Episode 489 Scott Adams: Monkeys, Climate, Communication, Assange, White Nationalism, Brainstorming

Date: 2019-04-12 | Duration: 1:00:02

Topics

“White Nationalist” is an offensive racist term Human genes are being injected into monkey brains As monkey intelligence increases, will they be given rights? CNN can’t decide what side they’re on in regard to Assange CNN heavily promoting Buttigieg, top 8 headlines all Buttigieg ICE considered locating illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities Schumer calls Assange a “Russian spy”, without any evidence So far, even CNN isn’t highliting his statement Communication requires speaker to assume knowledge of audience Do “bug eyes” indicate a person doesn’t believe what they’re saying? “Join my hallucination” physical symptom: Bug eyes? Winning the argument by arguing the definition of words My father built a bomb shelter in our basement when I was a kid Nuclear war was so imminent, we needed to prepare What impact did that have on children?

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

[0:03]

[Music] bum-bum-bum oh hey Scott nice name you have there come on in gather round
hey Tyler oh he's easy you're always early keV Jackie Sharon or Sharona I'm sorry come on in grab your container you know what's in it liquid your favorite kind you might be picking up a cup or a mug Gerstein could be a chalice a flask a tankard possibly a thermos but I hope you have your favorite liquid in there I like coffee and join me now for the simultaneous scent
delightful have you noticed that every group in this country every identity group gets to identify what words are offensive to that group and then as a

[1:06]

offensive to that group and then as a courtesy and it is a courtesy you ask other people to not use those words about you so if you're a gay you'd say please don't use these following offensive terms when referring to us and I say that's reasonable I mean there are a lot of words in the world why would I want to use an offensive one if I can use an offensive one likewise African Americans say please don't use this word or this word these are deeply offensive to which I say well you know so it's a world where we have free speech but that's actually pretty reasonable totally reasonable I'm willing to not use those few words because the world is full of words I'll just use the ones that are not offensive the reason I bring this up is that I've never had a term which I felt was offensive to me until now and I don't know if anybody any of you will join me in this feeling

[2:07]

any of you will join me in this feeling but I'm seeing the phrase white nationalists used quite often white nationalist now when I hear white nationalist that feels racist to me because well I don't need to explain it I I don't need to give you a reason to it there's no requirement that I tell you why that feels offensive it just I mean it should be obvious they shouldn't have to have to discuss it so I declare that from this point forward if anybody uses that phrase around me or anyone else then I'll ask for an apology and I'll explain to them that it's racially offensive now I doubt this will catch on for all the obvious reasons but I'm not joking I'm not it's not really this is not me - ISM I'm actually offended by the term I've never

[3:09]

actually offended by the term I've never been offended by another term you know people call me cracker and what are one of the other things that people call white people I just find them funny those words just all seem funny to me it's like all right all right yeah I'm a cracker I play air guitar I wear Dockers I eat too much cheese okay I get it I'm white never bothers me but white nationalists that bothers me that's that's like a different level so I declare from this point on the only people who can use that term without apologizing are white people that's the way it works right you can you can use the insult if you're talking about your own group because the the speaker determines the message right messages don't live independent of who's saying them and who they're saying them to you have to look at the context so I can use

[4:10]

have to look at the context so I can use the phrase I can say white nationalists all day but if you're not white and you use it about me or about anybody else I'm gonna stop you and get asked for an apology and I'm going to say that's an offensive term so I'm just just putting out a stake there there's a story about a golfer who was risen to number six in the world he's the sixth best golfer in the world and here's what's interesting he's quirky as all get-out his name is Bryson DeSean Bob no I don't I don't follow golf I'm not a big golfer he's just there's something very interesting about this story it turns out that this golfer has a bunch of quirks he doesn't swing correctly which you could imagine what a big deal that is if you're a professional golfer and his swing isn't even the normal swing but he also does all these calculations about the temperature and the humidity

[5:13]

about the temperature and the humidity in because way more it's the sciences of other people but he also uses clubs that are all the same length so there are a number of things about him he's kind of weird swing he does all these calculations that other people does don't do you know so he tries to make it more scientific but he also has clubs that he's had made for him that are all the same length and he's risen to number six in the world I think it's all because of the clubs think about it if your clubs are all the same length you can do 1/7 the amount of practice that other people are doing to get the same result other people professional golfers are practicing with a different length of Club for every type of shot so they have to learn every club and be able to transition from this length to this

