All Episodes
Previous Next
March 20, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
52:10
Episode 458 Scott Adams: New Climate Change Challenge, Mr. Kellyanne Conway, and More
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bow bow bow bow bow bow bow bow bow bow bow bow Hold on a minute Let me plug in my good microphone.
We'll make this a quality product.
Watch this.
Well, if all goes well, your sound quality just improved.
I'm hoping that's true.
Hello, all of you. Hello, Dan.
Hello, Ricky and Max and John and Stevie and Jimmy.
It's good to see all of you.
Come on in, gather around.
We got stuff to talk about.
But, to make our talking All that more interesting.
Let's enjoy the simultaneous sip.
If you've got a cup or a mug or a glass, a stein or a chalice or a thermos, if you have filled it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee, you can join me now for the simultaneous sip.
And oh, it's going to be good.
So just updating you on a project I've been working on and Joel Pollack has been working on as well, which is to see if we can take one piece of fake news and just change people's minds about it.
Now, what's interesting is, it's very unusual that you have conclusive ideas No doubt about it.
Proof for something. People will say that about everything from climate change to whatever.
But the reality is, you almost never Can prove something's true.
It's actually kind of rare.
Usually it's just people say, well, it depends what you're looking at.
It depends whose information you're taking.
But sometimes you can have evidence that's so objectively obviously true that both sides can look at it and say, okay, that's true.
It's very rare. And so one of those situations is the...
The myth that President Trump once called the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville fine people.
Now, that's widely reported by CNN. I think they've said it as many as 10 times a week, depending on the week.
They report it as true.
Now, it's a very unusual situation because you can go to the transcript, Or you can watch the actual video, unedited, of the President talking, and he says exactly the opposite of that.
He says, I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the racists.
He says it in direct, clear language, and it's reported as the opposite.
Now, you would probably say to yourself, wow, you picked an easy test.
This would be easy because the facts are confirmed by a live video Plus the transcript and both of them are completely unambiguous.
They say in the cleanest possible language the opposite of what is reported on CNN and MSNBC and a lot of the other media.
So do you think that Joel Pollack and I could make a dent in this myth by simply showing people the real information?
If you said that we can You have grossly overestimated the mental flexibility of the public.
Now, we've certainly made a dent in terms of, I would say, training Trump supporters how to deal with the question when it comes up.
So now when it comes up and somebody says he called the racists fine people, You know what to do.
You can go to the transcript.
You can go to the video.
You can show them that it didn't happen.
But what will happen is if you take somebody and say, okay, let's clear your schedule.
I'm going to just change your mind.
Just one person. I'm just going to change your mind.
Here's what you believe is true.
Now read it on the transcript.
And now watch the video to see that it's wrong.
Now that I've shown you In completely clear, objective language, and you've seen it with your own eyes, that you are 100% wrong, can you change your mind?
Here's what people will do.
But he said bad things about Mexicans, so they will just change the topic.
If you were to wait a week and come back to that person...
And say, okay, but now a week has gone by, and you've thought about it.
You certainly know he did not call the racist fine people, right?
We cleared that up last week.
What would that normal individual do?
That person would say, no, you didn't.
No, I heard it with my own ears.
And then you would look at him and say, do you have no memory...
of what we did last week where you made the same claim I showed you on the transcript and I showed you the live video that it didn't happen just a week ago and now you're telling me Some other different version of reality happened?
What I'm describing would be the actual predicted normal response to somebody who had been that wrong about something.
Cognitive dissonance would kick in and their world would become a fantasy illusion.
Maybe more than it already was, in which they can just translate the truth back to anything they want.
So talking people out of their illusions, no matter how solid your evidence is, is actually a thing that largely can't work.
And doing a public demonstration of it, I hope, fascinates you from the psychological perspective.
On a political level, probably nothing changed.
Because people just don't change their minds.
But from a psychological perspective, I hope this was interesting to watch how immune people are to data.
They don't care. Now, there's a weird situation happening that, you know, sometimes if you use Twitter a lot, you run into situations such as I did yesterday, Where one of my critics came in and said, well, I guess I totally owned you yesterday, Scott, because I made that good point on Twitter, and then you just walked away.
You couldn't answer me.
