Episode 432 Scott Adams: CNN Opening Capone’s Vault (Cohen Testimony), Climate Hijinx

Date: 2019-02-27 | Duration: 49:11

Topics

Actual CNN headline today: “Watch Trump try to pull off the ultimate distraction” His purpose in pursuing NK denuclearization…is distraction? CNN Fake News Don Lemon reads BOMBSHELL Cohen statement Congressional Rep Matt Gaetz tweets about Cohen Dirtiest trick I’ve ever seen…also kinda relevant Tweet focused the countries attention on Cohen’s lying Charlottesville Hoax Update Joel Pollak calls Chris Cuomo a liar, 2,000 retweets We’re saying it’s a CNN fake news story, loudly This is the dog that doesn’t bark NO pushback from CNN, no disputing what we’ve said Chairman Kim and President Trump’s chemistry President Trump’s “focused charisma” is very strong Their personal connection seems genuine to me History will eventually see President Trump was first to understand Our NK problem was the lack of INTERPERSONAL relationships President Trump and Chairman Kim are getting along Chairman Kim and SK President Moon Jae-in get along The more those relationships develop, so does peace Climate Change Update - Whiteboard: IPCC Says? Is “extreme weather”, confirmation of climate change? CNN article says extreme weather is from climate change CNN is saying they’re connected Notice they are NOT saying it’s human induced SQUIRREL!!! Uh…sorry, what was I saying? The House convened a sub panel on climate change Dems didn’t show up, Republicans did Why aren’t Dems serious about impending “apocalypse”?

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

[0:09]

hey everybody come on in here it's time for coffee with Scott Adams that's me and you're you that's all we need no that's not all we need we also need a beverage I like coffee and if you like a beverage and you like the simultaneous hip grab your cup your mug your chalice your Stein your thermos if you will and join me for the saneus
Sip oh thank you for that super heart I appreciate that well there's a lot of news according to CNN president Trump is uh deviously uh denuclearizing the the Korean peninsula to distract from Michael Cohen's testimony I'm not even making that up that's an actual headline you know or an article it's an article in CNN's page

[1:12]

article it's an article in CNN's page that he's literally using North Korean denuclearization as a distraction from Michael Cohen now correct me if I'm wrong it seems Seems like we already know what Cohen's going to say because it's been reported but here are some immediate
observations there there's a conspiracy theory that there's nothing in my cup and yet you can see that there
is ah delicious um so does it seem to you that this whole Coen testimony is a lot like uh Heraldo opening Al Capone safe do you remember that story heral this is many years ago Heraldo had a an exclusive special in which he had discovered Al Capone safe and he opened it on live TV only to find

[2:15]

and he opened it on live TV only to find that there wasn't much in there um uh I love her Aldo but that was a funny event in his life and now we're watching the uh the Cohen bombshell and I happened to turn on TV late late last night and see Don Lemon and his uh assembled battle talking about what they knew already Cohen was going to say cuz I guess there's some release release of a statement or something and I kept waiting for the bombshell did you do that did you have the same experience I did it's like oh God there's a bombshell coming where's the bombshell and he kept reading things as if they were bombshells except the only thing bombshell about it was the way he was reading it and so to give you a demonstration of Don Lemon or anybody else's CNN reading the

[3:15]

CNN reading the Bombshells from Michael Cohen I give you dale dale can you come over here okay there are Bombshells Bombshells I say from Michael Goen let me read a few this is going to be big folks Michael Cohen is going to testify that Donald Trump uses
hairspray whoa what does this mean for impeachment panel anybody this is the big one this is what we've been waiting for this is something we never knew before this is new bombshell bombshell and scene is it my imagination where is everything that has already been revealed about what Cohen's going to say all the stuff we already

[4:16]

going to say all the stuff we already knew let me give you an example of some of the Bombshells I'm not even making this up if if you came into this without actually knowing that this is real you would not believe that I'm giving you the straight Story one of the Bombshells is that Michael Cohen once saw Don Jr say to his father that a meeting had been
set that's it that's the bomshell now I happen to be around the same time frame as Don Jr's meeting with the Russian lawyer but I don't think I don't think that's much connecting material there because do you know what uh campaigns do more than any other thing what's the one thing a presidential campaign does in terms of the way it spends its time more than any other thing um meeting what is the most common thing