[6:14]

transition from this length to this length and to do that as anybody who's tried to play golf knows it's really really hard but yet there's no rule this says all the clubs need to be different lengths and indeed common sense tells you they should not be they should not be the same like it's just stupid it's just a mistake it's nothing but a mistake in the does of the game so other people have made the same observation but so he had all his clubs made the same and he rose from something like in the top hundreds to number six and people are trying to figure out okay what is it he's doing is it his practice is his bad swinging actually a good swing is it because he does these calculations in his mind in which he's doing the humidity to which I say maybe it's the obvious thing maybe it's just the incredibly obvious thing

[7:15]

it's just the incredibly obvious thing that he uses sticks that are all the same length so it amuses me to see that the obvious is over ignore is ignored when it's obviously that he has one seventh of the practice time to get the same result as all the others all right there's a story out in Japan that scientists are putting human genes into monkey brains that's right they're taking human genes and they're injecting them into monkeys what could go wrong what could go wrong turning your monkeys into human monkey hybrids well I'll tell you what could go wrong just about everything just about everything I've seen Planet of the Apes and I'm pretty sure that's how it starts but I but I was fast forwarding to a part two time imagine if science started making

[8:17]

imagine if science started making monkeys smarter at what point did they get rights you know Planet of the Apes I always thought was science fiction but if you could take let's say I don't know what the numbers are let's say that compared to a human a smart monkey would have an IQ of twenty I don't know whatever it is there's probably no way to to measure the IQ of a monkey but let's say it's 20 and a human is average 100 what happens if you could put some genes into the monkey and raised that monkey up to sixty you know an IQ of 60 couldn't read you know put him do math but could navigate the world could could fetch you a beverage could do some janitorial work at what point does the monkey actually get rights it's a real thing you know I never never would have thought that

[9:17]

never never would have thought that would be a real conversation but we might be 10 years away from asking the question are these hybrid monkey humans more human or more monkey is it more like your pet or something else I have two interesting question so more things going on here so I predicted yesterday that it would be great if the president did not take a position on Assange at least not right away because it would leave the press not knowing who to object to and so the president sure enough went soft on the issue of Assange he just said that's not my thing yeah I'm not really paying attention to it don't know anything about it now we don't have to assume that's exactly true I'm sure he got you know briefed on it I'm sure he knows as much about wiki WikiLeaks as we do you know we the public buddies decided to just stay out

[10:20]

public buddies decided to just stay out of it now that created a vacuum because the people who don't like the president didn't know what to agree with there disagree with it because he didn't really take a position so they were using his old statements during the campaign and trying to make something out of that but even the dumbest observer doesn't take anything that said it in a campaign too seriously all right and I think most people knew that the president was making he was making light of and having fun with the fact that Wikipedia was doing things that were bad for Hillary and it's obvious when you see the old clips he's just sort of enjoying the situation yeah you shouldn't make too much out of it but so I checked the headlines so I look to a went to CNN to find out how they treated the biggest story from yesterday it was the biggest story yesterday how does CNN treated today well it's got to see an end let's see what CNN says about

[11:20]

see an end let's see what CNN says about it let's see huh don't see anything I'll keep looking okay GOP had a loss over Trump's past praise for WikiLeaks so the only story about this on the front page of CNN is about how they can't quite tell what side they're on now then it will say it that way but so that's my framing is a CNN can't tell what side CNN is on now look at the headline from CNN GOP and a loss over Trump's past praise from WikiLeaks in other words ian has CNN notes that the president had been you know soft on WikiLeaks but the GOP at the moment are being hard on him and then you've got Tucker Carlson and I think Hannity who were essentially saying he should be treated like a journalist which would be going soft on him
him so CNN can't tell what side they're on

[12:22]

so CNN can't tell what side they're on so they just sort of recuse themselves they just they just sort of made it not news today so today today is not news so and and Fox News didn't say a lot about it because nobody people still haven't sorted out what team they're on which is what I predicted all right
pence and Buddha GG feud over faith so this story just won't go away
so pence and Buddha GG are I guess differing over religion and gay rights etc and I don't know if anybody's noticed but Pence's and running for president yeah we assume he'll be on the particular vice president but he's not really running

[13:24]

president but he's not really running for president and he's not really saying much about these past policies that he's had been sucess and so we have this weird situation where the the Democratic candidates that have been announced or we expect to announce are so weak that CNN doesn't even compare them to President Trump the best they can do is that one of the candidates has some advantage over the vice president that's it
it the bestest event could come up with this week because the president has such an amazing week you know WikiLeaks re the Russian collusion thing went his way the economy is screaming you know things are just really really good for the president at the moment and in a bad way because immigration got to be such a crisis nobody can be happy about that but at least validated that's presidents political instincts on that turned out

