Episode 482 Scott Adams: TDS, Chelsea Handler, New Trump 2020 Ad, AOC’s Accent, Immigration

Date: 2019-04-06 | Duration: 51:33

Topics

President Trump is a strong father figure Supporters find him protective, comforting, caring Haters FEAR the qualities of a strong father figure Chelsea Handler takes some personal responsibility for her TDS Tells Bill Maher she sought Psychiatric help for her TDS Whiteboard: TDS Awareness Scale Some things are ONLY a story because of partisan pundit framing NOT a coincidence how various media frames things Professional persuaders guide media framing of the news Media framing becomes their target audiences opinion You’ve likely been given your opinions by media you follow 2020…strong economy = reelection of sitting President, historically Tucker asks the question… How many is the right number of immigrants to allow in? Immigration: What are you trying to accomplish? How many immigrants would benefit the country? How many immigrants is too many? NOBODY can answer the most important question? Climate science says the RATE of temperature increase is unprecedented Why does their primary graph dispute their primary claim? “Probably”, “mostly”, in the explanation of science papers
Scientists were wrong about what drove temperatures in the past They looked for and found variables that validate PAST temps How confident can we be that NOW we understand everything? 97% agree…is more than a methodology issue Solar and Gen IV solutions are both worth developing and comparing

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

[0:08]

hey everybody it's time for I'm doing my uh announcer voice got to work on the announcer voice it's time now for coffee with Scott Adams yay all right gather around grab your mug your cup your glass Your Vessel your Stein your tanker your thermos fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me please for the simultaneous
sip somebody named suaver says my technique doubled your salary you would not be surprised to learn how many people have contacted me privately and said that I have doubled their salary that's a real thing by the way uh I don't know exactly which technique people are talking about um since I have two books that would do

[1:10]

since I have two books that would do that same thing one of them was how to failed almost everything and still wi big which teaches you had a combine uh average talents to be special I hear from a lot of people that they used my book and had tremendous Career Success uh doubled their salary fell in love all kinds of stuff and then people who read win bigle learn persuasion and then I'm hearing from a whole different crowd that they negotiated for a big raise or they convinced somebody to do something that was good for them so you'd be surprised how many people contact me on a regular basis and tell me that I did something like doubling their salary it's fairly common uh and it feels really good all right you all want me to talk about AOC and Her speech in which she allegedly took on what some people are calling some kind of a uh what's the

[2:12]

calling some kind of a uh what's the right word I'm trying to use a word that doesn't make me sound like a racist uh a black she spoke in a is it a dialect or an affectation so the accusation is that she tried to talk like her audience who were African-American and she was giving some kind of a speech uh yeah I don't know I can't even think of what's the what's the polite way to even talk about it accent doesn't seem right does it accent is that the right word yeah it seems like every word you use to even describe the situation sounds a little racist so let me apologize in advance if I've offended anybody by not using the right words uh simply because I don't know but 100% of the people I've seen talking about it um have said AOC is pandering

[3:14]

about it um have said AOC is pandering and this is way over the line uh and it and it borders on racism to adapt the audience's speaking style as maybe she sees it when in fact the audience is probably all different people who speak in all different ways here's my take on it you're not going to like it I'm sorry I I want to join you in hating all things AOC I would love to be with you on that I'd love to say every damn thing she does is is a is a nightmare and a mistake and and she's stupid and and nothing she does is right but it's just not true I just can't get there with you she does know how to do this stuff you know whatever you think of her uh of her uh policies she certainly knows how to handle the public she certainly knows how to be a politician really really

[4:15]

how to be a politician really really well uh I if you saw her um wine drinking uh Furniture building video live streaming she did recently just this week I think in which she was chatting and drinking wine and putting some shelves together some furniture or something and uh a lot of people sort of mocked it and I looked at that thing and I thought damn it she's so good at this so good at this it really was good and the thing I like best about it is that she was saying that people were complaining about her getting facts wrong so she had some fact wrong I forget something in the news wasn't terribly important and she said that she's 29 and she's still learning and she's going to get some stuff wrong and then she'll she'll figure out how to correct it and I thought to myself that is so

