Episode 467 Scott Adams: Enjoying the Full-Bodied Flavor of Coffee and Exoneration. Mmmm…Exoneration

Date: 2019-03-25 | Duration: 50:22

Topics

Professional news people usually recognize partisan voices WHY/HOW were some very professional people duped? WHY did others clearly see partisan voices shoveling hard? They may have believed partisan pundits were non-partisan A Psychological phenomena has occurred “Fine People” hoax is now correctly reported on Wikipedia Will Snopes also support the truth? No word from them yet Americans come together against our common enemies Somebody created the hoax of Russian Collusion, fed it Treason, sedition, what charges will the plotters face? Conservatives own the high ground right now President Trump is playing the situation exactly correct Old Nads (Nadler) persists in his investigation…needs a “band name” What name should his band be known as? Nadler is now exposed as just a partisan harasser of POTUS Sam Harris is interesting, a legitimately FACT based person Have his filters on reality been revised since Mueller report? HUGE value in learning that you’ve been completely and totally duped Wise skepticism of OTHER topics where you were “certain” “Hindcasting” is predicting the past, climate models are good at that A useful climate model predicts the FUTURE Is it true that only the Russian model has correctly predicted the future…and it does NOT predict doom? Are pardons on the near horizon? Smart for President Trump, allowing the media to flounder A pardon would become todays news, distract from Mueller report Who might receive a pardon at some point in the future?

Please 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

[0:09]

hey everybody come on in here you know what time it is yeah it's time for coffee with Scott Adams today's coffee will be a special blend no longer will we rely on simple coffee beans for our coffee pleasure today the coffee beans are mixed with the subtle and yet sophisticated Taste of something I like to call exoneration yes coffee is great by itself exoneration pretty great stuff too all by itself but when you combine them you combine the ex exoneration and the coffee you get the best simultaneous sip that you've had since November 9th 2016
and if you would please join me grab your copy your mug your chalice your Stein you're tankered your thermos fill

[1:10]

Stein you're tankered your thermos fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the simultaneous
beautiful well of course the big news is the Mueller response but I thought you you're seeing a lot of that in the other news so I'd like to interview Dale the anti-trumper Dale could you come over here I'd like to hear about your uh I understand you went on a big uh elephant hunt a safari you were trying toh see if you could shoot a a big elephant is that right that's right it was very successful too my elephant fun my elephant hunt was very successful really so you got it what kind of an elephant did you

[2:11]

did you shoot I did not shoot any elephants well you just said your elephant hunt was totally successful what does that mean well you got to look at the details we all piled into our utility vehicle in the hotel parking lot and when we were pulling out of our parking space we ran over a
squirrel you ran over a squirrel I thought you said you had a successful elephant hunt but you didn't shoot any elephants I just told you we ran over a squirrel in the parking lot Victory success no Dale there's a big big difference between going on an elephant hunt and getting an elephant versus running over a squirrel in the parking lot I don't think you can claim victory

[3:12]

lot I don't think you can claim victory for simply killing a
squirrel I didn't say I killed it are you saying the squirrel
seen so the hard work begins today with this Russia collusion stuff because the tough part is trying to sort out the at least three different categories of people who were on the losing side of the Saga Number One are actual literal traitors people who seem to apparently have been intent on overthrowing the entire the entire country an actual coup those people probably need to go to jail for

[4:14]

people probably need to go to jail for the rest of their lives at a minimum if if we can confirm if the legal system does its thing right I don't want to you know not in favor of any no crowd Justice or anything like that but it does seem at this point that the likelihood that they were genuine traitors who were trying to overthrow the country it feels very close to probable I would say well no it's not close to probable it's probable but there's another group who are simply fooled by their own side the people who experience cognitive dissonance and I would say that those people need to be understood so you don't need to tr to you know you don't need to punish the people who were simply Bamboozled by their own side they're also victims and I would say that a lot of the the TV news personalities fall into that camp but there's another Camp the um let's

[5:16]

but there's another Camp the um let's call them the The Advocates the partisans so there's a group that actually didn't care if it was true or not and they're in some ways they're the the most weasel like group let me give you some examples from some partisans who are probably not the traitors and in fact you know I have no reason to suspect that they're the actual traitors behind this whole thing but they're also not the people who were just fooled by it they're people who apparently were not I can't read their minds but based on their actions it seems that they're just partisans and they're going to stick with the story no matter what here are a few of them this from David from F famous anti-trumper here's his tweet from this morning there's four five bullet points and this and this is his response to the Mueller conclusions a truck of TVs is hijacked

