Episode 799 Scott Adams: Coronavirus Liars, Biden’s New Ad Persuasion, Impeachment Scorecard, More

Date: 2020-01-26 | Duration: 55:47

Topics

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Coronavirus screening is ineffective, and NO travel ban? President Trump’s Impeachment defense strategy CNN’s defense strategy for Democrats LInquistic fingerprints…like “dark” and “risky” Climate change and Al Gore’s long ago climate fears Slate Magazine’s hit piece on Joe Rogan

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: https://interface.my/ScottAdamsSays

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:05]

bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum hey everybody come on in here it's time for a coffee with Scott Adams and as luck would have it you're in the right place for that as soon as we get a thousand people which will be any moment now we got it we will do something called the simultaneous up and then I'm gonna blow your mind so if you were ever thinking of bailing out before the end of a periscope probably don't want to do it this time but before we get to that let's have let me tell you what you need to enjoy the simultaneous if it's not much all you need is a car a cup or a mug or a glass a tankard chowster stein a canteen junker flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee enjoyed me now for the unparalleled pleasure this the dopamine's end of the day the thing that makes everything better the simultaneous sip go better every time now I'm gonna

[1:12]

sip go better every time now I'm gonna I'm going to tell you some things today that it might blow your mind a little bit we'll start a slow so slowly we'll start slowly now here's a little rule that I have for predicting things and I've used it once before I can't tell that I'm right but here's the situation whenever you have these three things you should look in a certain place for the truth and here are the three conditions if there's something that is very high-stakes meaning there's a lot of money involved that's the condition one there's a lot of money involved condition number two there's something the government is doing that doesn't pass the sniff test so there's a lot of money involved and the government policy so far doesn't quite make sense that's the second condition and then the third one is the government

[2:13]

and then the third one is the government offers you no explanation for why they're there policies don't make sense if those three things happen follow the money that's right so the three conditions again and I'll give you the exact example after this are that there's very high stakes a lot of money involved there's something the government's doing that doesn't make sense to the citizens doesn't pass the sniff test and the third part they don't explain why they're doing it that way under those conditions get very suspicious follow the money let me give you one example when Obama was president he ran for president say he was going to be sort of ignoring marijuana dispensaries in California and at the time I said sounds like a fairly solid president I was very Pro Obama in the early days and I also liked his his take on marijuana that he was going to

[3:13]

take on marijuana that he was going to leave it alone in terms of the federal government but for some reason during his term and with that explanation which is the key part of the story without explanation he reversed and decided that he would actually prosecute dispensaries in California indeed there was one gentleman who had a dispensary who was looking at ten years in prison now you say to yourself if you could reverse a major policy the opinion and you're gonna reverse it in a way that would make somebody go to jail because they depended on your last opinion wouldn't you say that doesn't pass the sniff test unless it's explained right if Obama said yeah I used to think this but now I've changed my mind to this and here's my reason I would say well I might like the reason I might not like the reason but at least he gave a reason what was obamas stated public reason for

[4:16]

what was obamas stated public reason for changing his opinion from leaving dispensaries alone in California to putting people in jail for it none not then not ever not ever there was no point at which President Obama ever explained why he changed his mind and potentially he could put a californian in jail for 10 years that's when he lost me because under those conditions the only reasonable assumption you can make is that he was bribed then when I say bribed I don't mean in a way that was necessarily technically illegal as in here's some cash put it in your bank account but in the legal process or I'm sorry in the in the political world a bribe can take many forms it could be in terms of supporting a campaign it could be in for in terms of some future deal that's unspecified it could be anything that's

[5:17]

unspecified it could be anything that's beneficial so in my opinion the Obama of dispensary flip-flop met all the conditions of follow the money there had to be somebody with a lot of money who was influencing that because otherwise otherwise Obama would just tell you the reason oh I used to think this I have new information where I thought about it now I think that's absent that exploration there's something corrupt going on or at least some money influenced you wish was not happening now let's talk about the corona virus do we have a similar situation I think we do if you're watching the news you know that this corona virus is becoming a real big deal in China and starting to spread three people in America have it so far there are 56 dead mostly in China I believe and close to 2,000 cases as of today and growing quickly do you think that that's all there is because China's

