Episode 458 Scott Adams: New Climate Change Challenge, Mr. Kellyanne Conway, and More

Date: 2019-03-20 | Duration: 52:15

Topics

New Zealand is trying to keep an assholes name from being known FOX respects the concept, CNN publishes his name Mr. Kellyanne Conway vs. President Trump’s pushback tweets President Trump’s genius: understanding what others don’t CNN top headlines…there’s nothing new, recycled topics Dem proposals with a common purpose, election rule changes Everything the Dems are proposing…is to get them elected Can an ancient white guy become a Democrat Presidential candidate? Climate Change expert, American climatologist Patrick Michaels Russian model shows lower temp increases, accurate so far IF their model results CONTINUE to predict correctly… …THEN, climate change isn’t a major problem
Geoff Price, @GeoffmPrice, annihilates skeptics of climate change Patreon alternative, a donate button has been added to WhenHub You can add donate button to your own webpage to receive donations Anyone listed as an expert on WhenHub/Interface can receive donations Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin also working on Patreon alternative app

Donate to support my YouTube channel:
https://interface.my/ScottAdamsSays
I also 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

[0:10]

hold on a minute let me plug in my good microphone we'll make this a quality
this well if all goes well your sound quality just improved I'm hoping that's true hello W hello Dan hello Ricky and Max and John and Stevie and
and Jimmy it's good to see all of you come on in gather around we got stuff to talk about but to make our talking all that more interesting let's let's enjoy the simultaneous sip if you've got a cup or a mug or a glass a Steiner a chalice or a thermos if you have filled it with your favorite liquid like coffee you can join me now for the simultaneous Sip and oh it's going to be

[1:13]

good ah so uh just updating you on a project I've been working on and Joel poock has been working on as well which is to see if we can take one piece of fake news and just change people's mind Minds about it now what's interesting is it's very unusual that you have conclusive um no doubt about a proof for something people will say that about everything from climate change to whatever but the reality is you almost never can prove something's true it's it's actually kind of rare usually it's just people say well it depends what you're looking at it depends whose information you're taking but some sometimes you can have evidence that's so objectively obviously true that both sides can look at it and say okay that's true it's very rare and so one of those situations is the the myth that

[2:15]

situations is the the myth that President Trump once called uh the neo-nazis in Charlottesville fine people now that's widely reported by CNN they say I think they've said it as many as you know 10 times a week depending on the week they report it as true now it's a very unusual situation because you can go to the transcript or you can watch the actual video unedited of the president talking and he says exactly the opposite of that he says I'm not talking about the neo-nazis and the racists he says it in direct clear language and it's reported as the as the opposite now you would probably say to yourself wow you picked in an easy test this would be easy because the facts are confirmed by a live video plus the transcript and both of them are completely unambiguous they say in the cleanest possible language the opposite

[3:16]

cleanest possible language the opposite of what is reported on CNN and MSNBC and a lot of the other media so do you think that Joe poock and I could make a dent in this this myth by simply showing people the real information if you said that we can you have grossly uh overestimated the mental flexibility of the
the public now we we've certainly made a dent in terms of I would say training Trump's supporters how to deal with the question when it comes up so now when it comes up and somebody says he called the race fine people you know what to do you can you can go to the transcript you can go to the video you can show them that it didn't happen but what will happen is if you take somebody and say okay let's clear your schedule I'm going to just change

[4:17]

your schedule I'm going to just change your mind just one person I'm just going to change your mind here's what you believe is true now read it on the transcript and now watch the video to see that it's wrong right now that I've shown you you in completely clear objective language and you've seen it with your own eyes that you were 100% wrong can you change your mind here's what people will
do but he said bad things about Mexicans so they will just change the topic if you were to wait a week and come back to that person and say okay but now a week has gone by but and you've thought about it you certainly know he did not call the racist fine people right we we we cleared that up last week what would that normal individual do that person would say no you