I guess that means you're not an honest player, and you know you were lying all along, and I've shown you for the idiot that you are.
And I look at that comment, and I always have the same thought.
And you are...
I don't remember that conversation.
I certainly don't have any memory of walking away from a conversation.
I don't know who you are.
I don't know what point you made.
So declaring victory when I don't even know who you are, or what we were talking about, or what your point was, is a little premature.
So let me say as a general comment, That I don't spend all of my time on Twitter just looking for every comment so I can reply to it.
Seems like I do, but I don't.
And so it would be quite normal that people would comment and I wouldn't necessarily see it.
I probably see most comments, 70%.
But there's an interesting one happening now where I'm coming to believe that I'm in some kind of a Disagreement with Nassim Taleb.
And I don't know what it is.
But I can only tell from the comments people are saying about it, that apparently I'm in some disagreement with somebody.
I don't know what it is, but apparently I'm in it.
And all I can tell from what people are telling me Is that I argued that if you have better information about your data, that you should change the bad data to the good data.
So I've made that claim that if you know your data is bad, and you're trying to make some decisions based on it, and you subsequently come up with good data, And you're confident that the good data is better than the bad, it would be okay to replace bad data with good data.
I'm seeing someone here in the comments says, that's fudging.
You're fudging. Now, apparently there's some kind of brainiac argument that says you should use bad data when you have good data.
And I don't know what's going on.
Because I'm watching people argue This point, people are saying to me in direct language that you should use bad data to stay consistent.
Or something?
Something something science?
And I keep saying, I'm not even going to have this conversation.
Because if you know your data was bad, fixing it seems like it's always the right answer.
So it may be that I'm completely misunderstanding who's arguing with me, or what point they're making.
So people here are calling that data manipulation.
I don't understand.
I don't even understand the point.
So, yeah, exactly.
Somebody's saying you're misunderstanding, and I'm agreeing.
I am misunderstanding the point.
So I think we're talking about climate change, and the topic was...
Some people made some models based on the data that they thought was accurate.
They didn't like where the models went, but they looked at their data and they said, oh, this is bad data.
We will publicly correct it.
We'll tell you what we're doing.
We'll tell you why we're doing it.
And we're telling you why the good data is better.
Now, apparently, that's not science.
There's some problem with using better data?
Somebody's going to need to explain this to me in a way that makes sense.
So I'm just going to leave that topic.
So my summary of that topic is people are arguing with me and I don't even know what the topic is.
Apparently I'm in a debate and I don't even know what it's about.
Welcome to my day.
So the news says that Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots, who got busted for allegedly using the services of a massage parlor that had some sexual services.
And I guess there's been some kind of an offer where he won't go to jail, If he does some kind of classes to learn about the badness of what he did.
Will you stop ruining my punchline by getting ahead of me?
Yes, the story has a happy ending.
Damn it! You knew where I was going and you got there first.
But I guess that was too easy.
Let's talk about the New Zealand mass murderer.
And there are certain outlets who use his name.
If you go to CNN, they print the name of the mass killer in New Zealand.
If you go to Fox News, they don't.
If you go to, apparently, the Prime Minister of New Zealand is also saying that she'll never utter the name.
Now, even when I've seen the name, and I've seen it a few times on CNN and maybe some other places, I actually go out of my way not to remember it.
And I actually tweeted that that's a good start, not talking about his name, but shouldn't we just erase him from history?
Now, when I say erase him from history, I don't mean that we never tell the story.
I mean that Well, let me put it this way.
I'm going to make a specific suggestion, and I want you to see what you think about it.
What if you had a standard, not a law, not a law, but a standard that said that when you have a situation like this, it is historically important to say who did it.
But you don't want to give them attention.
So how do you handle the fact that historically it's just a fact, he is a person, he has a name, we should know what it is.
At the same time, you don't want to give him attention.
How can you balance those two things?
And I have a suggestion.
I believe that his name should exist in one place on the internet.
Just, you know, let's say a webpage that just has his name.
And any article about him, that's a written article on the internet, would just link to the page that has the name.
So that people could go look for the name and they could find it.
But if they didn't look for it, It would not be discoverable.