[5:19]

meeting what is the most common thing that Donald Trump does during his day a meeting do you know who else had a meeting with Donald Trump even I had a meeting with the president meetings are kind of what you do that would be the opposite of a
bombshell I personally witnessed Don Jr breathing oxygen oxygen I say probably related to The Climate disaster or something I don't know it seems like a bombshell I don't know why but he was breathing i s it with my own eyes my own ears bub shell
see um let's see what other Bombshells all the rest is the stuff we already knew but then there then CNN likes to throw in that Cohen has a quote racist allegation that'll be some new thing we hear

[6:21]

hear now I watched Don Lemon read the statement that Cowen is going to present and it was curiously missing a racial allegation or Don Lemon decided not to mention an allegation of racism from Michael Cohen oh I don't think that happened I don't believe that Don Lemon would have skipped that part of the story and yes CNN is still reporting that there's some kind of racist bombshell coming but why don't we know what that is already maybe it's still ahead of us we'll see but here's the funniest thing of
of all did you see the uh the Matt Gates uh tweets about about Cohen you you think things have gone to the you know the greatest extreme you'll ever

[7:21]

know the greatest extreme you'll ever see on Twitter you know every once a while you see a tweet and you'll say well nobody's going to go further than that like I I don't think any body will do a tweet that's more outrageous than that one and then you wake up in the morning and you go well let's see what's on
on Twitter somebody topped it somebody topped it so in case you didn't see it mat Kates mentioned on Twitter I say mentioned CNN is reporting it as threats and and intimidating a witness that uh maybe maybe it was time for Michael Cohen according to Matt gates to talked to his wife and his father-in-law about his quote girlfriends now I don't have any personal information about Michael Cohen's girlfriends but let's just say somebody does I'm sure somebody does somewhere somebody has it I doubt he would have tweeted it otherwise now is it over the line for oh and then he also wondered if

[8:24]

line for oh and then he also wondered if uh Cohen's wife would uh stay with him while he's in prison so I've never quite seen anybody tweet that somebody's wife is going to be banging another guy when when he's in prison that's as Extreme as I think I've ever seen on Twitter I mean that's really taking it to the edge and as soon as I saw that I thought to myself oh my God Gates is going to get he's going to get just destroyed by the Press because they're going to say say that's way over the line you you know it's uh it's threatening it's everything else and then I watched him defending it defending his tweet a oh he's deleted it somebody says but it doesn't matter because he already got the press and so when they asked him to defend it he said and I'm paraphrasing well Michael Cohen's already lied to Congress he's

[9:25]

Cohen's already lied to Congress he's already lied to meller he's lied to the police he's lied to I don't know who else and then he said shouldn't we also know if he's lied to his family because it's part of the context of knowing whether we can trust what he says about the president and I thought to myself that is simultaneously the dirtiest trick I've ever seen at the same time it's kind of valid meaning that if we're trying to judge is he
he credible it does count you don't want it to count count you know you would like to live in a world where none of that stuff ever comes up and it doesn't matter and it's not directly related to the questions let's just forget about it but it does kind of count it does count and to me it it looked like a a case of mutually assured destruction meaning that Michael Cohen is so destroyed at this point I'm not happy about that by the way I can't I can't be happy about

[10:26]

the way I can't I can't be happy about anybody's life being destroyed but uh Matt Gates just snuffed out whatever was left of any hope this guy had of getting out of and out of college getting out of jail in a few years and returning to his happy life it doesn't look like that's going to happen uh which is horrible but it can fairly be said that Michael Cohen brought all of it upon himself so um Matt G from a perspective of persuasion and now we will depart from the moral and ethical framework and I'll I'll trust you to put your own moral and ethical you know filter on this but that's not my expertise unless I'm wearing my Pope hat so I'll just talk about the persuasion element of it so Matt Gates got the entire country including uh the anti-trumpers to focus on how many times Cohen has lied and in how many different fields of Endeavors

[11:28]

how many different fields of Endeavors he's lied we all just talked about how much Cohen was a big old liar across all kinds of different fields and including cheating on his wife allegedly according to Matt Gates and it was probably one of the most successful persuasion plays you're going to see all year now had somebody said that Matt Gates deleted his tweet well I don't know if that's true I kind of hope it is but the Tweet did everything it was supposed to do it made the entire country focus on Matt Gates and and what did CNN and and most of the news say about him they said they called him a a close Confidant of the president now if you're in Congress and you're a young guy or a young woman and the news all over the country is reporting that you're a close Confidant to the president of the United

