All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 1, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
31:04
Episode 358 Scott Adams: Breaking Down the Climate Change Debate
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum Hey everybody!
I'm late this morning, but that's okay because most of you slept in.
I know you're a partying bunch of people, so you were probably hitting it hard last night, New Year's Eve.
Yeah! I stayed up until exactly midnight and then out.
But I let you sleep in today.
And if I make you wait, doesn't it make the simultaneous sip all that much better?
You know it does.
I hope you save some coffee for me, because it's time to raise your glass, your mug, your chalice, your stein, your container of liquids.
Make sure it's filled with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me for the simultaneous sip.
Oh, if you haven't seen the president's New Year's Eve tweets, you really have to see them.
There's some good tweeting going on.
My favorite one I tweeted around and I don't want to ruin the joke.
So just look at the tweet of the president's tweets.
One of them about Elizabeth Warren.
And one of them, in all caps, wishing us all a Happy New Year.
They're both funny. I don't want to ruin them.
You have to just see them yourself.
All right, now, I've been having fun.
Trying to understand the climate change debate.
And I'm going to help you through it as well, because one of the things that I've complained about since the start is that we unwashed citizens who are not scientists can't really understand what's going on.
It's just complicated enough, the debate over climate change, that it's hard to wrap your head around What should I pay attention to?
What matters? What doesn't matter?
Etc. So I thought I'd help break it down for you.
And consider this a process.
It's a process where we're going from not quite understanding what the heck's going on to one until we're getting a little bit of clarity.
I won't be able to get you to a conclusion today, but I'm going to take you to a clearer place.
If that makes sense. So I'm going to get you, you know, move you up the chain a little bit.
And to do that, I'll be using my new double whiteboard system.
Oh, I'll wait for the big reveal.
It'll look like a regular whiteboard at first, but just wait.
That's not all.
It gets better. So here you can see I've labeled this the climate non-debate, because it turns out people don't really debate climate.
They just yell at each other. So there's not much of an actual debate.
Let's see if I can get the glare off of this.
But we'll talk about it anyway.
Alright, so I've got what the skeptics say, and then I've got what the experts say to the skeptics, because that's the part that's been missing, right?
Normally when you look at this topic, you'll see just the experts talking, or you'll see just the skeptics talking.
But you don't see them talking with each other, which would be useful.
So I'm going to try to take the arguments and try to put them up next to each other so you can see.
And here's my own judgment about how much credibility you should put in each of these arguments.
Subject to change.
Everything is preliminary here.
So there's the argument from the skeptics that CO2 is not the big driver of change that we're seeing right now because temperatures are apparently going up.
And some say it's volcanoes or the sun or I think there are a few other theories about other things.
I would say that those have been debunked because it's easy enough to track those other things, the volcanoes and the sunspots and the sun activity, for example, and put them on a graph and you can see that they don't match the direction of the temperature,
according to NASA. Now, I'm going to say that this is probably Solid, meaning that enough people have looked at the other possibilities that if those effects match the trend line of temperature, we'd know about it.
So when I look at just the skeptics, they will produce a chart and they'll say, hey, look at my chart.
It's right here.
You can see it's related to sunspots.
But if that were true, I think the experts would have noticed.
I mean, even if you assume that they're, you know, influenced by money and everything else, if it really was this simple...
Hey, look at this sun chart.
It matches perfectly. I think they would have noticed.
So I'm going to say that the experts have the credibility advantage for these simple alternatives because they can just put them on a chart and they say, oh, it doesn't fit.
It doesn't fit as well as CO2 does, according to them.
And one of the reasons it wouldn't fit is because of the rate of change.
These other theories, I don't think that they explain how quickly it's going up.
And if you don't explain the how quickly part, the rate of change, you haven't explained anything because it's the rate of change that's important.
Then there's the Tony Heller argument that the data, historical data, has been fudged.
His argument goes that we can tell what the data used to be because there were published reports, multiple published reports, in which people were referring to the data as different than it is now.
And it is a fact that data has been adjusted historically, but apparently there are reasons for it, and that it's normal to make corrections.
I would put the credibility on this part of the argument at, so far, zero.
So I would say the experts have zero credibility.
And Tony Heller, so far, again, we're in the middle of the game.
We're not at the end of the game.
If we're going to score it right now, Tony Heller has a clear advantage because he showed his work.
He showed you, here's the article that says NASA says it's cooling or warming or whatever they're saying.
And then here's what they say now, and it doesn't match what they used to say.
And we know that data does get adjusted.
Now one of the claims is that the data is only ever adjusted in one direction.
We don't have an answer for that.
Is that a coincidence? That data is only adjusted in one direction to make it look like there's more warming?
That's suspicious.
So I'd give him the credibility on that because there's no good explanation for that.
