Episode 487 Scott Adams: Assange, Kerry vs Massie on Climate Change, Barr on Spying

Date: 2019-04-11 | Duration: 44:52

Topics

Newsweek, most despicable headline in history? Candace headline in landscape versus portrait mode Oliver Stone tweets his support for SAFE Gen IV Nuclear Power Stone says wind and solar doesn’t have same potential Julian Assange arrested Obama commuted his co-conspirator, Chelsea Manning Does Pro-Trump Assange have juicy info? Kim Kardashian wants to become a lawyer, pursue activism Huge respect for her as a hard working, good person Like Kanye, she’s a VERY hard worker, deserves respect
“Predicated” reasons for the spying, was spying justified? We’re past the question of whether or not spying happened Cringe-worthy climate change testimony MIT Engineer Rep. Massie’s weak climate change challenge Kerry’s answer wasn’t so smart or informed either, embarrassing OUT OF CONTEXT propaganda hits Candace taken out of context on Hitler, propaganda hit “Fine People” hoax was an out of context propaganda hit “Animals” hoax was an out of context propaganda hit The media and both political parties do it ALL THE TIME Tony Heller and climate change skepticism Michael Mann mocking me for my lack of scientific understanding Open question: The troposphere isn’t warming as CC predicts - True?

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

[0:07]

pom pom pom pom pom hey everybody come on in here we got news this morning it's newsy all over the place hey can may Tyler hey Joe good to see you Jules Andy Andrew and Robin come on in grab your containers you know a container such as a glass a cup mug could be a tea cup a tankard could be a Stein the chalice or a thermos but whatever it is fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now please for the simultaneous sip one of the best parts of the day so good what a way to start today how about that so let's start with a so-called publication called Newsweek who who printed the most despicable headline you've ever seen maybe ever it

[1:10]

headline you've ever seen maybe ever it might be it might be the world's most despicable headline you know what show it's a year so if I turn my phone sideways and it goes into landscape mode the it's a Newsweek tweet and the headline for the tweet says Donald Trump jr. praises Candace Owens for her defense of Hitler comments now if you don't read the word comments it looks like she's defending Hitler which did not actually happen but here's the fun part that's what it looks in landscape mode turn it this way if you turn it this way a word gets cut off and now the tweet the tweet says I'm gonna read the tweet exactly as it shows up now now that I've turned it to portrait Donald Trump jr. praises Candace Owens for her defense of hillier that's actually what it says if you turn at this orientation this way its defense

[2:12]

this way its defense Hitler comments which is just just as bad I mean I mean that's that's as bad as you can get for a despicable headline if there's anybody in the world who doesn't know Candace didn't do anything like that she did nothing like defending iller not she didn't defend Hitler comments she defended her comments but really this way she defended Hitler this way she defended Hitler comments about Hillary not much better but certainly different un-frickin'-believable a couple of updates we'll get to Julian Assange a moment couple updates on generation four nuclear it is not my imagination that people are talking about it you saw it yesterday on Fox News the five Greg Gutfeld did an excellent job of summarizing generation four as being

[3:15]

summarizing generation four as being free of risk of meltdown and eating nuclear waste for its fuel so when do you see an idea like that cross into mainstream conversation and it's just on TV then you you can feel that it's is moved from things that geeks talk about into things that the mainstream talks about now I should confess that I intentionally put some nuclear nuclear power content in Dilbert so the Dilbert comic I think it was last week had Dilbert inventing a safe nuclear device that nobody would believe was safe now I didn't call the generation four because it wasn't it was a little tabletop device that Dilbert invented in the comic now part of the reason I did that is actually strategic for the benefit of the world and it works like this you

[4:17]

the world and it works like this you probably don't know this but over the years Dilbert has been used in actual court case so did the Dilbert cartoon has been used as evidence in court cases to show that the public should have known about something because it's such general knowledge that it's in a Dilbert cartoon for example there was a court case in which somebody was being sued some employer for pretending that they didn't know that the the y2k bug needed to be dealt with and so the whoever took them the court said everybody should have known that it was common knowledge so you can't say you didn't know it was going to be a problem everybody knew it and part of that court case was they presented a Dilbert comic to say it's so it's so in the public domain that it said that it's in the Dilbert comic without any explanation which it was so

