Episode 455 Scott Adams: Aspirin, The Rise of White Supremacist Violence, False Memories

Date: 2019-03-18 | Duration: 1:00:07

Topics

“The Press” controls America by which stories they cover and how they choose to cover those stories
“The Press” is our National Emergency Without fake news, most of our problems go away

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]

ba-ba-boom ba-ba ba-ba ba-ba ba-ba ba-ba boom hey everybody I'm glad you're awake and I'm glad you're here because it's the best part of the day it's coffee with Scott Adams and you were about to enjoy the unparalleled pleasure of something I call the simultaneous sip to enjoy it you probably need to have a glass of mug stein the chalice perhaps a thermos maybe a glass filled with your favorite liquid I like coffee join me now for the simultaneous up do you delicious all right here's your question of the day I want to see your answer in the comments there is a startling Rhys and white supremacist white nationalist violence in this country how many people died from white supremacists in 2017 I

[1:12]

died from white supremacists in 2017 I don't have the 2018 number but how many total people in the United States were killed by white to supremacist go you can't look it up yeah actually it's more fun if you just give me what you imagine the numbers your best guess the total number of people who were killed by white supremacist in 2017 go I see zero I see 42 now neither those are right now remember I'm talking about 2017 2018 might have been 42 I don't know the number is 18 18 people 18 people were killed by white supremacist in 2017 now I don't know if 2018 and 2019 or looking worse but let's say they are let's say they are but if you're going to size it

[2:14]

they are but if you're going to size it roughly 18 for the full year of 2017 now let's let's determine how much of a problem that is okay let's put it in context so there were a total of 18 people killed by white supremacist how many people died from just accidents just all kinds of accidents put together in the United States in one year a hundred and sixty one thousand but there were 18 people killed by white supremacists I'm not minimizing that we should drive that to zero and if it's doubling or something every year well you got to worry about it right but I want to put it in context because context matters you can never be wrong with context how many people died from opioids last year 72,000 how many died

[3:16]

opioids last year 72,000 how many died from white supremacists violence 18 in 2017 how many people died from suicide in this country in one year 27,000 how many people died from shark attacks in one year in the let's say in the United States just Americans how many Americans were attacked by sharks not dead but attacked by sharks about the same as the number of people killed by white supremacists so roughly speaking shark attacks and white supremacist violence about the same size how many people died on bicycles bicycle deaths in the United States I only have a 2012 figure but it's probably not that different from

[4:16]

it's probably not that different from 2019 not much has changed in the world the bicycles but in 2012 total number of bicycle deaths in the United States was 722 that means that the bicycle in your garage if I've done my math right is 42 times more likely to kill you than a white supremacist let me say that again the bicycle in your garage is 42 times more likely to kill you than a white supremacist I know I'm playing loose with the numbers but you get the idea in terms of the you know the scope of things how many how many people were killed by their pets in the year in the United States how many people get killed by their own pet typically a dog so this is mostly dog maulings the number of people in the United States killed by their pet per

[5:19]

United States killed by their pet per year is 20 to 30 that's just dog deaths you can probably add in a few others for other animals but there are more people killed by their pets every year in the United States that are killed by white supremacists now let's say you're the President of the United States and people are blaming you for the rise in white nationalist racist violence and a reporter asks you in public hey is there a big uptick in white nationalist violence should the president say it's a big big deal or should he downplay it that's which is what he did he downplayed it well if you say it's a big deal you've just allowed the the illegitimate press to say that you're the cause of massive white

[6:20]

you're the cause of massive white supremacist death because you said it's going up because they're the ones who have said it's your fault so if you say it's going up and you let stand the idea that it's your fault you've just admitted inadvertently you're the cause of an uptick of of terrorism would it be smart for a president to admit it what is not true to admit that he is the cause of terrorism probably not right probably not a good play have you noticed a trend in when the president talks about groups or organizations or countries have you noticed a trend about the way he talks about them in public whether it's white supremacists whether it's Isis whether it's any other group have you noticed a trend the trend is here's the pattern the president