I believe there's also an argument that some of the measuring stations, some of them have gone out of production in the time that we've been measuring.
And I believe part of the argument is that all of the ones that have been operating continuously don't show the warming.
It's only when you throw in new ones And make adjustments that you can even see the warming.
Now, I'm not going to say that's true or false.
I'm just going to say that the skeptic argument is strong because they show their work.
And the response to the skeptical argument is non-existent.
Or at least I can't find it.
Then there's the argument that the models are bunk.
And the experts would say that is not true.
Some of those models are hindcast well, meaning that they would explain the past, and some of them, but not all of them, do a pretty good job of getting pretty close to the rate of increase in temperature.
Not exact, but in a directional sense, they're close enough that we should be worried.
Is that credible?
Well, here's the first problem.
If you have lots of models, lots of different models, and I think everybody would agree there have been hundreds of them, some of them are going to be closer than others.
But it doesn't mean that they have a model that predicts things.
It just means they have a lot of models.
So if you have a lot of models and some of them are somewhat close to the actual reality, that doesn't mean your models can predict.
It doesn't mean anything. It only means you have a lot of models and you discarded the ones that didn't work.
So I would say that the critics have the stronger argument on the models.
And now, wait for it.
Wait for it. I promised you the double whiteboard experience.
Oh, yeah.
Look at that.
Double whiteboarding.
All right. Yes, I have upgraded my whiteboard so that there's a whiteboard on the back of a whiteboard.
That's right. It's a whiteboard, but when you turn it around, it's another whiteboard.
Oh, yeah.
2019, coming at you hard.
All right. So here's continuing the debate.
The skeptics will say the economic forecasts are not reliable.
And they would say because economic forecasts over 80 years are never reliable.
It's not even a thing.
There's no such thing as an 80-year financial forecast that's useful.
That's not a thing.
What do the experts say?
When people like me, who have degrees in economics and experience making financial forecasts, what do the experts say when we say, there's no such thing as an economic model that's useful over 80 years?
They say, what?
That's it, right? Have you seen anybody argue this point?
Have you seen any experts say, oh, here's a good reason why, in this case only, and not in any other case that has ever been known in the history of the world, but in just this case with climate, with all the variables, this is the one time in all of human history when a financial model, an economic model, is reliable.
Did they say that?
No, they don't. They hope you don't notice that people who understand modeling say this isn't even a thing.
It's ridiculous. It's just persuasion.
Now, let me pause to say, I've been talking to you about persuasion for a few years now, mostly about politics.
I'm in favor of persuasion even when they use hyperbole, even when the facts are not accurate, As long as the direction that you're persuading people is positive, that it's for the greater good.
And I see lots of examples of that with, say, President Trump.
Climate change, I'm going to give them the same benefit of a doubt, which is this.
If they're persuading us in the correct direction, let's say to save the world, to improve our economy, to make things better for the poor, if that's what's happening, Then, you know, being a little loose with the facts is okay, as long as they're right.
But what if they're not right?
If they're being loose with the thinking and loose with the facts and they're not right, that could be a problem.
But are they right?
Hard to know. Then the other...
The other point is that, I guess it was the IPCC, the economic forecast, was that over 80 years climate change might take off 10% from our GDP. And that was reported by people who don't do economics as a catastrophe.
You know, it's a dire problem because we'll lose 10% of what we could have had over 80 years.
To which everybody who can do math says, um, 10% over 80 years?
We wouldn't even notice.
Literally, we wouldn't notice.
It's being called the biggest problem on earth, and yet their own numbers say it's no big deal.
Now, how do they explain That their own numbers say it's not that much of a big deal.
And let me put it in this context.
If I told you right now that the current GDP is 10% lower than it could have been if we'd made different decisions 80 years ago, would you say to yourself, my God, it's a catastrophe?
Or would you say to me, huh, I don't even notice.
I wish things were better, but...
I don't even register it as a problem.
I didn't know it could have been 10% better.
So, what do the experts say when you point out that their own numbers say it's not that big a deal?
I think their response is something like, hmm.
Right? Yeah.
So I'm in favor of being directionally accurate as opposed to precisely accurate as long as you're in the right direction.
But we don't know that.
Or at least we unwashed masses don't know that.
So here's an offer I'd like to make.
I don't think there's any chance that this can happen.
But I would love to host a public debate with a good representative of both sides.
But it wouldn't be a debate in the normal sense, because I don't think that's useful.
Rather, it would be a conversation in which I would grill both of them And I would control the conversation.
So it wouldn't be them talking about anything they want to talk about.
It would be me directing the conversation specifically at the skeptical arguments so that we could have an answer.
Now I've heard, state your terms.
So I will do this for free.
So it won't cost me anything.
I would need a studio. If somebody like Dave Rubin, he'd be a perfect one, wants to host something like that, maybe we could work that out.