[5:18]

say no you didn't no it's I heard it with my own ears and then you would look at him and say do you have no memory of what we did last week where you made the same claim I showed you on the transcript and I showed you the live video that it didn't happen just a week ago and now you're telling me this some other different version of reality happened what I'm describing would be the actual predicted normal response to somebody who had been that wrong about something cognitive dissonance would would uh kick in and and their world would become a a fantasy illusion maybe more than it already was in which they can just translate the truth back to anything they want so talking people out of their Illusions no matter how solid your evidence is is actually a thing that largely can't work and doing a public demonstration of

[6:20]

work and doing a public demonstration of it I hope fascinates you from the psychological perspective on a political level probably nothing changed because people just don't change CH their minds but from a psychological perspective I hope this was interesting to watch how um immune people are to data they don't care now there there's a weird situation happening that um you know sometimes if you use Twitter a lot you run into situations such as I did yesterday where one of my critics came in and said well I guess I totally owned you yesterday Scott because I made that good point on Twitter and then you just walked away you couldn't answer me I guess that means you're not an honest player and you know you were lying all along and I've shown you for the idiot that you are and I look at that comment and I always have the same thought and you

[7:21]

always have the same thought and you are I don't remember that conversation I certainly don't have any memory of walking away from a conversation I don't know who you are I don't know what point you made so declaring Victory when I don't even know who you are or what we were talking about or what your point was is a little premature so let me say as a general comment that I don't spend all of my time on Twitter just looking for every comment so I can you reply to it seems like I do but I don't um and so it would be quite normal that I people would comment I wouldn't necessarily see it I probably see most comments 70% um but there's an interesting one happening now where um I I'm I'm coming to believe that I'm in some kind of a disagreement with uh Nasim Talib and I don't know what it is but I

[8:22]

Talib and I don't know what it is but I can only tell from the comments people are saying about it that apparently I'm in some disagreement with somebody I don't know what it is but apparently I'm in it and all I can tell from what people are telling me is that I argued that if you get um if you have better information about your data that you should change the bad data to the good data so I've made that claim that if you know your data is bad and you're trying to make some decisions based on it and you subsequently come up with good data and you're confident that the good data is better than the bad it would be okay to replace bad data with good data I'm seeing someone here in the comments says that's fudging you're fudging now apparently there's some kind of Brainiac argument that says you should use bad data when you have good

[9:23]

should use bad data when you have good data and I don't know what's going on because I'm watching people argue this point people are saying to me in direct language that you should use bad data to stay consistent or something something something science and I keep saying I'm not even going to have this conversation because if you know your data was bad fixing it seems like it's always the right answer so it may be that I'm completely Miss understanding who's arguing with me or what point they're making so so people here are calling that date of
of manipulation I don't understand I don't even understand the point so yeah exactly I'm somebody's saying you're misunderstanding and I'm agreeing I am misunderstanding the point so I think

[10:23]

misunderstanding the point so I think we're talking about climate change and I and the topic was some people made some models based on the data that they thought was accurate they didn't like where the models went but they looked at their dot data and they said oh this is bad data we will publicly correct it we'll tell you what we're doing we'll tell you why we're doing it and we're telling you why the good data is better now apparently that's not science there's some there's some problem with using better data somebody's going to need to explain this to me in a way that makes sense so I'm just going to leave that top IC so my my summary of that topic is people are arguing with me and I don't even know what the topic is I apparently I'm in a debate and I don't even know what it's about that's welcome to my day so the news says that Robert Craft owner I think it's Robert right owner of the uh New England Patriots who got

[11:24]

the uh New England Patriots who got busted for allegedly using the services of a massage parlor that had some sexual uh sexual services and I guess there's been some kind of an offer where he won't go to jail if he does some kind of classes to um you know to to learn about the Badness of what he did will you stop ruining my punchline by getting ahead of me yes the story has a happy ending damn it you knew where I was going and you got there first but uh I guess that was was too easy let's talk about the New Zealand uh mass murderer and there there are certain Outlets who use his name if you go to CNN they print the name of the mass killer in New Zealand if you go to Fox