[5:17]

it and I thought to myself that is so damn disarming that is so disarming when she says I'm 29 I'm going to make some mistakes I'll fix them it's really that is exactly the right way to approach that you know especially if she's trying to convince younger younger people but let's get back to this uh this this accent here's my take on it definitely not racist and definitely not anything to worry about so it falls into the category of nothing to see here now I I did listen to the video and it's very much not her normal speaking voice so there's there's no question about it yeah there's no question that that she's putting on a voice for that crowd that is not the voice she uses in her normal politics but here's the filter I put on it have you ever had a friend or maybe you could say this is this is you I had

[6:17]

you could say this is this is you I had a friend once who who was raised in Texas but she had no Texas accent no Texas accent at all until she gets a phone call from her father who still lives in Texas and when she picks up the phone she has a thick Texas accent for the entire time she's talking to him and then she puts down the phone and it goes away instantly now how many people do you know that I just described that they don't have an accent in their normal life but when they talk to the people that they you know grew up with or where they where they're from they just sort of pick up the accent it's the most common thing in the world all right so her excuse which you don't you don't know in context is that this speech was given I guess in the Bronx or at least something that felt like home so she was using her home accent at

[7:19]

home so she was using her home accent at home now was she thinking about it consciously probably a little but probably it was also a little bit automatic in other words just the situation the people the other people in the room that she probably talked to before she went on stage and it probably just got her in the mode and she just started talking the way she she would have talked you know normally to that group so here's my here's my judgment on that nothing to see there any any accusation that that is some kind of a sign of racism is completely misplaced all it is is a normal thing that would happen to a normal person completely explained by by the the facts and evidence you don't you don't need to you don't need to imagine any new facts just the facts and evidence completely explain it yeah somebody says my wife's English in the US the same right it's a completely

[8:20]

US the same right it's a completely normal situation now because it's a political world and it's you know we're entering this political season I understand if people want to make fun of it and it becomes part of the conversation and people will send it around and have their opinions on it and it might even be a little bit influential to somebody but I doubt it so um to remain credible which is my primary goal uh I think I've told some of you before people sometimes ask why do I even do this you know why am I even talking on Periscope and tweeting and talking about Poli politics and uh one of my sub objectives is to become credible because there are so few people like that if I were to ask you who is the most credible person talking about the world and politics you'd probably just say somebody who's on your

[9:20]

somebody who's on your side and and the people who agree with you all the time are the least credible people in your life if there's somebody in your life who just always agrees with you
you politics they have no credibility at all the only credible people are the people who can be sometimes on both sides so it's a very small group and I would like to try to become part of that group so that when I disagree with you you'll say damn it I still disagree with him but I know he's not lying to me that's what I'm going for I'm going for I still disagree with you but at least I know you're not you know lying to me all right so enough on that um Chelsea Handler was on Bill Mah and I'm going to talk about the uh the Chelsea Handler uh TDS awareness scale so you may know the Chelsea Handler is has been one of the most uh vocal uh and often

[10:21]

vocal uh and often obscene uh critics of the president so much a Critic of the president that it looked like mental illness to all of us us and I say that not not as a put down I say that as an objective observation to most of us who watched her after the election and for a year or so it looked like you know we're not experts I'm it's it's not up to me to diagnose people's mental illness I'll just tell tell you how it looked as a non-expert it looked every bit like actual me mental illness it didn't look like politics and you probably saw lots of people who were in that same situation well on Bill Mah I guess it was last night she admitted that she did go into quite a tail spin after the election and she she said that she sought a psychiatrist help for about three weeks after and that she was in quite quite a bad mental state now Point number one I give her