But we would need some pretty serious experts on both sides.
And if we could bring them together, I think I would also preview it With both of the experts ahead of time.
So in other words, I'd have them exchange enough information through me that they both knew what the other was going to say.
So I wouldn't want either expert to show up and deal with any question that they had not been prepared for.
So in other words, the only questions that would be our base questions would be ones that both experts saw before the event.
And then they'd know they'd have their responses ready as best they can.
But once they're in the same room, I might drill down a little bit, make sure that we're really getting to it and nobody's avoiding any questions.
So that's my offer to the world.
For free, if I can find a venue and two experts, I will host a conversation, not a debate.
I do have sympathy for the experts who don't want to get on stage with somebody who's a nutcase.
If somebody's just a nutcase, you don't want to really get on the stage with them and treat them like they're serious.
But we don't have to worry about that because we'll vet all of the questions.
Ahead of time. And nobody has to get on stage until they're happy that these are useful questions.
Do it on my tennis court.
That would not be good for a sound.
My tennis court is very echoey.
And I don't know that we need an audience, although that would be fun.
It'd be more fun to have an audience, but not necessary, I don't think.
All right. So, If climate change is the biggest risk to humanity, then I say, let's treat it like it is.
Let's try to convince all the skeptics.
And by the way, who would do a better job of convincing skeptics to believe in the risk of climate warming than me?
I'm really kind of the perfect person.
If you can convince me, I can convince other people.
But so far, I'm almost exactly on the fence right now.
I'm exactly on the fence between, I don't know, should I be worried about this?
Or, it looks like a bunch of BS to me.
I'm right there.
So I'm sort of perfectly, well, nobody's unbiased, but I'm as close as you're gonna get, I think.
Now, there's other good news that's related to this topic.
I tweeted this yesterday.
Apparently Bill Gates has said that 2019 and beyond, what the world needs to be working on is nuclear power.
And Bill Gates argues that it's really our only good solution for everything from climate change to powering the economies in the future, because there's no other technology that will get close.
Here's what's special about that.
I've said that's the most important news in the world.
The most important news in the world is that Bill Gates has decided to push for more nuclear power in the United States.
Mostly in the United States, I think he's talking about.
But I would assume it applies globally as well.
And here's why.
Bill Gates is not a Republican.
So that's the first thing.
So somebody who's not a Republican and not a conservative, and very clearly not, pushing for nuclear power.
Okay, so that's already man bites dog.
So that makes it a story, and it also gets your attention.
Number two, Bill Gates is one of the smartest people in the world.
Period. And unlike other smart people, everybody agrees with that statement.
You can say what you will about Bill Gates.
You can say, you know, in his younger days he did anti-competitive things.
You can criticize him all you want.
But here's where you can't criticize him.
He's one of the smartest people in the world.
Here's the other thing about Bill Gates.
Nobody bought him off.
Nobody bought him off.
How many people can you say that about with complete confidence?
There's no skeptic that you can really trust isn't getting money from somebody.
There's no scientist that you can really trust isn't getting money from some industry.
But Bill Gates doesn't need any more money.
In fact, he's trying as hard as he can to give it away.
When he says there's something outside the box of where you'd expect him to go, which is nuclear power in this case, when he says something like that, do you have any doubt that that's a sincere opinion?
You don't. That's unique.
If he were a politician, you'd say, ah, it's a politician.
If he were in the industry or in any way trying to make money, you'd say, oh, I don't know if I can trust that.
He's just taking a side.
But he's not. He's Bill frickin' Gates.
He's richer than God.
Right? He doesn't need your money and he doesn't need anybody else's money.
He has dedicated the whole second half of his life to helping the world.
And he's demonstrated that with the Gates Charities.
So there's no question where his self-interest is.
His self-interest is the interest of the planet.
Very clearly. You wouldn't even say it's just, you know, United States-centric because he's working, you know, around the world to better the world.
It's not even a U.S.-centric opinion.
He has the most independent opinion maybe in the world.
And I say that because he's also the richest.
The richest person can have the most independent opinion.
That's one of the things you get with money.
Nobody's buying you. And we know it.
Then you add that to how smart he is, and then you add that to the fact that he doesn't talk about stuff until he's really looked into it.
Here's the other question.
Do you doubt that Bill Gates has looked into the question of nuclear power?
You don't doubt that.
You know he's done a deep dive, he's probably spent years looking at it, and he's finally decided, after all that study and with all of his intelligence and all of his lack of bias, That that's the place we ought to put our attention.
It's a big deal.
It's a big, big, big deal.
Because if you can change the energy footprint of the planet, you've changed everything.
You've goosed economies, you've saved the planet, you've really, you know, you've just changed everything.
So when I say that's the biggest news in the world, It really is.