[12:29]

Confidant to the president of the United States does that work for you yes it does it works for you really well because it shows that you're not just one of the Congress people but you're connected to power in a in a way that they're not so uh and then and then also I have to say and again we're talking about persuasion only you can put your own ethical and moral filters on what I'm talking about and I'll trust you to do that but just in terms of the effectiveness of the persuasion it turns out that Matt Gates is really good on television and so when they tried to sort of corner him to make him I don't know walk back his tweet or his comments not only did he not walk them back but he just he he had a base clearing home run in competently explaining his point and making it actually relevant to the news and defending it now you could argue that he still shouldn't have done it and moral and ethical concerns are

[13:31]

it and moral and ethical concerns are bigger and I'm not even going to get into that argument but boy did he hit a home run both for his career and for his objective I guess which was to decrease Cohen's credibility what little he had now let's give you an update on the Charlottesville hoax for anybody knew the charot Phil hoax is CNN and other anti-trumpers still reporting the fake news that president Trump called white supremacist fine people now of course that didn't happen it's widely reported as fact and just didn't happen what did happen is that the president referring to people on both sides of the Confederate statue issue said there are good people who hold both you know fine people on both sides meaning that there are people who can hold both opinions and still be fine people not referring to the racist who he specifically disavowed but CNN still reports as if he said they were fine people fake news so catching you up I I

[14:35]

people fake news so catching you up I I have made a number of public statements that it's fake news and then uh Joel poock in Breitbart writing for Breitbart made a big article calling uh Chris Cuomo a liar a damned liar those were his actual words in a tweet that I retweeted it's got over 2,000 retweets talking about CNN calling them out uh and and uh and Joel's quote actually you know tags Cuomo so I would say there is zero chance that they are not aware of this criticism don't know for sure but I would say that the odds of them being unaware of it are close to zero and so we
we waited and and I gave you a challenge I said watch how we will be ignored and can you imagine that there would be any other situation in which someone as prominent as me and again you know I'm not super prominent I'm sort of you know lowlevel

[15:36]

lowlevel prominent but prominent enough that if I say something outrageous it makes news you know I am a source of news if I say anything provocative or outrageous and you've seen it a million times you know you know a few times a week I'll see an article about me something I said and it's in the mainstream media Etc and I predict that it would be completely ignored even though it's amazingly provocative I'm calling a major story a major story I'm calling it fake news right in public and I'm not being challenged on it because nobody can challenge it to challenge it would be to dismantle the entire anti-trump Machinery it would it would it would lay be how nakedly partisan they are even more so than people already understand I think people understand the CNN as partisan they understand the Fox News as partisan but

[16:38]

understand the Fox News as partisan but they don't quite understand the degree of it the degree of it is still shocking and not visible to everyone and and when the Charlottesville hoax Falls and I think it will I think that will someday be called one of the biggest hoaxes of all time uh it's going to change people's minds about how big the problem is so it will size it but it won't change people's general idea of it so it's now day two day two no reaction whatsoever no push back no no sending us a link to show why we're wrong no telling us that we're crazy no saying that we're illegitimate commenters no no argument whatsoever on something incredible provocative that's the dog that doesn't bark ladies and gentlemen that is the white space in your uh it's the blank

[17:39]

white space in your uh it's the blank space in your um composition of your portrait it's the part you need to pay attention to by its uh non-existence all right let's talk about North Korea um I looked at the initial photos I think they were probably the first photos of trump and Kim and I thought that Kim looked ill did anybody else have that impression so chairman Kim in the first the initial photos that were um excuse me the initial photos where they were shaking hands for the camera uh he looked he looked like he was struggling a little bit like he yeah he was sweaty but I don't think that was a problem it looked like he was a little unhealthy or something uh somebody said scared or nervous maybe I mean maybe he was nervous it's possible but he looked ill now when I saw the pictures of the the

[18:40]

now when I saw the pictures of the the dinner he looked you know he looked like he was feeling better um yeah it was a long train ride he probably he probably is probably didn't sleep much Etc now I was then I was also looking at the chemistry between Trump and Kim they were just sort of having some minor interactions and uh unlike most of you although like some of you I suppose um I got to spend um some time just a little bit with President Trump in the white house and I got to experience his his sort of focused Charisma mostly when you see the president he's he's broadcasting his Charisma in other words it's it's one person the president talking to millions of people and so that's one mode but you haven't seen his focused Charisma meaning it's just you you and him oneon-one and his focused Charisma is