[6:18]

conclusions a truck of TVs is hijacked now the first thing you're going to say to yourself is what do a truck of TVs have to do with Mueller investigation so the first thing you need to know is if somebody has retreated to an analogy they've already lost right because they're not using the analogy to make a point they're trying to win the argument with an analogy and you can't do that you've already lost if you're trying he goes so number one a truck of TVs is hijacked number two your son meets with the hijackers three your campaign manager shares root information with them four you are recorded on video saying I love truck hijacking five the TVs are are in your house happy no collusion day
so he had to change the situation that actually happened the one with no collusion into an entirely unrelated and imaginary crime in order to convict him of the imaginary crime that's a partisan so this is not

[7:19]

crime that's a partisan so this is not somebody who's fooled by the the story and it's unlikely that this is you know that he was some original traitor plotter kind of guy he's he's just you know an illegitimate voice here's another one from Peter da friend of Hillary Clinton D oou and he goes thread the ultimate Gaslight so he's he's sticking with The Gaslight theme he says the Muller Saga is the ultimate gaslighting of the American people totally credible statement we saw Trump ask Russia to hack Clinton's email they did we saw him repeatedly bow down to Putin we saw him obstruct Justice and boast about it to Russian operatives I don't remember anything about
that but um what I said to that was evidently Trump supporters know how to recognize jokes personal persuasion used on

[8:21]

jokes personal persuasion used on dictators and confirmation bias so Peter da gives three pieces of what he thinks are evidence the first one was a joke when the president said hey Russia if you have those emails they like to see him he said that during the debate second one is personals persuasion he uses on dictators yes he's nice to Kim Jong-un did it work yeah it worked apparently it worked the president is nice to president shei in China did that work did it work to be nice to president shei yeah it totally worked because he can go tough on the negotiating and still be respectful it worked did the president try exactly the same technique that we've seen worked two times in a row did he try that same technique with Putin which is to be nice to Putin uh personally but to put

[9:23]

to Putin uh personally but to put sanctions on go hard and do everything he needs to do in the political realm yes same method we saw it work twice right in front of us is there reason to believe it's a bad strategy with Putin it's not a bad strategy it's actually the smart strategy in fact if you were to rank all the different ways you could approach Russia the very best one is to be respectful to their leader and also go as hard as you possibly can against anything that needs to go hard you know the the military the you know everything else um so when you're seeing the partisans they're they're not to be taken seriously um I am loving as I'm sure many of you watching the compilation clips of all the pundits who have been saying for two years that the end is near the end is near the end is near it's the beginning of the end the

[10:23]

it's the beginning of the end the beginning of the end there's a bombshell bombshell bombshell all to find out is for not now I watched uh I've been watching the news pretty much non-stop for the last day I don't know that I've ever been more entertained because watching the actual reactions of the people who bought into it the people who were actually I'm going to say brainwashed in my opinion most of the the famous um News hosts who are the classic you know the anti-trump category of News hosts as far as I can tell they believed the story and the way you can tell is because how disappointed they are and how surprised they are and how deeply damaged they are for one reason or another so you can see it in their faces and in the reactions and those are

[11:24]

faces and in the reactions and those are not the faces and reactions of people who knew all along it was a hoax are they when as you watch the reactions of the PE the anti-trumpers the TV to TV types in particular wouldn't you say that for the most part they seem genuinely surprised that that's my impression now I'm not mind reading so I I can't know for sure but my impression is they do seem genuinely surprised so so I would say that they were actually taken and one wonders if they're going to um have a response to be so to being so totally screwed by the people they believed were on their side now I don't believe that the professional news people are being fooled by the the David froms I don't think they're being fooled by Peter da because the the professional news people

[12:26]

because the the professional news people know what a partisan looks like a partisan is a partisan you don't take them too seriously in fact you should discount 100% of what they say and I think the news people largely know to do that and largely do that but apparently there were there was a whole other class of pundits who they thought were closer to the reality based um approach who completely Bamboozled them they they hypnotized them and here's the question that I ask in the next week here's what to look for here's what to look for to find out if the news is even a little bit legitimate now I am willing to accept honest mistakes in my opinion there are a whole bunch of people in the news industry who honestly believed a version of reality I would say that was a mistake but not one