[11:26]

state now Point number one I give her respect for saying this on television so she actually confirmed largely what we observed and here's the interesting part she took responsibility for it very unusual you know maybe with the help of her psychiatrist or whatever but um and she she even speculated and I'm I'm going to put less certainty on it than maybe she did but she speculated that it was actually um sort of a response in some way ways to Childhood um discomfort or uncertainty I guess her brother died when she was nine or something so she had some childhood situation that was very um uh what's the right word it she lost her Mooring she she she wasn't connected to the world a little bit it was uncomfortable didn't know her place for a while these are my own words I'm doing a bad job

[12:26]

own words I'm doing a bad job paraphrasing her so just just assume you're hearing an approximate version not not her version um and that she thought that the Trump election triggered past traumas and I and then and she basically was taking some responsibility for that now she wasn't saying everything Trump does is not bad suddenly she was saying that her reaction to it was an a place to the the actual thing that she doesn't like which she still doesn't like but her reaction was out of place you know it was exaggerated and it made me wonder about the bigger question I've told this story before but during before the election I remember sitting in a restaurant and there was a table next to me and they were talking about Trump and the election and there was a woman who was talking about how much she disliked him and I watched her in physical fear she had a fight or flight

[13:27]

flight reaction that she was describing at the table next to me but I could actually see it like her body was in fight or flight she was in complete mental distress that is not anything I've ever seen in a political conversation and what I what I uh I wonder based on listening to chelse Handler is how many people were triggered by Trump to be reminded of an entirely separate trauma in their lives for example if you were a woman and had had um let's say sexual assault you know any kind of a sexual abuse um problem any time in your life who is more likely to trigger that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump now even though Donald Trump wasn't there and you've never met him

[14:29]

wasn't there and you've never met him and he was never the cause of any of your problems who's more likely to remind you of it well he is you know love him or hate him he's more likely to remind you of a man who wouldn't take no for an answer that's sort of his brand Trump is a man who won't take no for an answer in in any way so I could totally see how that would trigger people and likewise people have racial feelings you could imagine how they would be triggered as well so it makes me wonder how many people were triggered but on top of that let's look at the other side how many people have said that Trump reminded them felt like a father figure there were a whole bunch of people who are who are Trump supporters probably male and female who feel as though he's he's emblematic of a strong father figure who flawed nobody says he's not flawed he's

[15:31]

flawed nobody says he's not flawed he's got his flaws but his strength and his consistency for some people compensate so it's like a father feeling it's a comfort it's a safety he's going to take care of us um so I just put that out there that maybe Trump is not even about politics you know maybe maybe we're fooled to think that how we feel about Trump has anything to do with politics you know there's obviously a team element people line up for their teams but you know so maybe people the way people vote was always going to be just what team they're on but how they feel about him is not Politics the way you feel about Trump is not because of his policies it's something about him and it's something about maybe your past or what he triggers because he's a good influencer and this brings me to the TDS awareness path and it goes like

[16:32]

path and it goes like this if you are at the lowest level of awareness about yourself and your reality and you have a bad feeling about Trump probably you're going to say that's Trump Stam faol Trump is doing this to me so this would be the the Chelsea Handler situation Trump he's he's what's making me mad he's the problem Trump is bad as you move up the awareness scale you get to where Chelsea hendler apparently is which she's saying I still don't like Trump I still don't like his policies and he's definitely doing stuff that that I don't like but now I understand that my reaction to him my my reaction is something about me now when I say my fault I mean it could have been things in her past that were not her fault but still she's understanding it's just not all about him sometimes it's about you those people who move up the

[17:35]

you those people who move up the awareness scale to hear say themselves wait a minute none of us would be feeling the way we feel except for the way the media um unfairly and illegitimately describes it you could take anything in the news that is triggering people about Trump and say and do this Here's a thought experiment take whatever you saw in the news you know on any topic about Trump something he said that was outrageous anything and just imagine if it had been explained in the news without opinion what if nobody had ever offered an opinion and they just said what he said you could take anything take his take his hole comment let's say somebody reported that Trump said that some of those countries are holes and let's say no pundit ever offered an opinion on that how long would that be a story 10 minutes that's it there would be no