[19:42]

oneon-one and his focused Charisma is pretty freaking strong all right it's it would be hard to be in his presence alone and not and not feel like you're with somebody who's got some extra you know gear you know he's got that Charisma thing that you just I don't know if you're born with it or you develop it but he definitely has a lot of
of it somebody says he healed Kim by touching him that's pretty funny um but anyway my reaction was it looked like the two of them have a genuine um personal connection and someday assuming things go well with North Korea and I and I think that they clearly are that's my opinion um someday [Laughter] someday I think people are going to say that his genius was understanding that this was a personal problem disguised as a military problem disguised as a political problem and maybe it just never was maybe it was just a personal

[20:45]

never was maybe it was just a personal problem and and he was the first one to to understand it correctly I think that's how history will write this story all
all right so we'll wait to see about all that now let's talk about climate change um I I told you I'm doing a deep dive extended Deep dive on climate change and um so I'll give you periodic updates and I'll do them at the end of uh my uh my presentations now keep in mind that when I talk about climate change I'm Tak I'm coming at it from a different window than most I'm coming at it from an ignorant but
but um but smart person who has a great incentive to understand the topic and I have found so far the the preliminary conclusions the preliminary conclusion is that both the climate scientist

[21:45]

is that both the climate scientist majority and the Skeptics are lying a lot which is why both sides find it easy not to change sides cuz both sides can look at the other and say well you're clearly lying about that so why would I trust anything else but it's both ways there there are enough Skeptics who are simply ridiculous that the climate scientists can look at them and say look you guys are ridiculous here are five reasons boom boom boom boom boom these are all ridiculous and they're right right a lot of what the Skeptics say is just flat out ridiculous my favorite ridiculous skeptical argument somebody said name one I will is that the climate science scientists have forgotten to include the effects of the sun on warming now I don't have to be too deeply into the the details of climate science to know without even looking into it that the scientists who study

[22:47]

into it that the scientists who study climate and warmth did not forget to include all aspects of the Sun from the solar flares to the Tipping of the Earth to the distances of stuff I guarantee you if there's one thing I will I will bet my life on is that clim a scientist did not forget the sun okay so that's one of the things that the scientists point at as and mock them correctly but there are things that the Skeptics say about the the the other argument that I have equal problems with all
all right so I wanted to um ask ask you this question so we've all been watching the news if you're still on this Periscope you have at least a little bit of interest in climate science and understanding it let me ask you this the most basic question about climate science climate change right here's the most basic question and I want to see if

[23:48]

most basic question and I want to see if you can answer it have we already seen evidence of climate change in extreme weather now extreme weather would be everything from uh hurricanes to droughts to rainfall to flooding uh I might be forgetting some but Extreme weather all right so let me ask you most basic question have we seen evidence of climate change already in extreme weather now see now most of you are um climate Skeptics and I'm seeing that almost all of you are saying no all right so let me read to you CNN um article from today so this is brand new this is today's article on CNN and I'll just read you the first sentence from the article it says the extreme weather that comes with climate change is becoming The New

[24:48]

climate change is becoming The New Normal so normal that people aren't talking about it as much and that could be a problem so the article goes on to say that people are getting complacent against about all these weather extremes so here's the sentence again and what I'm going to talk about is the exact wording of these things so so pay attention to the exact wording first sentence on CNN on this article the extreme weather that comes with climate change does that indicate to you that climate scientists the the consensus of climate science have detected extreme weather that is directly because of climate change it sort of indicates they have right if you were to read this and you'd never read anything else you'd say oh the extreme weather that comes with climate change therefore we know climate change causes extreme weather but you know what's missing human induced it doesn't say the extreme

[25:51]

induced it doesn't say the extreme weather that comes with man-made or man inspired climate change but your brain fills that in doesn't it so if you read this you think to yourself my God humans are causing climate change climate change is causing extreme weather and we've already seen it that's the that's the feeling I would get from reading this how much of that is close to the truth well so I did a Google search to find out the answer just this morning all right I thought well this will be easy to check I'll just do a quick Google search I'll look for the most credible sources and I'll see what the most credible sources say about whether or not extreme weather is already evidence of climate change and I want to break this down for you so I looked at the uh ipcc report on climate change and I I'm taking that as my uh most authoritative uh let's say government approved Source if you will so here are