[6:19]

that that's all there is because China's closing entire cities you can't cover go from entire cities now do you think that maybe it's bigger than that well smart people are saying yeah it's probably a lot bigger than that because what they're telling us is scary enough there's probably more to it but here's the thing the this the government of the United States responding to this is that I guess they started to screen passengers at three of the big airports in the United States they have some connection to Wuhan but we also know as of today that you can't necessarily identify the symptoms so we we don't have any confidence in fact we have the opposite we suspect it's not true that you can actually successfully screen people and know that you got it so the US policy is to scream certain people in certain cases and then let

[7:20]

people in certain cases and then let them into the country does that make sense to you does that pass your sniff test when you see that the government of the United States looking at this deadly outbreak in China that's already made its way into the country in a small way but could could devastate this country does it make sense to you that the government's response is well we'll screen them when we also know this screening is not necessarily effective so that makes sense no it does not make sense but you can always look to the government's explanation right if the government is doing something that doesn't make sense to you well it could be because they have more information they might have a strategy that wasn't obvious to you so let's go to the government's explanation for why they have not already completely closed the airports for travel from China now when I say completely I do think you'd have to treat differently American citizens who are trying to get back in the country and maybe you could

[8:20]

the country and maybe you could quarantine them for a week to make sure that you know that you're safe but let's say of the ordinary traveler not the Americans trying desperately to get back to their home just the ordinary traveler what is the government's explanation for why the airports are not already closed from China completely have you heard it I haven't heard it if you have not heard it you can only conclude one thing there's high-stakes closing closing travel from China would be really expensive for somebody it fails the sniff test because you and I are looking at it and saying what if you can't reliably screen it by looking at the individuals don't you have to close the airport from China just stop it right but maybe there's a reason but there isn't our government has not

[9:22]

there isn't our government has not explained it now if they explained it to me and I heard the reason I said well you know okay all things considered that makes sense I could I could maybe believe it when your government does not explain to you why their decision that doesn't pass the sniff test is not already being implemented there's somebody with money who is perverting the system who is it who has the most to lose if China's flights get cancelled travel industry I mean the travel industry is the obvious one there may be more maybe you can think of someone else but here's a case where I think you have to lose all faith in your government you know I know you're you're all Trump supporters and you'd like to you support him whatever he does but this is a really clean case where your government is failing you at the highest level this is a complete failure of government a

[10:24]

is a complete failure of government a complete failure and it can only be because we have no explanation that's official it can only be the money is influencing it if you have another explanation maybe you should explain it to our government so they can explain it to us short of an explanation your government has failed you and they're failing you in the worst possible way I mean they are failing us hard so whatever you want to say positive about the Trump administration and there's plenty of it yeah I'm a big proponent of what he's done for the economy etc but we have a leader who can just say stop stop the flights until we figure this out
out and he hasn't what's up with that all right give us the explanation I'll listen I'm totally open to a good explanation but short of that you've failed you've failed in a deadly way this is

[11:25]

you've failed in a deadly way this is complete government failure and by the way it's not just Trump right I don't hear any I don't hear any Democrats crying to close the airport why not Democrats you got any leaders is there anybody running for president how many how many how many Democrats do we have running for president are any one of those at demanding that the airports be closed none unless you've heard it I haven't heard anybody I haven't heard anybody say that but if they're not then you can't say that this is limited somehow that Trump if nobody's saying it so big questions for you why is your government failing you this hard and so obviously it's got to be money all right now let's talk about the impeachment see how we're doing so far I thought everybody seems to agree that the the president's lawyers were smart to keep their their first statements brief

[12:26]

their their first statements brief because the Senators were all angry at Schiff and his group for making him sit through such a torturous few days so quite wisely the president's lawyers said well nobody was watching TV on Saturday anyway and as the president pointed out we'll just do a couple of you know tight hours let everybody go home at least I'll have a good feeling about us and we won't overload them we'll just make sure that we've responded to the main claims so that we've got something out there to compete with that claim over the weekend so I think that was a good solid approach what did CNN have to do have to say about the president's legal team's approach you know I watched it you watched it you probably thought guys are pretty good pretty pretty good yeah they're solid lawyers they're they're definitely getting it done so what did Jeffrey Toobin on CNN say he complained about their ethnicities and