[18:36]

minutes that's it there would be no story it's only a story because of the way people talk about it same with uh same with Charlottesville if he had simply come out and said his words I think there are some good people on both sides I think there are some both people on both sides but by the way I'm specifically not talking about the Nazis the neo-nazis and the white supremacists they should be condemned totally if the public read just the facts I'm not talking about those racists they should be condemned totally would they think that the president had just supported them nobody would think that because the words don't say that it wouldn't be there so once you realize that the way you
you feel is not just about Trump and it's not just about you those are factors of course but mostly it's it's about how the media has framed it once you understand that your opinions are not your opinions on on politics you you

[19:37]

your opinions on on politics you you have your own opinions on life in general and you know your personal life Etc but on politics there is no such thing as people having an opinion that's sort of their own opinion complete illusion nobody has an opinion that they didn't get from their preferred news sources you won't find it find something somebody who's got a unique opinion you haven't heard on the news can't find it and then the next level of awareness people who have read my book wind bigley are already there and you know that the way the media frames it is also not a coincidence it's because there are powerful influencers there are people who have created messages that have weapons grade power if you remember when uh Hillary Clinton was saying that everything Trump did was dark his speech is dark his vision for America is dark and I pointed out in wh bigley that that framing is not normal politics that was

[20:38]

framing is not normal politics that was a professional's work I of course have my opinion of who Godzilla is uh we've never had a confirmation never had a confirmation but if it's who I've identified it would be the strongest Persuader in the world the person who knows the most about it um so if if that's true or even if it's other persuaders the point still stands there are a small number of persuaders who the news takes their cues from you remember everybody in the news said um uh CH deini is the person that I speculate was Godzilla meaning an adviser to Hillary Clinton uh yeah Robert Chini wrote uh influence and uh persuasion the two books that are sort of the Bible of influence and persuasion so that kind of framing was picked up by everybody in the media the anti-trump

[21:39]

everybody in the media the anti-trump media and they all started saying dark at the same time it's dark it's dark it's dark the media didn't start that they got it from a Persuader and from the campaign but mostly the Persuader gave it to the campaign the campaign gave it to the media the media started talking and people flipped out so um I'm going to give Chelsea Handler credit for leaving the the first phase of TDS where she thinks everything is Trump's fault moving to the second phase where she says hey some of how I feel about this has more to do with me than it does with Trump she needs to go two more levels she needs to go to understand that the media gave her her opinions and that the op that the media got their opinions from a very strong Persuader and or maybe more than more than one now here's the
the irony uh Chelsea Handler was saying this on Bill Maher's

[22:40]

on Bill Maher's show Chelsea Handler was talking to Bill Maher who is more responsible for Chelsea Handler's feelings about Trump is it Trump is it Chelsea Handler herself is it Bill Maher that's right you know the old saying uh the best trick the devil ever played was convincing people he didn't exist Chelsea Handler was sitting next to the person who caused her all of her mental anguish and didn't know it she was actually talking to her personal Satan and didn't know it so she's not yet at the L of understanding where she knows and of course when I say Bill M Bill Mah is her Satan I mean that you know he's a standing for people who had who had sold an impression of trump to

[23:42]

who had sold an impression of trump to the world and because he sold an impression of a monstrous Trump and because she bought into it she became mentally mentally unstable he was her problem Bill Maher caused her mental illness and she talked to him telling him it was something else right in front of you if you watch that and you couldn't see that if you couldn't see that she was talking to her personal Satan and didn't realize it then you're probably somewhere down here right and once you move up to the media's fault you can tell that bill Mah is part of the problem again I'm just using him as a standin for people who had similar opinions and were in the media um I will say this about Bill Mah uh let me give him a compliment I'm trying to give I'm trying to be balanced in the sense that if I you know if I criticize anyone I like to throw in