[14:25]

political instincts on that turned out to be right so the president is just crushing people at the moment he's just having a really good little period in history so the best they can do is find out that one of the one of the candidates for president has a little bit of an advantage over the vice president so that should tell you things are pretty good new polls showing Buddha GG on the rise okay so remember I told you that it looked like CNN was nominating Buddha GG to replace Kamla Harris because she's do boring CNN wants their side to win but they also need to stay in business and get clicks and be interesting Kamala is very uninteresting I don't know why exactly but she is Buddha GG is way interesting he's just

[15:25]

Buddha GG is way interesting he's just way interesting everything he does is a little bit interesting right he's not my candidate I still find them interesting so that's that's a real good sign sort of AOC like you've got a little bit of charisma going on so here's the front front top left of CNN today Penson but OGG feud over faith that's the top headline so it's about Buddha GG then it says two down it says opinion Christianity's future looks more like Lady Gaga than Mike Pence which is sort of also pro bono GG and then but a gg on pence I'm critical of bad policies and then this is all the top headlines on say then I'm not skipping anything these are all the top ones then the next one also about bunny GT opinion but a GG is a symbol for a rising Christian left I bet the next one oh it's about Bodhi GG new poll shows

[16:25]

oh it's about Bodhi GG new poll shows Buddha GG on the rise what's the next headline let's see Oh analysis mayor pita surges into the top ten what's the next headline Oh Peter Buddha Gigi's not so secret weapon as this husband chased in' that's right you're the top headlines I'll count them one two three four five six seven eight the top eight headlines in the top left of CNN story and if at eight they're all about what Oh Gigi I just realized that even the Kasich at lion let me click on that
it's about boda GG also so even the one headline that didn't have budded Gigi's name in it will refer to him obviously I click through and it's about blood GG the top eight headlines are Pro Buddha

[17:29]

the top eight headlines are Pro Buddha GG on see you then do it do we have any doubt about where CNN's going now let's go over to MSNBC because it would be interesting if they did not if they did not agree so let's see what they're have look like um so the top stories on there are the they're still shocked about the bars recklessness that's their top headline but over on the right something about immigrant ten cities and then the second the third one is Buddha GG goes from cordial to critical on pence so it's the third headline on MSNBC but it's positive in a sense for Rudy gg so it seems that that's the decision that's been made we have a story today that apparently the Trump administration reportedly who knows what's true but reportedly they considered having ice relocate all of

[18:33]

considered having ice relocate all of the illegal immigrants that they had to release they would release them in sanctuary cities as sort of a punishment I guess to the sanctuary cities for being sanctuary cities now this of course is being reported as some kind of you know Hitler kind of idea that's so bad and it's using its using the immigrants as pawns to which I say isn't everybody using the immigrants as pawns can you really call out anybody in the United States who's involved in any political anything can you really say that there's somebody who's not using the immigrants as pawns for political purpose there's nobody like that the president is doing it the Congress is doing it the Republicans are doing it the Democrats are doing that the city mayors are doing that I'm doing it right now you're probably doing it in

[19:35]

it right now you're probably doing it in your free time there's nobody who isn't using the immigrants as pawns to make their their case so let's stop trying to act like there's somebody who like there's somebody who didn't do that yeah show me the person who isn't using the immigrants as pawns to make their political case but I was thinking about this idea and had first of all any reports you hear about a plan that floated and got shot down you shouldn't take that too seriously I know we want to like read into the evil minds of people based on the ideas that they floated and maybe you could tell something about people by looking at them but it's really unhealthy to to look at it in administration's flouted ideas as opposed to the ones that make it all the way through and become the actual policies floating ideas you should assume that there are lots of bad ones there should be lots of bad ones

[20:37]

ones there should be lots of bad ones and only a few of them become good enough to get all the way through and become policy so it's totally illegitimate to criticize any group and I would say the same thing if this we're coming out of a democratic you know secret talks I'd say the same thing it might scare me that they were even considering something but every organization throws out one bad idea after another they wrestle with them and then the good ones rise to the top so it's really unfair to judge people by the ideas that they rejected right however I asked myself would it have been a good idea now politically it would have been a terrible idea because the Democrats would have ripped it to shreds but it would have made an interesting argument by itself which is if there's nothing if there's nothing wrong with these immigrants and the