[12:25]

killer in New Zealand if you go to Fox News they don't if you go to the prime minister of New Zealand is also saying that she'll never utter the name now even when I've seen the name and I've seen it a few times on CNN and maybe some other places I actually go out of my way not to remember it and and I actually tweeted that it's a good that's a good start not talking about his name but shouldn't we just erase him from history now when I say erase him from history I don't don't mean that we never tell the story I mean that well let let me put it this way I'm going to make a specific suggestion and I want you to see what you think about it what if you had a standard not a law not a law but a standard that said that when you have a situation like this it is historically important to say who did it but you don't want to give them

[13:27]

it but you don't want to give them attention so how do you how do you handle the fact that historically it's just a fact he is a person he has a name we should know what it is at the same time you don't want to give him attention how can you balance those two things and I have a suggestion I believe that the his name should exist in one place on the internet just you know let's say a web page that just has his name and any article about him that's a written article on the internet would just link to the page that has the name so that people could go look for the name and they could find it but if they didn't look for it it would not be discoverable in other words it would be easy to look for it because it would say you know um this shooting happened and the killer you know and the killer has a link if you wanted to know the killer's name you could do it you just click on

[14:27]

name you could do it you just click on the link his name comes up if you don't want to see it it's not in your face you have to click on it so I would suggest as a standard that rather than erasing him from history which which I think reasonable people can say that's going too far instead of that we should all agree on a link just one place that has the name same link for everybody and just just his name or maybe just a picture if you want but all articles after that should simply say the New Zealand shooter and hyperlink to it and then you will never accidentally see his name I prefer as a consumer that I not accidentally see his name when I when I read the news on CNN I accidentally saw his name and it bothered me it actually bothered me when I watched Fox

[15:30]

bothered me when I watched Fox News they were very careful to not mention his name and I thought to myself that's better than the news right it's better than the news they they've improved on the news because the news would have included his name but that would not have made the world a better place the way Fox News reported it did make the world a better place because they contributed to a standard in which making the person f famous is not a desired outcome um so that's my suggestion for the
the day let's talk about uh the uh Mr kellyanne Conway tweet I have to read the actual tweet I think most of you have seen it by now but it's so darn good from the president that we have to share a laugh at it all right so of course you know the kellyan Conway trusted advisor um to the president her husband has been

[16:32]

um to the president her husband has been tweeting horrible tweets about the president saying that he's mentally unfit and he's been doing it for a long time and the president has been largely you know muffled about it but apparently he's been unmuffled I assume he's had a conversation with Kelly and Conway it stands the reason that they've actually talked about it and I assume that kellyan has expressly said do what you need to do Mr President or some version of that so if you're thinking that the president is just trashing the husband of his trusted adviser without her being in on it I I think that would be naive now it's possible I'm not there I'm just speculating but the most likely scenario is that he at least warned her and said look I'm going to have some fun with this uh I'm going to I'm going to Tweet about your husband just go with it which would have been perfectly fine I think

[17:34]

would have been perfectly fine I think with her my guest so I'm just speculating but that seems the the more likely explanation here's here's the here's the tweet from today from the president of the United States George Conway often referred to as Mr kellyanne Conway by those who know him is very jealous of his wife's success and angry that I with her help with her help this is the fun part with her help didn't give him a job he so desperately needed I don't know if he desperately needed it but uh so he's basically saying that even his wife even his wife didn't want him to get a
job even his wife didn't want him to get this job uh and then the President says I barely know him but just take a look a stone cold loser and a husband from hell
now come on I I get it when critics of the

[18:34]

on I I get it when critics of the president say you know you're being unpresidential and in some way that maybe is bad for the country but is there any way that this is bad for the country of course not this is good for the country this is nothing but entertainment courtesy of the Entertainer in-chief you know I say this all the time that um what part of the I'm going to call it genius I'm going to call it genius part of the genius of Trump's approach to the the the campaign and then the presidency is that he understands what other people do not understand he understands that the the show you know the the literally the entertainment is part of the process it's not it's not the unimportant part part because what is it that we focus on we focus on the show the entertainment

