Episode 478 Scott Adams: GND, Border, Democrat Chaos, Hallucinations, Puerto Rico

Date: 2019-04-03 | Duration: 1:22:09

Topics

Old Nads has had animosity toward President Trump for 20 years Don Lemon gets it…his comment to Chris Cuomo Presidential candidate Buttigieg is gay and it doesn’t matter, finally
Border security is President Trump’s signature issue Dems for 3 years said border security not a problem 30-80% of females are assaulted…not a problem? Democrats, like children, can’t understand long term implications President’s signature issue, now clearly 100% correct There’s definitely a crisis at the border Horrible consequences of closing the border Both sides AGREE President Trump uses his unpredictability as an advantage IF it becomes President Trump’s best option…will he close it? Alyssa Milano being referred to as an “actress” to diminish her impact She’s putting in the work and effort…she’s an activist Calling her actress in her current role is unfair, diminutive Tucker’s mention of GND as a “power grab”, and my rebuttal Belief is that GND NOT about policy, it’s about a “power grab” The function of ALL politics is to…grab power, shift power Politics = Power Grab Tony Heller is the most persuasive critic of climate change Tony says the GOAL is socialism, per top UN climate person Scott Alexander Rule Amazing stories in the news…almost alway false American President colludes with Putin…ridiculous
Q&A session with the audience on Green New Deal ONLY a power grab? Not sincere belief, with power grab as natural result?

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 still room it's a big digital world you can all fit you just have to sit close to each other good morning good morning you know those of you who are here quickly the quick people the smart people the good-look sexy people you're here early because you like enjoy the simultaneous Sip and it's coming up now grab your cup grab your mug your glass your container your Stein your chalice your tankered your thermos fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the simultaneous
sip ah good stuff lot to talk about today first of all um I will be giving a tutorial a little bit later today on how to be a professional writer so it's going to be part of my series on uh taking 20 minutes to teach you 80% of

[1:10]

taking 20 minutes to teach you 80% of what you need to know about something you care about so that'll be a little bit later today you don't need to know the exact start time because since it will just be a lesson it's actually probably better if you just uh catch it on the replay so it'll be posted for everybody uh we'll put that on a podcast and also on YouTube and I'll tweet it around so you won't miss it with some links so later today look for my tutorial on how to be a professional writer at least 80% of what you need to know um in other news uh you may have may be following my startup whenhub we make the interface by wi Hub app and we just got listed our our crypto token called the when whn just got listed on a second crypto exchange now if you don't follow the world of crypto that doesn't mean anything to you if you do follow

[2:12]

mean anything to you if you do follow the world of crypto that was a long way of saying you wish you owned it yesterday so last week was a good time to own some when because I think it's you know the last I checked I don't know if it's still there but it's tripled in value now when I say tripled in value went from 1 cent to 3 Cent which is you know sort of typical in the crypto World um there are no guarantees it will keep going up but the things you look for are is it connected to a real company with a real product yes um and is it getting on exchanges and the answer is yes so we just added our second exchange and there is more coming up but we'll talk about that a different time let's talk about the president's speech last night he had a great line that I tweeted around uh and I I can't reproduce it because the way he delivers it is what makes it funny and I think

[3:13]

it is what makes it funny and I think it's because it's him you know just oh it's the two exchanges are La token and hotbit H O tbit um somebody just asked that question uh so those are the two crypto exchanges so the president's uh joke or at least a laughing point it wasn't a joke exactly in his speech yesterday and he's so relaxed at this point have you noticed that he he's sort of in the pocket when he gives a speech these days he looks so comfortable in his role as president and in front of the public it's it's fun watching him enjoy himself in case he's had a couple of good weeks especially but the thing he said that was funny was he he mocked the green new deal as he often does and then he said talking about the 2020 election he goes uh he says if they beat me with a green New Deal I deserve to lose and he just

[4:14]

New Deal I deserve to lose and he just laughs at it and what I love about this is he's the greatest uh trash talker to his competitors that there ever was because it's one thing to have a good reply for their best policy initiatives or their most popular ones it's one thing to be you know politically ready it's another thing to Simply mock them for their strongest their strongest policy positions just to say it's so ridiculous I I sure I sure hope they do that uh he actually said he he hopes they don't change their mind before the election which was hilarious I guess the President also is asking the public uh what they think of his 2020 slogan he's not convinced yet but he's thinking of going with keep America great uh I think it makes sense except that the acronym is awful it's k a

[5:16]

that the acronym is awful it's k a KAG now it doesn't it doesn't feel right it's just a terrible acronym but I also believe that Mega was a terrible terrible acronym Mega literally sounds like a maggot I mean I don't know what you think about when you hear it but I never like I never like the four words and you pray you may have noticed that I don't use magga if I can avoid it you probably haven't heard me say it many times unless I have to talk about it because it's part of a story uh so I don't think that the acronym should prevent him from doing it because it didn't make the last one bad and you know I think I think it's the right Choice keep America great let's talk about Nadler so you all know uh Jerry Nadler is the president's Nemesis who's planning to launch a whole bunch of lawsuits against the president and pestor him to death well it turns out there's a

[6:17]

death well it turns out there's a backstory that I didn't know about now I still don't know the details but this is a fascinating bit of context for this whole drama and the context is that apparently Nadler has has been Trump's Nemesis for over 20 years he's been his Nemesis for Manhattan so I guess I don't know the details I assume Trump wanted to do things with building buildings in Manhattan and maybe Nadler was trying to stop him I don't know if it was that or some other kind of business they had but Nadler has been after Trump for 20 years doesn't that change completely how you see nadler's current actions you no longer see them as an action of somebody who is trying to do something for his job it doesn't have anything to do with this job he it's just a 20-year battle that apparently Trump has according to Trump has been winning uh winning for 20 years who knows how true that is but

[7:19]

years who knows how true that is but that's Trump's version speaking of true I watched a hilarious little clip of uh Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo talking as they often do they do the split screen when they're transitioning from uh one of their shows to the other and they were talking about Trump failing the fact checking and how they were exhausted from checking all the facts and how how his uh supporters don't think that's important because those are not the important facts anyway now that's my feeling and of course I wrote a book with that as my subtitle that the that the facts don't matter now there are two ways to look at this President one way is he's a big old dumb liar who says a lot of lies and they don't pass the
the factchecking so that's that's one view of this President my view of this President is that he's operating at a higher level than most of us and by that

