Feb. 25, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
26:20
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Hey everybody! | |
| Yes, I know I'm coming to you a little bit early, but I have something scheduled in a little bit. | |
| So I'm gonna slide into your periscope life a little bit early. | |
| But not so early that we can't have a simultaneous sip. | |
| Because this is Coffee with Scott Adams. | |
| You are here to enjoy the simultaneity of it all. | |
| And if you are, if you're prepared, if you're prepared early, grab your mug, your cup, your glass, your stein, your chalice, your thermos, if you will. | |
| Fill it with your favorite liquid and join me. | |
| I like coffee for the simultaneous sip. | |
| Let's talk about the Oscars. | |
| There's a funny story about Spike Lee having too much to drink and losing. | |
| The funny thing is this is the second time he's lost and in both cases he lost to a movie that was blacker and better. | |
| Now, actually, I don't know if the movies he lost to were blacker, but apparently people thought they were better. | |
| One was Driving Miss Daisy, Morgan Freeman, and the other is The Green Book, which is weirdly a similar movie. | |
| So in both cases, he lost to, as he says it, somebody driving somebody, which is very funny. | |
| Now, the funnier part is that the president tweeted him some shade. | |
| So the president says, be nice if Spike Lee could read his notes, or better yet, not have to use notes at all when doing his racist hit piece on your president. | |
| So he's calling Spike Lee a racist. | |
| I also call Spike Lee a racist. | |
| So I joined the president in disavowing Spike Lee for his racist ways. | |
| So he's talking about himself now, the president is, who has done more for African Americans, criminal justice reform, lowest unemployment numbers, tax cuts, etc. | |
| than almost any other president. | |
| Now my understanding is that Spike Lee's piece of crap movie includes the Charlottesville hoax. | |
| And the president's comments after it. | |
| Which means, I haven't seen it and don't plan to, which means that no doubt that the centerpiece for this movie is a racially divisive racial hoax. | |
| Well, I would say worse than the Jussie Smollett hoax. | |
| Because If anybody's new here, the president after Charlottesville said there were fine people on both sides of the debate about statues. | |
| The illegitimate press, and now apparently Spike Lee, have decided to turn that into something that didn't happen, which is they re-imagine that or reframe it as the president saying that the neo-Nazis marching and saying anti-Semitic things were fine people, according to the president. That never happened. | |
| The president was talking about there were good people on both sides of the statue issue. | |
| He was not complimenting Antifa. | |
| He was not complimenting the neo-Nazis. | |
| Fake news. Still reported as if it's true. | |
| This piece of shit. | |
| Spike Lee makes a movie out of it to worsen race relations in this country based on a hoax. | |
| Spike Lee should be disavowed in the strongest possible ways. | |
| He is a terrible force for the country. | |
| Divisive. Opportunistic piece of shit, if I do say so. | |
| Now, speaking of good movies, by coincidence, I watched on my phone with my little headphones on the movie A Star Is Born with Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga. | |
| I will tell you that I only got to watch the first third of the movie, and then I stopped. | |
| I'm probably not going to watch the rest of the movie. | |
| Is it because I did not like the movie? | |
| It is not. | |
| I'm going to give you the strangest movie review you've ever heard. | |
| The first third or so of the movie A Star Is Born is so good that I'm not willing to watch the rest of the movie. | |
| And let me say that again as clearly as possible. | |
| The first one-third of A Star is Born, the movie with Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga, is so good that I don't want to watch the rest of it. | |
| And I mean that in a literal sense. | |
| It's not hyperbole. I probably won't watch the rest of it. | |
| It made me cry for about 15 minutes. | |
| In a beautiful way, not a sad way. | |
| Crying with sort of like a happiness, emotional feeling. | |
| There is an emotional, and I'm not going to give anything away, but obviously a star is born tells you that somebody turns into a star here. | |
| But the first part of the movie is so well done that it was jaw-droppingly beautiful. | |
| It was probably just about the best directing and acting you're ever going to see. | |
| It's perfect casting. | |
| And then the part that I was amazed at is Bradley Cooper in his performance as a musician. | |
| Oh my god! | |
| And here's the funny part. | |
| Part of the reason I'd hesitated to watch the movie is that I'm not a fan of Bradley Cooper. | |
| Bradley Cooper has historically been cast in roles where he's a certain type of Bradley Cooper guy, and I don't really like that character. | |
| That he typically plays. | |
| He's a little too handsome. | |
| He's a little too much of whatever. | |
| But in this he plays against type. | |
| He plays a heavy drinking musician who's got kind of a gravely voice like this. | |
| And from the first second of this movie he nails this character so thoroughly that you can't even imagine it's Bradley Cooper. | |
| I don't know if he won anything last night or not. | |
| And then Lady Gaga was so good, it's just crazy. | |