[21:37]

wrong with these immigrants and the sanctuary cities are the ones who say well that's the case we must not treat them like they're they're bad people right we should we should treat everybody nicely if that's what they want doesn't it make sense that they would get most of the the immigrants who Isis processed and released wouldn't it make sense that they're the natural place for them and they would have they would be in a position of trying to defend why they don't want these people in their sanctuary City so it's kind of brilliant because it would back them into arguing against their own position so their own position is that it doesn't matter how many immigrants there are you still can't be you can't be deporting them you can't can't be treating them like second-class citizens and that you can't you know have the you

[22:38]

and that you can't you know have the you know where I'm going on that right so so the kindness philosophy probably has a breaking point and it looks like it might have been at least one idea that was floated and taken seriously in the administration is to find out where the breaking point is to give them enough people that they would change their mind about whether it's a good idea to have a sanctuary City now that would be using human beings as pawns for political purposes so it's hard to get behind that and that's probably why it died because it wasn't in the end it wasn't a good enough idea to make it all the way through the filters and and I would agree with that but there's certainly something good enough about the idea that I don't feel bad that they talked about it because they're trying to solve a psychological problem as much as a physical problem the psychological problem is how do we

[23:38]

the psychological problem is how do we be nice people ourselves while doing the things we need to do to protect the border because they're they're a bit conflicting you can't be nice and a hard-ass at the same time it's hard to justify being both of those presidents says let's be a hard-ass the sanctuary cities say let's be nice the president could change their mind by changing the facts the facts are how much how many people are in their sanctuary City who who are the kind that were released by ice so it's an interesting way to change how people think by changing what what is actually happening on the ground and it wasn't a terrible idea it's just one that probably would not have passed the political filter and so it was probably better that they they didn't do it all right and there would have been legal challenges and etc so you also the

[24:39]

legal challenges and etc so you also the pictures of Assange being arrested and he was being dragged out and he was he was all bedraggled and he had long gray hair and this big beard and I thought you should save a clip of that just you know bookmark it just save that clip of Assange being pulled down at the Embassy because around Christmas time you could save some money tell your kids that Santa Claus got arrested say kids there won't be any presents this year Santa Claus got arrested and your kids will say that's not true you say huh I'm afraid it is look at this video on my phone it's Santa he's being dragged out of and if the North Pole he's been arrested maybe don't do that alright I guess Chuck Schumer is calling a songs a Russian spy is there any evidence have we seen any evidence that Assange is a

[25:40]

we seen any evidence that Assange is a Russian spy Tucker Carlson says he's not but I think it would be more accurate to say that we don't see evidence of it so in the same way that you would say I'm not a Russian agent but all you really know is there's no evidence of it I'm actually not a Russian agent Kiesha wonder but it's it's astounding the Schumer makes that claim and and I looked on CNN to see if they would highlight that I thought oh they're gonna love it's gonna be some more Russia collusion stuff from Schumer or CNN's gonna love it I looked on their page nope even even CNN um they may have reported on it by even CNN is not going to highlight humor claiming it's the Russians again even cNN has learned their lesson about this Russian thing it's like maybe we'll take a pass Chuck Schumer it's all yours we'll just sit this one out maybe didn't work out so well last time all right

[26:43]

time all right I'm having lots of people arguing with me on Twitter and they say the same thing no matter what the topic is so there are several topics and which their responses are the same thing and it sounds like this but we heard it in his own words or she said it in in her own words we heard her words Scott how can you tell me I'm wrong I heard her exact words now people are saying it about Candice Owens and there's still people who are saying but she praised Hillier I heard it with my own ears how can you deny what was right there and you heard it and you saw it how can you design what you heard and saw they say the same thing about the president he said the neo-nazis were fine people how could you not know you saw it with your own your own eyes you heard it with your own ears Scott stop being so obtuse and there are several

[27:48]

being so obtuse and there are several other examples like animals and and now omar is getting the same treatment omar is giving the treatment where she should refer to seven not seven eleven nine eleven she referred to nine eleven as some people did some things and now people are saying my god omar is is disgracing the memory of 9/11 and dismissing it like it was unimportant and you know it's it's the worst insult to the patriots who died et cetera well let me make the same comment about all of these situations from fine people through hitler praising that didn't happen through Omar's comments about 9/11 when somebody communicates especially to an audience they must make some assumptions about what the audience already knows just remember this