[13:29]

would say that was a mistake but not one that should be career ending in my opinion those should not be career-ending mistakes to actually believe something um but here's how you can tell if they are legitimate players in the next week if you see the news business bringing on TV
TV psychologists maybe hypnotists to explain why they and others were so completely fooled by this they would be legitimate players so the legitimate news people are going to bring on medical professionals they're not going to bring on more pundits to explain what we've already seen if all they do is bring on more pundits to say why they were really right despite being obviously wrong then you can't give them any credit if you see somebody who is just absolutely wrong

[14:29]

absolutely wrong and they say I was completely wrong and I got to say I really thought there was something to this Russia thing I was just completely wrong but what I think we ought to do is understand why I was so wrong and why other people were so wrong so I'd like to introduce my next guest I don't have a guest but I'm talking about what they should say and the next guest should be an expert on cognitive dissonance an expert on confirmation bias that's the expert that needs to be on all of these shows this week if you don't see that you're not seeing anybody who's even really trying because it's obvious what's up now it's obvious that this was always a psychological phenomenon if we don't see it reported as a psychological phenomenon there's no reporting there just won't be an expert talking about the news

[15:31]

be an expert talking about the news because the news is no longer just the Mueller report that's you know the factual basis right and it's news by itself but there's a news on top of that that's the real news the news on top of the Muller report is why did anybody believe it in the first place why were people taken in by confirmation bias when others were not is it simply that people just just um reverted to their teams and it wasn't that one team was smarter or could see through it but rather they were just rooting for their team and that may be the whole explanation but I want to see the
the psychologists explain what we just experienced I've seen the pundits all right in the same week that this hoax died um and it in a way it kind of stepped on the other news that I think was at least least as big the other news was that we know now that

[16:33]

the other news was that we know now that the the Charlottesville fine people quote was always fake news it was always fake news and you can determine that with certainty by looking at the transcript and you can see that the president when he said find people without any prompting specifically excluded the racist in Charlottesville from being in the fine people category but yet the news for years has reported that he called the racist fine people when he said in clear words literally the
the opposite now Wikipedia has now corrected it with uh uh my help and a lot of other people's help and Joel Pollock has been reporting on this for a week or so and so at least Wikipedia has corrected the hoax the the mainstream news has not and I'm not sure I would ever expect them to do it but we no longer have to doubt that it was a hoax because the you

[17:34]

doubt that it was a hoax because the you know the the data is clear it's public you can see it I've asked yeah I asked sopes to take a look at it but I don't know if they ever saw my message I never got a return a return comment um somebody says did I fall for the hoax um I did not ever fall for the charlott phille fine people hoax because to me it was always obvious in context what he meant and I did not fall for the Russian collusion hoax so I personally did not fall for either of those I did fall for the Covington kids hoax when I saw the first video as soon as I saw the accurate video I clarified and apologized immediately once you see the actual context it's obvious that the original one was a fake so I'm not Beyond being fooled by the news far from but these two particular hoaxes I did see
see early um here's an interesting thing that I

[18:37]

um here's an interesting thing that I did not see coming in this whole Saga the United States is the most powerful country maybe of you know in the universe depends if sort it depends if there are other civilizations in the universe but let's say our solar system the United States is the most powerful country powerful military powerful economy most powerful country in the world there's only one thing that this country needs to weaponize all that power and you know what that is it's a common enemy if the United States is fighting with itself which we like to do if we don't have someone else to fight with we'll fight with each other we're sort of a fighting country we're we're we're we're kind of a scrappy bunch of people right we like to fight a little bit maybe that's just every country but every now and then we get a common enemy do you remember when Isis was our

[19:39]

enemy do you remember when Isis was our common enemy Isis doesn't have territory anymore we just went in there and just wiped out their whole territorial holding and a whole lot of people because when we have a common enemy there's not much that can stop the United States and it's not going to be another country we have a common enemy we now have a common enemy in and I'm not talking about the fake news the fake news is a problem the fake news is a problem the common enemy in this case is whoever fed the fake news whoever used the fake news as a tool that's our common enemy there is somebody in the story and we don't know who yet well we do know let let's face it we sort of do know I'm not going to name names because it's a little early but we kind of know we kind of know who's behind it all at least we know