[8:21]

higher level than most of us and by that I mean he understands that the facts literally don't matter they don't matter to persuasion and I'm talking about the small facts I'm not talking that about the big facts such as there you know there are people coming across the border Isis does exist you know I'm not talking about the big facts he gets those right I'm talking about the little stuff he gets all of that you know sort of hyperbolically wrong meaning it's sort of in the right direction he's making a point he's telling a story it's an anecdote you don't need to know about the details because they kind of don't matter they really don't matter now he knows that and so he doesn't try to fix it because he's not trying to fix something that doesn't matter if you start seeing him lying on the big stuff you should get worried but if he's if he's P if he's failing all of the fact checks on the little stuff the anecdotes the you know the the little

[9:21]

anecdotes the you know the the little persuasion stuff don't worry about that at
at all but here's the funny part uh so when Cuomo and LMO we're talking Cuomo is talking about 2020 and about Trump and he says Cuomo says that he can't see he can't see Trump winning because the the poll numbers are so bad and after kuo says he can't see Trump winning Don Lemon literally laughs he laughs and he says have you seen what the Democrats are
are [Laughter] doing now I'm going to give d credit all right you know which maybe I don't do that often but but Chris guomo is running as fast as he can into an invisible black uh brick wall again and at least Don Lemon sees it coming this time I don't think Don Lemon saw it coming on the first election but

[10:21]

saw it coming on the first election but this time he sees it coming and the thing that the thing that I think Don Lemon understands that that maybe Chris guomo isn't quite around the corner on yet is that when people are looking at Trump today they're imagining Trump running against some kind of an ideal candidate because that's how you think of it you don't have a candidate so you're thinking well it's going to be some great person then of these 16 who doesn't have too many problems a lot of good stuff coming to the party against this mean old Trump with all of his flaws it's going to be a Slaughter we're going to kill him but what Don Lemon may be realizing that Chris guomo has not caught up to is that President Trump is not going to be running against a concept he's not going to be running against a generic ideal candidate he's going to be running about against someone who the Democrats themselves have Savaged by the time that person

[11:24]

have Savaged by the time that person gets to the nomination who whoever runs against Trump will be a real person with some serious flaws and those flaws will be quite evident by the time we get to the final vote so it you know as as I said way too many times I can't tell you how many times I said this before 2016 I kept saying remember Trump trump doesn't have to uh outrun the bear he just has to outrun his Camping Buddy because the Camping Buddy is is the one who's going to get eaten by the bear the old joke right so he only had to be better than Hillary Clinton and so I said early in the last election uh all you have to work look at is what he does to Clinton's popularity you don't have to look at how low Trump's popularity is just look what he's doing to Clinton because if that's lower he wins now he didn't win the

[12:25]

lower he wins now he didn't win the popular vote but he did enough to diminish her her uh standing to win the electoral college all right uh the new Superstar upand cominging star on the left is Pete buaji apparently he he was the third best fundraiser surprising people what we like about him is that he is very smart people like him um I was impressed that I I'd read a number number of articles about Pete Bui and him running for president and here's the impressive part they don't go out of their way in articles to say he's gay it's I read a bunch of articles in which that fact is not mentioned to which I say finally like finally can we

[13:25]

which I say finally like finally can we get to the point where you could be a gay man doing anything and nobody says a gay guy is doing something can we just stop saying that and maybe P Buddha XI is the guy who who you know breaks that seal now it's still mentioned but you have to look for it because for a while when he was in the race I didn't I didn't know he was gay didn't matter but when I found out I was like wow this is different it's different that nobody's making that a point contrast that with um the news in CNN today is that quote we got the first black lesbian mayor of a major city I guess her name is Lori Lightfoot and she just became mayor of Chicago now the article makes a point that she is a woman she's black and she's lesbian and she's the first mayor and I read that and I said ah

[14:27]

mayor and I read that and I said ah there we go again how about woman becomes mayor or how about we got a new mayor how about leaving out the woman leaving out the black leaving out the lesbian part can we get past that can can we just say the Democrat won can we just you know you know where how close are we how close are we to just saying that doesn't matter anymore like I don't know if we're close enough but at least budhaji seems to have cross that line and I'll say again something that I don't think um gets said enough you know there's there's talk about the presidential race and there are four am I right four women who have announced which would be the you know largest number of women running for
for president and I I'm not sure I hear that a lot people don't really talk about a woman might be president because Hillary Clinton really solved that problem we we

[15:29]

Clinton really solved that problem we we now
now imagine a woman president with nothing special about it it just seems that's going to happen eventually maybe this time maybe next time but nobody's really talking about it being a disadvantage uh Buddha jiji's problem is that he's white and male and I'm not sure that being gay is going to be enough for the Democrats with their intersectionality and their identity Poli ICS maybe I I'll tell you if he if he got the nomination I feel like he'd be a he'd be formidable so we'll keep an eye on him I'm still saying it's going to be Harris but we'll keep an eye on him I feel like budhaji is not running for president this time I feel like he's raising his profile and he's a young guy so maybe it's really about the the election after that he may he may just beginning into the game for the one after this all

[16:32]

the game for the one after this all right um let's talk about closing the border so quick what is the what is President Trump's signature policy what's the thing that identifies him the most answer border security and immigration that's his signature thing what has the president been getting beaten up by his critics for three years the border and immigration what have his critics been saying for three years it's not that big of a problem so don't be a bad don't be a hard ass to the poor people who are just struggling trying to make a better life because it's not that big of a problem to the United States what changed recently it just became a big problem right is anybody saying today I mean literally today is there anybody on the left or the right who would not say yeah

[17:35]

left or the right who would not say yeah it's a freaking crisis it's a crisis now they might be thinking of it differently it's a humanitarian crisis it's a resource crisis they're not thinking it so much in terms of crime but they should be because if it's true that somewhere between 30 and 80% of all the women who try to cross the border are being sexually assaulted you can't take the crime out of the question all right the humanitarian crisis isn't just about they need jobs they're getting raped on the way here all right so it's a big big problem now what do the Democrats think of when they see this situation do they process that they have this perfect child parent situation that they're just realizing here here's how I describe the child versus the parent point of view a child says I Want Candy the parent says it's