[24:42]

criticize anyone I like to throw in something positive one of the reasons that Bill Maher is unusually powerful is because he doesn't always take the opinion of one side you've seen on a number of occasions Bill Mah get in a lot of trouble for not slavishly you know picking the side of some political party and because he's known for that that's sort of his brand you know he he's going to say what he thinks doesn't matter if you like it or not all right that's his brand and that makes him credible because if he has an opinion you know it's not just automatic you know that there's some thought behind it even if you hate it now I don't agree with a lot of his opinions but I will give them this they are a lot closer to Independent opinions than anybody else you're going to see on TV for the most part not anybody but all right let's talk about uh 2020 so there's a common feeling that if

[25:43]

2020 so there's a common feeling that if the economy is as strong as it is now there's no way that uh president Trump could not get reelected that it's unprecedented to have a strong economy and a president who can't win reelection to which I say you know what else is unprecedented everything yes it would be unprecedented maybe not like 100% unprecedented I don't know the exact statistics but the idea that a strong economy predicts reelection has been true forever but there's nothing that's the same about the Trump Administration everything about it violates some kind of pattern that we thought wouldn't get violated I mean the very fact that there's a non-politician who became president without any practice he had no practice being a politician and he just went his first job as a politician was

[26:43]

went his first job as a politician was President of the United States nothing nothing is you know we we can't look to the past the way we could before you know before you would have said all right Hillary Clinton raised this much money Trump had this much money well that's all you need to know the person who raises this much money is always going to win the election and then it didn't happen so I would suggest that the rule about the economy being predictive is a very strong Rule and and May and may still be predictive but don't get comfortable with that because what you have here is that the economy is getting baked into people's um taken for granted assumptions by by 2020 here are the things that people are not even going to think about anymore because they're not a problem right they're not going to think the economy is a problem because it probably won't be they're not going to worry about Isis at least the calipat

[27:45]

to worry about Isis at least the calipat because probably not much there they're not going to worry about North Korea because they haven't been testing anything for two years let's let's say that things go the same way that they're going they're not going to worry about out you know so a lot of things that Trump has accomplished he's not going to get credit for by 2020 yeah it won't it won't count against them but they're just going to feel comfortable that those things are just taken care of you don't you don't need to elect Trump to solve the problems that he already solved all right so his value as a president will go down because of his success I know this doesn't make sense but he's so successful UC F that he knocked out all the big problems that he would be good at handling what might be left in terms of problems that the country thinks are the big ones could be the things that he's not the best person for what happens if Trump solves this is just a thought

[28:45]

Trump solves this is just a thought experiment what happens if Trump solves every problem that's a big problem accept Healthcare now I'm not saying that that's going to happen it's just a thought experiment what if solved every Problem by Healthcare would he be the best choice for a president in 2020 answer maybe not because what is there about Trump that tells you he'd be the best one to solve health care nothing right there's nothing about anything he's done that would suggest he's the best choice for healthcare now he might not be the worst Choice then he might still come up with a good Plan before the election maybe the cutting of regulations and those things are very important but you don't necessarily think you know strongman Republican when you think who's my best choice to solve healthare so he may be a victim of his own success he might actually be the

[29:47]

own success he might actually be the most successful one one-term president in history that's entirely possible um however think lot will change between now and then maybe he comes up with a healthcare plan maybe he doesn't but I would be looking at Healthcare as uh the unusually high variable more higher variable than it's ever been before all right let's talk about um oh Tucker Carlson asked a question on his
his show that was a real mindboggler and it's a mindboggler because um I think I've asked the same question but he did a much better job of putting putting it in context and the question is this for the people who don't like President Trump's border security plans how many immigrants is the right number to let in and I thought wait a minute we don't

[30:49]

in and I thought wait a minute we don't know that you know I know that there would be maybe competing studies and people would have different opinions but if you if you disag age with the president's approach to the border and you don't have in your mind a number of people you know a number of immigrants that's the good number and above that is too many and below that maybe it's too few if you can't put a number on it you're not actually in the conversation if you can't put a number on it or even a range you know maybe the range is well up to a million is great you know I can't be more specific but let's say up to a million a year is actually we need that now keep in mind that I believe everyone who's informed about immigration would say that we do need immigration I think everybody agrees with that right and part of it is because you know we may not be breeding fast enough you need a a certain number of young people to pay taxes and take care of all the old people that are