[7:22]

is here's the pattern the president minimizes the president minimizes the president minimizes any group he doesn't want to have more recruits so when the president says the ISIS is you know there they're on their way out there they're defeated let's say that's not a hundred percent true is it good for the president to say Isis is basically beaten even if it's only ninety percent true yes it's exactly what you want your leader to say even if it's not a hundred percent true because Isis depends on some sense of success to support their recruiting you can't do recruiting if you're a shrinking group that's being destroyed everyday you can only recruit if you're this spunky little group that can can't even you know that the United States can't even beat so the president

[8:24]

States can't even beat so the president talks about Isis he minimizes them because that's what's good for our side when the president talks about white nationalists and and that those terrorists he minimizes them right because you don't want them to have recruits now what about what he talks about the the crime that's crumbing across the border the criminals coming across the borders are not recruiting they simply are criminals there is no organization which is the organization of illegal immigrant criminals there's no sense of recruiting that is important to that story so when he says a lot of crime coming across the border he uses hyperbole he exaggerated the amount of crime because that's how you focus on it that's how you take you seriously that's how it gets funding

[9:25]

seriously that's how it gets funding that's how it gets a priority so if look at the president's pattern when well he's not the president is not improving recruiting for ms-13 biting that he's destroying them every day and Isis is picking them apart and they're being deported so but when you're talking about crime in general he is exaggerating it because that's what gets resources to fight it when he's talking about the white supremacist or Isis he treats them largely the same by minimizing them because you don't want to make it look like that's something that's growing that doesn't help you now should the president give a speech in which he speaks out against white supremacy should the president do that well I have mixed feelings somebody's saying no no he should not do it the problem is that the press has sort of

[10:26]

problem is that the press has sort of ruined that option the reason the press has ruined that option is that they've set him up so it looked like he was forced to do it if it looks like you're forced to do it it doesn't come across as sincere likewise no matter what the president said on that topic they would say why did it take so long and why did you say it wrong so there's probably no winning path there because they're just gonna say you should have said it earlier and you said it wrong when you finally did say it no matter what he says they're gonna say and they're going to say we forced you to do it so it's not sincere now between now and 2020 it might be a good idea for him to let the current situation get a little bit of distance so that it does not look like he's being forced into it in other words wait wait until the headlines have changed from white

[11:28]

headlines have changed from white supremacist violence because you know they will change there will be something else in the news for a while I would give it a few months and then I would if I did it so I'm gonna put it if on this if I were the president and if I wanted to come out with a strong statement against against any discrimination against Muslims if I wanted to do that I would do it as sort of a surprise I would just wait a couple months and then when there's nothing pushing it in the news and everybody thinks that the news is no longer pushing the president that and only then when it just looks like a good idea he would be free to do it now he probably could write it so that they at least say he said the right things that could probably be done you know if it's a written speech you got lots of people looking at it you could make sure that it was the right stuff to say but I

[12:31]

it was the right stuff to say but I noticed that there are people criticizing him for not being able to say nice things unless the rather teleprompter so you're still open to the sure he can read a speech but unless we hear it from his own work you know in his own words you know extemporaneously and feel the emotion in it they just think he's reading the words so he would have to match anything he read from a teleprompter he would have to match it with a good dollop of his own off you know off record now off record off teleprompter comments so we'd have to say it like a human being in front of the world for anybody to so should he do it I think there's a path there but not right away the sooner he does it the worse probably but if he wants to do it before before it becomes a bigger campaign theme he's

[13:32]

it becomes a bigger campaign theme he's got lots of time to do it all right so you notice that the news will often take whichever side is the bad side for the president so in the case of the white supremacist movement and whether it's growing or shrinking if you say that it's doubling from last year that's very misleading because that could just be one terror attack all I would take is one highly effective horrible terror attack and suddenly the number of white supremacist deaths you know people that they've killed would double or triple so you have to be careful when you're starting from such a tiny base so I think it would be fair for the president to say in terms of all of our other problems it's one of the smallest but we're not going to treat it like the smallest because it could grow and problems that could grow are

[14:35]

and problems that could grow are different than problems that are static right so you could treat the the white supremacist increase if assuming that there is an increase you could treat it as a high priority you know what else you could do you could declare an emergency what if the president declared an emergency I just thought of this at the moment I'm not sure this is a good idea but suppose you declared an emergency two games to get resources to combat the rise of white supremacy how many heads would explode if he declared an emergency because the other side would have to either argue that it's not a big deal or they'd have to say he did the right thing
we know it's not obvious to me why you couldn't do that yes if the country