[26:53]

approved Source if you will so here are the difference between what the climate science majority let's say the climate scientists in whether it's a consensus or majority versus Skeptics so the climate science majority would say that CO2 is the main driver of our our increase you it's the main driver of the rate of increase in warming whereas the Skeptics would say it's a minor driver so that's the main difference the Skeptics don't say CO2 has no impact they say it has a minor impact and then the climate science majority seems to say that extreme weather is evidence of the theory it's predicted and then if you see it that would be evidence and the climate Skeptics would say there's no evidence of that there's no evidence so let's see what the IPC ipcc report says and I'm taking this

[27:54]

ipcc report says and I'm taking this from carbon brief a website who is just quoting the ipcc report right so this is the official word and now we can see if the if the Skeptics or I'll put this up so you can see it while I'm reading it let's see if the Skeptics or the climate science majority is closer to the ipcc the official climate most the most uh credible report um so here it is the quote from the IPC uh states that is quote very likely at at least 90% certain humans contributed to the increase in hot days and decrease in cold days for heat waves is likely at least 60% 66% certain that human activities were a contributing factor all right so it says that there's a 90% chance that humans contributed to the increase in hot days does that match the climate majority or does it match the

[28:57]

majority or does it match the Skeptics it's a trick question cuz it matches both it doesn't say that that's the only reason the temperature is going up it does say that uh humans contributed to the increase contributed is the position of both the Skeptics most of them there are some Skeptics who wouldn't say this but the majority of Skeptics would say yeah it contributed just not that much so this so so far the ipcc is compatible with both the Skeptics and the climate majority but let's go on with other types of extreme events changes in past trends at any human contribution are harder to spot harder to spot so if you're not just talking about heat waves the other extremes are harder to spot let's go on says take hurricanes for example there's no clear pattern suggesting how they've changed the world so hurricanes apparently do not have a clear pattern

[29:58]

apparently do not have a clear pattern of changing because of climate who is that closer to well that's closer to the climate Skeptics who say that we can't see the signal in extreme weather um at least we can't see the signal of man-made climate change in extreme weather and so far the ipcc is agreeing all right uh but there are certain but scientists have identified certain parts of the ocean like in the North Atlantic where the number of intense hurricanes has increased but keep in mind that the sentence before that said there's not a there's not a pattern yet but there is one place that they're increasing but they don't say that's evidence of of man-made climate change or even climate change it's just something that's happening and it says droughts drought Trends also differ from region to region with a global picture unclear so droughts don't seem to fit a

[31:01]

unclear so droughts don't seem to fit a pattern which they can identify as a fingerprint of man-made climate change uh one extreme missing from this picture is flooding all right so that's another indicator at the moment scientists don't have enough data to make conclusive statements about changes in the last few decades or to make predictions about the future so the ipcc their conclusion if if it's being presented correctly on this website and if it's not I hope somebody will fact check me but the ipcc report is compatible with climate Skeptics because climate Skeptics agree that C2 has some impact on warming and the ipcc says that too and the Skeptics say we can't see the evidence in the extreme uh in the extreme weather conditions the closest

[32:01]

extreme weather conditions the closest the ipcc gets to that is to say that warming uh that there is global warming but they don't say what you know anyway you get my point so my point is that even the most basic question of have we seen the global warming sort of up in the air so let's return to um Tony heler so you might remember that famous skeptic I got to sign on this
computer Tony heler famous climate skeptic uh I asked him for his top five arguments against the the climate science consensus and uh I'm going to do them in order in no particular in no particular schedule but today let's talk about his second Point second of his Five Points so this is uh I think this is delling Pole's writer named delling pole who summarized Tony's

[33:03]

named delling pole who summarized Tony's Five Points and here's the second one if the case for global warming were as strong as these experts say the debate would be over by now so I don't buy that part so Tony heler is saying if the evidence were as strong as the experts say the debate would be over my observation is that debates are never over no matter how much evidence you have so I would disagree with that part but let's read the second part um all of their talking about the climate alarmists this is Tony heler saying that all of their uh apocalyptic predictions have failed miserably what reason do we have to believe them so Tony's um point is that predictions from the past have failed measurably now he gives lots of examples but my problem with Tony's analysis is that they a lot of them are from you know uh individual anecdotal things such as news reports in which the news