[5:17]

without any explanation which it was so and that's not the only time that a Dilbert comic has been used to convince the jury that something should have been understood by an average person now nuclear is moving into the Dilbert comic because it's part of what I want to do which is to move the conversation into the public domain get it out of the wonky scientific domain get it into the voters domain where something could actually happen on a political level so the fact that it's appeared down on Fox News is important because it's and the fact that it was just referred to as generations or as if maybe you readers should already know what this is you don't not everybody but you can see that a crossover has happened it's crossed from wonky scientific and somebody is saying in the comments to something that you say to yourself huh if that was out in Fox News and it's being talked about in the Dilbert comic

[6:18]

being talked about in the Dilbert comic maybe I should find out what this means yeah maybe I should just figure out what it's about and there was another news on nuclear yeah so Oliver Stone more Niner tweeted this yesterday so famous director Oliver Stone tweeted out one day ago and this is the important part it's one day I go so so look at all the stuff that's happening at the same time you said that hashtag nuclear energy provides the answer wind and solar power power simply cannot within 20 years us can convert slashing greenhouse gas and decarbonized blah blah so details don't matter but Oliver Stone is saying nuclear is a solution
and if Oliver Stone who is really quite famous as being a lefty and but he's a

[7:21]

famous as being a lefty and but he's a he's a pretty Providence on left if he's going down hard on nuclear first of all let's let's give Oliver Stone some props whether you like his work or you like his opinions or you don't like what he does or doesn't do there's one thing you can't say about Oliver Stone you can't say he's not brave he's better in the military he's he's buck tradition in the number of ways he's a brave guy so I would consider this yet a continuation of his service to the country I mean he was he was literally in in the military service and this seems at the same level it's the same level this is a service to the country and I would thank him for that so nuclear seems to be catching on in these people's minds we'll see more of that let's talk about Julian Assange Julian Assange has you know got picked up at the Ecuadorian Embassy where he

[8:21]

up at the Ecuadorian Embassy where he had up until now had some asylum and he will probably be turned over to American justice system unless he can get the the Brits do not do that now here's what's interesting i tweeted at first when the initial story broke they showed the photos of you a beer didn't bedraggled looking Assange being taken out and he didn't look he didn't look healthy but they didn't mention the charge and now the charges been mentioned and the charges that he allegedly conspired which is an interesting word he conspired with Chelsea Manning to hack into a government top-secret account and get some information to give to WikiLeaks about I guess Afghanistan and Iraq Wars now here's this is an interesting

[9:24]

now here's this is an interesting question so first of all it's not an espionage charge which would be you know a death sentence and it would be a top-shelf kind of a charge and he's not being charged for publishing the information which is good but he is being charged for being part of the stealing of it which is pretty serious stuff it could be a five-year maximum charge I understand but I don't know the details yet and we're all in the fog of war so I'll just throw out some things maybe you can fact check me in real-time Chelsea Manning got pardoned right for the crime that Assange is being accused of participating in do I have that right is it true that he's being charged with a crime that his co-conspirator co-conspirator was pardoned for now a lot of people will say that pardon

[10:24]

lot of people will say that pardon shouldn't have happened they'll be disagreement with it but let me ask you this if you put me on a jury trial and you say I'm not even going to tell you the details of this case I'm just gonna tell you one fact his co-conspirator was pardoned and I'll say well what's even the charge what are you charging it with you don't even need to know this could be my whole defense my whole defense is that the guy you did it with the exact same crime was pardoned by the president and the jury says that's it you're not gonna tell me even what the case is you're not even gonna tell me what the crime is you're not even gonna tell me what he allegedly did that's it that's your whole defense yeah that's what whole defense my whole defense my whole defense is that his co-conspirator has already been pardoned by the president of prior present how in the world do you