[15:36]

couldn't do that yes if the country cares if they want more resources on it and I've heard it said and I don't know if this is true but I've heard it said that maybe there were there are not enough resources on dealing with the rise of white supremacy and that might be true there might not be enough resources on that so why not declare a national emergency to look into it okay all right new topic my understanding is that the new jersey city of newark is looking to do a trial i guess it would be a test baby of universal basic income so one city newark is looking at giving just giving money to people who don't have an income or are below some income and just to see how it goes what is your feeling about that most of you will say my god that's a terrible idea giving money to people for nothing and it's a slippery slope and pretty soon we'll be

[16:37]

slippery slope and pretty soon we'll be giving all of our money to everybody that would be the worst way to look at it alright here's the right way to look at it if you can test it small you should do it that's the smartest position for just about anything it doesn't matter if you're in corporate America it doesn't matter if it's your personal life doesn't matter if it's a government this statement is true across all realms if you can test in small do it if you're saying don't try that because it's dumb you are the dumbest person in the conversation right if you say that testing something small is dumb you're the dumbest person in the conversation testing things small is pretty much always a good idea because you're limiting what could go wrong you're testing your small so when you

[17:38]

you're testing your small so when you see somebody testing something that you think is a terrible idea your first impression should be good there are only two things that could come out of this either I'm wrong which would be good news because we found a new thing we can do so would it be great if you thought Universal basic income was terrible idea somebody does a test and it worked out great wouldn't you be pleased what's the other thing that would please you you thought all along it was a bad idea somebody did a test and it clearly didn't work now you're a genius you knew all along you should always be in favor of the test now if you lived in Newark and your taxes might be influenced by it well maybe you think something like different right because that's a different situation but if you're not in Newark and Newark wants to do this or some majority want to do it let them do it let's talk about aspirin so the news today is that aspirin may not be such a

[18:40]

today is that aspirin may not be such a good idea in terms of taking a baby aspirin preventatively just in case you get a heart attack if you're let's say over 50 now you should always talk to your doctor don't listen to cartoonists about medical advice there are some situations where your doctor will tell you to keep taking the aspirin and it usually has to do with having a a pretty verified risk of heart attack but if you have a healthy heart and no special markers for risk the newest information based on I guess 3 new studies as that aspirin might do more bad than good meaning it could make you bleed more but it's not adding enough in terms of preventing heart attack damage to to be worth it now here's the interesting question what percentage of scientists believed you should take an aspirin last year what percentage now I've asked this

[19:42]

what percentage now I've asked this question before and there's this weird false memory thing that happens I thought that that was the standard recommendation in other words if you had asked me a year ago I would have said yeah pretty much all scientists and all doctors say you should do that over 50 I thought it was close to a universal recommendation and I think I sent that on a periscope and somebody said that's just not true and then you start researching it you find you can't really find you can't really find any number that says that it was always true that the experts said you should take a baby aspirin so that's actually probably a false memory that I had so I probably have some kind of a false memory and some of you do too the aspirin was you know basically universally recommended by the experts I think if you dig into

[20:43]

by the experts I think if you dig into it you'll find that the scientists were a little bit more mixed all right so that's an open question could you find how many scientists or how many doctors were pretty confident about that in the past I don't know what that number would be I would like to invite anybody on to this periscope as a guest you can just click the option that says you want to be picked as a guest to join me specifically on the question of the 97% of climate scientists being on the same side so if you if you believe that 97% or even 100% of scientists are on the same side on climate change I want to talk to you to see if I can reprogram your beliefs so I so this is an offer to reprogram anybody who believes that 97% of scientists are on the same side when

[21:44]

of scientists are on the same side when it comes to climate change I want to talk to you live if you believe that's true all right what do you think is more dangerous the rise of white supremacist or the press so I've told you that white supremacists killed 17 people in 2017 so that's their death count let's say it doubles you know maybe there's thirty or so people killed per year by white supremacist which is way too many way too many but let's compare it to the death toll from the press right so here are some things that the press has done the press gave us weapons of mass destruction now you could say that really that was the government fooling the people but I would argue that if the people were not onboard with war in Iraq it couldn't have happened so the Press by by promoting the fake news that Iraq