Because the fact that he's committed to it in public, and he is Bill Gates, love him or hate him, he's the smartest guy that we know who's not influenced by politics.
Smartest person in the world who's not influenced by politics.
So you take that seriously.
All right. Yeah, the deserts would become habitable if energy costs were low.
So just think about this.
Imagine if you could desalinate water as much as you want for almost free, which is what fusion power would get you.
Or even nuclear power would get you closer because it would be cheaper energy.
So the only problem with desalinization is that it costs a lot in terms of power.
If you take that power number down, you have all the water you need for anything you want.
And suddenly you can start reforesting deserts.
And what happens when you can reforest a desert economically?
You can actually decrease hurricanes.
So, apparently, hurricanes form, at least the hurricanes that hit, let's say, Florida, they form around the deserts in northern Africa because it's hot at a certain time of year, and that's what causes the high temperatures that kickstarts the hurricanes.
You could actually reduce the power of hurricanes if nuclear power became more practical.
Think about that.
Nuclear power would reduce hurricanes And we already know how to do it.
Suppose you had a problem with building machines to draw CO2 out of the air.
Should we ever decide to do that?
There's a decent argument that says we could have a lot more CO2 and everything would be fine.
But suppose you got to the point where you did decide to do it.
What you need is a lot of energy.
So you need nuclear power.
So nuclear gets you almost everything you need that takes this world to the next level.
And I think that's a powerful and important thing.
All right. Yes, we all know plants and trees need CO2 and greenhouses use it to fertilize them, essentially.
Do you want a reactor in your backyard?
No, I do not.
But, do we have to put nuclear reactors next to people?
Is there a compelling reason that nuclear reactors have to be in inconvenient places such as earthquake fault lines and such?
Probably not, right?
There's got to be...
Some way to put them where they're not in populated areas and still get the power to populated areas.
So there's... I think there's much to be done on power transmission.
Somebody says, do I believe in ghosts?
No. Simple answer.
No. Somebody is talking about the reactor in their pants.
Okay. I'm not sure you're on the same topic, but good for you.
Um... Yeah, so there's lots of technology that we don't all quite understand from thorium reactors to whatever.
So it does seem to me like we have a way forward if we can get through the red tape.
Now, what president would be the best president to work with Bill Gates on removing regulations and restrictions and getting nuclear power going in a safe-ish way?
Who would be the best president in the world to work with Bill Gates on that very thing?
President Trump.
Here's the argument that I've been making about President Trump from the start.
President Trump is not an inexpensive president.
Meaning that he comes with some rough edges.
We all know what they are.
They're well reported.
The things that give people Trump derangement syndrome are well documented.
So that part's definitely a cost.
But don't we see that he seems to do things that another personality could not have done?
For example, the progress in North Korea.
And again, Kim Jong-un Just pronounced for New Year's, he has reaffirmed in public his desire to be completely nuclear-free.
He just wants to make sure the United States does its part as well.
I'm not sure another personality could have got us that.
I'm not sure another personality would have cut regulations as much.
I'm not sure another personality could get us to a good place in the Middle East.
There's something unique about this president that although it comes with some cost, he does things that I think another president just could not get done.
We may be glad about that in the future.
One of those things might be that he could work with Bill Gates in a way that another president just couldn't make something happen.
So I think that's another one of his superpowers, is who he can work with and how bold he can be in doing things you didn't think he was going to do, like moving the capital to Jerusalem, or moving the embassy to Jerusalem.
So there's just some things this president does that other people just wouldn't do.
And sometimes we need those things to get done.
But it's not free, you know.
Let's talk about the stock market for a moment.
The news is reporting that's a big old black eye for the president because the stock market went down, what, 6% this year?
But I would argue that all of that is from the Fed.
And the reason that the Fed raised rates to slow down the economy is because it was too hot.
If you had a problem, like if somebody said, here's a portfolio of problems.
I want you to pick one of these problems that you have to live with.
But you have to pick one.
You can't pick no problems.
You have to pick a problem from this basket of problems.
And you reach in and you pick one that says, the stock market's down 6% because the Fed tried to slow it down because the economy is so good.
The economy is so good, the Fed had to slow it down.
That's your problem.
Is that a problem? Probably not because it argues that in the long run the stock market will be fine and you shouldn't be in the stock market unless you're in there for the long run.
So the fact that it goes down 6% a year after being on a tear is actually good news because it's only being slowed down artificially because it was too hot.
That's the best news in the world.
All right. Somebody says that's a correction.
Well, you can label it any way you want.
But the fact is, it is not a negative sign.
And it's only bad if you wanted to sell all of your stocks this year, which would have been a bad strategy no matter what.
All right.
How many hot dogs can I eat in a row?
Still zero. Vegetarian.
I'm a pescatarian, actually.
Alright, I think I've said enough for today.
▲
Export Selection