[18:37]

says I Want Candy the parent says it's almost time for dinner it would be better if you don't have the candy CU in the long run it would be good to have a good diet that's the parent view what does the kid say when you say you know you should wait for dinner and eat a good diet what does the child say they say I want candy I wanted now cuz the child cannot process the long-term effects of things the adult has learned that the near-term things you have to be looked at carefully because you want to see what kind of precedent you set you want to see what that does in the long term what has the president been saying about the Border forever if you don't fix it it's going to get worse if you make it attractive to come to this country it's going to get worse in the long term yes being kind sounds great everybody would like to be kind everybody would like to be generous but if you do that do you know

[19:39]

generous but if you do that do you know what's going to happen in the long term you're going to end up with a crisis so the president's view I'll call it the parental view that being nice to people in the short term is great it feels humanitarian it feels like who we want to be as Americans it feels it feels compatible with the American Spirit it feels compatible with our history to you know be welcoming to immigrants as who we want to be in every possible way the short-term decisions are to be kind but the long-term implications of being a little bit too kind is that more people come until you have a crisis this is is the parental view this has always been Trump's View and now it is unambiguously proven true unambiguously proven true his

[20:40]

true unambiguously proven true his signature issue the most important thing that he St his entire Legacy on is absolutely freaking correct and you can't doubt it anymore now when I say you can't doubt it that doesn't mean he's CR itics won't actually doubt it because they will because that's how it works but it's got to be tough to see the Russia collusion thing fall apart and then a week later to see that the president's signature issue was 100% correct that if you create an incentive to come here even if you didn't believe it was a problem before and I think reasonable people could say well well I get that it's a problem I get that crime is coming in but it's that's a risk we're willing to take you know I get the reasonable people were on both sides of the immigration issue but you can no

[21:41]

the immigration issue but you can no longer doubt that changing the incentives creates a long-term problem that's now a settled question and Trump was right all right um so the president has threatened to close the border with Mexico Which smart people on both sides of the political aisle say no that would be too Draconian that would be too much of a hit to our economy it would be too much of a um too much of an obstacle to good relations with Mexico it would just be terrible diplomatically economically just terrible I'll accept that to be true because smart people on both sides are saying it that's a pretty good indication that something's true true but does the president mean it is it a bluff or is it serious what is special about this

[22:42]

serious what is special about this president what is special about this President is that you don't really
know that's what he brings to the party he tells us this he he he said in the most direct language I'm going to be unpredictable and I will use that to my advantage how many times has he said that in direct language he says I'm going to be unpredictable and it's going to be an advantage I'm going to use that Advantage for the country so when President Trump says to Mexico the government of Mexico I'm thinking of seriously thinking of closing the whole border what does the government of Mexico say about that do they say don't worry wor about it he's freaking bluffing nope I'll bet they don't say that I'm sure some people say I think he's bluffing pretty sure I'm

[23:43]

he's bluffing pretty sure I'm largely more likely than not he's bluffing but it's not a chance I want to take because if they're wrong it's going to be really expensive for Mexico so Trump noted and I the fact Checkers will have to weigh in on this that the Mexicans stepped up their game at stopping people at their southern border who are trying to come from those countries through Mexico to the United States now I don't know if Mexico's done enough but I think we can conclude once again that when the president said I'm going to be unpredictable watch how well this works in essence he said that and then he took that he took that talent to this question and said hey I'm seriously thinking about closing the Border did they take him seriously I'll bet they did I'll bet they did we did I mean this country takes it

[24:46]

seriously uh yes Brandon Derby did weigh in in a tweet and uh I believe that he was supportive of this as at least a credible threat give and and he pointed out that the number of people getting sexually uh abused trying to reach the border so here's the question I asked myself is there any reason you couldn't close the border except to shipping wouldn't that get you most of what you need if you close the border except for trucks that are carrying goods back and forth wouldn't we get most of the benefits of closing the Border without the um the crushing impact of the economic hardship you know you wouldn't lose any avocados you wouldn't lose any car parts that we need to make cars if you if you let the trucks go through you know and check them carefully of course as always would that work I haven't heard anybody

[25:46]

that work I haven't heard anybody mention that option so that's just a question all right um I'm saving my best stuff for last oh this this next point is appr propo nothing uh you all know Alysa Milano actress and activist political activists and she's being politically active again on some I guess abortion questions or something and I saw a headline in uh on Fox News referring to her as actress so I I have an objection to that and it's a personal one because it's a personal issue because people call me a cartoonist when they want to diminish my impact in this realm and so it's a diminutive it's it's a way of putting somebody in their place it's like well cartoonist well actress actress I would like to submit that as much as you

[26:47]

like to submit that as much as you dislike Alyssa Milano in terms of her policies you might hate her tweets you might dislike her personally but dear God she put it in the work can we stop calling her actress can we call her activist can we call because because what she's doing now probably is bigger impact than what she's done as an actress for a while anyway and I'm not I'm not mocking your career I'm just saying that she's more notable now as an activist so it just bothers me when I see her when I see her being diminished by that kind of a label because it happens to me and I don't like I don't like to see it happen to anybody else all right we're going to get to the good part are you ready for the good part um I created quite a bit of animosity in my viewers yesterday and I want to revisit something but I'll do a better job of it and and the topic is this um we were

[27:49]

and and the topic is this um we were talking about talker Carlson mentioning the green New Deal on his show the other night and he said that it was a power grab and then I talked about it and people went crazy and got mad at me for doing I know such an illegitimate or bad job or being irrational or not listening to people I got I got a laundry list of complaints now if you've been watching me for a while what does it mean that I made some points about this power grab green NE de deal thing and I got a laundry list of complaints that are all different what does that mean well you know you know what I say it means I've been saying this for a long time the laundry list means you don't know why you're mad you're just mad and I got a laundry list of these problems a whole bunch of people with different problems tells you that the real thing that's bothering them maybe they don't know they're bothered and then they're