[22:50]

by by promoting the fake news that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction probably caused the death of millions of Iraqis and X thousands of Americans so I'll say the press has killed say three million people or whatever it is in Iraq I don't know what the number is but something in that range what about the press let's say how about the press the way they treat climate change if climate change is real real in the sense that it's a dire emergency and and human cost so that's what the press has been promoting if that's true that it's also true that they have not been promoting the only thing that could fix it which is new designs of nuclear power the so called generation four that don't have a risk of meltdown and don't really have much of any other risk and we know how to make them you know we should they

[23:51]

make them you know we should they iterate a few more times but we also know how to iterate so if the press is telling us we're doomed but the solution they're pushing something like a green new deal would make things worse then the press is putting the entire planet at risk by not by not focusing on the only solution which is nuclear all right so I would say that the press is putting let's say another billion people at risk if the press if the press is accurate about the risk of climate change then they are complicit in killing in the future maybe a billion people and destroying the economies of the world so that's on them but the white supremacist may be twenty or thirty people though killed what about health care do you believe the health care is unsolvable because Congress can't work it out

[24:52]

because Congress can't work it out that's what it looks like right it looks like Congress can't figure out how to improve health care and that's true but why why is it that the Congress can't sell health care well I would I would propose it's because they don't have the public behind any particular solution so Congress can't really act without the public being in favor of what they're gonna act in at least in some majority way what is the public's opinion on health care well the public has been split into two camps by the press and those two camps can't get together one says some kind of universal health care or one says anything but that can't you can't put those together if the press were reporting on all the things that let's say capitalism can do to lower health care costs if the press were reporting that the current

[25:54]

reporting that the current administration is actually doing quite a bit to reduce or a to increased competition for drugs for example if they had been a big story that's what you'd be thinking we should do more of if the press we're focusing on the startups that are looking to lower let's say the cost of lab tests the test the press that will lower the cost of MRIs you know I'm sorry the startups that will do that if the press was treating the health care issue in a productive way instead of a split the sides way probably we would have better health care so let's say let's say the press kills 100,000 people a year by treating Healthcare wrong so that would be another body count for the press let's look at the border wall and border security here we have a case where Republicans want better border security Democrats want a better border security the same Republicans want to listen to

[26:56]

the same Republicans want to listen to the experts when they decide how to spend their money on border security the Democrats want to look at experts to see how to spend their money on border security same but what did the press do the press turned those two sides that are basically the same and for you know all of history until recently they worked it out there have it there has been border security funding in the past there was no big problem because both sides wanted it both sides wanted to look at the experts to figure out how exactly to do it but the press made it impossible this time for for the Democrats to say yes do anything the Republicans wanted because the press had split the country so the press wouldn't even let border security improve which of course would save lots of lives because the less crime the crims cross the less the less people are victims of

[27:57]

the less the less people are victims of crimes now I know what you're gonna say but what about the percentage of crimes because the people coming across have a lower percentage of crimes in general than the citizens I don't care about the percentage if I'm dead because somebody killed me who was an illegal immigrant the last thing I'm going to say with my dying breath is well at least the percentage of crime is low compared to the average that's the that's the least likely thing I'm going to say so let's say that the press is responsible for a crime coming across the border because they're the ones who are stopping the solutions so I could probably go on but I would say that the press is an emergency situation if you look at the death toll whereas the way supremacist are a potential gigantic problem that is at the moment a small one and you should

[28:57]

at the moment a small one and you should probably be serious about the small problems that couldn't become big problems maybe it may be an emergency declaration would be just the thing all right if you're following my ongoing saga in which I'm I've been talking about the fake or let's say the false memory that the president once said that the racists in Charlottesville were fine people so that's that's a false memory that is shared by at least half the country now people have been asking me write recently why are you calling that a false memory when it's just obvious that the Democrats and CNN and MSNBC it's just obvious that they're just flat-out lying about it it could not be more obvious because here's the document here's what the president said and then here on the same at the same day in the same statement he specifically excluded the racists from being good people and