[20:40]

who's behind it all at least we know some of the names we might learn some more but there are some genuinely evil people there are some seriously evil people in this story yeah I'll I'll let you speculate on the names some of them are more obvious than others but um yeah I would say of the of the likely guilty crew there are at least there are at least
two that you can at least have a conversation about the death penalty I would say so I think the death penalty is there a death penalty for treason I have to Google that hold on a second is there death p y for treason United States is there a death penalty for

[21:41]

treason uh search for
death uh penalty is death definition section three of the United States Constitution treason is specifically limited to levying war against the US or adhering to their enemies uh giving them Aid and comfort so treason seems to be a war context so let me ask you this um does that apply to a country that has nuclear weapons aimed at us we're not technically at a state of war with Russia are we but they do have nuclear weapons aimed at us well if somebody's aiming a weapon at you are they your friend I mean I don't think do you think Canada has any weapons aimed at the United States I don't think so so it says that under those can the penalty

[22:41]

says that under those can the penalty could be death or not less than five years of imprisonment um wow and then I guess there are different stat you know so the states have their own laws apparently there's a federal law and then there's state laws so my guess is that somebody like um um Ellen DT would say treason does not apply because we're not in a state of War technically and that might be case so it might be true that there's no treason possibility unless you're in the context of war and then that would be arguable so I think probably that would not be on the table so my best guess is that the death penalty is off the table how about sedition somebody says let's look up sedition let's all learn about
sedition is the overt conduct such as speech and organization that tends towards Insurrection against the

[23:43]

towards Insurrection against the established order so basically working to overcome the established order uh is there a
penalty is there a penalty well okay we have different countries have different laws on sedition in the United States we have the alien or we did do we still have the Alien and Sedition Acts um for the punishment of certain crimes false or scandalous and malicious writing that can't be against the
law um it looks like this section is too long for me to read
live all right well it's a punishable offense um but I would have to be more of a lawyer to sort out whether that applies in this case all right um so if I had to guess I would say that the the government and the

[24:45]

say that the the government and the justice system will start moving against the
the original um plotters and that might take years I mean Trump might be you know done with his second term when we learn anything about this but um I'm pretty sure Lindsay Graham is not going to let go of this um now let's talk about some politics so I was you saw me praising the the president's uh Showmanship um Instinct by not tweeting for what almost two days he didn't tweet about this whole uh you know the wrapping up of the m
m report and then when he did tweet it was just sort of basic I think his tweet was well let's check the president's tweets this morning he may be tweeting while I'm talking so let's look up Trump and see what he has tweeted this

[25:48]

Trump and see what he has tweeted this morning
uh so he he covered it just straight he said 18 hours ago he goes no collusion no obstruction complete and total exoneration keep America great now there is absolutely no hyperbole in that there is no exaggeration there is no um no false statement there is no provocation but here's what's cool there is no Revenge there is no politics he just gives us the facts so he goes 48 hours or so whatever it was a day plus without tweeting anything and then he just gives it to us straight is that the president Trump you expected see that's the beauty of it one of the uh you know the major elements of publicity of brand of managing people's attention is knowing

[26:51]

managing people's attention is knowing when to violate their expectations because that's what makes you pay attention you know if you're a little bit inappropriate that's why people watch and he has chosen obviously to stay completely vanilla he's he's intentionally being boring because the new cycle itself is so good for him the last thing he wants to do is say something and draw attention away from it so he couldn't go too long without saying something so he just puts it in the record no collusion no no obstruction complete and total exoneration just the facts brilliant what would be the one thing that would scare the country the most now that we know that the Muller report results the high level results what would be the worst thing the president could have done the worst thing the president could have done is to say now we're going to try to Jail the people who started this total mistake total mistake don't go

[27:53]

total mistake total mistake don't go there you do not want to go for revenge or even hinting at it you do not want to go low because you're you're sitting on the high ground right now you don't want to change that anything you could do could be a mistake that could hurt you but there's nothing you could do to make this better there's nothing the president could say to make this better than it already is it's as good as it can freaking get so the way he's playing it is just brilliant now when he gave his live comments I guess he was heading to the helicopter or something again he he put his personality on it but he didn't go hard he did not go he did not go crazy he did not go Revenge he did not go emotional he he sort of just played it straight gave the people a little news bite keep this keep the existing story going without changing it didn't want to change it because he's