[19:36]

we focus on the show the entertainment if that's what the public is looking at and the president of the United States's job is to get us to focus on the things he wants so that we can make progress the president understands us and so he uses the show to focus you on entertainment entertaining things when that helps them to focus on what's important when that helps him he's just moving your focus around but he puts it in an entertaining package so that you want to go with it don't you want to read this tweet I mean the tweet I just read you is that not entertaining did you not enjoy hearing it even if you were an anti-trumper and you said to yourself my God it's it's so bad that a president of the United States is saying insulting things about the husband of his uh uh of his uh you know loyal uh loyal what would you call it
it advisor um even the people who are like

[20:39]

advisor um even the people who are like a little bit bothered by it are also entertained right he is intentionally entertaining for a functional reason which is that it sucks the energy out of anything else you cared about and moves it on this so what the brother president does is he's a master of understanding that the human mind is like a shelf and if the shelf is full it won't process anything else my shelf is full so the president whenever he sees there's a little empty shelf space in other words whenever the news is slow the president jumps in because he knows the worst thing for him is a slow news day what does CNN talk about when it's a slow news day they talk about old news about the president they'll talk about Russia they'll talk about Cohen and it won't even be new news or it will be trivial

[21:43]

even be new news or it will be trivial new trivially new news it'll be new but it's not that different so if he doesn't fill the Shelf somebody else will so you look at this this George Conway quote and if you don't understand persuasion if you don't understand the human mind shelf space if you don't understand the business model of the press if you don't understand communication if you don't understand humor if you don't understand how the show is part of the political process and this president has has brought the show like nobody ever even thought of doing if you don't understand all those things it just looks like the president is being foolish if you do understand persuasion and you understand how the mind works and you understand psychology and you understand marketing you understand branding you understand politics you

[22:43]

branding you understand politics you understand humor if you understand those things you know exactly what he's doing he has taken your mind from wherever it might have been to this terribly unimportant little dramatic entertaining story about the husband of his of his close adviser and it's just interesting that's all it's just interesting and uh it's kind of brilliant now how slow is the slow news day let let's call up CNN and take a look let me tell you the types of things that are the news so all CNN has this week are the following headlines so I'm just going to read their news page top headline is Muller probe revelation explain Trump's rage do you even need to read that why would you even bother reading that article it's the same news you've been watching for two years right that there's something about the Mueller probe that Trump doesn't like is that

[23:44]

probe that Trump doesn't like is that news who raise your hand if you were not aware that the president was unhappy about meller that's their top headline the president's unhappy about the Muller report there's nothing new I mean I think they have some detail that's new that's unimportant um in let's say uh here's the next the next highest headline so whatever is the at the top and the left of the page are the important highlight the important headlines because that's where your eye goes first to the top left so the next one is Muller's team says is very busy this week that's it the the team is busy this week which could mean one of two things they say in the article one thing it could mean is that they're wrapping up the other thing it could mean is that they're not wrapping up that's the news the news is that Mueller might be wrapping up or he

[24:46]

that Mueller might be wrapping up or he might not be wrapping up that's not news that's nothing um there's something about Mueller had Cohen's email early but that's just more slight change on the Cohen story with no real importance to it like there's no there's no therefore to it it's just it's a fact um Mueller's old boss working with him was terrifying that's just sort of interesting color as it's not really news um and then there's analysis all right this is one of the top headlines analysis explosive Russia Revelations equal bad day for Trump so I thought to myself explosive Russia Revelations I better read that it's an article from 6 days ago so the headline explosive Russia Revelations is from six days ago I'm sure I read the allegations from six days ago don't even remember them I