[28:48]

already knows just remember this it's a very important point anybody who communicates to an audience as I'm doing right now you have to make assumptions about what the audience already understands because if you didn't make that assumption you could never describe anything you'd have to you'd say okay but you understand we're talking about humans right and there are humans who live in other places and they come in all kinds of different ways and they breathe and sometimes they talk I mean you could never describe anything unless you assumed what the audience already knows here are some things that you should always safely assume the audience already knows and this is not a comprehensive list but these are things your audience already knows 9/11 was very bad they already know that Omar doesn't really need to tell you that Hitler was a horrible murdering you know evil person if I don't mention that

[29:51]

evil person if I don't mention that specifically it doesn't mean I don't believe it it means that I assume you understand that Candace Owens doesn't need to tell you specifically why Hitler is bad or that she doesn't like him she had every right to assume that that part was understood when the president said there were some fine people in Charlottesville he did go on in detail that he wasn't talking about the neo Nazi so he said specifically I'm not talking about them but he shouldn't have had to do that because he should have known that you understand that that the president is not supporting the marching knee of Nazis you shouldn't have had to needed to explain it likewise when Omar says some people did something in 9/11 you should be able to know that she's talking about 9/11 and she's not saying oh god and glad people got killed she's

[30:52]

oh god and glad people got killed she's now saying something like that now people are saying it's a false equivalency all right if you're saying it's a false equivalency then you have been triggered into cognitive dissonance in this in other cases well whenever you see somebody saying Scott you're making a false equivalency or anybody is making a false equivalency the person making the false equivalence the argument and by the way I have a chapter of this is my new book anybody who makes the false equivalency argument and somebody saying and somebody's saying right now let's go you just said that in your own words so you're seeing you're seeing people modeling the bad behavior right here I'm not making a false equivalency I'm making a statement about communication communication always has to assume that there are some things you already understand so she was simply making a point she referred to 911 and and she didn't need

[31:52]

referred to 911 and and she didn't need to detail it because you all know the details why did she need to detailed 911 art is there anybody here who didn't know what she was talking about and now somebody said she heard idiot so most of you who are mad at me are making the assumption and yet you're making this something that she's downplaying it exactly the way people said Candace Owens was downplaying Hillier I'm not saying there's any moral equivalence in fact I rarely say anything has moral equivalence to anything else I'm saying that you are filter on it is just as defective as the other side somebody said you're Omar blinded everything you're saying about me and what I'm saying about Omar is the same thing that people were saying about the Candice situation right you should assume the Candice knew Hitler is bad you should assume that Omar is not in favor of

[32:53]

assume that Omar is not in favor of blowing up buildings in the United States full of innocent people she's never claimed she's in favor of that I don't think you should assume that now if she ever did say that then you could say I disagree with her about her opinions of 9/11 and I'm sure they're aspects of that you could disagree with but cartoon boy jumping through hoops do you see how triggered the comments are this is fun and somebody says no way Omar is a Muslim Candice is not a Nazi what did that make sense somebody's saying it's a mistake you'll give me 24 hours to correct it now so let me say again there's nothing I'm doing which is a moral comment I'm not making a moral judgment on anything I'm not making a moral judgment comparing any two things so if you imagine I am that's your

[33:55]

so if you imagine I am that's your imagination somebody else is saying it's a false equivalence there's no equivalence being made not a moral equivalence it's not an equivalence argument if you feel that I've said that that's actually your imagination the statement I'm making is that if you don't if you don't understand what the what the audience already knows to be true then you can't understand language so language has to include what you understand to be true all right somebody says Muslims think we're all infidels has Omar said that as Omar said that you're you're all infidels Omar wants to see Jews wiped out as she said that now she has of course I will condemn her but and in fact you're I'm not arguing I want to be very clear here nothing I said here is a

[34:56]

very clear here nothing I said here is a defense of Omar do you understand that can you understand this point and separate it can you separate my opinion of Omar which is very low all right as a politician and as a a force in our government I have a very low opinion of her I think she's more bad than good nevertheless language works the same no matter who's talking you know I'm talking about a language rule they make assumptions about what people already know that's all at that point is not a moral judgment it's a language statement you have to understand and make some assumptions about what the other people already know nobody disagrees with me but your but many of you are disagreeing with me so look how many look how many people are disagreeing with me without disagreeing if you watch the disagreements that you go that you see going by you'll note