[28:57]

smart all right um so Nadler Nadler is still going to be going after the president but what do you feel you being the public what do you the public feel about Nadler and his what will be continuing pestering lawsuits how do you feel about that now that you know the whole Russia collusion thing was a fraud does it feel the same because if you thought the Russia thing was real then anything that nler was going to do felt also legitimate didn't it because because they felt like they were sort of part of the same universe of complaints so as long as you were still allowed to imagine that the Muller thing was going to come up with some real dirt it was also reasonable to think well nler will come up with some more real dirt so if Mueller was legitimate maybe Nadler is too they're both sort of just investigating the

[29:59]

both sort of just investigating the president for similar things why wouldn't they both be legitimate but now that we know that the Mueller report and and I will say that Mueller and his team are were legitimate um as far as we can tell what does that do to to nads or old nads as I like to call them it doesn't make him look good does it and so I'm going to start referring to nler and anybody who's sort of on his team because it will be a small team of people swirling around Nadler and and being his supporters so I've decided to give them a a band name you know when you name a band kind of gives them an identity so you have to give your band a name I'm going to name uh nadler's band Nadler and the dingleberries so his new musical name will be Nadler and the dingleberries the

[30:59]

will be Nadler and the dingleberries the dingleberries will be the the little lawsuits and the people swirling around them yeah so it's nads and the dingleberries and they shall become the the free um they shall become the free advertisement for Trump's 2020 campaign because Nadler went from something that maybe could help the Democrats to something that's going to be a gigantic uh image problem for the Democrats here's why it's an image problem now that Mueller has shown that there was nothing there Nadler is exposed as just a partisan before you could say well maybe he was trying to do the work of the the country you know maybe you know of course he's partisan but maybe it's also good work you don't know but now now you're free to say it's it's now this is just partisan whatever he's going to come up

[32:01]

partisan whatever he's going to come up with is just going to be BS it's going to be pestering the president it's going to be presidential harassment and so he must be mocked for his work we the people should be part of the solution and we can be by simply putting him in his proper place in history nads and the dingleberries are now the greatest threat to the president presidency and they're also ridiculous and they're also not much of a threat so let's treat them the way they are nads and the dingleberries I think it's catchy
um uh do do any of you remember when I went on the Sam Harris podcast I don't remember when it was was it was it it I'm not sure a couple years ago

[33:03]

it I'm not sure a couple years ago and um Sam Aris is a notable anti-trumper and we talked about things including Russia collusion and including I don't I don't remember if Charlesville came up it might have but how does that conversation look now through the filter of current events because if if you look at it now I'm pretty sure that Sam was on the side of there's something here with this Russia stuff I don't remember all the details but I would love to catch up with him and see if if his thinking has changed about what we've been watching for the last couple years and the reason that Sam is interesting and I know you know everybody has their uh their fans and their haters he's got his hair as do I but I would say sam Harris is is different from other people in the conversation because he's he's

[34:04]

conversation because he's he's legitimately fact-based meaning that that's his brand right his brand is facts and reason uh and I would love to see how if how if at all he has reassessed his filters based on the current events it's possibly hasn't but I would say he more than anybody else in that Universe has you know a solid you know a solid uh let's say I would give him high expectations that he's revised how he's looking at the entire situation if the only thing you revise is how you looked at the specific case then you haven't learned the lesson the lesson is not hey we were wrong about that one thing that's not the the lesson the lesson is not we were wrong about this one thing this Russia thing the lesson is how

[35:05]

this Russia thing the lesson is how easily we can be fooled once you understand the bigger lesson you can start asking yourself seriously wait a minute could I also be fooled about this other thing let me give you an example climate change what is the most common opinion about climate change from the people who think it's a problem the most common opinion is it's settled uh the scientists are soundly on one side there's plenty of science plenty of measurements it's done now you've seen this Russia thing now the Russia thing obviously has no connecting tissue to climate change just completely different topics but once you learn that you can be that certain about something on the Russia collusion stuff and be wrong completely wrong you have to take that thinking if you're a if you're a functional thinker you have to