[29:59]

the racists from being good people and he specifically condemning them totally so so there's no question about the facts the facts are unambiguous not in question when you actually look at them nobody questions them so you can look at the video you can look at the transcripts and still people say but it's not there so you say to yourself okay the only explanation for how somebody can look at the transcript this as I'm excluding the racist I condemn them totally the only way you could interpret condemn totally as their fine people is if you are going to just lie about it here's a little bit of understanding about reality that maybe you need to catch up it's very unlikely that people are looking at it is simply deciding to lie when there's such a clear public record of the opposite it's

[31:02]

clear public record of the opposite it's not the sort of lie that most people would even think to take on because it's so easily disproved here's the far more likely and I'll put it in terms of likelihood you can never know what's of the mind of every person the greatest likelihood and this is freaky is that people can look at the statement and even as they're reading the statement the sentence that debunks everything they believed is true even as they're reading it its disappearance so in their minds they're erasing the new information at the same rate that is coming in or they bring it in and you can observe that they'll act like they had never seen it within 60 seconds so I did a demonstration here on periscope in which I showed you somebody who I don't think there's a slightest chance that the person that that ID programmed on periscope was lying because you could tell by the way they expressed it they

[32:02]

tell by the way they expressed it they deeply believed in their own false memory of the event and then when it was proven beyond any doubt because you can just read the transcript and it's as clear as it could be they they have a mental like a reboot their brain just shuts off for a minute and that's typical if you're a hypnotist is something you've seen a lot they'll say that one sentence is a lie yeah which is sort of ridiculous so I would say based on my experience as a hypnotist and based on all so here's the important part I do have some insight or information about CNN so you should assume I have some sources and my sources tell me that they actually believe it's true in other words CNN is operating from the same false memory as the people they're talking to that it's not a lie it's actually they think it happened so they just say it now my best guess for how this false memory was

[33:05]

guess for how this false memory was formed is that the president said two different but related things and people are conflating them in their mind one thing he said was that there were some bad actors on quote both sides what he was talking about both sides of that context of the bad actors he was specifically talking about the racists and specifically talking about antifa now he got in trouble for acting as though they were somehow morally equivalent which is just sort of the the idiots way of arguing yeah if you want to be if you want to look like an idiot accuse someone else of making a moral equivalence that they're obviously not making all right now the president was obviously not comparing Nazis to protesters he was saying quite honestly and quite truthfully there were bad actors in both places and you can't let people get away

[34:06]

places and you can't let people get away with being a bad actor doesn't matter that one's up here in ones you know ones down here he's the law and order president the law and order president doesn't say well you were murderer but you only be somebody badly so those are not equal murderer is not the same as you know assault those are not in the same category so I guess the assaults okay nobody says that you say they're both bad so anyway the president said that both sides were were bad actors or had bagged at bad actors among them that part's true separately and on the same topic he said that there were fine people on both sides but then he went on to clarify that that context when he was talking about fine people he said specifically I'm not talking about the neo-nazis and the white supremacist I condemned them

[35:07]

the white supremacist I condemned them totally so he changed his context from started to talk about bad deeds done by antiphon and bad deeds done by the Nazis then those were the two sides for that context but in the same conversation about the same event he changed the meaning of both sides he told you he was changing it he said it specifically he said now he said I'm not talking about the Nazis in this context but they were finding people there the context meaning protesting the statutes so I think that's where the false memory comes from is that they're conflating the two conversations as if they're one that's probably where it came from I doubt there it would be it would surprise me if there's any you know major personality or producer at CNN who is literally thinking to themselves well I know this isn't true I know this isn't

[36:09]

I know this isn't true I know this isn't true but I'm gonna put it out like it is because I don't like that President Trump could be possible you can't say that doesn't exist but in all of my experience of false memories persuasion hypnosis and then my personal contacts and well as well as all of my observations and interactions online it very clearly peers that people have a false memory and I've yet to see solid evidence that somebody was just lying for effect I haven't seen it yet but it could exist there could be people doing that all right let's talk about the president slamming on John McCain we live in this weird world where we we can't have nuance about anything it's like it's not allowed so we're not allowed to think that Senator McCain was a war hero and