[34:04]

such as news reports in which the news reported some individual or some small group said that there was going to be this or that and it didn't happen um I don't know that you could demonstrate that there was ever a climate consensus prediction and that it made a specific um that the that the entire consensus made a prediction that that did or did not happen I don't know that that's true I do know that there are lots of individuals Al Gore would be one different groups so there have been lots of predictions made in the past that have not come true so Tony heler I believe is correct and saying that many people have made climate predictions since the 70s since you know even before that and that they have been Incorrect and Al Gore has made predictions that are incorrect but did all of their predictions match the climate consensus in other words was there such a thing as

[35:05]

in other words was there such a thing as a climate consensus prediction squirrel just came up to my door um squirrel I feel like a dog I literally just got distracted by a squirrel squirrel um
um and and so I don't know that you could say that the climate predictions were all bad because there must have been a lot of them now if there were a lot of them and some of them were this high and some of them were this High some of them are going to be true so I would say that you cannot you cannot say that the predictions of the past have been correct and that you probably can't say they've been incorrect because you're sort of apples and oranges and squirrels right it's you're sort of all over the board so I will accept Tony hel's argument that there have not been predictions in the extremes that have

[36:06]

predictions in the extremes that have come true there have been predictions about temperatures there have been predictions about um the poles and the ice and those are separate questions but on the questions specifically of uh apocalyptic predictions we have seen nothing apocalyptic we've seen things edging up you know the temperatures edged up we've seen ice melting according to the scientists but my life's about the same and your life's about the same so even if they're right about the direction Tony heler is correct that nobody has been right yet about the apocalyptic part that doesn't mean they will never be right about that but that's the point now if we give tony heler the win on the your predictions of the past have been more wrong than right and I think that that's a fair statement does that

[37:08]

statement does that disprove uh the risk of climate change no it does not it does not so Tony's point I take as valid but it's not a stake in the heart it just means in the past we've made bad predictions it doesn't mean that there's no problem it doesn't mean that those that those disasters are not ahead of us it just means they haven't been right yet so I take uh so Tony heler gets the victory on point two for correctly pointing out that we are bad at predicting and science hasn't made many many other bad predictions and therefore their credibility when it comes to any future predictions should be seen in the context of all the failed predictions and that should inform your sense of how How likely that is so I'll give him the win on that um but it's far from proving that climate change is not a problem those

[38:09]

climate change is not a problem those are those are different he can get the win on the individual point but he's far from getting the win on the big picture Okay
um you can't sort this out this way not going to work trying to balance this well you you left out the reason now a lot of people have uh criticized me for the way I'm you know entering this conversation my lack of understanding my giving credibility to any of the doubters ETC
ETC and uh I would say this you don't know where this is going so don't judge this process in the second inning so my my deep dive on this climate issue is beginning it's not ending and so if you think you can judge how it went based on the first few

[39:11]

how it went based on the first few Innings I think you're going to be wrong so uh my current view for those who don't know is that I don't know if I should be worried about this climate stuff or not I do know both sides are lying and they're both lying a lot not I'm not talking about any person but the team on both sides are just full of BS and so if somebody's trying to make us decide on one of those sides they need to pick their best champion and and uh fight it out from there now the funniest thing about climate change is that the uh I guess the house uh convened some kind of a climate change panel did you see that story and uh the Democrats didn't show up to their own climate change panel the most important issue in the entire world and the Democrats were just busy so they didn't show up but it gets better

[40:12]

didn't show up but it gets better because because so few Democrats showed up to their own meeting the Republicans who are not big on climate change the Republicans outnumbered them and so one of the Republicans made a motion to cancel the meeting and there were enough Republicans in the room to vote it so they just canceled the meeting and walked away and it became like this amazingly uh amazingly embarrassing thing for the Democrats that are pushing this green new deal but proving at the same time well they don't really mean it they are no more serious about this than anybody else now you uh or they're no more serious than the public at large which apparently is not that not that concerned about it because climate change ends up pretty low on the list of our priorities according to recent polls um was AOC there I don't think she