[35:57]

go that you see going by you'll note that they're not actually disagreeing with anything I've said they're disagreeing with something they're imagining what they're imagining is I've made a moral equivalence which I haven't and I'm saying it as as clearly as I can say there's no moral equivalence implied nor do I imagine what it's just a communication statement right somebody says you're making excuses for that's your imagination that's your imagination I've made a rule that would apply to every person in every situation is that making an excuse for anybody if I've made a general rule that applies to all people in all cases now of course Scott could be wrong case in point somebody says wrong about what do you disagree their language makes an assumption about what the audience already understands that's my only point it's my only point

[37:04]

man the triggering here is wonderful all right
she knows it's a terror attack yet chooses to describe it that way now I'm not arguing that she minimized did you hear me say that that she did not minimize the tragedy she did minimize it she did did Candice Owens the way she casually talked about Hitler minimize his evil as she did was that her point no that wasn't her point it just sometimes people assume that you already know the evil she doesn't need to state it all right that's nothing that I'll let you the people the crazy people talk about that there was an article I tweeted around a video this morning of a crazy guy who believes that the only solution for climate change is to get rid of capitalism and you know reorganize the whole earth and the reason I tweeted

[38:06]

whole earth and the reason I tweeted around is because of his eyes his eyes bug out sort of like aoc and sort of like you know the helter-skelter killer sort of like schiff and those bug eyes i've been trying for a long time to figure out what they mean because the bug eyes don't happen even with the same person they don't happen all the time
somebody's saying Candice and Omar aren't equivalent in any way did I say did I say they're equivalent did I say that so if you look at the comments you'll still see people arguing arguing passionately against things they imagined I think or imagine I said and didn't I didn't I oh there's only one point for you to to argue is it true that when you communicate you have to make an assumption about what the audience already knows that's all that's my only point anything else you say

[39:08]

my only point anything else you say about she's a Muslim or bla bla bla bla bla bla bla I'm not even arguing that I don't disagree or agree I'm not I'm not on that topic alright so the crazy eyes I've been trying to interpret when I see them and I'm looking for the pattern and I think I might have a pattern and the pattern is this if somebody tries to tell you something that is clearly just a rational real world based thing they don't have those eyes and look for it look for this pattern so if somebody said to you there's a crisis on the border so this is me I'll be a pundit there's there's a crisis on the border and something needs to be done about it my eyes would be normal because I'd be saying something that's true it's real it's today anybody can go check there's no imagination involved but when somebody is trying to convince you to join their hallucination that's when

[40:08]

join their hallucination that's when their eyes get big it goes like this you'd say Scott how are you today I'm fine yeah I'm good yeah how was the weather Scott weather looks good it looks sunny today it looks like it'll be warm what do you have for breakfast oh I had a protein bar and some coffee Scott what should we do about climate change the only thing we can do about climate change is reorganized the entire economy of the world because we're all going to be dead impossibly 12 years Scott what are you doing later later I've got some meetings and some stuff like that can do some stuff now
look for this I'm sorry I'm gonna propose this as a hypothesis the hypothesis is that there's something

[41:10]

hypothesis is that there's something happening in the eyes that are reflecting imagination or literally hallucination so I believe that when people get those eyes and Cory Booker gets a lot it's because he's imagining something that even he or she doesn't believe so when you see the eyes it's something they don't believe themselves and they know it to be imaginary and they're still trying to bring you in so look for the bug eyes when somebody is telling you something they personally don't believe but they're trying to bring you into their imagination yes the president is totally a Putin puppet and it's obvious from all of the secret things that I have that I haven't shown you so bug eyes look for it
have you noticed that a huge amount of the news is just word news word news

[42:13]

the news is just word news word news pure word news in other words the news used to be about stuff that was happening and now it's turned into news about words so in the news we're talking about is court-sanctioned surveillance the same as spying how many hours of news coverage have been dedicated to figuring out if there's a difference between the word spying and surveillance right that's not really relevant what's the difference between a wiretapping and surveillance
it doesn't matter they're just words what matters is what happened you know is it legal is it not legal is it ethical is it not ethical those things matter but the word doesn't matter if you're trying to win the argument by winning the word you're never gonna you're never gonna win likewise the

[43:15]

you're never gonna win likewise the whole Candice Owens things was about it with some words the whole Omar stuff is about some words we the the entire argument about I don't the world has turned into arguments about which words got used I've never seen anything like it let me talk about about climate change when I grew up and I want people in my age range I want you to see if you can validate this when I grew up my father built a bomb shelter in our basement that we didn't know what it was for we found out later but it was a bomb shelter to protect against nuclear war and we did the duck-and-cover drills to be ready in case it was a nuke Wars like there's nuclear war get under

[44:16]