| So quite literally, I wept for 15 minutes at the beauty of the first third of this movie, and I think I'm not going to watch the rest. | |
| And part of it is because the structure of a movie is that there's something bad coming. | |
| You know, it's not really a movie until the third act, something bad happens, and then they have to figure out how to fix it. | |
| And I don't think I could live through the bad thing. | |
| Because the first part was so beautiful. | |
| So watch the movie. | |
| It's one of the best things you'll ever see in life. | |
| But here's my recommendation. | |
| Watch the movie with headphones in, or a really good sound system. | |
| If you're in a theater situation, I guess that's okay. | |
| But the actual quality of the music is mind-boggling. | |
| It's just so good. All right, enough about that. | |
| CNN is reporting that Kim Jong Un had used flamethrowers to execute people. | |
| Now why is it, you ask, that CNN is running stories right now, today, this morning, Showing Kim Jong-un flamethrowering, using a flamethrower to execute people. | |
| Now, I'm not going to say if it's true or false. | |
| I don't know. And I'm not going to say if it's good or bad that they report these things in general. | |
| But ask yourself why it's happening today. | |
| Because I don't think this was the only time they could have found out about it. | |
| It does seem to be working against the national interest. | |
| But it's also working against President Trump. | |
| And it feels to me like this is yet another obvious example where CNN is literally, and I don't mean this in any hyperbole, it feels like they've taken a position against the American public. | |
| You know, and I wish I could say that with more doubt in my voice, as in a question, gee, are they taking a position against the American people? | |
| But it's sort of obvious. | |
| That that's what they're doing. | |
| Now, I don't know if they internalize it that way. | |
| I don't know if they say to themselves, well, we're really going to screw the public. | |
| I hope they don't. | |
| But it's so obvious that this is the wrong week to run that story. | |
| It's not in the interest of the American people. | |
| It doesn't give us information that we really just deeply need to know this week, because we sort of basically knew that there were bad stuff happening in North Korea. | |
| All it does is put it in our heads. | |
| So all it does is bring to front of mind the most destructive thought in terms of supporting whatever kind of deal that may or may not come out of this. | |
| It's shocking that we could imagine that they're a news organization. | |
| Because whatever this is, is so plainly destructive to American interests and indeed world interests that I don't know how you explain it. | |
| I don't know how you explain it with any good intentions. | |
| There may be a way, but I don't know how. | |
| All right. So AOC did a live stream last night. | |
| I heard maybe she took it down, but I saw some clips from it in which she was cooking and talking again from her apartment. | |
| And I gotta say, you're gonna get sick of me saying this, but she is really watchable. | |
| Meaning that, you know, I saw a clip and I was inspired to play it. | |
| And you can imagine how many people send me clips all the time. | |
| People send me clips all day long and it's a clip of her cooking and chatting. | |
| And I think it's not even live. | |
| Like, why do I want to see this? | |
| I still clicked it. | |
| I mean, I couldn't help myself. | |
| So she's got that thing. | |
| No, I don't think it's because she's attractive, like she is, but I don't think that's what's causing me to click on it. | |
| You know, the world has other attractive people in it. | |
| I think it's, I don't know what it is, but then I watched several of the clips, and they were all interesting. | |
| You know, I'm not saying that I agreed with what she's saying, because I didn't. | |
| But it's all interesting. | |
| She's got that thing where she can be more interesting than other people. | |
| And it is definitely not a function of her looks. | |
| It definitely is not. | |
| But one of the things she said was that you have to really ask yourself if it's immoral to have children. | |
| Did you hear that? And the reason is that you would be bringing children into a world that you had destroyed with climate change. | |
| That would be her view. | |
| And that is it moral to bring children into a world that you've just destroyed. | |
| So yeah, you might happily die yourself before climate change ruins everything, but those kids are going to be really screwed. | |
| And I thought to myself, don't we always... | |
| Don't we always hear people say, well, if climate change is real, why are people building real estate on the coast? | |
| If climate change is real, why are banks making loans to people who are building on the coast? | |
| And those are good questions, right? | |
| I think there are good answers to those questions, meaning that, well, I won't get into that, but there are answers to why rich people would build on the coast, and it's because they're rich people. | |
| They can take a chance. | |
| If you're rich, you don't have to worry. | |
| You build a house on the coast. | |
| Someday you lose your house, you build another house. | |
| So that's part of the reason. | |
| But I like her consistency. | |