[25:48]

days ago don't even remember them I don't know do you remember what happened six days ago about Russia Revelations pretty sure it wasn't
important right so see the context the president's tweet about Mr uh you know or about George Conway let's use his actual name uh it comes in the context of there's just not much going on so he's he's made sure that it doesn't go a bad way by making you focus on that all right so I've noticed a trend and I haven't seen I haven't seen anybody put these three things together yet probably somebody has because I haven't watched the news non stop but it seems to me that the Democrats are considering three different things one is lowering the voting age Democrats are considering that they're considering uh increasing the number of people on the Supreme Court so that they could just if they get a Democratic president they could just say hey let's let's put 10 more people on there and they'll all be

[26:51]

people on there and they'll all be Democrats um and then they're also talking about changing the Electoral College what do all of those things in common have in common so everything that they want to do has something to do with Democrats winning um tell me how the average person is helped by any of these things so the Democrats have completely sort of given up on coming up with ideas with good ideas the the Democratic like m thrust is elect us and I'm thinking to myself okay you've got these some big Ideas changing the voting age changing the number on the Supreme Court changing the elector college and I'm sure they would like to change cherry mandering and do some things on voter suppression and um also they'd like to

[27:51]

suppression and um also they'd like to legalize some illegal immigrants and you and you look at all their big ideas and you say to yourself that's a lot of Big Ideas what do they all have in common and indeed what does the green Neal Green New Deal have in common with all those things they don't have anything to do with the public they're all about getting Democrats elected if if their big ideas are hey hey I got a big idea it's another way to get me elected and as a voter I say that's terrific do you have any big IDE ideas for me do you have anything that would work for me now uh somebody was mentioning reparations in the comments um I'm going to put down as a marker this prediction anybody who comes out in favor of reparations for this election cycle in the in the future it might change but for this election cycle nobody can win

[28:52]

for this election cycle nobody can win the
the presidency talking about reparations even if it's on the table it's it's a it's a self- Kill Shot there's no way you can win with it but here's the interesting thing it might be that the only way you can get the Democratic nomination is to be in favor of reparations so I think the Democrats have created a situation where they've designed maybe accidentally but they they've created a system on their side where they can't win because two things are true you probably have to be in favor of reparations to get nominated and being in favor of reparations makes it impossible to win the general election so I think they've actually taken themselves out of the game it looks like it and I'm starting to wonder and and ask me if or or tell me if you feel the same is it starting to look as if the Democrats are playing for

[29:53]

Democrats are playing for 2024 has anybody said that yet um so let me say it for for the first time what I'm seeing from the entire Democratic field is people who don't look like they expect to win has anybody else said that the Democrats are not playing to win as far as I can tell because the green New Deal is really interesting and I actually I have a lot of respect for it in the sense that I like a big Vision I like where it takes the you know the political discussion even if it turns out we don't we don't do it in just the way they imagine that's exactly where our mind should be you know our mind should be future future thinking our mind should be science-based you know we should look at the the big priorities so everything about the green New Deal in terms of where it takes our minds I kind of like you know even if we if even if we end up rejecting you know the the elements of

[30:53]

rejecting you know the the elements of it that's where our minds should be with that big stuff but I don't know if you can win with that has anybody done a study to show that that's a winning general election um topic so we've got this interesting situation where um at the moment Biden and Bernie are are solidly in number one and number two positions in the polls now initially that's primarily because of name recognition right and probably kamla Harris is probably has the third best name recognition or you know Betos in there somewhere but basically it's just organized by name recognition but let me ask you this when you look at Biden's popularity at what is it does anybody know the number what is Biden's popularity on the Democratic side is it 15% or 30% or 20%

[31:54]

Democratic side is it 15% or 30% or 20% somewhere in that 15 to 30% I forget where but doesn't it seem to you that both Bernie and Biden have a cap in other words can an can an ancient white guy uh Inspire 28 so somebody's saying that Biden's at 28% and somebody else is saying higher all right so let's let's say this the polls are arranging and that you know one-third of the Democrats are liking Biden as their first choice doesn't it feel to you that that's also something like his cap if you were to look at the entire Democratic field don't you think that a third of them would be perfectly fine with an old white guy as president maybe a third of Democrats but doesn't it feel like two-thirds of them would be non-white or female and don't you think