[37:11]

that Senator McCain was a war hero and generally effective senator at the same time he was a completely destructive I would say bordering on traitorous actor in his final years of life so I would say that all the the scorn that the president is sending at McCain completely completely valid as long as you're allowed to think that he could be a war hero in his youth and a total douchebag in his final year of life those are not mutually exclusive you could do something that's just the worst thing ever a year before you died and that doesn't change the fact you were a war hero we can keep that let's keep that part why not
not so what's the funniest part about this is of course the president was once deeply criticized for criticizing McCain because he was thought to be above

[38:13]

because he was thought to be above criticism so even though you know the president told the same joke that Chris Rock would tell in his stand-up comedy about preferring people who didn't get caught literally it's a Chris Rock joke but people kind of thought okay he's McCain is too holy he's too much of a hero you can't really criticize the hero do you know that's just wrong but now it's clear that he was not so much a hero in his later life and that if the reporting is true and you never know do you never know what's true these days but if the current reporting is true and he was behind passing the bastille dossier along to the media well then he was just a bad actor and i think the president is having fun well let me put it this way i when i was reading the president's tweets about mccain i immediately got this cartoonish image of

[39:14]

immediately got this cartoonish image of the president using McCain's dead body to flog his living opponents it's like he's using he's using became as a club it's like let's dig them up and use them as a I'll just be you guys with McCain's dead body hear about that I told you I was right in the first place not so much a hero now I guess the facts came out I'm gonna beat you with McCain's dead body and of course people will say how could you say that how could you say that how can you be so disrespectful and the answer is he did not earn my respect McCain earned my respect as a as a war hero and I'm glad to give it as a politician in his later years despicable despicable alright let's talk about so what will be interesting about

[40:17]

about so what will be interesting about our current time this is some day in the future people will have a false memory that President Trump colluded with Russia now what's the primary evidence that Trump colluded without Russia obviously Muller doesn't have anything or we would know by now but people will still say well okay maybe Muller didn't have anything but just you know look at this Papadopoulos guy talking to a Russian and that Russian was connected to the Kremlin look at Don junior and Jared going to that meeting and there was that Russian lawyer there and well she was connected to the Kremlin have you noticed the pattern that if anybody in the that who has any connection with Trump talks to any Russian that that Russian is described as having connections to the Kremlin okay now let's take that as a given well hold that in your mind every contact with any kind of Russian that

[41:19]

contact with any kind of Russian that had anything to do with the Trump Universe those Russians are described as connected to the Kremlin now separately there's the steel dossier in which British X PI X by there's no such thing as an X by you should know that first he he went to Russia and got Russians to give him false information about Trump now the only Russians that we've heard of that don't have a connection to the Kremlin are Christopher Steele's Russians do you believe that the only Russians and all of these stories that coincidentally are not connected directly to the Kremlin are the ones that Christopher still talk to what are the odds seems to me that every Russian who can afford a suit is connected to the Kremlin according to

[42:21]

connected to the Kremlin according to the news oh but but not the ones that Christopher still talk to you what were they were they bellhops at the hotel I don't think so have you ever heard who Christopher Steele talked to I've never heard it reported dude do any of you know this who exactly did Christopher steel talk to they gave him Russian information because he must have talked to somebody who was attached to the Kremlin steel had been to getting the story from the CNN blog post some of the story but not all of it there was something about that he talked to Hillary all right but but ask you that what why is there no obvious reporting that Christopher Steele talked to a Russian who had a connection to the to

[43:22]

Russian who had a connection to the to the Kremlin when they all seemed to be connected to the Kremlin but that one's missing all right here's another false memory test now climate change if I said to you which of these statements do you have a memory of okay I'm going to give you two versions of reality current reality and you tell me which one you remember to be true version number one of reality is that climate change models have predicted accurately that's version one version two no climate change model has ever predicted accurately they can't both be true right those are opposites climate change models have predicted accurately to to our current situation or no climate change model has ever predicted accurately now you can say

[44:22]

predicted accurately now you can say what are you predicting is a sea-level rise is it melting of the ice is that is that the heat on the land is the heat in the ocean is that the storms what exactly are you predicting and I'll say anything let's say anything it doesn't matter what exactly they're predicting there are two versions reality one that it has predicted accurately already and two it has never reported accurately already guess which one is true
I've been studying climate change for months do you know which one is true I'm gonna tell you which one is true which of those two versions is true you're gonna hear for the first time neither I don't think you I don't think either one of them is true I don't think anybody's compared predictions to