[13:28]

complained about their ethnicities and their genders because the president's legal team is all white males and I'm thinking yeah okay I mean I can see the point the I accept the general statement that whenever an administration can show diversity say it's a plus because the country likes it it's a good message but is that the key thing when you're talking about impeaching a president I mean on the on the list of things that matter to the country that would be pretty close to the bottom on this particular thing although I agree that the general topic of getting diversity in your government is a good one but on this but on every topic every time all the time and then Eli Hoenig writing on CNN said the defense from the president's lawyers was weak because and

[14:29]

president's lawyers was weak because and he didn't say this directly but I'll say it is weak because we can read the president's mind but we can also read zelinsky's mind and we know that they're both lying so that that was the criticism of the president's lawyers defense is that basically we can read Trump's mind and you know what he's thinking and mature zalenski said he wasn't pressured but you know what he was thinking now I agree that if you're just a human being and you're looking at human things we do say this person's probably lying etc so that's a form of mind-reading but in terms of an impeachment which is a semi quasi legal proceeding you really can't convict people for what you imagine they're thinking now it turns out that the president's lawyers said that directly several times they actually use the the words mind-reading and they said you know that the that

[15:31]

and they said you know that the that shifts team is trying to read Trump's mind and reads olinsky's mind and that there's no basis for that now is that a good defense to say that their mind-reading it's pretty good defense if it were a legal trial it would be a better defense because you know that would be a more aligned with the rules but because it's an impeachment and you can make up the rules and it's a political process I don't know it makes that much difference I would expect that the real argument the one that makes a difference will start when darshan which gets involved I think Dershowitz is going to go in and say it doesn't matter who is reading whose mind he might he's not going to say that directly but the inference will be it doesn't matter who's reading whose mind and also it doesn't matter if the president did everything that he's accused of doing none of it matters because it doesn't rise to impeachable as the Constitution requires so I think Dershowitz is just going to put the hammer down and end this whole thing I

[16:31]

hammer down and end this whole thing I doubt we'll see any kind of witnesses called now here's the interesting thing
well let me let me talk about one thing one more thing before I change topics I watched a Democrat Senator Stabenow I hope I'm pronouncing right Stabenow or Stabenow and she was doing an interview after in between one of the sessions were after and she said that she said that the claim oh my god she claimed that the president broke the law by withholding aid to Ukraine so after listening to all this evidence for impeachment a senator who sat through two days of the prosecution saying what the president did wrong goes in front of a camera and says that the president broke the law by withholding aid to Ukraine now here's what I tweeted back

[17:33]

Ukraine now here's what I tweeted back to her were actually tweeted about it I said can she ask her fellow idiots why no crimes were alleged the impeachment articles how in the world did she sit through two days of testimony from her own team and not notice that no crimes were even alleged there's no crimes alleged is she the only one that saw a crime alleged she sat through two days of it what did she do just play with her spinner is that it was she paying attention to any of it did she watch any of the impeachment because no crimes are alleged but she saw some she saw her own crimes so she's in her own little personal movie there now here's a here's the weird part remember I promised you something weird was going to come this is the part all right now this won't mean as much to people who have not been following me

[18:34]

people who have not been following me for a while and especially if you read win big Lee my book about persuasion and the 2016 race this will make more sense but I'll try to catch you up if you haven't read that book what are the one of the things I do to track my own influence if anybody's new here I'm a trained hypnotist and I've been studying persuasion for decades but one of the tricks I use to track whether or not I've influenced either a person or an event it's all sometimes use unique vocabulary the vocabulary that you wouldn't normally see in that context because if I use it and then I see somebody later using the same vocabulary you can't be sure but it would suggest that maybe you had some influence you can't guarantee it but it's it would be a strong hint of that and indeed indeed I think that this linguistic fingerprint

[19:35]

I think that this linguistic fingerprint is so strong that sometimes I think you can identify who is influencing events by what words are being used because people have sort of a linguistic fingerprint right and I quite famously called out that when Hillary Clinton in the summer to 2016 suddenly started using the word dark and all of the pundits on the Democrat side simultaneously and at the same time that's when simultaneous means they started using the word dark right after the Republican convention and as soon as I heard the word I thought oh wow this is not an ordinary political word this comes from somebody who really knows the science of persuasion because dark is perfectly designed it's a single word it's easy to repeat everybody knows what the word dark means but it's suggestive of a whole range of vague fears and that's really good persuasion because you don't want to say to