[28:49]

know they're bothered and then they're looking for a reason for it all right but here's here are some of the reasons that people were mad they said Scott when you talked about the power grab um proposition the um Tucker's idea and a lot of a lot of you watching this have the same idea that the green New Deal is really about power and and transforming society and you know creating more socialism that that that's the goal and that the policies are less important than the larger goal of power and socialism and I I reject that view but in so doing I took Tucker's conversation about the green New Deal and when I talked about it I called it climate change and people said illegitimate you took Tucker's conversation about the green New Deal and you changed it to climate change and don't you know Scott that the green new deal is not just climate change and in

[29:50]

deal is not just climate change and in fact it's been specified more so as of today uh there a little more detail nothing like real detail but a little a little more meat on the Bones from AOC describing what is part of the green New Deal and it includes the following things highspeed rail healthc care Universal unions essentially uh free college 100% Renewable Energy Zero emission energy sources wind and solar uh no bans on Transportation so nothing about no airplanes there's nothing like that in it emphasis on poor communities to fix racial injustices and justices against the poor uh family sustainable wages and affordable housing now most of the things on the list are not climate change so people said said Scott when you are arguing against this power grab thing you change Green New Deal to climate change so you could argue this different thing it's a straw man here's my

[30:52]

man here's my response you're all wrong I did exactly what you said I started Ed with a green New Deal I changed that to climate change for clarity to make it easier it's exactly the same point the power grab point of the entire green New Deal and all of its elements as it is just the climate change part so everything I would say about just the climate change part of the green new deal about the power grab part of it applies to all the rest of it too so just for convenience I'll talk about the climate change part if that part is true well then maybe the other parts are true too in terms of it's all a power grab but let's just for simplification talk about the climate part of the green New Deal and I believe that you know whether or not Tucker was thinking the same way I am the point still stands all right now here's what I object to and I think that when I

[31:53]

object to and I think that when I explained it the first time it was not clear cuz people said Scott Scott Scott it's obviously a power grab because you would be centralizing things in the government in a way that they're not already centralized and when you're centralizing power well that's a power grab right currently the power is not centralized but if you were to centralize it in the government that's a power grab that's the point here was my objection to that it's not the goal
here's my belief and I'll make my point I believe that the people who both the voters and the politicians the voters and the politicians everybody who who thinks climate change is a big problem is primarily concerned with climate change I don't believe that there are people uh either political either

[32:54]

people uh either political either professional politicians AOC or anybody else I don't believe any of them don't believe climate change is real let me say that in more no double negatives um I believe the AOC believes that climate risk is a real is a real risk and that the motivation of the people who are pushing that is that they're trying to fix what they see as real problems and also the biggest problems I believe that the voters and the politicians who are on the same side of this actually believe it now somebody is correctly challenging me for saying that it's mind reading and that's exactly the right thing you should say you should say are you reading their mind you know why would you say that and here's I I'll make my argument my argument is that first of all we've never heard of any any whistleblower come forward which none of these are individually proof

[33:55]

none of these are individually proof right I'll just give you my case and you have to look at it total we don't have a whistleblower to say I worked on AOC staff she's just this is all just a big fake she doesn't believe climate is a risk she's just saying this for political reasons now usually you can find somebody who will say something like that but we have not seen that or at least I haven't seen if if you've seen it let me know so we don't have a whistleblower but that doesn't mean it's not happening because people might all be clever and keeping their secret um what we uh I have personally in all of my conversations about climate I've never even had a whiff that anybody who believed it was real was just hoaxing me not once if I had even a sniff that the people who say they care about climate change are just kidding and that it's you know it's all a scheme I've never never even got a

[34:56]

a scheme I've never never even got a little bit of that but again that's just my impression and my experience that's not proof of what somebody is thinking um and then I ask who exactly is getting this power can you define what that means by getting power because every major policy changes power so when people say it's obviously the result of this would change the power structure I say well that part I'm not arguing with it is unambiguously true that the green New Deal would change budgets it would change what people do and therefore it would change sort of who's in charge of what people are doing all that's obviously true but it's also true of every political major action there's no such thing as a major political program that doesn't change the power structure even if all you do

[35:57]

the power structure even if all you do is change the tax structure you're changing who has you know you're basically anytime you change money you're moving power because money is power so the government only knows how to change the power structure that's pretty much all they do so when you say the green New Deal or climate change just as a subset of it if you say those things are for changing the power structure I say you haven't said anything cuz that's just politics if you're saying that AOC just wants to get power by pushing these proposals I say that's how all all politics works it would be like saying Trump only is pushing immigration to get elected that just describes politics everything a major politician does is to get elected to get power to change who has the power so to say that as a special

[36:58]

special um as a special complaint about climate science or about Green New Deal the larger category to say that the reason they're doing this is for power then somebody says so we're right hahaa you think you got me now you got me now but you don't know where this is going yet do you so this is called pacing this is the part where I agree with you way from the good part so it is true that there is would be a massive power shift in lots of different ways with the green New Deal it is also true that that's the same statement you can make for any major government program could be moving it one way or the other but it would be a major power change here's the part where I disagree intention it is not in evidence that people don't believe that these policies are good and that they're only doing it for effect

[37:58]

only doing it for effect that they're only doing it for their careers that they're only doing it for money that they're only doing it for power now it's simply not in evidence but the crazy part and here's the tin foil hat part is imagining that you see it and it's right in front of your face and I'm going to give you a real life example um and I'm going to use Tony heler as my example I have to tie a couple things together Tony heler uh I have noted as the most um persuasive critic of climate change so he doesn't believe climate change is the big problem that that scientists do he writes on his website uh voluminously lots of Articles making his argument I I have labeled him the most persuasive of all the critics now I also said in an off-hand comment on Twitter yesterday that uh Tony Heller had been debunked

[38:58]

debunked which Tony heler did not like when he heard it I don't know he may be watching this too so let me explain that when I say debunked I could have added more context to that it would have been a little more clear I mean that for everything that Tony Helder claims the climate scientists have an answer which as a non-scientist I read Tony's original thing I read the response and I say huh I I can't fact check either one but this is definitely looks like a real response to what Tony said now of course Tony also debunks the debunkers and then they debunk him back so it's an infinite Turtles all the way down my point is that there are answers within the scientific Community to everything Tony says as far as I can tell every major claim there's a credi looking counter to it that says no you're all wrong I don't know who's right so when I say he's debunked that doesn't mean science is

