don't know how you explain it I don't know how you explain it with any good intentions there may be a way but I don't know how all right so a or C did a live stream last night there's I I heard maybe she took it down but I saw some clips from his in which she was cooking and talking again from her apartment

[10:19]

again from her apartment and I gotta say you're gonna get sick of me saying this but she is really watchable meaning that I you know I saw a clip and I was inspired to play it and you can imagine how many people send me clips all the time people send me clips all day long and it's a clip of her cooking and chatting and I think it's not even live like why do I want to see this I still collect it I mean I couldn't help myself so she's got that thing you know I don't think it's because she's attractive like I like as she is but I don't think that's what's causing me to click on it the
the the world has other attractive people in it I think it's I don't know what it is but then I watched several of the clips and they were all interesting you know I'm not saying that I agreed with what she's saying because I didn't but it's all interesting she's got that thing where she can be more interesting than

[11:20]

where she can be more interesting than other people and it is definitely not it's not a function of her looks it definitely is not but one of the things she said was that you have to really ask yourself if it's if it's immoral to have children did you hear that and the reason is that you would be bringing children into a world that you had destroyed with climate change that would be her view and that is it moral to bring children into a world that you've just destroyed so yeah you might happily die yourself before climate change ruins everything but those kids are gonna be really screwed and I thought to myself don't we always don't we always hear people say well if climate change is real why why are people building real estate on the coast if climate change is real how come banks you know why are banks

[12:21]

how come banks you know why are banks making loans to people who are building on the coast and and those are good questions right I think there are good answers to those questions you know meaning that well I won't get into that but there are there are answers to why rich people would build on the coast and it's because they're rich people they can take a chance if you're rich you don't have to worry you build a build a house on the coast someday you lose your house you build another house so that's part of the reason but I like her consistency if she's going to say that the world is at a tipping point and you know we may not be able to recover unless we act aggressively and we're not acting aggressively the it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask yourself if you should have children and so here's what I thought was funny let's say you're a conservative and let's say you also don't believe climate change is the

[13:23]

also don't believe climate change is the big risk the scientists say either because you think humans will figure out how to get a handle on it or you think that the science was overblown whatever it is you think if you're a conservative do you have any reason to stop having children probably not so conservatives have a clean philosophical path should they not believe in climate change or do not believe that it's the end of the world to have children people who are climate alarmists do not have a reason to have children because they would breathe they would be bringing children into a world that's going to be destroyed so should you start recommending that people who believe in climate change stop having children is that wrong should conservatives not be recommending that people will believe in in climate change stop having children

[14:24]

in climate change stop having children because it would be immoral to believe you're bringing children into an end-of-the-world situation conservatives could be right or they could be wrong you know I'm saying just the conservatives who don't buy into climate change they could be right they could be wrong but it would not be immoral to believe everything's fine and also have children that would be right or wrong but it's moral it would be a moral decision so I think it's fascinating the AOC has presented a reason that the people on her team should not reproduce I'm not that snot an exaggeration right I'm saying what she said I'm saying that a or C has made a convincing argument convincing to people who believe in climate change as a as a dire threat it's a convincing argument that people on the Left should stop having children you just say alright let's talk about

[15:26]

you just say alright let's talk about climate change there's first of all this there's this new climate advisor named William hopper now hopper is he's a lightning rod for criticism because he he said recently that he he acquainted recently carbon to the Jews during World War two and he unwisely sat in public the co2 is like the Jews in World War two because they were demonized co2 is Deva - now the Jews were demonized in World War two and similarly they were both good for the world meaning co2 is good for the world in terms of being a plant food fertilizer and and the Jewish people are good for the world so that's why he meant to say worst analogy ever if you wanted to reduce confidence in your judgment just make a Hitler analogy with co2 no I was

[16:30]

make a Hitler analogy with co2 no I was watching I was watching a clip in which Jake Tapper Jake Tapper was talking about it and Jake was just sort of sort of mentally shaking his head if you will you know at the choice of that as a as an analogy possibly one of the most ill placed analogies of all time now that said he was not being hired for his analogy make him right no but nobody said hey Tapper we'd like to hire you for this sciency climate science position but not until we can test your analogy makin is because his analogy making is quite bad but we don't know yet if he could do this job so I'm gonna be open-minded about it but I think it's interesting that the White House is bringing together experts to debate the question of climate science and how to how to approach it

[17:31]

how to approach it I don't think that's getting enough attention here's what I believe about President Trump that might be different from what most of you believe very different I believe that if President Trump educated the public at the same time he was educating himself on climate change and it looks like this process is meant to do both to educate the government and educate the public if they do it right now if we don't hear what this group produces if we don't if it's all not transparent then I would be totally opposed to it so in my so just in case you're wondering hey Scott why do you always say good things about the White House why do you always say good things about President Trump let me let me lay down a marker if they do this climate change you know meeting where they try to you know fine-tune the government's approach to climate change and the public does not have a view on