[11:28]

of prior present how in the world do you find 12 people to put this guy in jail how in the world can you get 12 citizens to say this guy Assange needs to go to jail and so I think I have to raise at least the possibility that were not yet seeing the endgame here let me draw a picture of it there had been talk I don't know a year ago whatever happened there had been talk about Assange offering to president Trump some valuable information in return for a pardon that offer was never taken up so what we do know is that Julian Assange has at least alleged that he has valuable information that we don't yet know about that would be so good it would be worthy of a pardon for stealing top-secret american information which may have gotten somebody killed that's

[12:30]

may have gotten somebody killed that's how good it is it's that good now do you think under the conditions that the president is looking for you know the spies who spied against him he has a WikiLeaks leader who apparently was Pro Trump during the election Assange was apparently anti-clinton Pro Trump he also has information that Trump would probably really like to hear at exactly the right time to hear it could there be a better time for Assange to have some information he wants to trade I don't think so so yeah the timing is interesting and the charge is interesting and the low level of risk is interesting in other words it's not a conspiracy it's not a espionage charge with a potential death

[13:32]

espionage charge with a potential death sentence sort of a small charge relative to what it could have been now we're still in the fog of war so anything I say about this topic subject to being completely wrong and you know falsified the next five minutes but it's feeling like the whole the whole plan is a pardon in return probably for some information so my guess is I'll turn this into a prediction here's my prediction either Assange doesn't go to jail you know beyond the time at the trial I assume he would not get in on bail I don't know but I don't think he'll be jailed for the offence you may be jailed while he's waiting for it to be settled but I don't think he's going to jail or if he does it'll be some reduced kind of you know six months or a year or something like that but I feel

[14:34]

year or something like that but I feel like the point of picking him up was not to put him in jail that's what it feels like now some of you are screaming at me Seth rich that's rich and we might find out something about that I wouldn't I wouldn't count on that necessarily being the the thing we find out I'm not on board with the Seth rich conspiracy theory but you know Assange might know more than we do about that so at least we might find out more than we don't so yeah he's basically already been in jail somebody said in fact the Ecuadorian Embassy was like a jail so somebody says maybe to protect him yeah I'm starting to think that the endgame might be to find out what he knows that might be the the major thing and it might be that Assange doesn't necessarily know what anybody's thinking about this so you

[15:35]

anybody's thinking about this so you might be genuinely afraid but it's gonna get interesting when we find out what he knows so the fact that he's apparently Pro Trump in at least in some ways I don't I don't think Assange is completely you know on board with all Trump policies or anything like that but he certainly didn't like Hillary Clinton that's for sure all right here's some interesting news Kim Kardashian is looking to become a lawyer she's already been I guess interning or something with a law firm in San Francisco and she wants to take her activism to a more powerful level by actually becoming a lawyer to which I say that is exactly why I've always been her fan I've always been a Kim Kardashian fan and never because of the

[16:37]

Kardashian fan and never because of the the show or the content the reality show never because of you know her looks or you know her beauty you were fashion it was never because of a of that stuff because I'm not really into any of that that's not my deal I'm not disparaging it it's good entertainment people like it that's great it just hasn't been my personal thing well I have always had tremendous respect for her as a an entrepreneur as a well-meaning personality as a good person and watching her take take what she's developed you know a brand wealth there the ability to get attention and then watching her apply that to such productive parts of the world you know she's worked with Van Jones on justice reform and she looks to probably take that even larger and and I thought to result thought to myself you know good for her like what a great role model somebody who did her you know work hard and you