[36:06]

you're a functional thinker you have to take what you learn from that and move it over to other cases and at least ask yourself should I be on guard that this has happened more than once and here's what I would ask you to consider and I I just discovered this this week the very least I believed you know the the smallest claim that I believed was absolutely true is that the climate scientist have a good understanding of the last 100 years now you could argue that they may have less of an understanding about you know you ancient history but for the last 100 years we could measure things better you know we have a much better grip on the variables so I thought that the that the climate scientists could explain at least the last 100 years but it turns out that there's a gigantic part of it like the first half in which

[37:08]

part of it like the first half in which they just say well we think it was aerosols and maybe there was something about industrial pollution because the first half of the half of the Century doesn't really not half but the first half of that 100 years or so doesn't match the CO2 prediction meaning that the CO2 is the the only lever you need to look at because the argument is that earlier CO2 was not the only lever and that aerosols in pollution and maybe um well the aerosol are from the pollution and maybe volcanoes were skewing what the models would have told you if CO2 had been the only variable now I believe what I'm just say I'm saying is true and of course in the climate change era you have to assume that you know you're you're always on Shaky Ground no matter what you're claiming it seems um but if that's

[38:08]

um but if that's true then it's certainly not true that the scientists are darn sure that they know what's going on because if they don't know why the model didn't work meaning that they're not all on the same page so some people think they know but science is not a read there's not a definite idea of why the the temperature is even done when it's done even in the last 100 years so I would say that that the The Limited claim of climate science that we know what's going on with great certainty for the last 100 years is disproved by their own their own statements because they will tell you clearly that we think it was the pollution in the volcanoes earlier you know uh I don't know 50 years ago or whatever we think it was the volcanoes and we're pretty sure it's likely it was the
the pollution does that sound like they know what's going on that's the opposite if

[39:09]

what's going on that's the opposite if they said it's definitely these things that I'd say okay well you got to you got a handle on this if they say it's likely these things that's not everybody being on the same page likely doesn't get it done all right because I don't think anybody's told you that their models are just likely they pretty much tell you that we're in deep deep trouble and it's guaranteed so while I I'll get rid of this guy uh troll goodbye troll so um my claim just to be very clear I'm not making a claim one way or another on climate change I don't know if it's a gigantic problem and should be our big biggest issue I don't know if it's not a giant problem I just know that the one individual claim is debunked which is that the scientists are on the same side and they understand what's been happening for the last 100

[40:10]

what's been happening for the last 100 years or so because they don't not for sure so it's only the it's only the certainty part that's that's in question all right
um do I have any thoughts on Apple streaming service well that's that's a whole new topic um I'm sure it will be pretty good because Apple doesn't make bad products um do you think Trump should reexamine I don't know what you mean did the Russian model get debunked what model
um yes Matt Tai's uh blog post about how badly we got taken on on this Russ

[41:11]

badly we got taken on on this Russ clusion stuff is is a mustre it's just brilliant writing and it's also factually
Illuminating um NRA I I see a lot of questions coming in they're all over the board here climate change model why does somebody keep saying climate change model to me um so yeah the the climate models uh oh I think you're prompting me to give you an update on this I made a climate change Challenge and it was this there are 31 or so major models usually there's one model that uh per country so each country has their preferred climate change prediction model but there's one of them that's different from the rest it's way different and it's the Russian model the Russian model that's way different from the rest is the only one

[42:11]

different from the rest is the only one that's been accurate lately so all of the models hindcast meaning that they all accurately um they all accurately describe the past but that's the easy part it's easy to make your model describe the past the hard part is getting it to predict only one of the 31 or so models has done both it's the Russian model now the awkward part is that the Russian model is nowhere near all the other 31 so the other 31 are like we're all doomed it's the end of the world it's somewhere in this range and the Russian model is way down here and the Russian model says it might get a little warmer but no big deal so I simply asked the question do do I have the facts right is it a fact that there are 31 is models is it a fact that the Russian one is different from the rest is it a fact that the Russian one says there will be warming but not that much that you have to think it's the end of the world and is it true that