In other words, it would be easy to look for it because it would say, you know, this shooting happened and the killer, you know, and the killer has a link.
If you wanted to know the killer's name, you could do it.
Just click on the link, his name comes up.
If you don't want to see it, it's not in your face.
You have to click on it.
So I would suggest as a standard...
That rather than erasing him from history, which I think reasonable people can say that's going too far, instead of that, we should all agree on a link, just one place that has the name, same link for everybody, and just his name, or maybe just a picture if you want.
But all articles after that should simply say the New Zealand shooter And hyperlink to it, and then you will never accidentally see his name.
I prefer, as a consumer, that I not accidentally see his name.
When I read the news on CNN, I accidentally saw his name, and it bothered me.
It actually bothered me.
When I watched Fox News, they were very careful to not mention his name, and I thought to myself, That's better than the news.
It's better than the news.
They've improved on the news.
Because the news would have included his name.
But that would not have made the world a better place.
The way Fox News reported it did make the world a better place.
Because they contributed to a standard in which making the person famous is not a desired outcome.
So, that's my suggestion for the day.
Let's talk about the Mr.
Kellyanne Conway tweet.
I have to read the actual tweet.
I think most of you have seen it by now.
But it's so darn good from the President that we have to share a laugh at it.
All right, so of course you know that Kellyanne Conway trusted advisor to the president.
Her husband has been tweeting horrible tweets about the president saying that he's mentally unfit and he's been doing it for a long time.
And the president has been largely muffled about it.
But apparently he's been unmuffled.
I assume he's had a conversation with Kellyanne Conway.
It stands to reason that they've actually talked about it.
And I assume...
That Kellyanne has expressly said, do what you need to do, Mr.
President, or some version of that.
So, if you're thinking that the President is just trashing the husband of his trusted advisor without her being in on it, I think that would be naive.
Now, it's possible.
I'm not there.
I'm just speculating.
But the most likely scenario Is that he at least warned her and said, look, I'm going to have some fun with this.
I'm going to tweet about your husband.
Just go with it. Which would have been perfectly fine, I think, with her.
My guess. So I'm just speculating, but that seems the more likely explanation.
Here's the tweet from today.
From the President of the United States.
George Conway, often referred to as Mr.
Kellyanne Conway by those who know him, is very jealous of his wife's success and angry that I, with her help, with her help, this is the fun part, with her help, didn't give him a job he so desperately needed.
I don't know if he desperately needed it.
So he's basically saying that even his wife didn't want him to get a job.
Even his wife didn't want him to get this job.
And then the president says, I barely know him, but just take a look, a stone-cold loser and a husband from hell.
Now, come on.
I get it when critics of the president say, you know, you're being unpresidential in some way that maybe is bad for the country.
But is there any way...
That this is bad for the country?
Of course not!
This is good for the country.
This is nothing but entertainment courtesy of the entertainer in chief.
You know, I say this all the time that Part of the...
I'm going to call it genius.
I'm going to call it genius.
Part of the genius of Trump's approach to the campaign and then the presidency is that he understands what other people do not understand.
He understands that the show, literally the entertainment, is part of the process.
It's not the unimportant part, because what is it that we focus on?
We focus on the show, the entertainment.
If that's what the public is looking at, and the President of the United States' job is to get us to focus on the things he wants so that we can make progress, the President understands us, and so he uses the show To focus you on entertaining things when that helps them.
To focus on what's important when that helps them.
He's just moving your focus around, but he puts it in an entertaining package so that you want to go with it.
Don't you want to read this tweet?
I mean, the tweet I just read you, is that not entertaining?
Did you not enjoy hearing it?
Even if you were an anti-Trumper and you said to yourself, my God, it's so bad that a President of the United States is saying insulting things about the husband of his loyal, what would you call it, advisor. Even the people who are like a little bit bothered by it, Are also entertained, right?
He is intentionally entertaining for a functional reason, which is that it sucks the energy out of anything else you cared about and moves it on this.
So what the president does is he's a master of understanding that the human mind is like a shelf.
And if the shelf is full, It won't process anything else.
My shelf is full.
So the president, whenever he sees there's a little empty shelf space, in other words, whenever the news is slow, the president jumps in because he knows the worst thing for him is a slow news day.