[32:54]

non-white or female and don't you think that those people are saying uh I'm not a Democrat so we can elect more very old white guys it feels like 30% or so is something like a cap for Biden or Bernie in terms of enthusiasm so let me be more specific I'm not saying who let me back up whoever the Democratic Nomine nominee is will get most of the Democrat votes right so if Democrats vote they'll vote for whoever the hell got nominated they're not going to vote for Trump but will they show up will 23ds of the Democrats would be excited about an old white guy I don't see it I don't see the excitement happening and I think that it it puts the uh the black vote totally in play it puts the Hispanic vote totally in play and puts

[33:58]

Hispanic vote totally in play and puts the woman vote totally in play th those are the strongest things the Democrats had so I'll say again that you know 2020 is still a million years away in terms of political years Lots will happen the things that happened between now and then are probably the things that will matter by the by election day so there's almost nothing you could predict at this point but if things go the way they're going if if if straight line predictions ever worked it looks like a blowout to me it looks like Trump is just going to just going to walk through the field easily because I don't think the Democrats are going to have much left by the time they get to the Finish Line all right um let's talk about climate change um I'm G to I'm going to make this simple so there's a skeptic um who I first saw on Mark Levin show on Fox News and his name is uh Michael Patrick I

[34:59]

and his name is uh Michael Patrick I believe and he's Kato Institute guy scientist got a lot of degrees and he showed a chart and made the following claim and what I like about this is that when you're looking at climate change it's very confusing and I've been asking for a while can you um can you can you break it down Patrick Michaels thank you can you break down um just one thing that a non-scientist could look at to determine whether the climate change predictions of Doom are accurate or inaccurate is there is there any one thing we could measure is there any is there one statistic we could all understand and follow is there one thermometer somewhere that's the one I know there's not one thermometer but in other words is there anything that a non-scientist could look at a graph a prediction uh an estimate and that they could say okay if this is true true then I should be very worried about climate

[36:00]

I should be very worried about climate change but if it's not true then I'm not worried is there anything that could be that simple and Patrick Michaels suggests something that is that simple and a very interesting thing happened when I tweeted it and here's the interesting thing that happened so his claim is this that each each of the major countries have their own climate models and there's a pretty big range of where each country's preferred model predicts that the temperature will go in the future and so you know there's an uncertainty range and um I think all but one of them all but one of the national models are way hotter than what we've actually measured and observed lately there is one model that Nails it allegedly all right so everything I say is with a I'm not sure this is true so just put allegedly in your mind behind everything I say now allegedly

[37:01]

behind everything I say now allegedly the Russian model not only uses the correct variables as inputs things we can measure and say okay this is this is a correct input this is not a correct input so his claim is that the Russian model uses the correct inputs and has predicted the actual temperature accurately when all the other models have not and if the Russian model continues to be accurate as it has in the
the past it would predict it would predict that there's no problem because the Russian model shows lower temperature increases now what I like about this and I'm not I'm not telling you here that this is an accurate description I'm not telling you it's not accurate I'm telling you that this is the first time I've heard a suggested metric that would really tell me what I want to know as a non-scientist and the metric is this true or false just true

[38:03]

metric is this true or false just true or false if you can true or false me this one thing and and I can be convinced that you know your true or false is is accurate I will have a decision on how important climate change is in terms of dire consequences and it looks like this if it's true as the claim is made that the only model that has accurately matched the real measurements lately in other words in the last 10 years or so if the only one is that's done it is the Russian model and it's also true that the Russian model predicts a modest increase in temperature one that you wouldn't have to be that worried about if that's true then climate change is not something you need to get too worried about if it's not true that there is a Russian model that's the only one that does a good job of predicting not only the past hind