[17:38]

who did her you know work hard and you know the biggest complaint about Kim Kardashian was always unfair the that and it always bothered me tremendously people would say that she doesn't work that she doesn't work Kim Kardashian she probably works harder than anybody you know you probably have never met anybody who works as hard as her as many hours or as difficult you just seen the fun parts on TV all you see is yeah she's putting on clothes and she shows up somewhere and you know she's and she just loses her life and they film it and she gets rich Oh trust me you know I spend enough time as a celebrity to know that the stuff you see is not the work the stuff you see is everything she did so that the two minutes you saw her on screen look good and you cared and you were interested it takes a lot of work to keep that machine running and I she never got enough credit for that by the way I would say the same thing because speaking of Kim

[18:39]

the same thing because speaking of Kim Kardashian makes me think of Kanye which makes me think of a lot of the famous rappers jay-z etc and one of the things that I don't think rappers in particular especially the most successful ones I think the thing that they don't get enough attention about is the level of hard work there's probably nothing that's more inspirational good for the country healthy for the healthy for the world than to see role models work hard just put in hard hard work Kanye is a hard worker right jay-z is a hard worker and he's not stopping with neither of them are stopping within their lane they're doing hard work and then they're expanding their hard work and then when they're done with that they do more hard work it's like they can't stop working hard insanely good role models on the hard work side of

[19:42]

role models on the hard work side of things all right the other news is that Bob Barr used the word spying in his congressional testimony they said worried about the spying he said yes spying on the Trump campaign so he believes that spying happened but he doesn't know if it was quote predicated which is a good lawyer term which means that it might have been legal and justified and it might been totally appropriate if they had good reasons but apparently he is not convinced yet he's looking into it but he's not convinced yet that those reasons were sufficient and predicated to use his word and of course the Democrats are having a little having a little meltdown yes I think meltdown is the right word because things could get really interesting and it looks like they are

[20:43]

interesting and it looks like they are gonna take seriously looking into how all of this came about it's not going to look good it's not gonna look good it was but we're gonna find out some stuff and it makes you wonder if there's anything that Assange knows that goes do you think there's anything that Assange knows that is connected in any way to what Bob Barr was saying about the spine not not directly the spying part but just about the the coup attempt against the government and by the way I'm normally I'm kind of careful to say alleged and that's a good practice if you talk in public you should use the word alleged as often as possible it keeps you from being sued but when it comes to the allegation that there were people trying to overthrow the government I don't know that you need to talk about that as an allegation anymore now you could say you don't know exactly

[21:44]

now you could say you don't know exactly who was thinking you're doing what you know you don't know what was in their minds you know there's a lot we don't know but aren't we passed the question of if it happened we're past that right we're now at the position where we're saying yes there was an actual attempt to overthrow the government of the United States an actual attempt to do it I think that's a done deal we just don't know exactly who did what or who's guilty of what all right there was a great clip of representative Thomas Massie Republican grilling John Kerry Democrat on the topic of climate change it was a cringe-worthy exchange because I couldn't like either people unfortunately I've learned just enough about climate change and you know if if the climate change topic is this big you

[22:44]

the climate change topic is this big you know III know just this a little bit a little bit of a corner of a slice of a grain of sand of the larger topic but even I know that both of the people in that conversation were seriously messed up
up alright so Massie I think he actually understands the topic he may have some scientific credentials yeah he's an MIT engineer so he's a smart guy but he wasn't so smart when he was talking about climate change but I'm not sure you could tell likewise Kerry's answer was not so smart but I don't know if the public can tell but here's my problem so Massie was giving Kerry a hard time because in the largest in the history of the earth co2 had been far higher than it is now far higher and yet the world evolved and and humans came around etc

[23:45]

evolved and and humans came around etc so Massie was challenging Kerry on climate change by saying there was far more co2 in our you know in our millions of years ago past so co2 can't be that deadly and Kerry's answer is but there weren't any people then okay those are the two stupidest things you've ever heard on climate change both of those the question and the answer are the two stupidest things you'll ever hear on climate change and even I know like it again this is climate change this little this little speck is how much I understand about it and even I know they were both being frickin stupid in public about climate change there's smart guys you know I'm not saying that there are unintelligent people but on this topic oh my god it was embarrassing here's what's wrong with it the climate change claim from the scientists is that there