Wars like there's nuclear war get under your desk kids he'll be fine now the the impact of that is that as a child and I want to see how many other people thought this when I was probably 12 years old I didn't expect to live to old age because adults were telling me that nuclear war was so likely I needed to actually get ready for it so I believed that the world would end in a nuclear fireball some time in my adulthood if not sooner and I feel like it it damaged me I feel like that psychological abuse and you know they weren't doing it to abuse they actually believed it would be true but I feel it was damaging like and I think that it was it rewired me in a way that I probably took into my adulthood in ways that are not productive maybe they were productive but I doubt it and now we're seeing that with AOC and the 12 years to

[45:18]

seeing that with AOC and the 12 years to take care of climate science before we're all dead now to be fair when she said the 12 years that people on the right like - I didn't like to misinterpret that they like to misinterpreted as we'll be dead in 12 years again AOC made an assumption about what the audience already knows and she assumed that the audience already knows that when she says we've got 12 years to take care of this or else we're all dead she assumed you already understood that she meant 12 years to get serious not that we're dead on the 12th year but you know take years of bad conditions and people would die but you should have understood it as an exaggeration and you should have understood it as we need to get ready soon in 12 years is a good period to think when you should get serious but when that got out there it turned into you're all dead in 12 years and if you ask a school kid ESCA ask a

[46:21]

and if you ask a school kid ESCA ask a 14 year old kid what their future looks like what are they gonna say a fourteen-year-old Canada's been told by adults who are manipulating them for political reasons the children are just being manipulated for political goals or you they're being used as pawns same as the immigrants right the the the immigrants are being used as pawns for a political game the children are being used as pawns for the climate science political game everybody's upon but they're scared to death that is so wrong now I suppose you could somewhat explain it away by the fact that the people saying it believe it and I think they do I think that most people who are climate scientists warriors believe it and all indications are that most of them are not lying I think they actually believe it and maybe they're right we'll find out

[47:22]

out speaking of climate change why isn't it big news that it's already been solved solved in the sense that we know exactly what paths are possible and we should do them both you know we know that generation four nuclear is possible and it would be the biggest impact on on dealing with climate change and we know how to do it so really it looks like a solved problem to me problem solution takes a little time you know it'll take the government doing some good things but you know nothing too hard and then solved now at the same time you could go hard on solar and wind just just to make sure that you've done everything you can but the solution to climate change already here there's not really among the people who understand generation for nuclear and also

[48:25]

generation for nuclear and also understand climate change let's say a Bill Gates type of person they already know where this is going because there's only way one way it can go there's only one potential solution so it's almost a certainty that we're going to be pursuing that path but I want to talk about a weird little scientific I guess debate that I find myself in and maybe you've seen this I've been talking about climate change and when the scientists go back and they adjust data because they think the thermometer was in a place that lets say an airport moved where the thermometer had been for years the airport absorbs a lot of heat so the thermometer that was placed originally not by an airport but now the airport is there doesn't record the temperature accurately anymore so the scientists say oh this is a special case let's let's do some kind of an average or some kind of a calculation to account for the fact that that this temperature is no longer reliable after

[49:27]

temperature is no longer reliable after this point something happened and then there were also issues about some thermometers were checked in the afternoon and some in the morning and they have to calculate you know an adjustment for that so I've said what's wrong with going back and improving data as long as you show your work as long as you're not hiding anything and you say you know I'm adjusting these and here's why what's wrong with that and then the scientific purists say to me Scott Scott Scott oh my god you're so stupid I I almost can't I just can't I can't even I can't even explain to you how stupid you are now right right now Scott you can't do a scientific experiment and then when you don't get the answers that you expected or want it go back and change the data until you do Scott don't you understand you can't do that because that's just being an idiot that's not science to which I say what

[50:33]

that's not science to which I say what in what world is it wrong to correct the data and show your work and then rerun the experiment in this case the experiment if you're talking about climate change the experiment is to rerun the models once you fix the data now is it a fly that you should question when you see somebody changing the data to get the right answer yeah of course it's a total flag it's it's a total flag you should very you should look at that very carefully but if they do it publicly here's why we changed it here's my paper saying why I changed it here's what I changed it to you can all look at it and make your own decisions about whether this change was good or bad and now that I've changed it I'm gonna rerun my models the normal process of iterating science and there's apparently there's a big argument on the internet that I'm an idiot because I think it's