[39:58]

debunked that doesn't mean science is settled and that's it and everything he says is wrong I'm not saying that I'm saying that um there is a counter to it that looks credible in every case now here's my problem with Tony he makes a consistent claim across the all of his points about climate in which he says the intention of the people involved is fakery so he he implies intention in every number that's wrong not accident not bad science not not anything but an intentional plot now I keep saying where do you see intention and the the best example that he gives is in the so-called climate gauge
emails let me get rid of this critic um

[40:58]

critic um so his best evidence is the climate gate emails in which somebody said that they were using a quote trick to quote hide hide the decline in other words explain a past period of temperature that didn't make sense with the with the the climate change models I looked at the same language and I said I don't see it I'm reading exactly the same thing you are you say this clearly shows their intent to deceive I read exactly the same words and I don't see it what I see is two people who know each other um did we did the did I actually lose the connection here people are saying it's frozen uh still arguing against a straw man wait for it will you wait for the wait for the reveal all right so uh all right we're back now I don't know how much you

[41:59]

back now I don't know how much you missed there but Tony heler says that the the fakery in the data is intentional faking the data he uses the climate gate emails as one of his largest pieces of evidence of that they say they're using a trick to hide the decline those are the words I read exactly those same words and I don't see what he sees I see them just talking casually hey I use your formula I use trick that's just the way you talk to a friend hide the decline means you were trying to explain why there was this blip it needed to go away you were sure it wasn't real you found a way to hide it you used the trick I don't see the plot I just see people talking now let's take this to another example I continued this conversation and asked for evidence that it's all a giant plot for socialism

[43:02]

all right um and Tony sent me this article so this is an actual article I'm going to read you that's uh an official un article it's from the United Nations Regional information center for Western Europe so this is an official United Nations uh document and Tony sends this to me to say it says here in clear language that you can read this is Tony's interpretation he says the article makes it very clear so it's very clear that the goal remember the word goal is altering the world economy comma and the imaginary climate crisis is the excuse so Tony is sh sending me some text from an official document that he says right in front of your eyes is is making it very clear that the goal is altering the world economy in another words more socialist and the imaginary climate crisis is the excuse so I thought oh my God there is an

[44:05]

so I thought oh my God there is an official document that says that and so I read it and I'm going to read it to you and it's just you know a couple of paragraphs they're very short so see if you hear that when I read that hear that their goal is to change the economy and that the imaginary climate crisis is the excuse now the person talking here is the the top un climate change official so if Tony heler is right the top climate official in the UN said in public that the real goal is to change the economy and that the climate stuff is fake see if you see that in what I read in her
quote umm all right right so this top climate official um is optimistic about a treaty blah blah blah and then she says however the official Cristiana

[45:07]

says however the official Cristiana feras the executive secretary of the UN blah blah blah warns that the fight against climate change is a process and the necessary transformation of the world economy the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement so she talks about a necessary transformation of the world economy and then below she says uh this is the first time in history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally she's actually using the word intentionally so watch what comes after intentionally with a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the IND Industrial Revolution all right so did you hear her say that the climate thing is not real but the goal is socialism did you hear

[46:08]

but the goal is socialism did you hear that in what I just read I want to see your comments before I go on somebody said yes who who else heard it yes somebody saying no yes we got more yeses we have a no we have a yes somebody said says I didn't hear it somebody says kind of somebody says no no no more no no no I'm just reading your comments yes yes absolutely no I heard it no yep no no no nope no now for those of you who said yes what is what are you thinking and I'm seeing more yeses come yes yes yes yes yes somebody says no not technically somebody says pretty damn close now lots of
of yeses yeses yes yes yes yes yes a few more NOS some more confused if you all

[47:10]

more NOS some more confused if you all right here's my rule what have I taught you about hallucinations if you walk into a room with one other person and the other when one person is in the LSA there are two people in the room if there are two people in a room and one of them says there's an elephant standing in front of us and the second person says I don't see an elephant which one is hallucinating the person who sees the elephant or the person who doesn't this is a really good Rule and it works a lot the person who sees it is almost always the hallucinator because if somebody can look right at the evidence and say I I don't even know what you're seeing all right I'm going to read this again and I'm going to tell you why you think you see it but it's not there first of all on the surface the thought that the

[48:13]

all on the surface the thought that the head climate person at the UN says just imagining that the head climate person says no climate change is a bunch of BS we just want to change the economy to socialism right there you should have stopped and said I don't even need to read that article you should have told yourself I don't need to read the article because that that can't happen I mean it's impossible that that happened there is also a rule this is the Scott Alexander rule he talks about this that if something seems like ridiculous in the news like you somebody reports something you say that it would be amazing like aliens landing on Earth and capturing all our dogs you a story like that and you go wow that's amazing when you hear stories that are amazing they are almost always false not just this story but in general here's an amazing Story the president of the United States colluded with Putin and now he's a

[49:15]

colluded with Putin and now he's a Russian agent did you need to wait three years to know how that would turn out I didn't I applied the Scott Alexander rule if it sounds like it's ridiculous there's a 95% chance it just didn't happen sure enough it was fake all right so without even reading the text you should have said no there is no world in which the head of the UN climate stuff went in public in front of a publication in front of a crowd and said the climate change stuff is fake we just want socialism now so first of all it didn't happen but let me tell you why you think it happened here's what she said and I'll read you the key Parts just just the parts that matter she said there um the fight against climate change is a process so that part we all agree and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference is it true that if you fight

[50:17]

conference is it true that if you fight climate change it is necessary to change the economy yes the context is not socialism the context is getting off of fossil fuels now you know the correct context now that you know the context she's talking about is it's going to be a big for the economy to move from fossil fuels to Green fuels nothing about socialism right just just regular moving from using oil and coal to moving you know probably wind and solar and whatever else she thinks that's her context now you know the context listen to the same words again now that you know the context there will be a necessary transformation of the world economy right there will be a necessary transformation of the world economy because it's a major thing to go from fossil fuels to Green Technology that's all she's talking about you agree with that she's just saying something you agree with now her other