[45:23]

anybody's compared predictions to reality I just don't even know if anybody's done it now I could easily be wrong by this wrong in this and probably em I would say I'm probably wrong about this more likely wrong than not but here's the larger point I've been studying this for months that's the one question that matters have their predictions ever been right the only question that matters all of the other stuff is good to know right it'd be great to know if they did this right or they how did they measure this was there a mistake with this it said that'd be great to know but really there's just one thing I want to know and I don't know it I don't know it have you ever seen it reported on the news I haven't seen it when was the last time you saw the news report here was the prediction here's exactly how they got it right damn

[46:24]

exactly how they got it right damn they're good at predicting or the opposite here are all the predictions here are all the outcomes and you can see that none of their models worked you haven't seen either of those stories so could you as a citizen have a meaningful opinion on climate change no you can't you can only imagine you do you can only imagine you have a rational opinion on climate change because you've never even seen the only fact that matters have their predictions worked or not works now some of you have mentioned Tony eller Tony Heller often talks about historical predictions that have not worked and there are a lot of them there are a lot of climate predictions from the past if you go back to say the 70s and 80s lots of predictions that didn't work but it doesn't matter how many

[47:25]

work but it doesn't matter how many didn't work if you had a thousand models that didn't work but you had one that did that one that did is the one that matters the other ones are just bad models right so I only need to know the one that works it doesn't matter how many times Tony Heller tells me some individual scientist or some individual prediction was wrong it's totally irrelevant I only need to know is there one that's right I don't need to know how many were wrong and I don't know that all right I
tweeted that apparently most opinions on climate change line up by political preference if you're a Democrat you think climate change is a dire problem and we should do something about it if you're a Republican by a big majority you don't think it's the problem that's being reported now let me ask you this if people's scientific opinion

[48:27]

if people's scientific opinion coincidentally matches very very strongly to their political side is anybody really looking at the science it's a you know it's a it's a question that answers itself the fact that people have lined up by political party as opposed to just people disagree if what you saw was half of the Democrats were disagreeing with each other and half of the Republicans were disagreeing whether it's a problem or not
not you'd say to yourself oh well it's not about it's not about political allegiance people have actually looked at the news they've come to different opinions but you can know with certainty that that's not what's happening because people have just lined up by political parties so your opinion that climate change is either settled science or completely hoaxes wherever you are on that or if you're anywhere in the middle your opinion is an illusion of knowledge

[49:29]

your opinion is an illusion of knowledge you do not have knowledge about climate science you have an illusion of knowledge that is almost certainly given to you by the press on your side of the political spectrum I know it's hard to hear but that's true all right there's there's another study that says people who drink sugary sodas don't live as long and apparently people who even drink you know Diet versions of the same sodas also have bad bad health outcomes now toward the end of the study it said something like well we don't know if it's a cause and effect but there's a very strong correlation if you drink soda you don't live as long now now let me ask you this is it your experience that people who drink a lot of soda take

[50:30]

that people who drink a lot of soda take care of their their fitness and have a good diet otherwise it might be the dumbest study I've ever seen because it's almost a perfect correlation if you drink soda which is you know very near the top of the things you wouldn't do if you wanted a healthy diet it's very unlikely that you're eating everything else right and exercising and doing all the other things that are good for good health you're probably not sleeping right you're probably not eating right you're probably not exercising now of course there are people who were doing everything right except during he soda but guess what nobody studied them then I don't think there's a study that says okay of the people who are doing everything else right as far as we know they're exercising they're sleeping right they're eating all the right foods and they're eating organic and all that the only thing they do wrong is they have a

[51:30]

only thing they do wrong is they have a couple of diet cokes every day do those people have worse health outcomes I don't know maybe I mean my my sense of it is that diet soda is probably not good for you but it's the most ridiculous study to say that that correlation should be them translated into your mind to some kind of causation all right is there anything else we haven't talked about I'm going to take some calls from people who believe that scientists 97% of scientists agree that
all right so I I'm pulling my microphone so I can take some calls that's the only way to hear the caller's if I hold my microphone so they're looking caller who believes the scientists all agree