[39:04]

of predicting not only the past hind casting but also the last 10 years or so if it's the only one but if that's not true then we we have to be worried because all of the other models say we're in trouble so if all of the other models are the good ones and the Russian one is just the stupid one then I'm worried I want it just that so the only thing I want now is that one answer short of that one answer I don't want to hear anything else so what I did was is I tweeted it um yesterday and then there was a followup this morning and I asked people to criticize that point so I I show the graph it shows all of all of the you know the the 30 or so models from the other countries up here it shows the Russian line all by itself down here still going up but not as much and I say is this is this graph accurate because if it's accurate to me the conversation is over

[40:05]

accurate to me the conversation is over I don't need to know anything else um it seems like that would be the the lever that would answer all the other the other questions and so what kind of answer did I get typically anytime that I've tweeted any kind of a skeptical argument against climate change do you know what happens people immediately send me to the debunking site so there are several sites that have debunking of of the Skeptics and so I wait and sure enough somebody sends me to the debunking site so I'm like oh okay once again it's a it's a fake graph and I look at the debunk and the debunk didn't debunk the debunk said well you know this should have been different this should have been different and this should have been different but it did not debunk the primary claim which is that the Russian model is the accurate one and that the Russian model says

[41:06]

one and that the Russian model says there's no trouble no trouble ahead not not big trouble so even the debunkers did not expressly debunk the point that the Russian model says there's no problem and it's the only accurate one so if the best debunker I've seen doesn't even address the point at this point preliminarily I would say that climate change has been debunked now that doesn't mean we're done because if 10 minutes from now somebody tweets me something that says Scott you idiot here's the real data that chart you're looking at is just made up here's the actual information nothing on that chart is accurate now if somebody does that I'm going to be back to the starting place which is I can't tell the difference I wouldn't really know if the debunker is right or the original claim I don't have any way to know but I could at least determine the smart people say

[42:08]

at least determine the smart people say it's not accurate so far I have not seen smart people say that that's wrong and interestingly there's there's one individual who is all over my timeline who copies me on a lot of tweets about climate change his name is uh Jeff price Jeff with a g g EO FF and he's terrific on the scientific argument in favor of climate change being a problem and when I say he's terrific I mean that I'm watching probably 95% of the people talking about climate change in my feed are
are Skeptics and one by one he takes all of their skeptical arguments and he annihilates them he he just rips them to shred and even not being a scientist when you see um you see somebody saying it's pronounced g off I don't think that I think it's Jeff

[43:10]

off I don't think that I think it's Jeff um when that when he annihilates people he points to the data and he's far more knowledgeable and I think in every case I've seen where he's come into the conversation I would say his argument is just way better so I've been watching him just annihilate Skeptics skeptical Arguments for months I think I think for months he's been just annihilating the Skeptics and he does it so well that it's gotten to the point where I'm thinking man I'd like to get this guy on my um on my Periscope but he doesn't follow me so I can't send him a message I follow him and and I thought well that's interesting because he should follow me since he's all over my timeline but I looked I looked specifically for him to see what his debunking was of the uh Patrick Michaels point that only the Russian model is correct and it's not there now remember

[44:14]

correct and it's not there now remember the first things I said earlier in this Periscope I said the fact that something isn't there doesn't is not conclusive so he might come in today and and debunk it I'll be waiting for that but my larger point is all I want to know about climate change is is it true that the Russian model is the only accurate one and that it says there's not much of a problem in the future it's all I want to know so for me the whole conversation of climate change is closed until I get that answer if I never hear that answer I don't know if I'm interested in anything else because there should be somewhere in the world a chart that is the improved version of uh Patrick Michaels chart if such a thing exists so I don't want to hear somebody say well there are a few problems with his chart I want them to show me the real chart I want to see the two of them side by side and I want to see that the