[24:47]

claim from the scientists is that there were a lot of different variables in the distant past the Sun was not as bright for example there were other greenhouse gases there were volcanic activities there were a whole lot of variables that were distant they were different in the distant past such that having high co2 was not the same thing as having size high co2 with our current set of variables now I just explained it better than Massey or carried it which is science has a perfectly good explanation now it could be wrong I'm not saying the science gets it right every time but they do have a completely rational detailed well studied explanation of why it makes complete sense that there was tons of co2 in the millions of years ago past when a lot of other variables were different too so that it wasn't the dominating thing but now our variables are largely set meaning they're not changing that much over a hundred years

[25:47]

changing that much over a hundred years in any hundred year period you're not that the sun's the sun's brightness is not changing that much the other greenhouse gases haven't changed that much the only one that's changing and changing a lot is co2 and since they know that's a greenhouse gas of some of some amount the scientists have decided that that's clearly identified as the current cause now here's the problem Kerry was unable to describe what I just described and I'm a freaking idiot on climate change like I don't know anything about climate change this much and even I knew more than Kerry say at least I could have answered that question in public more than that I would not have been dumb enough to ask the question because I already knew the answer all right now I don't know the details of which gases and how they interact but that's that's not for the politicians or the citizens to answer that is for the scientists we'll

[26:52]

answer that is for the scientists we'll get rid of all caps boy goodbye caps boy now I want to introduce you a very offensive thought to most of you because I know there are a lot of climate sceptics here and I had said a while ago something that didn't sound maybe convincing to you when I first said it so I'm gonna introduce something that didn't sound credible the first time you heard it maybe it was months ago but it might sound a little bit more credible today and let me give you some context you saw how Candace Owens was taken out of context to make it sound like she supported Hitler which of course never happened you saw how the president was taken out of context talking about ms-13 until they made it sound like he was calling all immigrants animals and of course that didn't happen

[27:54]

animals and of course that didn't happen you saw how the the words fine people that the president used talking about charlottesville was taken out of context to make you sound like he was calling neo-nazis fine people but again that didn't actually happened and was taken out of context now how many examples do I have to give you where people on the right were taken out of context before you'll understand that that's normal it's not the exception it's not the exception being taken out of context in in very you know ordinary language animals find people you know whatever statements about nationalism that Candace made these are all normal words in normal language and we're taken completely out of context all right do you think do you think this only happens to people on the right do you think that only conservatives are taken down in context if you think that

[28:58]

taken down in context if you think that you have a serious problem with your worldview both sides are taken into context all the time it's the most normal thing happening so if you can't identify any time that that's happened on the Left you're missing a huge part of reality right if you're looking at all the things that people have said on the other side of the political aisle and none of it looks like it's taken out of context you don't know what's going on because it is I'm going to talk about Michael Mann and the famous emails about climate change in which somebody writing to Michael Mann used the words I used your trick to quote and it's a different sentence but he was talking about hiding the decline meaning there was something a temperature reconstruction that for a period of time the the tree rings were

[30:00]

period of time the the tree rings were no longer predictive or they didn't move with temperature and they know that so they tried to adjust for some data that they knew to be bad and they were confident was bad and they publicly said why they were adjusting it and why they didn't trust it and what they did to adjust it now people said well there we have the smoking gun right there we have a climate scientist saying they're gonna use a trick no I'll get rid of these trolls more trolls as usual so when I read it I said wait a minute I'm reading the same emails you're reading and I don't see anything you're saying I'm looking at exactly the same language and I see a scientist saying that he's using a trick which I interpret in the ordinary way language is used trick meaning method that's exactly why I saw a trick it's just a casually built he means he's using a