[52:40]

climate change let's see if this guest is one of those people a little guests can you hear me yet do you hello Lynn Lynn yes that's me now do you believe that 97% of scientists agree on climate change all right this is gonna be a loaded question so I believe that they believe that 97% of them agreeing on it however I also have done some studying on scientists cooking books to make it appear that we are in a climate change and it started in 1939 when they said that it was getting hotter when in actuality it wasn't and so all those people in the Midwest started moving to the ghost so I think they believe what they're putting

[53:42]

think they believe what they're putting out there to be true when in fact it's false all right I'm looking for somebody who believes that climate change is real because the scientists say it is so thank you for your comment let's see if I could get somebody to take that position my guess is that nobody is going to take that position that will be literally no one who is willing to back up the 97% figure for for climb the site's high collar I've done an informal survey of the scientists that I know and they scientists don't tend to believe things in black and white they tend to make a judgment based on the pre ruins of evidence they accumulate evidence for hypotheses and I can just say is someone who's made climate change videos for Al Gore and still am a big

[54:45]

videos for Al Gore and still am a big fan of your work that the polar ice caps are verifiably melting the Seas along the coast or verifiably rising our Navy is preparing for the effects of the rising sea so it looks to me like there's a problem that the earth is warming that's my answer okay um but do you think that 97% of scientists are on the same page on climate science has there been a poll of scientists maybe I don't qualify for your question I mean have they polled scientists well yeah they've been polled at least six times I think if you go to Wikipedia you'll see six different polls and they're all between 90 there they're all 990s to 100% basically do you believe that's true I believe it if you think unless you're asking me if you want to deprogram me because I'm believing a false well it

[55:49]

because I'm believing a false well it looks like I'm not gonna give anybody who actually believes in the 97% and here's why you probably should not even the skeptics are in that group so if you combine the people who believe there is a problem with the people who don't and you add them together what do you get when you add all the people together about a hundred percent so the way the question is formed is do you believe that humans are creating co2 which causes warming pretty much every scientists go say yes but the second question they don't ask which is how big of a deal do you think of this that's the part they leave out so the reason the 97% is like the primary thing that the press reports is that it's simple this is a part of climate science they can understand you know they understand polar bears yes or no 97% hey everybody's on the same well the reason is everybody's on the same side is that they literally added the skeptics and and and the people who

[56:51]

the skeptics and and and the people who believe together if you add all the people together you're almost always getting a hundred percent and that's why I happen now I'll just continue on this point and thank you for the call so think about that now let me ask you this the climate science is really based on but not based on but let's say depends on measurements in other words there's somebody measuring the ocean there's somebody measuring the ice there's somebody measuring the temperature of the ocean somebody measuring the temperature of land how many people in the whole universe are involved in just the measurement part how many people are climate scientists who are directly involved in measuring because there are

[57:51]

involved in measuring because there are really the only ones who sort of know what's going on like they have they have the best idea whether their measurements are crazy or if they fudge things or if or if they've you know if they've exaggerated so I would say if you're looking at all climate scientists almost none of them have been directly involved in the most basic part of climate science which is measuring the temperature over time if you haven't been involved in that then you are simply believing the people who did so in other words you don't have 97% of scientists who have all personally done every part of climate scientists and cut the science and come to the same answer we're not talking about a group of people who all went out and put out their own thermometers they all went out they they personally measure the ice they're all depending on a very small group of people who are involved in say satellite measurements land-based

[58:51]

satellite measurements land-based thermometers it's got to be a pretty small pretty small population all right so the 97% thing is ridiculous I'm stuck my microphone back in I don't know if that'll make a difference or not [Music] so since I don't know if you can still hear me but I hope you can
don't you need a pretty big talent stack also to have a clue yeah you would have to have talent across multiple fields to be a climate scientist who had a solid opinion of things you'd have to know at least a little bit about a lot of different fields and that's probably rare I would imagine there are more scientists who are in a silo than there are scientists who are pretty good at a whole bunch of different fields I would think that would be rare all right

[59:58]

think that would be rare all right so I think that's all for today and I will talk to you tomorrow