[18:34]

and the public does not have a view on this total fricking mistake like a rookie stupid mistake that would be that would be like gigantically incompetent to have this meeting and then not make it transparent to the public we really need to watch this thing right if it really is a case of life and death and the fate of the planet and it might be you know my position is I'm too ignorant to know exactly trying to figure it out with the rest of you what if they don't make this meeting transparent and they don't have real climate scientists in there and a lot of them you know if they're if they don't take this seriously right in front of the world so we can all watch at the same time the government is getting educated huge mistake I would also assume that money was involved right if they do this thing poorly and it looks like the fix is in

[19:37]

poorly and it looks like the fix is in and they just come up with some secret meeting and then it just happens to be a result that's good the oil industry I'm not gonna be a fan and I'm gonna come down pretty hard on it all right but I don't want to prejudge it if what they're gonna do is bring in the right experts and and do something that's transparent film the meetings maybe produce a report that has maybe the the main opinion and even some minority opinions something like that something very transparent then I would say this might be one of the best things and the administration's ever done on this topic so and here's what I believe that's different from what most of you believe I believe that this president probably has a genuine concern that he needs to know more about this topic and that if he did it might change his actions so I don't think he's got a decision and he's just looking for some people to back it I don't think that's

[20:39]

people to back it I don't think that's what's going on I think that the president is actually could be persuaded that climate change requires some kind of a deeper action than we're doing I believe he could be persuaded if there's a process that's transparent and credible and the right people are in the room I think that could happen and I think he would be open to that and I think he could change his mind in the public as long as he had the backing from the right you know right group of scientists let's talk about the credibility of climate change so I went to skeptical science which is a blog which tries to debunk the skeptics of climate change and so it does a really good job of organizing the arguments and saying here's what the skeptics say and then here's what the experts say to debunk the skeptics and so I go there to check out their arguments and I'll show you a couple of the arguments and I'll

[21:40]

you a couple of the arguments and I'll show you and this will tell you the problem so here's there's a there's a debate on see you won't be able to see it - well let me let me bring down the temperature on this a little bit maybe you see it now so here's a graph of glaciers losing ice and as you can see the glaciers are losing ice and here's the important part they're losing ice more recently at a higher rate now of course the skeptics debate whether the glaciers are reducing but I would say this this site does a really good job of showing statistics pointing to public information this shows that the glaciers are decreasing now here's here's the part where I get in trouble here's a summary of that so here's the climate claim the claim is the temperatures are rising and that the

[22:40]

temperatures are rising and that the rate of rise is unprecedented you need the unprecedented part in order to sell the story because the unprecedented part along with the fact that co2 is the only variable that's moving in the same way tells you the co2 is likely the cause so let me say that again scientists know there are lots of things that could affect temperature the sun's changes in the Sun you know there's the direction of the you know the the position of the earth so to speak the there are volcanoes etc there are other greenhouse gases so scientists have a real good idea of all the things that could affect temperature but only one of those things co2 is changing at a rapid rate which matches the what the scientists say is the temperature increase and one of the places you would

[23:40]

increase and one of the places you would expect to see this temperature increase is and here's another key not on land in the United States so the climate scientists do not claim that the land temperature of the United States will necessarily show much of the impact of climate change because most of the warming is going to go into the oceans and into the poles so if you're looking at glaciers you're looking at something more directly sensitive to climate change because that's where the warming is going so if the scientists could show that the glaciers are definitely melting and I would say this site the skeptical science makes that case convincingly because apparently there are 35 glaciers that they've been tracking for decades and I think 34 and a 35 something like that are substantially smaller so I'm gonna say it feels to me like a fact that the glaciers are in fact shrinking

[24:41]

that the glaciers are in fact shrinking and have been shrinking for decades but then there's the graph I just although I've got to go in a second the graph the graph shows that the glaciers have been decreasing but here's the thing the graph shows that there's this unprecedented decline that is really the main case if you didn't have this if you didn't have the unprecedented decline you wouldn't have an argument and then I look at their their graph and I say to myself but wait a minute their own graph shows the same rate of decline before there was much co2 so here was the best argument against the sceptical claim it was the best argument and it was self refuting I'm looking at their own graph this says there's an unprecedented drop and I say what do you mean it's unprecedented I'm looking at your own

[25:42]

unprecedented I'm looking at your own graph in the 40s there was the same drop by the way this is the Richard linson argument I borrowed this from him because he was the first one who did this and said what do you mean it's unprecedented your own graph shows it right here it's very precedented it was precedented without any co2 so I'm not going to make I'm not going to make a call as to whether they are right or wrong about glaciers I will make the claim that the way it's presented is as a fraud in other words the way it's presented looks illegitimate even if it isn't you know I mean I'll talk also tomorrow about that 97% of scientists agree but for now I gotta go and I'll talk to you later