[51:17]

agree with now her other statement um she says this is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves a task of intentionally with within a defined period of time to change the El economic development model that has been reigning for at least 50 years since the Industrial Revolution what is the economic development model you think it's socialism versus capitalism that's not the context the context is the economic development model is burn coal use oil that's the context if you believe she was saying that climate change isn't real and that it's really all about socialism that's a hallucination it's caused by you think it's going to be there it's caused by maybe weird paranoia it's caused by whatever makes people believe in conspiracy theories but Tony heler points me to

[52:18]

theories but Tony heler points me to this and says it's right there on the page it is not right there on the page it is not even close to being on the page there's nothing like that on the page they don't mention their belief or disbelief in climate it's not there and when they talk about the economic development model it's obvious that the context is carbon to Green fuel that's all they're talking about now would the would the effect of doing all these Green New Deal things uh create more of a socialist government the answer is yes but it looks like the people involved and all evidence suggests they believe that these are the way to solve these problems that they see as problems so it is not an evidence that it's a plot and where else has Tony heler made a similar kind of claim in which he has imputed intentions where none exist all right so I just showed to you this example where

[53:20]

I just showed to you this example where he sees intention that just doesn't exist the other place he does it is when he says continuously and non-stop that the official climate people NASA or whoever else fak the data for temperature most of his thoughts are around that one point that we used to have a certain set of data and they've faked it to wrong data to make their point now when I listen to the people on the other side I say he says you fake the data what do you say to this fake fake data charge the climate people who understand the whole world there they say it's not fake data it's adjusted now if you believe that it's fake data and you hear me say it's adjusted you just laughed right you're like Scott you adjusted data is just fake

[54:21]

Scott you adjusted data is just fake data you can't you can't do science and then if you don't get the answer you want go back and change the data that would be fake that's not science you don't change the data if you don't get the answer you want that's fake science right some of you are saying that right now I'm pacing you because I know some of you are saying that but here's what the scientists say they say we published the details of why we adjusted it we adjusted it when we realized there were imperfections in the data for example some of the thermometers had been in rural areas but over time somebody built an airport next to it for example and the airport was a heat sink so that would have made it would have made that thermometer inaccurate because of the the heat from the nearby airport that was added after the fact so we took some adjustments to account for the fact that we know this measurement was wrong

[55:21]

that we know this measurement was wrong I mean we know we told you why we know we showed you our evidence we we show you the calculation we use to adjust it and there are a number of other um and then there are a number of other uh situations in which they've adjusted the data after the original measurements but here's the thing Tony leaves out they tell you exactly why they changed them they show you what they changed it from they show you what they changed it to they give their methodology and it's public you can just look now is it faking to show your work in the scientific realm that is literally the opposite of Faking because anybody can check their work anybody can go in there and say all right you made these adjustments why you know I I'll go to that same thermometer I'll see if it was reasonable so people have gone that you know I don't know the details but

[56:21]

you know I don't know the details but people have checked into it they have they have um convinced themselves that there was no intention to fraud these were just legitimate adjustments to the data so we have at least two data points in which Tony heler has assumed bad intentions where it is not in evidence somebody says you're not a scientist does that matter does that matter to anything I've said so far that I'm not a scientist all right um and there is an entire website that dedicated just to debunking in their words debunking everything that Tony Heller says so there is an answer to everything he says now my own view is that there are two outstanding skeptical arguments that if they're not answered would debunk climate science as being legitimate science but not in the sense that the scientists are frauds there is evidence that maybe there are things they haven't accounted

[57:22]

there are things they haven't accounted for or they may be fooling themselves but there is not evidence of fraud in my opinion all right so Tony has seen fraud in the emails where I don't see it he's seen fraud and fakery in the data where it's not in evidence as far as I can tell and he sees it in this article I just read where it clearly doesn't exist so we have three data points of Tony heler seeing a hallucination that I don't see and I'm looking at exactly the same stuff all right so here's my point all policies including the green New Deal and everything in it including climate change which is a subset of the larger category of things in Green New Deal they all change power structures as all policies do the immigration policy that the president is doing changes the power structure it's moving money from one thing to another it's decreasing the power of the immigrants it's decreasing the power of Democrats because they

[58:24]

the power of Democrats because they would like more immigration to increase their voter role there is no such thing as a big political action that doesn't change the power structure and the money so if you're saying well this claim a thing it's all about the power grab you have said nothing there's nothing in that statement it's an empty statement which is what was blowing my mind and what blew my mind yesterday and I I had a a stunned reaction if you saw it live I was I was actually I got goosebumps I I I couldn't believe what I was seeing I saw people repeating the talking points that's a power grab it's just a power grab and I predicted accurately that if I took some guess they could not describe what they meant by that that it would just be word salad or they would change the subject and you saw right in front of you that nobody could argue the point then after the point when I was done with that I

[59:25]

the point when I was done with that I was you know a lot of people piled onto Twitter to say Scott you you created a straw man by changing it from Green New Deal to climate change even though I'm telling you that doesn't change the argument the same argument for the whole green new deal as for the climate part same argument doesn't matter I did that intentionally I changed it to for clarity uh you said that um I'm not listening to the arguments that is correct when somebody changed the subject I cut them off so I'm not going to listen to something that that's on the wrong topic of course so I'm going to try it again would you like me to try that again so I'm going to change my microphone while you're thinking of your best arguments I'm not going to take anybody in the top eight so I'll look for whoever who whoever joins from this point on I'm going to ask you to defend your notion that the other that the

[1:00:27]

your notion that the other that the that the Democrats are only involved in a power grab and that they don't believe in climate change and they don't believe in the other parts of the green New Deal all right so I want
to all right I've got people jumping in uh let's try oh let's try
Daniel Daniel I am going to add you and you are going to make your argument I hope and Daniel's coming on in a minute looks to be a little technical difficulty Daniel are you there Daniel Daniel are you there Daniel is not ready to take a call we'll try somebody else let's try

[1:01:27]

we'll try somebody else let's try Chris Chris you are up next to argue that the green New Deal Chris are you there again can can are you are you here to make an argument that either climate change or the green New Deal are really just the power grab yes I am please make your argument okay well first of all I would say that you misrepresented Tucker's position in the beginning in the sense that there's not just one person sitting behind a desk twirling his mustache seeking power wait hold on hold on hold on hold on let let me stop you there uh I'm only going to I'll give you plenty of time to make your point but I'll I'll only interrupt for the benefit of the audience if there's a factual point that or to keep you on topic uh I did not represent um Tucker's Point as being somebody behind the desk like some individual person okay I I reject the point that it's a power grab but I