| If she's going to say that the world is at a tipping point and we may not be able to recover unless we act aggressively and we're not acting aggressively, it's a perfectly reasonable question. | |
| To ask yourself if you should have children. | |
| And so, here's what I thought was funny. | |
| Let's say you're a conservative, and let's say you also don't believe climate change is the big risk that scientists say. | |
| Either because you think humans will figure out how to get a handle on it, or you think that the science was overblown, whatever it is you think. | |
| If you're a conservative, do you have any reason to stop having children? | |
| Probably not. So conservatives have a clean philosophical path should they not believe in climate change or not believe that it's the end of the world to have children. | |
| People who are climate alarmists do not have a reason to have children because they would be bringing children into a world that's going to be destroyed. | |
| So should you start recommending That people who believe in climate change stop having children. | |
| Is that wrong? | |
| Should conservatives not be recommending that people who believe in climate change stop having children? | |
| Because it would be immoral to believe you're bringing children into an end-of-the-world situation. | |
| Conservatives could be right or they could be wrong. | |
| You know, I'm saying just the conservatives who don't buy into climate change. | |
| They could be right, they could be wrong, but it would not be immoral to believe everything's fine and also have children. | |
| That would be right or wrong, but it's moral. | |
| It would be a moral decision. | |
| So I think it's fascinating that AOC has presented a reason that the people on her team should not reproduce. | |
| That's not an exaggeration, right? | |
| I'm saying what she said. | |
| I'm saying that AOC has made a convincing argument, convincing to people who believe in climate change as a dire threat. | |
| It's a convincing argument that people on the left should stop having children. | |
| Just saying. Alright. | |
| Let's talk about climate change. | |
| First of all, there's this new climate advisor named William Happer. | |
| Now Happer is a lightning rod for criticism because he said recently that he equated recently Carbon to the Jews during World War II. And he unwisely said in public that CO2 is like the Jews in World War II because they were demonized. | |
| CO2 is demonized now. | |
| The Jews were demonized in World War II. And similarly, they were both good for the world, meaning CO2 is good for the world in terms of being a plant food fertilizer, and the Jewish people are good for the world. | |
| So that's what he meant to say. | |
| Worst analogy ever. | |
| If you wanted to reduce confidence in your judgment, just make a Hitler analogy with CO2. I was watching a clip in which Jake Tapper was talking about it. | |
| And Jake was just sort of mentally shaking his head, if you will, at the choice of that as an analogy. | |
| Possibly one of the most ill-placed analogies of all time. | |
| Now, that said, he was not being hired for his analogy-making. | |
| Nobody said, hey Happer, we'd like to hire you for this science-y climate science position, but not until we can test your analogy-making, because his analogy-making is quite bad. | |
| But we don't know yet if he could do this job, so I'm going to be open-minded about it. | |
| But I think it's interesting that the White House is bringing together experts to debate the question of climate science and how to approach it. | |
| I don't think that's getting enough attention. | |
| Here's what I believe about President Trump that might be different from what most of you believe. | |
| Very different. I believe that if President Trump educated the public at the same time he was educating himself on climate change and it looks like this process is meant to do both to educate the government and educate the public if they do it right now if we don't hear what this group produces if we don't if it's all not transparent Then I would be totally opposed to it. | |
| So just in case you're wondering, hey Scott, why do you always say good things about the White House? | |
| Why do you always say good things about President Trump? | |
| Let me lay down a marker. | |
| If they do this climate change meeting where they try to fine tune the government's approach to climate change, and the public does not have a view on this, Total frickin' mistake. | |
| Like a rookie, stupid mistake. | |
| That would be, like, gigantically incompetent to have this meeting and then not make it transparent to the public. | |
| We really need to watch this thing, right? | |
| If it really is a case of life and death and the fate of the planet, And it might be. | |
| You know, my position is I'm too ignorant to know exactly, trying to figure it out with the rest of you. | |
| But if they don't make this meeting transparent, and they don't have real climate scientists in there, and a lot of them, you know, if they don't take this seriously right in front of the world so we can all watch at the same time the government is getting educated, huge mistake. | |
| I would also assume that money was involved. | |
| If they do this thing poorly and it looks like the fix is in and they just come up with some secret meeting and then it just happens to be a result that's good for the oil industry, I'm not going to be a fan and I'm going to come down pretty hard on it. | |
| I don't want to prejudge it. | |