[45:17]

side by side and I want to see that the real chart says that that Russian one is wrong does that exist because I would be convinced if you can show me that uh you could talk me into it pretty well all right
um let me give you uh for those of you who uh have been following my startup and also following the issue of conservatives being kicked off the platforms um some of you know that my uh my interface by whenhub app we added a donate button so um so I'm going to tell you there's something new happening right now that's kind of exciting so right now if you download the free app called interface by whenhub which I will show you here um and there there is a new thing you can either find an expert or be an expert if you would like to receive donations and you don't want to be on patreon you can just be an expert

[46:18]

be on patreon you can just be an expert takes you probably 60 seconds to just create a PL create a profile if you're on here as an expert you don't ever have to take any calls you can just have a profile so you can just create a profile and just never take any calls but I'll just look at any one of these here's Brock Alexander and he has a donate button so it's there automatically so in the app you automatically have a donate button but here's what we did we added the ability to put a donate button on your web page and then the web page will just take you to the app or it'll take you to a web page that acts like the app so you now have the ability if you go to whenhub uh.com so when hub.com if you go there you can search for a Creator and if you've signed up yourself you find yourself and then we show you the HTML code just to copy it's very easy it says press this button to

[47:20]

very easy it says press this button to copy this code and then if you have a blog or a web page you can just paste it into your HTML people who know how to do blogs know how to do that just put it in HTML mode paste it in there and then your blog will have a button that says donate and that donate button will open up the interface by whenhub app or a web page and people can donate to you so we have taken the patreon model into the outside the app so you can take that button and you can put it anywhere um in the current version at one
one hub.com if you tried to make a call from that you'd have to download um download our app on for the browser if you're not comfortable with downloading an app for a browser which might be about half of you just wait about a week and we'll have it in browser mode so no downloads are necessary at the moment if you wanted to see it in it's in its brand

[48:21]

wanted to see it in it's in its brand new form or there might be I don't know might be a bug or something um you could go to Wi hub.com and take a look and sign up for a free account all you have to do is put in your profile information and you can have a donate button I have a donate button and if anybody wants to support what I do on Periscope you can do that at patreon because I do have a patreon account Scott Adam says or you can do it at the interface by one Hub app
app um and let's that's uh yeah R Dave Ruben and um Jordan Peterson have talked about creating an app for conservatives for donations let me I don't know where that's at but let me make a general statement um I don't know how much experience Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson have of working with developers

[49:23]

Peterson have of working with developers and creating apps and I also don't know if maybe it's already almost done and somebody was working on it but I'll make a general statement however long you think this should take you're probably not even close right the reason that my startup could create this function is because we had
had 95% of it done for another purpose if you were to start from scratch and just say I'd like to build a competitor to patreon if you talk to a developer the developer would say yeah that's going to take that could take me 60 days two years later you would almost be done so my guess my guess without I don't have any inside information so I'm I'm just going to make a general statement that however long Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson hoped it would take for their solution probably they're finding out

[50:25]

solution probably they're finding out that it's not even close close to whatever the first person told them so usually the first person you talk to says yeah 60 days I can slam that together it'll be solid 60 days comes and goes it's going to be two years all right um somebody says I'm a developer and I agree yeah if you talk to anybody who's a developer you get a a similar description so I I'm rooting for Dave Rubin and uh Jordan Peter and to succeed in whatever they're doing so I would love to have options out there if it's better than what I'm doing and it works well that's that's the way it goes but I worry that it's not
not imminent uh I just but I don't know so that's up to them to say how imminent it is uh what's my opinion on Judge Janine suspension um you know I I don't even remember what exactly she said that got

[51:26]

remember what exactly she said that got her suspended so I don't have a opinion on
that uh I do like the F the fact that um Donna Brazil is joining Fox News I think that's a good play um I like her I like Donna Brazil um like as a TV personality um I I think she' be as you know from from just a business perspective I think she's a solid Choice yeah people are saying but she's a cheater but we know that right so you could discount that when she talks about the news you can say well that's either Rings true or it doesn't all right that's all I got to say for now and I will talk to you later