What does CNN talk about when it's a slow news day?
They talk about old news about the president.
They'll talk about Russia, they'll talk about Cohen, and it won't even be new news, or it will be trivially new news.
It'll be new, but it's not that different.
So if he doesn't fill the shelf, somebody else will.
So you look at this George Conway quote, and if you don't understand persuasion, if you don't understand the human mind shelf space, if you don't understand the business model of the press,
If you don't understand communication, if you don't understand humor, if you don't understand how the show is part of the political process and this president has brought the show like nobody ever even thought of doing, if you don't understand all those things, it just looks like the president is being foolish.
If you do understand Persuasion, and you understand how the mind works, and you understand psychology, and you understand marketing, you understand branding, you understand politics, you understand humor.
If you understand those things, you know exactly what he's doing.
He has taken your mind from wherever it might have been Do this terribly unimportant, little, dramatic, entertaining story about the husband of his close advisor.
And it's just interesting.
That's all. It's just interesting.
And it's kind of brilliant.
Now, how slow is the slow news day?
Let's call up CNN and take a look.
Let me tell you the types of things that are The news.
So all CNN has this week are the following headlines.
So I'm just going to read their news page.
Top headline is, Do you even need to read that?
Why would you even bother reading that article?
It's the same news you've been watching for two years, right?
That there's something about the Mueller probe that Trump doesn't like?
Is that news? Raise your hand if you are not aware that the president was unhappy about Mueller.
That's their top headline.
The president's unhappy about the Mueller report?
There's nothing new.
I mean, I think they have some detail that's new that's unimportant.
Let's say, here's the next highest headline.
So whatever's at the top and the left of the page, Are the important headlines, because that's where your eye goes first, to the top left.
So the next one is, Mueller's team says it's very busy this week.
That's it? The Mueller team is busy this week?
Which could mean one of two things, they say in the article.
One thing it could mean is that they're wrapping up.
The other thing it could mean is that they're not wrapping up.
That's the news. The news is that Mueller might be wrapping up or he might not be wrapping up.
That's not news.
That's nothing. There's something about Mueller had Cohen's email early, but that's just more slight change on the Cohen story with no real importance to it.
Like there's no there's no therefore to it.
It's just it's a fact.
Mueller's old boss.
Working with him was terrifying.
That's just sort of interesting color.
It's not really news.
And then there's analysis.
This is one of the top headlines.
Analysis. Explosive Russia revelations equal bad day for Trump.
So I thought to myself, explosive Russia revelations?
I better read that.
It's an article from six days ago.
So the headline, Explosive Russia Revelations, is from six days ago.
I'm sure I read the allegations from six days ago.
Don't even remember them.
I don't know. Do you remember what happened six days ago about Russia revelations?
Pretty sure it wasn't important.
Right. So, see the context.
The President's tweet about Mr., you know, or about George Conway.
Let's use his actual name.
It comes in the context of there's just not much going on.
So he's made sure that it doesn't go a bad way by making you focus on that.
All right. So, I've noticed a trend, and I haven't seen anybody put these three things together yet.
Probably somebody has, because I haven't watched the news nonstop.
But it seems to me that the Democrats are considering three different things.
One is lowering the voting age.
Democrats are considering that.
They're considering increasing the number of people on the Supreme Court so that they could just, if they get a Democratic president, they could just say, hey, let's put 10 more people on there and they'll all be Democrats.
And then they're also talking about changing the Electoral College.
What do all of those things in common have in common?
So everything that they want to do It has something to do with Democrats winning.
Tell me how the average person is helped by any of these things.
So the Democrats have completely sort of given up on coming up with ideas, with good ideas.
The Democratic main thrust is elect us.
And I'm thinking to myself, Okay, you've got some big ideas, changing the voting age, changing the number on the Supreme Court, changing the electoral college, and I'm sure they would like to change gerrymandering and do some things on voter suppression, and also they'd like to legalize some illegal immigrants.
And you look at all their big ideas, and you say to yourself, that's a lot of big ideas.
What do they all have in common?
And indeed, what does the Green New Deal have in common with all those things?
They don't have anything to do with the public.
They're all about getting Democrats elected.
If their big ideas are, hey, hey, I got a big idea.