[31:01]

casually built he means he's using a method and then when he said he was hiding the decline I took that in context because it's casual language with people who understand what they're talking about that there was something that they couldn't explain and they couldn't publish it without explaining it without hiding it they needed to hide it now that's not a word you would use in public but in private its they all knew what they were talking about they weren't trying to there's no there's no evidence that they were trying to fool the public the evidence is they were trying to inform the public as best they understood the real situation so that was my original interpretation is that there was nothing to see there it was just ordinary language in an ordinary email that told you nothing I just saw a video of Michael Mann for the first time I'd never seen this before in which Michael Mann was asked to explain those same two terms and he explained them just the way I did I had never seen that

[32:03]

just the way I did I had never seen that before now here's the thing if I read ordinary language and I say yes that's just ordinary language and then the person who was involved with this as historian language there's nothing there I'm feeling pretty confident that it was just ordinary language now if I had come to a completely different impression and that I heard Michael Mann come up with some explanation that didn't in any way map to what I thought it was well then not have some questions - but his explanation of it was exactly what I saw the very first time I saw it it's like there's nothing here are you imagining something because there's nothing here it's just an email from some people working on climate science I don't know if they're right or wrong but there's nothing in this email don't worry about here's what's important those emails have been used by many skeptics as the The Smoking Gun aha we finally found it in their own words in their own words they have said that they're really trying to fool the

[33:03]

that they're really trying to fool the public it's just not there it's not true that Candace Owens was praising Hitler it's not true the President Trump called regular immigrants animals it's not true the president Trump called neo-nazis in charlottesville fine people and it's not true that there's some smoking gun about climate change in which the scientists themselves have admitted it doesn't work or that there's there's something they're hiding it just isn't true
suddenly says didn't those emails cause Judith Curie to doubt agent W narrative I can't speak to what Judith Curie believes or doesn't believe but I would not say that somebody is crazy to wonder what those emails mean it's not crazy to ask the question but once the question is asked and you hear the answer from the person who knows who knows what those meant and it's perfectly ordinary why would you believe the extraordinary

[34:05]

why would you believe the extraordinary version who would believe the extraordinary version when there's just a perfectly ordinary one alright what would it be extraordinary the Candice Owens an educated black woman who speaks in public for a living praise hillier now I mean you don't need to know the details to know that didn't happen would the president call all immigrants animals no no he wouldn't you don't need to know the details to know
that didn't happen would the president go on television and say that neo-nazis who were chanting anti-semitic things while he has no family members were Jewish did he go and say that they're fine people no you don't need to hear the truth you don't need to look at the transcript you don't need to see the details on the surface it couldn't have happened it's so ridiculous you should not believe something that ridiculous when you hear it you should assume there's something wrong with the story the moment you hear it same with

[35:08]

story the moment you hear it same with the Climategate emails so if you learn anything from this it's that the the credibility of a message and the quality of a message depends entirely upon the context and the messenger if the messenger is not reliable it doesn't matter what you say nobody's going to believe it if the content has changed your the way your mind recognizes reality maybe it's time for a new truth to go through the same hole that was created by some other truth all right so you have most of you have gained a really completely new understanding of how badly you've been misled by ordinary language and watching bad people take ordinary language and turn it into an insane story that you should just discount the moment you hear it all right let me add one more topic I

[36:09]

it all right let me add one more topic I think sorry my computer time down here bear with me speak among yourself talk among yourselves all right you may have seen that the jobs reports are incredible yeah and by the way yeah let me talk about Tony Euler because you mentioned him so Tony Heller is the I I've identified him as the most persuasive skeptic of climate change but he has he has won credibility problem - he has - credibility problems that I can't get past number one he sees intention where I don't see it so he sees intention in the emails but I don't see it he sees intention in the data being changed from

[37:12]

intention in the data being changed from what they thought was less accurate to more accurate he calls that faking it I don't see it because it's all public Michael Mann is you know it's public why he did or the other two changes are public as well they're all documents and other scientists get to look at it so and then the other thing that Tony is accused of and it's obvious that this does happen is he cherry techs his data so for example he's got some data in which he shows that the sea level has not risen since I don't know Abe Lincoln's time or something like that now if you think that the biggest problem in the world is rising sea level and you see an accurate graph that says the the sea level in this place hasn't changed in a hundred years that's pretty persuasive isn't it but it's cherry-picking because the