[31:50]

care of all the old people that are coming so we need we do need to Young up the country like for it's a critical security safety purpose you have to Young up the country that I think all the experts agree on that the question is how many how soon what's the flow where do they come from those are good questions but I would contend that if you run into anybody who says president Trump is making a mistake on the border whatever that mistake is in terms of immigration you should ask that person can you give me the number of immigrants that's the right number because if you can't you don't have an opinion about immigration all you have is you're joining a team and you have mindlessly repeated what you heard on television television will not give you that framing of let's be let's be smart let's talk to the best economists let's let's look at other countries Let's uh

[32:51]

let's look at other countries Let's uh let's come up with an equation that says this number or this range of numbers is health healthy and then once you reach this point beyond that we don't know if that's healthy or not and then beyond this point definitely bad right because if you said let's let in 20 million people a year pretty much everybody would say whoa that's too much we can't handle 20 million a year if you said let's let in 10 people a year everybody would say sure it's just 10 people so where between 10 people and 10 million do we want to be because we can we can design a system that gets us there if we know what the target range is so I I say this until I'm you know passing out from talking too much but the Border issue is a problem of what do the experts say and then how do we get there if we don't know what the experts say and all we're talking about is how

[33:52]

say and all we're talking about is how to get there but we don't know where we're getting what the hell are we doing think about this if you don't know how many you want to come in every year how can you develop a system that gets you there you can't we're talking about the system completely independent of the specifications for the system no engineer does that if you're an engineer you start with what do you want to accomplish what are you trying to accomplish if you say what I'm trying to accomplish is to get rid of crime or drugs you haven't told the engineer what the engineer needs to do the engineer is not working with two variables crime and drugs they're not they're working with all the variables and one of the big ones is that immigration is a positive how much positive do you want and how much you know crime and drugs are you willing to put up with to get the positives of immigration give me a Range

[34:52]

positives of immigration give me a Range give me a number if you can't do that you're not in the conversation you don't need to agree or disagree with somebody who can't give you that number if somebody can't give you that number they're not even educated enough to have the conversation you should just excuse yourself from the conversation after you've asked them what their number is and when they avoid the question as Tucker's guest did when Tucker asked his guest the guest was a a Univision um I guess it was Enrique asedo he's a Univision anchor and tuer described him as an advocate for immigration I don't know if he described himself that way but the expert was good on television very knowledgeable about the situation when asked what is the number that you want to have for immigration only could change the subject and it was fascinating an expert an advocate somebody who's really close to the question wouldn't even put on a range

[35:53]

question wouldn't even put on a range and that's how you know it's illegitimate conversation let's talk about my continuing Deep dive into the question of who is full of it on climate change who is lying more the Skeptics or the scientists I have a new finding so remember I had challenged the uh climate alarmist folks on two questions one of the questions I have an answer on and I'm going to share it with you now one of the claims of climate science as I understand it as a non-scientist is that CO2 is the problem because the rate of increase in the temperature recently is is unprecedented so would most of you agree that that's the claim that the claim is not that it's getting warmer no nobody's saying climate climate is a problem simply because it's getting warmer because everybody understands climates go through phases

[36:55]

understands climates go through phases and if this is the warming phase that doesn't necessarily mean that humans are involved so just the fact it's getting warmer no scientist says that means anything just by itself it's the rate of warming it's the rate of warming that makes it scary because it's unprecedented and I said why do people keep showing me official climate change graphs of warming over time which clearly show on the graph that our current slope is not unprecedented because you can go back to I don't know it's the 40s or something and just look at it and it's same slope same slope you can just look at it with your eyes and say uh wait a minute your whole claim is that recently there's a high slope and that wasn't the case before but then you showed me a picture and there's that high slope right there you're the very thing that's your primary claim is falsified by your primary graph what the hell am I missing