[20:36]

because you don't want to say to somebody you should fear X because sometimes people will say I'm not really afraid of X now if you had said why I'd be a really afraid of Y but you said X so some people are afraid of that but I'm not instead a better persuader would say this situation is very dark and then suddenly suddenly everybody can put their own fear into it because it's not excluded dark are you saying something racist is going to happen dark are you saying that our economy will fail dark are you saying that we'll have a nuclear war what it I'm afraid so as soon as I sort of saw that word dark I said publicly that I believe there was a high level persuader who got involved it and I thought I could actually identify that person think of this claim just think of how extraordinary this claim is I said in public that I thought I can identify the person and of all the

[21:37]

I can identify the person and of all the billions of people in the world that I could then identify the one person who was behind that one word and I said at first I called him Godzilla because I didn't want to name him yet eventually I put my prediction on it that it was Robert Jill DD who is no in Fez
Fez you know the top author on influence I found out later after I'd made the prediction I found out later that he had he admitted that he had helped helped consult the Obama campaign now if he helped Obama is it likely that he might have been asked to help Hillary Clinton well we don't have that you know as as a fact in evidence but it seems likely right and he was asked because I mentioned it in an interview and the reporter went and asked and his response when asked if he was consulting for the

[22:37]

when asked if he was consulting for the Clinton campaign was no comment does anybody say no comment when you ask them if they're working for somebody and they're not if they're not working for somebody did they say no comment they could I suppose as possible but not likely somebody who knows Jill Dini reported but this is this is hearsay so I didn't hear it directly but reported that they had it confirmed that he was consulting for Clinton now and then the third piece of evidence
yes his long wind-up but but the payoff is good the the third piece of evidence is that I've personally communicated will chill Dini and we've you know we've communicated by DMS on Twitter mostly just about his new book I've recommended it it was called pre suasion great book you should all read it so if he wanted to correct me it'd be easy he was just DME the way his

[23:40]

it'd be easy he was just DME the way his DM to me before and said oh no that wasn't me you know thanks for thinking it was me but that wasn't me he could have done that he hasn't my books been out for a while I'm sure he's seen it by now so we believe that Robert eldini or it could be somebody that he that was a mentored we think he was probably behind that word at dark because it has such a strong tell for a trained persuader here's where the fun part gets Joe Biden has a new commercial out that's saying why he's the best choice against Trump and it shows some poll numbers where he beats Trump in his poles and then at the end of the thing it shows Bernie Sanders from behind and it's obvious is Bernie Sanders and the the tagline is that we can't take the risk that Trump gets reelected and but it's showing its showing burning as the risk in other words but Bernie can't get elected against Trump

[24:41]

against Trump so he's the risk that has transferred a big it's basically the risk of Trump but Bernie's the problem because he would create that risk that Trump would win again now that word risk does that sound like one that you hear all the time in politics that's a tell you you see the word risk and you say to yourself that's not normal because if it were normal you would say oh yeah they all the campaign say that about the other side but not really it's sort of an unusual word isn't it now where did it come from well you may remember I told the story and when Bigley that Bill Clinton used the same attack against Dole and Jack Kemp now why did Clinton use the word risky he used risky with the why why did he say that Kemp and Dole were risky it was

[25:43]

that Kemp and Dole were risky it was because the economy was doing well and everybody agreed so everybody on both sides said yeah the Bill Clinton economy is looking pretty strong so what Kemp and Dole were suggesting was supply-side economics that they would grossly they would you know cut taxes a lot but it would we'd make more money than longer now why is that good to say that's risky well it's because most most voters skew older older people are less likely to enjoy risk right because if you're old enough and you've got some money and you're voting you don't want risk and when the economy is doing well the last thing you want is more risk so it basically took the entire hour meant from Kemp and Dole on economics totally off the table it looked ridiculous when he looked at it from a risk management perspective it was a

[26:43]

risk management perspective it was a kill shot risky was a complete kill shot now where did Bill Clinton get it well Bill Clinton actually was not the first one in his campaign to say risky it was actually Al Gore the first place that came out was when Al Gore did a debate against Jack Kemp and in that debate Gore said it's a risky scheme it's a risky scheme to try to fix everything with just by lowering taxes now the way campaigns work is the vice president candidate will sometimes try out a line of attack and then the president if it works only if it works then the president will say okay that worked now I'm gonna say it if the vice president tries the line of attack and it doesn't work well then the presidential candidate either ignores it or says oh no you know he wasn't quite on board you know that this is what we really mean might be might clarify her correct it but it was so effective when Gore used it in fact it was all the headlines the