[51:33]

that I'm an idiot because I think it's okay to publicly say all my data was bad here's why I'm changing it let's rerun the experiment is there anybody here who's gonna argue with me on that because I feel like I have the most solid argument in the world and why is he pushback on it I feel like maybe I'm missing something somebody says garbage in garbage out ok so so there are still people who think that fixing data and showing your work publicly is a bad thing for science to do were you supposed to just run this experiment on the bad data and just publish the bad data was that what you want or were you supposed to just throw out the whole thing because it didn't work on the first try when you know that you could just adjust the data and do it again I don't know so somebody's still

[52:38]

again I don't know so somebody's still say garbage in if you're one of the people who left a comment and saying garbage in garbage out I'm not sure you're following the topic into introducing discussions on data by changing it is tainting data throw out the bad data did that comment make any sense
somebody says shows the raw data they do so you can find the raw data and you can run you can run your tests against the raw data but why would you use the raw data when you know it's wrong why would you use raw data when you know it's wrong but I've seen a lot of people say that no no you've got to use the data that you know is wrong because otherwise you're just you're tampering with the data to which I say shouldn't you want

[53:40]

data to which I say shouldn't you want to tamper with data you know is wrong that's the data I want to tamper with since somebody says take a class on data science do you really think I could take a class that would change my mind of this now somebody says we don't trust the adjustments now that's fair you should not automatically trust the adjustments but that's why they publish their methods so you can go you could go check it out yourself somebody says you don't adjust the data you adjust the experimental variables and run the experiment again really so if you if you know you have bad data you would adjust your your models variables and run it again using the bad data that's your suggestion

[54:43]

somebody says David it doesn't change it is what it is now data changes who says David doesn't change when you have more better information you change your data people people are fighting for this point pretty hard the the changes are all in one direction not true it has been debunked that the change is wrong in the same direction that has been debunked they are in both directions
data was wrong is unprovable is it unprovable that a thermometer that you used to check it in the afternoon is going to have on average higher temperatures than if you checked it in the morning is that unprovable I'm pretty sure that's provable you read ooh somebody

[55:50]

that's provable you read ooh somebody says why do you think almost all adjustments tend to fit the alarmist narrative well that's been debunked that's that apparently that's not the case it's about half an F is the video being adjusted correctly well that science they say what they did they show their work and people can check it it doesn't mean it's right every time somebody says if you don't like the outcome then change the data really so somebody is saying what's your alternative so somebody is questioning me here if you don't like the outcome you change the data come on to which I say if you show us why you changed the data and your argument makes sense and we can check it and we can check why you changed it and what you did and we could even change it ourselves if we don't like it that's science it's completely completely acceptable if somebody says

[56:53]

completely acceptable if somebody says it's bad technique Scott you forgot the Sun you're triggering me you're trying to trigger me
so anyway I'm I'm amazed but I guess not surprised that there's so many people who are in favor of using bad data when you have an option of using improve data apparently that's a preference people would prefer the the bad data all right somebody says fudge the data books No so here's here's a a sub conclusion on climate change all of the people who say the data was fudged have no credibility even if the data was fudged so that that's maybe a hard point to understand even if there was some fudging of data it's not an evidence well we have in

[57:55]

it's not an evidence well we have in evidence is people that adjusted the data showed their work published it you can go look at it you can look at the original data you can look at the change it's all there but most of the the climate scientists will the climate skeptics will tell you that it was fudged for some secret purpose and nobody knows why they did it and they didn't show their work and just none of that's true it's just not true somebody says dr. Shiva addressed this well I haven't seen the argument yet so somebody says made-up data is improved so the argument that the people who are triggered into cognitive dissonance and you can see there are a lot of them right now if you've been triggered into cognitive dissonance you're hearing me say they adjusted the data for reasonable reasons that you could look at and you would agree with measurements taken in the morning are going to be cooler than measurements taken in the afternoon so if you have some

[58:55]

afternoon so if you have some temperatures that are wide and some of the other you want to adjust them to be the same if you can and show you work
but and then people are redefining that as making up data so that they can maintain their world view your world view has fallen apart all of you who think that the data was fudged you're just not factually correct because all the fudging has been public and you can look at it nobody fudges things and then shows you it's like hey I told a lie here's my lie here's what I originally said and here's here's why I lied here's my lie that's not really a lie if you explain it it's not really fudging it's not faking it's not lying it's just adjusting that's all of this all right but what about those chemtrails somebody says all right I'm gonna leave you to your cognitive

[59:56]

gonna leave you to your cognitive dissonance it looks like I triggered a lot of you and I will talk to you tomorrow