[37:57]

primary graph what the hell am I missing so said how to explain that so I did get an answer to that and the answer goes like this there have been other times in even the last 100 years when the temperature's gone up at the same rate let me say that again climate scientists agree that our current rate of increase in temperature is in fact not
not unprecedented what I thought was the primary claim of climate science is not it is not a claim that the temperature rise is unprecedented because their own graph shows it's not but they explain the other Rise by saying that other things were were in play and the other things were um volcanic volcanic activity and the other things were uh I guess um oone layer other greenhouse gases so there were o there were other variables that were also important back

[38:59]

variables that were also important back then but in current times those other variables have calmed down so the only one that's the only one that would explain the current increase is CO2 but let me let me and then uh one of my favorite uh climate scientist explainers who's not a scientist but he does a great job of finding studies and putting things in layman's uh terms he sent me to an article that explains this explains how the variables were different in say the 40s and here's some of the language from it says the first slowdown which might have been the one prior to the 40s but the first slow down the nominal pronounced cooling was probably dominated by natural Eno IPO cooling probably so in other words when there when the scientists are explaining prior levels that had some Cooling they said probably is that the way it gets

[40:00]

probably is that the way it gets explained to you do when the scientists say that the world is going to hell do they say probably we probably know what's going on here you know you have to find that word probably in in a lot of bit scientific text now that probably was about one cooling period so they're not saying that probably explains all of it just just this one period um so it says uh warming was mostly now it's talking about uh 1951 to 1975 they're talking about that period it says the warming was mostly offset by natural cooling owing to a decline in the Amo and increased volcanic forcing mostly offset mostly okay um this so basically and it goes on to say that there's once you've included other greenhouse gases once

[41:02]

included other greenhouse gases once you've included pollution once you've included volcanoes and once you've included elino events then it all makes sense and that none of those factors explain the current situation here's the problem here's the problem as a non-scientists looking on and we're trying to understand what's true do you feel lied to about the main claim of climate scientists cuz I do I I've been believing for years that the primary claim of climate science is that the temperature currently is going up at a rate that's unprecedented absolutely untrue Apparently that is not what the climate scientists think so now that I know I've been lied to for years about the primary claim of climate SST and when I say lied I don't mean that there was any particular person who

[42:02]

that there was any particular person who said ah I'm going to tell something that's not true I think maybe it's because they tried to simplify it possibly is it you know the most charitable explanation is that people were trying to simplify all of these variables and to say well it's unprecedented but really they meant unprecedented in only the sense that this is the only time we see CO2 being the main driver so that was a big clarification that I've not heard before once you throw that in it's a lot less persuasive isn't it because let me let me reframe everything I've just told you and I'm not going to try to add any new facts I'm just going to frame them a little bit
bit differently we used to think we knew exactly what was happening to change temperatures in the past 100 years we used to think we knew it turns out we were wrong so we had to go back and we found extra variables which one we plug

[43:03]

found extra variables which one we plug them in it fits we're now looking at the most recent years but this time we're sure it's just this one variable if they were wrong the last time not the last time but when they looked at the past about what was driving temperature then and they had to go look for new variables because there weren't enough to explain what they were seeing they stopped St looking for variables when plugging them in got them got their graphs to fit the past today they've got this one variable and they're pretty sure that they have all the other variables under control how would they know if there's a variable they're missing because in the past they were missing variables and the only way they figured it out is that the temperature and the prediction were so far different that's the only way they knew they were missing variables what if they're missing variables today because today we're looking at more of a

[44:05]

we're looking at more of a prediction you can't say hey your prediction is wrong in the future so you better add some variables because you don't know if it's wrong we're talking about the future so given that we know they had to add variables in the past to make it all make sense how confident can you be that they have figured out all the variables that are currently affecting things well it completely shoots my confidence out of the water if they if they had to add variables to explain the past and they don't need to add variables to explain the present because the present hasn't really turned into the future enough like we haven't seen the difference between what we say the temperature should be and and the predictions because the future isn't here yet
I'm going to say that it's looking sketchier but I will say that the question of why there is that rate of