[27:44]

it in fact it was all the headlines the next day after the debate all the headlines were that word a risky scheme risky scheme risky scheme doracles of the risky scheme then Clinton took it up and it was a total kill shot so the real question is where did Al Gore get it if we're tracing back this word now Al Gore almost certainly got it from somebody advising from a staff member because usually the candidates themselves and I think Trump is the exception to this but typically the candidates themselves are not coming up with the ideas they're they're responding to an improving ideas from a variety of advisors so the real question is can we trace back this word risk from Joe Biden back to the Clinton universe which would suggest that people from the Clinton universe maybe at least some of them or a lot of them were involved with the Biden campaign which

[28:44]

involved with the Biden campaign which is important right if the Clinton machine is behind Biden that's pretty pretty big deal so Biden used this word risk which echoes back to Bill Clinton and probably some association between advisers which echoes back to Al Gore which probably came from some kind of an advisor on his staff but who advised the staff member who was the person trained in in persuasion who talked to one of Al Gore staff members and suggested that risk and that word risky was the best line of attack I'm gonna tell you it was me I actually was advising the Al Gore campaign now I was advising through advisers and what that means if you're not involved in this world it means that it means that Al Gore might not be aware

[29:46]

it means that Al Gore might not be aware of where the suggestion came from meaning that you know they get lots of suggestions from lots of people it's unlikely that Al Gore necessarily knew that it came from me and it's even less likely that President Clinton knew that Al Gore got it from somebody who got it from me and there you have it that's the first time I've ever told that story in public by the way and I think we've just come to a time when it's it's fair to tell it now can I guarantee that I was the cause of either Al Gore using risky scheme as his theme can I guarantee that actually no because I can't guarantee that because it's possible somebody else came up with it at exactly the same time because the timing was also right I said it and then it came out of his mouth basically so as possible as somebody else thought of it it just was at the

[30:48]

else thought of it it just was at the same time and it's also possible that the Biden campaign came up with it completely on their own maybe it could be but look for these little these little linguistic tells and sometimes you can trace them back to their source I'm pretty sure dark came from Godzilla or Robert Chill Dini or somebody that he mentored and there's a good chance that the Biden campaign commercial is at least influenced through a chain of connections to something I did back in the 90s now why have I never told you this story before there's a good reason you wouldn't have believed it if I had told you this story in the late 90s would you have believed it no you wouldn't you wouldn't have believed it because you would have said yeah cartoonists maybe not

[31:51]

yeah cartoonists maybe not but now easily now you've watched and now you have observed me introducing words and concepts which have entered their the common consciousness so you've seen me do it a number of times and therefore I can tell you the story for the first time because now you believe that I could do that all right now some of you are gonna be mad at me and say why could you do that why could you help on that and the answer is very simple the Bill Clinton economy was really good I didn't want more risk do you know what you shouldn't do when you're in the Trump economy the Trump economy is great do you know what you shouldn't do change the whole thing with a Bernie or an Elizabeth Warren approach there's no rational risk management approach no there's no risk

[32:52]

management approach no there's no risk management approach that makes sense if things are going well that you change it all just doesn't make sense so the same argument that worked for Al Gore don't introduce risk when things are going well is exactly the same argument that the president you use now Biden is cleverly using it against the president and I think that's a good play we'll see if it works all right now you're gonna what you're good to say is well isn't Ellen or the devil and the answer is probably not probably not let let me let me really make you mad and give you a pro al gore opinion first of all I did get to meet al gore and hung out with him a little bit in in his office in the White House I was in the I was in Washington and one thing led to another I was doing some other business and I got invited to the White House and I heard that the vice president actually invited me to stop in now I find out