[43:13]

the end of the world and is it true that the Russian model is the only one that has been right in in recent several years that's all I want to know if that's true then the climate change certainty the climate change settled science is not true and I asked that question of the most effective um Skeptics that I that I interact with on Twitter and there are a lot of them I interact with a lot of climate not I'm sorry not Skeptics I I interact with them too but I interact with a lot of um climate science let's say hobbyist experts as well as some who are actually scientists and the ones who are really good at debunking the Skeptics are really good at it so there are two of them in particular who are always in my feed and they are just shooting down the Skeptics like crazy and the Skeptics are coming in but what about this and then they say well this study debunks it so they're

[44:14]

well this study debunks it so they're the great debunkers debunkers of the Skeptics not debunkers of the science and yeah Steve Gard um he's part of who they they debunk so um and I don't mean they debunk everything Steve Gard says uh Tony heler they don't I don't know that they debunk every claim he makes but a lot of them they have debunked now when I say debunked I mean that they have an argument that looks strong who knows who's right it's hard for me to judge these things but they have strong arguments to counter the Skeptics and I simply asked is there a strong argument to counter this one claim this this one small claim that the Russian model is the only one that seems to work and that it doesn't predict doom and things got really quiet now it's possible that one of those debunkers actually did

[45:15]

those debunkers actually did produce an argument to debunk that point and and I haven't seen it so if somebody has seen it let me know um because Twitter is sort of a place to make sure you've seen everything and and those those conversations are so detailed and long you just wouldn't know if something scrolled by so if anybody has seen an argument against that point that the Russian model is the accurate one I'd like to see it so I don't have a conclusion but I will tell you that I've been asking a lot of skeptical questions about climate change for months and months and months and um that's the only one that didn't have a quick response so it makes me wonder if there is a response somebody said how to contact me uh Twitter is best just send send a tweet and include me in it and if you've got an argument I'd like to see it because and it's better if you do it in public I'd like other people to see

[46:16]

in public I'd like other people to see your argument too because they might have a Counterpoint to it all right um I think somebody said so the climate is not changing I believe all the models including the Russian model say that the climate is changing and the CO2 is is a key variable I believe all of them including the Russian models say that but they have different sensitivities uh I believe also that the Russian model is the only one that uses an accurate input for one of the key variables now that's another claim that's made but you don't need to know about that claim so much as just whether or not it's the one that's been uh all right uh pardon somebody asked somebody says what about pardons well um some are saying this would be the perfect time to issue pardons because um the president is in

[47:18]

pardons because um the president is in such a winning place he's got the he's got the Goodwill at the moment and he could just you know slide him through the new cycle because the news cycle would ignore them relative to the bigger story I believe that's not the case I believe he might want to wait a little bit now I don't know what a little bit looks like a little bit could be two weeks a little bit could be a year so I don't know what wait a little bit looks like but it's somewhere between two weeks in a year because the news cycle right now is so unambiguously positive that you don't want to do anything to disrupt that you you need you need the news to just flounder for a while in a way that's just so good for for you once it's done and the news has moved on to other to other um fake news because you know it will so once other fake news is in the news and the president is being

[48:18]

president is being attacked that's a point where he might have an opportunity to change the new cycle because the moment he gives a pardon that becomes the news so he has a positive news cycle with the Muller report giving him full exoneration the worst thing he could do is pardon people who committed real crimes the same week because then suddenly people say well okay you were exonerated but I don't want to talk about that anymore let's just talk about this sketchy um thing you did with your uh pardon so yes I believe he has a a clear Glide path so he could he has a Glide path definitely for pardoning um all the the minor players so he can definitely pardon um Roger Stone I think that one's easy so the Roger Stone pardon I would say is something close to guaranteed if if Stone doesn't take care

[49:20]

guaranteed if if Stone doesn't take care of it on its own it's possible that the stone thing will just go away on its own I don't know but I think that's an easy part maniford is a tough one and I'm not sure I'd even recommend it because maniford was a flat out crook he and you know he only got caught because of this drag net but I mean he there's nothing you can say about being a tax cheat that happened too Jerome Cory would be an easy pardon Flynn as far as I know would be an easy pardon so I think he has a total Glide path for Flynn Cory and stone manifer is a little little trickier all right Papadopoulos I don't know if is a pardon necessary for Papadopoulos he's already out does that even help maybe it clears his record or something um all right that's enough for now and I will talk to you later