[45:06]

question of why there is that rate of increase has been answered so asked and answered so I would say that that has been answered we U I'm down to one one challenge left for climate science and I haven't heard a response to it it's possible that somebody answered it online and I didn't see it so if somebody saw an answer to this please please please let me know uh the Skeptics say or some do that the Russian uh prediction model is the only accurate one so far based on recent temperatures and recent predictions it's the only one that is accurate and it's the only one n of 31 or so it's the only one that doesn't predict a problem with climate change it predicts warming but not the dire warming that all the others do and I've said is that true CU it's a claim but like every claim in climate science I don't know how much you could believe it so I'm that's still an open question if it's the only model that has

[46:07]

if it's the only model that has predicted accurately I need to know that so if anybody knows that let me know all right uh any other questions that is the end of the topics that I wanted to talk
the 97% came from papers yeah you know the problem with the 97% is not just the problem that I hear people complaining about people say that when the 97% of climate scientists to agree with anthrop anthropomorphic global warming is not just in the methodology not just in how they identified who these scientists were but the question asked if the question had been do you believe that the uh that there will be dire consequences from climate change I

[47:08]

dire consequences from climate change I think you get a different percentage than asking just does it exist asking does it exist would include all the Skeptics or most of them the vast majority of the Skeptics say oh yeah global warming is real you know the uh you know the the greenhouse effect that's real that's all well demonstrated we just don't think we can predict it and it doesn't look like it's going to be as bad as you say so uh I'd like to know how that question was asked and and I'm also really curious why has nobody ever done a survey asking the right question you know sometimes you just wait for things to happen because you think it's obvious it's like well if nobody likes the 97% question why didn't some why doesn't somebody just ask the right question you know do you think it's an emergency Etc all right so uh let me hit one more topic here uh the debate about whether we should pursue generation for

[48:10]

whether we should pursue generation for nuclear or we should go for solar as the primary way to address climate change risk or potential risk so which way is the most economical way to go uh solar or Generation 4 if you said either one of them you failed the test because since both of them are for the most part they're funded by Private Industry I'm sure there's a government element on there but most of the money is probably coming from private investors if that's the case the answer is obvious you do both as hard as you can if anybody says do solar and not Generation 4 well well that's just dumb if anybody says do Generation 4 and don't do solar well that's just dumb that's dumb CU if climate change is as big a problem as people say you better do every freaking thing you can do and

[49:12]

do every freaking thing you can do and right away anything short of that is not believing it's a problem and likewise if you say well let's just do the one of them or one of them we think will be better in the long run so let's just do that one that the world doesn't work that way you'd be lucky if you went as hard as you could at all of our Solutions you'd be lucky if one of them worked you know because it's a it's a complicated world and even things you think should work don't always go the way you think so you should do everything you can so long as it doesn't become a resource shortage if you have only one pot of money and you're going to use it up then you have to pick you you've got to be a little smarter about what things you do but uh as long as we could do both it's not a debate is it it shouldn't be a debate at all there's there's no question we should do both says me all right solar isn't

[50:12]

both says me all right solar isn't nationally practical or economic here I have heard from uh I guess two billionaires who are putting serious money into the green energy field they would disagree and they would say that given the rate of improvement and given various things that green energy actually um will become the most economical um I would say I don't agree with that or disagree I would say it's unknowable if you were going to do a long-term economic analysis of solar you know which would include battery storage and you were going to or some kind of battery storage it doesn't have to be a physical battery it could be energy it could be pumping water up a hill any kind of storage facility so if you were to analyze that over 80 years versus all forms of nuclear over 80 years you would be an idiot because nobody can tell the

[51:13]

be an idiot because nobody can tell the economics of either one of those things in 80 years it is unknowable which of those would be the smart one in 80 years you just can't know so you do them both and you see which one which one wins all right that's enough for now uh and I will talk to you later