[33:53]

invited me to stop in now I find out later that he was actually a fan of Dilbert he actually had a Dilbert comic on his wall it would happen to be about him that's why he had it of course his staff got it but he knew Abby from the comic etcetera and and and so that's a my connection to him so I liked him personally now somebody sang he invented the internet here's a big mistake that Al Gore made when people mocked him for claiming he invented the Internet he said yeah you're right you know and he back down from that he should not have back down for that the reason he should not have back down for that is that he invented the Internet now he didn't invent it technically of course he was not the technologist he wasn't programming anything he didn't come up with the idea but he was the person who got it funded before anybody knew what the hell it was Al Gore made the internet by getting it funded because

[34:54]

internet by getting it funded because having a good idea it doesn't get you there you got to have that good idea and get it funded he thought he saw it early he saw decades before other people saw it he funded it all right he made that happen so when he backed down from that I thought it was the biggest mistake anybody's ever made in politics because he should have just owned it and said you know I didn't mean that technically but I did get the funding and look what's look what's happened I saw it early now climate change climate change kind of kind of interesting because as we talked about even the Trump administration has now maybe grudgingly but it seems that they've accepted the connection between co2 and warming it seems that smart people all over the administration are now on that side now whether that's the end of the world I agree with President Trump that were really good at solving this kind of thing we'll be fine I'm glad that other people are panicking because that's why things

[35:55]

are panicking because that's why things get solved but I'm personally not going to panic because I know we got this right but it looks like it looks like Al Gore's prediction from however long ago was directionally correct but full of hyperbole meaning that his predictions were way off you know that we would already be under water away off so prediction wise I don't think Al Gore has any credibility but directionally directionally both sides are on board now he actually got there first now it took me a long time to get to the point where I could say yeah probably at least the science part is right I still think the prediction part is crazy but the science part looks like both both Republicans and Democrats are starting to get on board on that so I've always liked Al Gore for being ahead of his time you can dislike him for his various policies and I'm fine with that

[36:55]

various policies and I'm fine with that but on two situations he's a time traveler I mean he got the internet before anybody knew it and he was on this co2 warming thing before any real politicians of that stature were on it and dedicated his life to it so I'm a big fan of Al Gore and I think the complaints about him he has a big house and he flies on a jet those are dumb complaints you know I think Greta should just fly in a jet if she wants to I don't think that has anything to do with their message you know we do live in a world where we have dirty tools and clean tools and maybe sometimes you have to use them both so I don't think that's legitimate argument anyway let's talk about Joe Rogan as you know he did serve a quasi endorsement for Bernie Sanders and of course he got a lot of heat for that because he was accused of being a

[37:55]

that because he was accused of being a bad person because his guests have said bad things but let me let me stop you here because I'm saying all the nut jobs and the comments that just has to say this if you're still saying the co2 doesn't contribute to warming of the planet your your group of people who who are saying that it's just shrinking to nothing we're kind of past that completely fair to say that predictions are aren't what they say they were we're not going to be necessarily underwater in ten years completely fair but that one fact the co2 causes warming you're really that ones that you know you could be right but it would be like you could be right that goes so real I mean it's sort of in that category you could be right that the moon is made of cheese I haven't been there I haven't taken a chunk maybe the moon is made of cheese I'm not saying you're hundred-percent wrong but it's you should be embarrassed

[38:58]

wrong but it's you should be embarrassed by that argument at this point all right the predictions you can still be uncertain about all right so Joe Rogan got a lot of heat because he has guessed this a controversial thing so he's being painted with his guests so slate did this story in which they were basically trying to trash Joe Rogan and and they have this theory that Joe Rogan is responsible for what his guests say and and Bernie Sanders is responsible for what Joe Rogan does so Bernie Sanders is responsible for Rogen's opinions which are somehow transferred from his guests into Rogen and then transferred again into Bernie so somehow Democrats have this weird idea of guilt transference that if you associate with people in any professional way or even personal that

[39:58]

professional way or even personal that they're bad thoughts and ideas transfer to you because you've promoted them somehow and then they transfer again presumably to birdie but it wouldn't end there because if Bernie's got this badness all of his supporters have it too we've learned that right so apparently if you're a guest on Joe Rogan and you say bad things those bad things transfer into Joe Rogan and then because he endorsed Bernie and Bernie accepted it those bad things transfer into Sanders and then of course the voters are really to blame so Bernie's voters are a bunch of racist and transphobes according to slate now watching slate cancel with some people it was very fun so that's that's a good time all right so dude Scott needs to understand the