[1:02:29]

point that it's a power grab but I accept that power changes in any policy go ahead okay well then the question would be which political party tends to uh want to expand the bureaucratic state in order to make sure that these new policies are followed by us the people uh Democrats Dem Democrats go exactly so the Democrats are trying to expand the bureaucratic State and the stst philosophy of controlling the freedoms that we enjoy now so it's really so so do you think that uh Trump is doing uh trying to do border control to uh win the
the election is that is that his purpose to win the election uh I don't think it's necessarily to win the election I mean if you look at all the polls his solutions for getting control of the Border aren't necessarily uh have strong support among the majority of the

[1:03:30]

majority of the population right let me let me just say why I asked that question if you think that President Trump's intentions are to do something good for the country On the Border in other words that he that he really believes the policy yep it will also help him get elected he hopes that's just part of politics but he believes that it's a real thing with a with a real objective right you would say that about border security and the president would you agree with that point yes I would agree with that point however I would take issue with it for for this reason okay Donald Trump wanting to get control of the Border will not impinge on my freedom as an American citizen if the green deal passed hold on hold on so I I don't want to go too far a field into arguing the the Trump border stuff let's let's go back to the green New Deal the the only the only point I'm making the only point I'm making is that if you believe that the policy makes sense that then then you should be talking about the policy makes sense and of course if any politician does something that makes

[1:04:30]

politician does something that makes sense they would also probably get more power for that um so that would just be normal politics now I heard you making another point which was um it wouldn't affect you the Border stuff wouldn't affect you was that that was your point right right it wouldn't affect my own personal freedom if Donald Trump gets security of the border and we know who is coming or not coming the country what would it affect um would it affect would it affect the Electoral situation in this country in other words depending if immigration is more or less would that it slow down the demogra the demographic shift that we are currently experiencing right so in other words slowing down immigration would trans would keep power with Republicans or at least maintain their power base because they would not be letting in a lot of people who would end up voting for The Other Side so would you agree that whichever way immigration goes it'll either be a big advantage of power for the Democrats if

[1:05:31]

advantage of power for the Democrats if there's open immigration or it will be a way to maintain power for the Republicans because they'll limit the number of democratic voters coming into the country so would you agree that the immigration issue has a huge power element to it uh of course I would okay so the fact that there is a big transfer of power in the immigration issue doesn't doesn't make the president a a big old Power Grabber it means he's doing his job but there is an effect that that power power is affected by it now let's let's get back to the green New Deal so okay yeah go ahead go ahead yeah so I think we're in agreement on the fact that all big policies tend to shift power that's just built in you would agree with that would you yes I would agree with that okay and so however the difference if I may make a point quick the difference between the two topics is that Donald Trump getting control of the Border exerting his power

[1:06:34]

control of the Border exerting his power as the executive to do that is not going to further infringe on my rights as an American citizen the green new deal if it is passed will infringe on my freedoms as a citizen because they will control everything from what car I can drive to if I can fly an airplane to how much beef I'm able to eat every day so it's it's a little bit different I don't think they're the same so Chris you're you're not on the right topic so I I will agree with you that you will be affected by the green New Deal and it would uh it would change your options in life and your opportunities and and everything you just said so everything you just said I agree but it's not the topic the topic is being nominated for president that's nice the topic is the the topic is that the the belief that the the Democrats are doing it for power so that's the thing that you need to defend and I don't hear you defending that you just said it's bad for you

[1:07:34]

that you just said it's bad for you which I I'll make it simpler then okay everything that politicians do is an a quest for power yes would you said everything they do is or is not is in a quest for more power yeah it yeah our system allows that if the politicians do a good job as the citizens see it they almost certainly are rewarded with more power same with capitalism same with politics success gives you more power so we agree on that right yes we do PE people are saying that you slayed the question but you're not even on the right topic so I don't mean this to be an insult but Chris would you agree with me that you saying it's bad for you and reduces your your options that I first of all agree with that and and it would be true for me as well as it is for you but that is not the same would you agree as the question of are Democrats doing it primarily as a power grab those are different questions aren't they yes and

[1:08:35]

different questions aren't they yes and no on one hand the the the job of of government is to ensure our freedoms right and I think that the green New Deal well well Scott the Constitution was written to limit government's ability to infringe our freedoms yes or no all right you're uh can can you make this point succinct I'll I'll agree that freedom is built into the Constitution but but how does that have to do with the fact that your question about how it affects you personally is a completely different topic than the fact that the Democrats are trying to grab power because the grabbing of power in this instance is a limiting of my freedom which is against the principles upon which the Constitution stands all right so we're in complete agreement but we on the wrong topic quick Scott just real quick I just have to say that I only downloaded Twitter and Periscope so I could start following these conversations live I've been watching you on YouTube for years I I I I I

[1:09:38]

you on YouTube for years I I I I I resisted the temptation to download the Twitter and the Periscope but I only did it just so I could participate in these conversations thank really appreciate you taking my call keep up the good work Scott all right thank you Chris all right Chris was uh Chris was a good sport
and we're going to take next caller all right so this is interesting I I I'm watching the comments as we're talking what I saw was a completely different movie than at least what half of you saw I saw Chris talking about a completely different point which is that socialism is bad for Chris we all agree with that right there's probably nobody on here who doesn't who has a different opinion but was I ever arguing that socialism is good for Chris no it was just a different topic and yet as clearly as I say that's not talking about the Democrats wanting to grab power and not believing their own policies completely

[1:10:39]

believing their own policies completely different topic and see there's somebody Scott lost this one I'm looking at your comments Chris beat you up they're saying to me take the L Scott is there anybody on here who understands that Chris wasn't even on the same topic am I the only one who sees that is yeah everybody saying that Chris one so let me accept that the overwhelming opinion the overwhelming opinion is that he demolished me but isn't it also true he wasn't on the same topic is there anybody who will challenge me on that question somebody says what was the topic again the topic was are the Democrats pushing the green New Deal and climate change within it as a power grab is that their purpose and and they don't really believe in the programs Chris said socialism is bad for