[41:17]

was uh now um I've I talked yesterday to uh Dr Shiva you know you're one of my favorite guests on my periscopes and he's agreed to come on and give us some climate change information in a way that you probably haven't seen before U it's very unusual to have somebody who can understand the topic at the
the depth that Dr shiven because he's you know multi-disciplinary and um sort of a genius in about five different you know fields of technology and science and so I'm going to invite him on here uh we'll connect today and pick a time and I just want to get his Insight because it won't be like anything you've seen before um almost everybody else uh almost everybody else has a different take on this so it'll be interesting to get his and I'll

[42:18]

it'll be interesting to get his and I'll I'll invite him on soon all right um somebody says I predict you will end your climate research where you started it as undecided maybe I I would say that's a definite
possibility somebody says all who oppose nuclear power do not believe in climate change um that's not exactly true it could be that there are a lot of people who don't know enough about climate uh about uh new nuclear designs so I I think the people who are worried about the climate but don't want nuclear are probably maybe
your research at climate change is a long-term inside joke with yourself um let me say that I am

[43:21]

yourself um let me say that I am certainly not above running a long-term prank on the public it it's not outside of my comfort zone and it's not it's certainly not something I wouldn't do uh but in this case I'm not I don't I'm not even sure what that prank would look like and and if there's one thing I can promise you if you ask me if I'm running a prank and I give you a direct answer no I am not running a prank this is not an inside joke if I tell you directly you can always count on that to be true cuz if if I'm running a prank and somebody calls it out I'm probably going to admit it I'm not going to directly I would never directly deny a prank once somebody found out it's a prank unless you know unless I was just running it for another five minutes or something uh exactly what a prankster would

[44:24]

say I like that some of you are not so sure about that I like that uncertainty in you my prediction is you will go left if Bernie sewi belief I don't know what that
means yes somebody says admitting the prank when it's called is the rules I I accept that as a rule if you're running a prank and people and people catch you you should you should come clean if not you know if not that minute at least fairly soon because the fun is over once you've been outed Scott man it's difficult to earn people's trust when you've lost it that's true and I would never I would never suggest that you should have trust in other people's opinions if any of you still have this experience of something called trust you should lose that right if

[45:24]

trust you should lose that right if somebody can't convince you with their argument and their evidence do not depend on their trust as the
the tiebreaker that that is a bad strategy so I would ask none of you to trust me on anything you you should listen Al I won't I won't use the should word I would ask you to listen to my arguments I would ask you to fact check me as aggressively as you like because uh unlike Maybe people who do this in public I don't mind being wrong I know it doesn't seem like that because I I aggressively defend my opinions and you you watch that so if if you see me aggressively defend my opinions you would get the impression that I don't like being wrong but I kind of like it because every time you find out that you thought something was sure you know certain and you find out you were wrong your your understanding of

[46:26]

were wrong your your understanding of the world just goes you know and you can understand how easily you can be fooled so understanding how easily you can be duped is one of the most valuable things you'll ever experience so if you told me Scott you've been saying X forever and now you know science has proven you're wrong I'd say cool that's like the best thing somebody's saying here's another skeptical thing that somebody's saying in the comments that's one of the Terrible terrible skeptical arguments somebody is saying you tell me what is the ideal temperature Scott if you can't tell me what the ideal temperature of the earth is then why are we worried that it's changing we don't know if it's going to a better temperature that's one of the worst skeptical arguments and the reason is that the skeptical argument is that it will keep getting hotter until the system breaks down saying that you don't know what the

[47:27]

down saying that you don't know what the ideal temperature is is not even on the right question right you you're you're so far from even understanding what the issue is that you're talking about you should never say that I use should again let me put it in non should words the reason I complain about the word should is that people use it as a substitute for giving a reason well you just should do that well why if you can't give the why you know you should skip the should and I will say that if your argument is we don't know what the ideal temperature is you make yourself look stupid to people who understand the topic so I won't say you shouldn't do it I'll say that when you do it you look stupid to people who understand the topic because it's among the worst of the arguments and now you've been

[48:28]

the arguments and now you've been informed that the the question is not finding the ideal temperature but rather the general statement that no matter what the ideal temperature is there certainly is something that's too warm and that can break down the you know we don't know what that level is but there's some level that things break down there's no doubt about
um yeah Cohen is talking about all right so I think we all need to watch the Cohen stuff I'm going to do a little drawing while I'm watching that if anything interesting comes out of that I might jump back on Periscope but I don't know maybe yes maybe no and I will talk to you later