[38:16]

but it's cherry-picking because the climate scientists do not say that the sea level will change everywhere in some some some way they say that there will be some places because the ocean will be warmer etc and you know their differences and how the land itself is moving in relationship to the ocean that there will be places where it will get bad and there might be places where the sea level will go down so climate change does not say that if you pick one point on earth and you look at a hundred year period that it's going to that the sea level rise it doesn't make that claim Tony tries to invalidate the climate change hypothesis by debunking a claim that they don't make they don't make the claim that every beach is going to have rising sea level don't make that claim all right so if you see him attacking something that you know is not the real claim and you see him picking a certain

[39:17]

claim and you see him picking a certain location or a certain event or there's there's one place where there's more ice and there's this one place where the temperature didn't go up as much and there's this one period where it didn't happen those should all be red flags or at least yellow flags to say I don't know if we're talking about the same thing here now I would also note that the climate skeptics do not all agree with each other meaning that they they seem to come at it from different angles Tony comes at it primarily from the angle of you the data does not support the theory and that and that it has been adjusted he would say faked to tell the story that's not true I don't see any evidence of intention to do that I always say intention to have better data then you have other skeptics have come at it by saying the satellite

[40:18]

have come at it by saying the satellite data it doesn't show the troposphere warming the way it should and by the way that's my only open question so we have an open question on on climate change if the theory of of climate change by the way did you see that Michael Mann man was mocking me on Twitter I say this all the time but the weird thing about being me is that when I talk about the news I somehow get dragged into the news and then I become part of the story it's the weird thing about my life is that yeah I think I'm just talking about stuff and then suddenly the stuff is me like I got dragged into the story so my command was mocking me not not without good reason for for misstating what a G W stands for I called it I mistakenly called it anthropomorphic global warming in his anthro Jin I still can't add or that the

[41:23]

anthro Jin I still can't add or that the right name now he was mocking me from my lack of scientific understanding which can somebody put the whole word there anthropogenic is it anthropogenic put the whole word there alright by anthropogenic now I don't mind that anybody mocks me for my lack of understanding of science because I'm not making any claim I make no claim to understanding science in fact I'd make the opposite claim I've claimed exactly that people like me can't understand science so my claim actually agrees with Michael Mann's criticism of me so in other words Michael Mann made the same criticism of my understanding of science that I make which is I don't understand science but you damn well need to understand they'll well need to explain the science to me if you want me to act like a patriot and a voter and do the right thing if he can't explain it to me

[42:25]

right thing if he can't explain it to me in a credible way don't expect everything to happen right so my claims are all around the communication part I make no I make no claim to having scientific understanding and I would say the same is true for most of you so anyway so other people criticize climate change for the troposphere is apparently warming or now the troposphere is not warming according to how the theory says it should and so I'm going to put that out there as a fact check requests if any of you want to tweet at me later yeah so the claim from the skeptics is that the satellites can measure measure satellites can measure how warm the the lower troposphere is I forget which troposphere it is but that they can measure it and it is nowhere near the temperature that would it would need to

[43:26]

temperature that would it would need to be to explain the theory of climate science now I'm not claiming it's true I'm claiming that's a claim and and whenever I see a claim that looks like it's easy enough for under for us to understand and easy enough to measure it I like to put it out there and see if it can be debunked so far most of them most of the skeptical claims have been debunked all of them actually that at least I've proposed so that's what I'm going to say all right jobs are great I'll just end on this one point historically the jobs reports have been very predictive of your president getting reelected so typically you would expect that with an economy this strong I mean it's super strong economy that you would always get that president real that well I just don't know if any of the old rule will supply anymore I just

[44:26]

the old rule will supply anymore I just don't know if any any pattern that we've seen in the past still works it could be that people will just assume the economy's good and you could put in any president and you still have a good economy so it's possible anyway we'll talk about that more tomorrow and I will talk to you later