It's another way to get me elected.
As a voter, I say, that's terrific.
Do you have any big ideas for me?
Do you have anything that would work for me?
Now, somebody was mentioning reparations in the comments.
I'm going to put down as a marker this prediction.
Anybody who comes out in favor of reparations for this election cycle, in the future it might change, but for this election cycle, nobody can win the presidency talking about reparations, even if it's on the table.
It's a self-kill shot.
There's no way you can win with it.
But here's the interesting thing.
It might be that the only way you can get the Democratic nomination is to be in favor of reparations.
So I think the Democrats have created a situation where they've designed, maybe accidentally, but they've created a system on their side where they can't win.
Because two things are true.
You probably have to be in favor of reparations to get nominated.
And being in favor of reparations makes it impossible to win the general election.
So I think they've actually taken themselves out of the game.
It looks like it.
And I'm starting to wonder, and ask me if, or tell me if you feel the same.
Is it starting to look as if the Democrats are playing for 2024?
Has anybody said that yet?
So let me say it for the first time.
What I'm seeing from the entire democratic field is people who don't look like they expect to win.
Has anybody else said that?
The Democrats are not playing to win.
As far as I can tell.
Because the Green New Deal is really interesting, and I actually have a lot of respect for it in the sense that I like a big vision, I like where it takes the political discussion, even if it turns out we don't We don't do it in just the way they imagine.
That's exactly where our minds should be.
Our minds should be future thinking.
Our minds should be science-based.
We should look at the big priorities.
So everything about the Green New Deal, in terms of where it takes our minds, I kind of like.
Even if we end up rejecting the elements of it, that's where our minds should be with that big stuff.
Well, I don't know if you can win with that.
Has anybody done a study to show that that's a winning general election So we've got this interesting situation where, at the moment, Biden and Bernie are solidly in number one and number two positions in the polls.
Now, initially, that's primarily because of name recognition, right?
And probably Kamala Harris probably has the third best name recognition or, you know, Beto's in there somewhere.
But basically, it's just organized by name recognition.
But let me ask you this.
When you look at Biden's popularity at...
What is it? Does anybody know the number?
What is Biden's popularity on the Democratic side?
Is it 15% or 30% or 20%?
Somewhere in that 15% to 30%.
I forget where. But doesn't it seem to you that both Bernie and Biden have a cap?
In other words...
Can an ancient white guy inspire...
28? So somebody's saying that Biden's at 28% and somebody else is saying higher.
All right, so let's say that the polls are arranging and that, you know, one-third of the Democrats are liking Biden as their first choice.
Doesn't it feel to you that that's also something like his cap?
If you were to look at the entire...
Democratic field, don't you think that a third of them would be perfectly fine with an old white guy as president?
Maybe a third of Democrats.
But doesn't it feel like two-thirds of them would be non-white or female?
And don't you think that those people are saying, I'm not a Democrat, so we can elect more very old white guys?
It feels like 30% or so is something like a cap for Biden or Bernie in terms of enthusiasm.
So let me be more specific.
I'm not saying...
Let me back up.
Whoever the Democratic nominee is will get most of the Democrat votes.
So if Democrats vote, they'll vote for whoever the hell got nominated.
They're not going to vote for Trump.
But will they show up?
Will two-thirds of the Democrats be excited about an old white guy?
I don't see it.
I don't see the excitement happening.
And I think that it puts the black vote totally in play.
It puts the Hispanic vote totally in play.
And it puts the woman vote totally in play.
Those are the strongest things the Democrats had.
So I'll say again that, you know, 2020 is still a million years away in terms of political years.
Lots will happen.
The things that happen between now and then are probably the things that will matter by election day.
So there's almost nothing you can predict at this point.
But if things go the way they're going, if straight line predictions ever worked, It looks like a blowout to me.
It looks like Trump is just going to walk through the field easily, because I don't think the Democrats are going to have much left by the time they get to the finish line.
All right. Let's talk about climate change.
I'm going to make this simple.
So there's a skeptic who I first saw on Mark Levin's show on Fox News, and his name is Michael Patrick, I believe.
And he's a Cato Institute guy, scientist, got a lot of degrees.
And he showed a chart.