| If what they're going to do is bring in the right experts and do something that's transparent, film the meetings maybe, produce a report that has maybe the main opinion and even some minority opinions, something like that, something very transparent, then I would say this might be one of the best things any administration's ever done on this topic. | |
| And here's what I believe that's different from what most of you believe. | |
| I believe that this president, Probably has a genuine concern that he needs to know more about this topic and that if he did it might change his actions. | |
| So I don't think he's got a decision and he's just looking for some people to back it. | |
| I don't think that's what's going on. | |
| I think that the president is actually could be persuaded That climate change requires some kind of a deeper action than we're doing. | |
| I believe he could be persuaded if there's a process that's transparent and credible and the right people are in the room. | |
| I think that could happen. | |
| And I think he would be open to that. | |
| And I think he could change his mind in the public as long as he had the backing from the right group of scientists. | |
| Let's talk about the credibility. | |
| of climate change. | |
| So I went to Skeptical Science which is a blog which tries to debunk the skeptics of climate change and so it does a really good job of organizing the arguments and saying here's what the skeptics say and then here's what the experts say to debunk the skeptics. | |
| And so I go there to check out their arguments and I'll show you a couple of the arguments. | |
| And I'll show you, and this will tell you the problem. | |
| So here's, there's a debate on, let's see, you won't be able to see it too well. | |
| Let me bring down the temperature of this a little bit. | |
| Maybe you can see it now. So here's a graph of glaciers losing ice. | |
| And as you can see, the glaciers are losing ice. | |
| And here's the important part. | |
| They're losing ice more recently at a higher rate. | |
| Now, of course, the skeptics debate whether the glaciers are reducing, but I would say this site does a really good job of showing statistics pointing to public information that shows that the glaciers are decreasing. | |
| Now here's the part where I get in trouble. | |
| Here's a summary of that. | |
| So here's the climate claim. | |
| The claim is that temperatures are rising and that the rate of rise is unprecedented. | |
| You need the unprecedented part in order to sell the story because the unprecedented part, along with the fact that CO2 is the only variable that's moving in the same way, It tells you that CO2 is likely the cause. | |
| So let me say that again. | |
| Scientists know there are lots of things that could affect temperature. | |
| The sun, changes in the sun, you know, there's the direction of the, you know, the position of the earth, so to speak. | |
| There are volcanoes, etc. | |
| There are other greenhouse gases. | |
| So scientists have a real good idea of all the things that could affect temperature. | |
| But only one of those things, CO2, is changing at a rapid rate, which matches what the scientists say is the temperature increase. | |
| And one of the places you would expect to see this temperature increase is, and here's another key, not on land in the United States. | |
| So the climate scientists do not claim that the land temperature of the United States will necessarily show much of the impact of climate change because most of the warming is going to go into the oceans and into the poles. | |
| So if you're looking at glaciers you're looking at something more directly sensitive to climate change because that's where the warming is going. | |
| So if the scientists could show that the glaciers are definitely melting And I would say this site, Skeptical Science, makes that case convincingly. | |
| Because apparently there are 35 glaciers that they've been tracking for decades. | |
| And I think 34 out of 35, something like that, are substantially smaller. | |
| So I'm going to say it feels to me like a fact that the glaciers are in fact shrinking and have been shrinking for decades. | |
| But then there's the graph. | |
| Hold on. I've got to go in a second. | |
| The graph shows that the glaciers have been decreasing. | |
| But here's the thing. The graph shows that there's this unprecedented decline that is really the main case. | |
| If you didn't have the unprecedented decline, you wouldn't have an argument. | |
| And then I look at the graph and I say to myself, but wait a minute, their own graph Shows the same rate of decline before there was much CO2. So here was the best argument against the skeptical claim. | |
| It was the best argument. | |
| And it was self-refuting. | |
| I'm looking at their own graph that says there's an unprecedented drop. | |
| And I say, what do you mean it's unprecedented? | |
| I'm looking at your own graph. | |
| In the 40s there was the same drop. | |
| By the way, this is the Richard Lindzen argument. | |
| I borrowed this from him. | |
| Because he was the first one who did this and said, what do you mean it's unprecedented? | |
| Your own graph shows it right here. | |
| It's very precedented. | |
| It was precedented without any CO2. So I'm not going to make a call as to whether they are right or wrong about glaciers. | |
| I will make the claim that the way it's presented is as a fraud. | |
| In other words, the way it's presented looks illegitimate, even if it isn't. |
Export Selection