[41:01]

so dude Scott needs to understand the number of hoaxers don't know what that means the science of co2 causing warming is not there I think at this point you'd have to be an idiot to think that I'm gonna be you know there's just no way around it anymore there I'm Pro skepticism and you know there's a whole whole lot about climate science and you know funding and what they really want and the projections and the economics so there's plenty of stuff to be skeptical about and I am skeptical about a lot of it but that one question does co2 yet all else being equal adding co2 to the atmosphere I think you have to trust that the scientists got that one right I mean that that's that's sort of like knowing that gravity works all over the earth you know sort of like that yeah but the Sun I just go

[42:07]

like that yeah but the Sun I just go look at your comments for a little bit because I was talking and now looking at them so much in vote Tony Heller on so Tony I was going to have him on some time ago we talked about it Tony Heller is I think the most effective persuader on the co2 is all a big hoax and I've I've looked at a lot of this material and I would say that he raises lots of questions that are worth answering about the accuracy of terrestrial thermometers and such and I think he'll that's worth looking at but on the basic question of whether co2 causes warming just you just have to release on that one all right it was fine to be skeptical in the beginning but we're way past that
yeah so there's some evidence that Elizabeth Warren's campaign is crashing and I'm still surprised at Biden's

[43:07]

and I'm still surprised at Biden's popularity because I still have never met a Biden supporter have you now I realize I've been you know I'm in California and you know I spend time in my little corner of the internet so maybe it's just I'm walled off in my own little bubble and there's tons and tons of Biden supporters everywhere but why why don't I ever meet one I've met lots of Bernie supporters if you looked at the Bernie support and the Biden support they're about the same right you know in that relatively in that same range why is it that I've I've met lots of Bernie supporters but I've never met a Biden supporter not once so I have to ask myself whether those poll numbers are even real at this point but there are different polling organizations so it seems unlikely they would all be bought off but it's one of those questions well I don't ever beat one

[44:08]

I don't ever beat one I miss and act like you know that the scientists got the co2 wrong and it's it's all water vapor and it's not that big of an effect and all that I know you want to do that yeah yeah all of you arguing this stuff co2 went from point O 3 to 0.04 that it's it just makes my head hurt because the arguments are so bad if your argument is that co2 only went up a little bit therefore can't be to blame a little bit of poison will kill you all right the scientists understand that it only went up you know by whatever refraction compared to what it used to be they've looked at that all right you're not the one who discovered that they've looked at that so a little bit of poison can

[45:09]

at that so a little bit of poison can kill you all right and here's the other worst comment I was waiting for this the planet thrived when co2 was way higher all right if you have if you're of the opinion the co2 can't be the problem because in our past we know that co2 was much higher and it wasn't warmer you have been bamboozled my friend you have been really bamboozled do you know what's wrong with that what you don't know so if you look at the skeptical stuff the skeptics will say co2 used to be way higher and yet the earth wasn't warmer therefore co2 is not a problem do any of you know what's wrong with that will you be hearing it for the first time from me because it means you haven't really looked into it if this is the first time you hear what I'm gonna say now you should abandon everything you thought about co2 and warming because you don't know a frickin thing here it is co2 used to be a lot higher

[46:11]

here it is co2 used to be a lot higher even though the earth was cooler because other things were very different then I think I'm not sure if it was the Sun or the atmosphere or whatever it is but you don't have to go very far to find out the that the scientists response to that is yes co2 didn't make as much a difference because all of the other variables were some of the other important variables were different so if you thought that that was the kill shot to co2 well he used to be higher you just are so uninformed it's painful because it doesn't take long to google that and find out yeah it was much higher all the scientists know that they all acknowledge it and they know why the co2 did not cause warming then it's very easy to understand the I think was the the Sun cycles or something was different it was something different than whatever it was but you really if you want to sound smart talking about co2 never say these things

[47:12]

co2 never say these things the scientists forgot to study the Sun that just marks you as terribly uninformed because yes they did they'd study the Sun - there used to be more co2 in the past that just marks you as uninformed because there were other variables are different we understand that and then there are other there are other complaints like well there was this period where the co2 was rising in the early industrial part and for 17 years or something it didn't go the temperature didn't go up so you're like ah there was this period where co2 went up in our modern times and and the temperature didn't go up with it I know it's because the and the answer of course is that it's not lockstep sometimes there can be a lag of 17 years the scientists say that that's what happens none of that none of these are criticisms against the actual science if you're reading the skeptical science and then you don't immediately google what