And made the following claim.
And what I like about this is that when you're looking at climate change, it's very confusing.
And I've been asking for a while, can you break it down?
Patrick Michaels, thank you.
Can you break down just one thing that a non-scientist could look at To determine whether the climate change predictions of doom are accurate or inaccurate.
Is there any one thing we can measure?
Is there one statistic we could all understand and follow?
Is there one thermometer somewhere that's the one?
I know there's not one thermometer.
But in other words, is there anything that a non-scientist could look at, a graph, a prediction, an estimate, and that they could say, okay, if this is true, Then I should be very worried about climate change.
But if it's not true, then I'm not worried.
Is there anything that could be that simple?
And Patrick Michaels suggests something that is that simple.
And a very interesting thing happened when I tweeted it.
And here's the interesting thing that happened.
So his claim is this, that each of the major countries have their own climate models.
And there's a pretty big range of where each country's preferred model is Predicts that the temperature will go in the future.
And so, you know, there's an uncertainty range.
And I think all but one of them, all but one of the national models, are way hotter than what we've actually measured and observed lately.
There is one model that nails it.
Allegedly. All right, so everything I say I'm not sure this is true, so just put allegedly in your mind behind everything I say now.
Allegedly, the Russian model not only uses the correct variables as inputs, things we can measure and say, okay, this is a correct input, this is not a correct input.
So his claim is that the Russian model uses the correct inputs and has predicted the actual temperature accurately When all the other models have not, and if the Russian model continues to be accurate, as it has in the past, it would predict that there's no problem, because the Russian model shows lower temperature increases.
Now, what I like about this, and I'm not telling you here that this is an accurate description.
I'm not telling you it's not accurate.
I'm telling you that this is the first time I've heard a suggested metric that would really tell me what I want to know as a non-scientist.
And the metric is this.
True or false?
Just true or false?
If you can true or false me this one thing, and I can be convinced that your true or false is accurate, I will have a decision on how important climate change is in terms of dire consequences.
And it looks like this.
If it's true As the claim is made, that the only model that has accurately matched the real measurements lately, in other words, in the last 10 years or so, if the only one that's done it is the Russian model, and it's also true that the Russian model predicts a modest increase in temperature,
one that you wouldn't have to be that worried about, if that's true, then climate change is not something you need to get too worried about.
If it's not true that there is a Russian model that's the only one that does a good job of predicting not only the past, hindcasting, but also the last 10 years or so, if it's the only one, but if that's not true, then we have to be worried because all of the other models say we're in trouble.
So if all of the other models are the good ones and the Russian one is just the stupid one, then I'm worried.
I want it just that.
So the only thing I want now is that one answer.
Short of that one answer, I don't want to hear anything else.
So what I did was, is I tweeted it yesterday, and then there was a follow-up this morning, and I asked people to criticize that point.
So I show the graph.
It shows all of the, you know, the 30 or so models from the other countries up here.
It shows the Russian line all by itself down here, still going up, but not as much.
And I say, is this graph accurate?
Because if it's accurate, To me, the conversation is over.
I don't need to know anything else.
It seems like that would be the lever that would answer all the other questions.
And so what kind of answer did I get?
Typically, anytime that I've tweeted any kind of a skeptical argument against climate change, Do you know what happens?
People immediately send me to the debunking site.
So there are several sites that have debunking of the skeptics.
And so I wait, and sure enough, somebody sends me to the debunking site.
So I'm like, oh, okay.
Once again, it's a fake graph.
And I look at the debunk, and the debunk didn't debunk.
The debunk said, well, you know, this should have been different, this should have been different, and this should have been different.
But it did not debunk the primary claim, which is that the Russian model is the accurate one, and that the Russian model says there's no trouble, no trouble ahead, not big trouble.
So even the debunkers did not expressly debunk the point of That the Russian model says there's no problem and it's the only accurate one.
So if the best debunker I've seen doesn't even address the point, at this point, preliminarily, I would say that climate change has been debunked.
Now, that doesn't mean we're done.
Because if 10 minutes from now somebody tweets me something that says, Scott, you idiot.
Here's the real data.
That chart you're looking at is just made up.
Here's the actual information.
Nothing on that chart is accurate.