[1:11:39]

programs Chris said socialism is bad for Chris are those even close to the same
topic all right so I believe that most of you are hallucinating and I mean that with love I'm not saying you're broken I'm not saying there's any flaw with your brain you you were operating as completely uh as completely normal human beings if you believe that it was a power grab what you heard on that conversation was completely different than what happened somebody says Chris was exactly on topic all right I gotta have I've got to ask another question I want somebody to come on here and explain to me why that's the same topic we we'll make it as simple all right somebody says he's off topic so there's at least one person who's not hallucinating I want somebody to tell me don't argue the the big case of whether you know about socialism just tell me that you think that's the same topic I want to take a a caller uh I don't know

[1:12:42]

want to take a a caller uh I don't know if the caller will be arguing that but I'll take Mark let's say and if Mark has a different point I might make it short uh Mark you there
did again did you see the the exchange with Chris okay I saw the whole thing and yes sorry you're right he was off topic but I'm going to pass media training and I'm not going to answer your question because your question is do the Democrats believe which puts me in a spot the mob I don't care what the mob believes is it a grasp against Freedom so do the rank and file Democrats believe it yes they do you are fully right on that but in the end and I I run for politics a couple times it is easier to control the less people there are to bribe so what happens is if you aggregate power it's easier then to

[1:13:45]

aggregate power it's easier then to bribe either with favor or with power or with money less individuals so will this Agate power Mark do you think Mark do you think I disagree with that actually no I just wanted to clarify because you're right in your question the Democrats the rank and file AOC she believes it but okay I don't care what the mob believes if you have a brilliant idea do you necessarily share all the details when it gets down to the Mob do they are they motivated by the same thing as your idea so will this reduce Freedom well let me let me clarify Mark are you saying that you believe the top Democrats let's say AOC and people pushing the green New Deal are you saying that their real secret objective is that once power is Consolidated in the government and more with more socialism they will be fewer people to bribe and it will give let's say AOC personally more power because

[1:14:46]

say AOC personally more power because she can bribe people easier connect the dots it will not give AOC more power because of that she will be used as a tool because of her skills but there are people that believe that they can make the best decisions for us all even though human history shows that maximum freedom is what moves us forward so who who are the people specifically who are plotting to get this power and manipulate to their benefit who who name and names Bernie Sanders absolutely believes that an elite group of people can make decisions he does believe it's better for people but he wants a small group to make it CU he would Implement things to reduce your personal choice so what you've described I agree with and what you've described is that Bernie uh prefers a certain kind of system that we would describe as as socialism and that's not in question so I think we

[1:15:46]

that's not in question so I think we agree can I ask you what your educational and or career background are just in in the simplest way what what was your major what what's your current career I started in Commerce I lived in Taiwan for a while I'm a chiropractor and I've run for political office twice and seen the back room and both sides all sides are disgusting Z and what and what's your educational background uh Commerce degree and Chiropractic degree Commerce degree okay thank you thanks you're awesome by the way thanks all right so um here's here's a little pattern to look for the people who are having trouble following my argument and and separating you know what's the green new deal and what's climate change and what's the power grab versus what's affecting Chris and stuff look for the professions yeah so you saw that Mark who had a background in Commerce where you learned decision-making and you

[1:16:46]

you learned decision-making and you learn to isolate things and you learned to look for the variable that's changing um that's generally a good background for understanding had to separate things and analyze things and you saw that when he came on he agreed with me totally as far as I know there was nothing in that last phone call that I disagree with even a little bit I mean he he moved the topic a little bit but it was just something I agree with now the people who were disagreeing with me and saying Scott Scott Scott you got everything wrong they tended to be writers and artists and musicians because they conflate there if you if your background is the Arts then everything seems to be connected and meaningful if your background is science or business or economics or engineering to give some examples your skill is to isolate and separate that's how you understand your world so the people who can isolate and separate tend to agree with everything I've said

[1:17:48]

I've said today and the people who see things as sort of connected don't have no understanding of the points I'm making that that it's almost like a their filter on the world is so different that's like my words don't even make sense right so uh somebody says scientists don't agree with you I don't know what point you're talking about but typically since my policy is usually to agree with Scientists I would say that's not right uh you didn't ask Chris about his career I did not but I wish I had all right somebody says that the last caller kicked my ass all he said was things I already agree with I don't know how that's an ass kicking um those of you who think that anything I said made sense what do you make of all the people who are saying uh I'm in crazy town now how do you process

[1:18:48]

I'm in crazy town now how do you process that I'm just wondering somebody says I'm a PhD physicist and I agree all right let me take one more caller and see if the profession is uh is predictive all right I'm going to take uh
uh Tony and when Tony joins us we're going to see if profession and background are or educational background
are predict I can hear you did um did you agree mostly with the things I've said about this topic or did you mostly disagree yes I agree with what you're trying to say my background is multiple degrees in engineering and uh I know that right I you said that right basically it's a matter of input versus output is the way I look at it like the intent versus the outcome right right so

[1:19:52]

intent versus the outcome right right so so what you just did there is a skill that is easy to you but I think we can see that some people just have never practiced it don't have it don't have any background you you very clearly zeroed in on the two things that needed to be separated right the intention and the outcome that's exactly what I've been saying and you with your training and your degrees in engineering you hear it the first time it's like oh yeah of course you're going to separate this from this and then look at them separately right so um that that's all I wanted to ask I want to see if I could try this again with a couple of other professions so but thank you thanks for coming on all right I'm going to take another one and see if this pattern holds um I'm going to pick Josh this could be trouble we'll see Josh can you hear me hi Josh what is uh let me ask you first if you've been following the grab thing yeah not really

[1:20:53]

following the grab thing yeah not really um did you I was about to cancel this uh I missed some of the
cont so all my contacts is from this Periscope late
so from what you saw did you think or was I in Crazy Town and and the people who were tell I was crazy were more On Target which did you feel uh yeah no I thought you're making and what is your educational background what's your degree what do you do for I'm mathematics major and I'm a math
is that that know how to separate things and is things all I wanted to ask Josh um
and all right um so look for this I guess the broadcast is breaking up anyway later

[1:21:54]

broadcast is breaking up anyway later today I'm going to do my tutorial on how to be a professional writer um you don't need to catch it live because it'll just be a little lesson you can you can replay at any time and I will talk to you later