[48:13]

then you don't immediately google what the scientists say as a response to the skepticism you haven't done anything if all you're doing is reading what Tony Heller said and said well that looks pretty convincing then you're you're gullible you should not be in the argument at all you should you should recuse yourself if you read what Tony Heller says and then you take any one of his arguments googling and then see what the what the official response is well at least then you've seen both sides
somebody says your BS makes me sick well I will heal you by blocking you
somebody says incorrect incorrect gets blocked those are the rules people you can give me reasons but you can't just say incorrect we'll see if anybody else needs to get blocked I can't watch this alarmism mine is the opposite of alarmism people yeah

[49:14]

is the opposite of alarmism people yeah I just told you we're gonna be fine even if the co2 is the problem so that's the opposite of alarmism let's see who else needs to be blocked ten years from now you will regret these statements block
telling people to believe it because we said so there's not science well that's not what I'm saying
I piece of IPCC excluded the Sun and only choose to find human change they excluded the Sun do you know why they exclude the Sun because scientists have you're blocked I'm gonna block people who say it's the Sun from now on you can say this on to other people but don't you I don't want to see it anymore because it's just too annoying that you're not even trying you

[50:15]

annoying that you're not even trying you should at least try it's okay to be wrong but at least try it seems more comments can the theory be taste and tested here is somebody saying co2 is twice what it's ever been in 40,000 years yeah don't know what that means they won't debate him no there's a reason that they don't debate some of the skeptics why are they using it as a power grab as a that's a different question you call people gullible but if they call you that you block them that is correct because when I call them gullible then I give my reasons if they were to give me a reason and then call me gullible I would not block them if they said here's what you're missing and I call you gullible

[51:16]

you're missing and I call you gullible that's okay that that would be that would follow from the reasons reasons are okay hasn't the world been warming since the Ice Age ended look it up just looking at some more of your comments co2 is not a good greenhouse gas that's a a gullible skeptic point co2 is not a good greenhouse gas and you know water vapour bubble bla do you think that the scientists are not aware of how the various gases in the atmosphere like which ones are big ones and which ones are small ones okay that's not a good criticism climate scientists they can rank which ones have the most most effect so I'm not going to block you you just need to look into that a little bit

[52:17]

just need to look into that a little bit more now I'm not going to invite Tony Heller because he is not credible and so unfortunately he's not credible I do like some of his is descritization is getting warmer in the last decade or so so I don't think I want to muddy the waters with that boom alright just looking at some of the comments Wow boy soon as I'm bringing up that and I've never seen any any topic in which people know less but are more confident than climate science in both sides by the way this this is not both sides are so unreasonably confident

[53:18]

sides are so unreasonably confident about that it is a problem or isn't that I'd say they're both equally irrational
all right let's just see if there's anybody else who needs to get blocked we don't have enough characters to give you a well explained reason actually that well that's a good point I'm not expecting you to give an entire argument just give me the basis so if for example you said I don't believe you because I read this article and wired or whatever I don't deeply see the whole the whole thing I just need to know there's something there why don't they debate to the credible skeptics I used to ask that question too so that's a reasonable question why don't why don't the scientists debate the credible skeptics and I can tell you there's actually a good reason for that it's not obvious until you start digging into it yourself and here's the reason the

[54:19]

yourself and here's the reason the reason is that if you debate them it it elevates the skeptics opinion because then you're saying oh this is a worthy opinion worthy of being debated on the public stage that's just not the case the the skeptics were going to debate the scientists on scientific levels have not risen to the level of being credible enough that they should be on the same stage now and I'll say this a million times if the debate were only about the accuracy of the models you know the predictions then I would say that would be a fair debate because nobody is really great at predicting in the future in 80 years and even scientists should say yeah we're not the best of that so that would be fair debate I think the skeptics would have the advantage in that actually but the basic science that the scientists I I have grudgingly come to accept that they would be worse for even imagining that the

[55:19]

for even imagining that the counter-argument was worthy of public exposure what happens this we the public care judge who's right so so the skeptics would say you forgot the Sun and then the scientists would say no we didn't and then half the people would say you forgot the Sun all right that's all for now we'll talk to you later