Now, if somebody does that, I'm going to be back to the starting place, which is I can't tell the difference.
I wouldn't really know if the debunker is right or the original claim.
I don't have any way to know. But I could at least determine the smart people say it's not accurate.
So far, I have not seen smart people say that that's wrong.
And interestingly, there's one individual who is all over my timeline who copies me on a lot of tweets about climate change.
His name is Jeff Price.
Jeff with a G, G-E-O-F-F.
And he's terrific on the scientific argument in favor of climate change being a problem.
And when I say he's terrific, I mean that I'm watching probably 95% of the people talking about climate change in my feed are skeptics.
And one by one, he takes all of their skeptical arguments and he annihilates them.
He just rips them to shreds.
And even not being a scientist, when you see, you see, somebody's saying it's pronounced G-off.
I don't think that.
I think it's Jeff.
Um...
When he annihilates people, he points to the data, and he's far more knowledgeable.
And I think in every case I've seen where he's come into the conversation, I would say his argument is just...
Way better. So I've been watching him just annihilate skeptics, skeptical arguments, for months, I think.
I think for months he's been just annihilating the skeptics.
And he does it so well that it's gotten to the point where I'm thinking, man, I'd like to get this guy on my periscope.
But he doesn't follow me, so I can't send him a message.
I follow him.
And I thought, well, that's interesting, because he should follow me since he's all over my timeline.
But I looked specifically for him to see what his debunking was of the Patrick Michael's point that only the Russian model is correct.
And it's not there.
Now, remember the first things I said earlier in this Periscope, I said the fact that something isn't there is not conclusive.
So you might come in today and debunk it.
But I'll be waiting for that.
But my larger point is, all I want to know about climate change is, is it true that the Russian model is the only accurate one and that it says there's not much of a problem in the future?
That's all I want to know.
So for me, the whole conversation of climate change is closed until I get that answer.
If I never hear that answer, I don't know if I'm interested in anything else.
Because there should be somewhere in the world a chart that is the improved version of Patrick Michael's chart if such a thing exists.
So I don't want to hear somebody say, well, there are a few problems with his chart.
I want them to show me the real chart.
I want to see the two of them side by side.
And I want to see that the real chart says that that Russian one is wrong.
Does that exist?
Because I would be convinced if you can show me that, you could talk me into it pretty well.
All right. Let me give you, for those of you Who have been following my startup and also following the issue of conservatives being kicked off the platforms.
Some of you know that my Interface by WenHub app, we added a donate button.
So I'm going to tell you there's something new happening right now that's kind of exciting.
So right now if you download the free app called Interface by WenHub, which I will show you here, And there is a new thing.
You can either find an expert or be an expert.
If you would like to receive donations and you don't want to be on Patreon, you can just be an expert.
It takes you probably 60 seconds to just create a profile.
If you're on here as an expert, you don't ever have to take any calls.
You can just have a profile.
So you can just create a profile and just never take any calls.
But I'll just look at any one of these.
Here's Brock Alexander, and he has a donate button, so it's there automatically.
So in the app, you automatically have a donate button.
But here's what we did. We added the ability to put a donate button on your webpage, and then the webpage will just take you to the app, or it'll take you to a webpage that acts like the app.
So you now have the ability, if you go to wenhub.com, So, wenhub.com.
If you go there, you can search for a creator.
And if you've signed up yourself, you find yourself.
And then we show you the HTML code just to copy.
It's very easy. It says, press this button to copy this code.
And then if you have a blog or a webpage, you can just paste it into your HTML. People who know how to do blogs know how to do that.
Just put it in HTML mode, paste it in there, and then your blog will have a button that says Donate.
And that Donate button will open up the interface by a WenHub app or a webpage, and people can donate to you.
So, we have taken the Patreon model inside the app, so you can take that button and you can put it anywhere.
In the current version at onehub.com, if you tried to make a call from that, you'd have to download our app for the browser.
If you're not comfortable with downloading an app for a browser, Which might be about half of you.
Just wait about a week and we'll have it in browser mode so no downloads are necessary.
At the moment, if you wanted to see it in its brand new form or there might be a bug or something, you can go to wenhub.com and take a look and sign up for a free account.
All you have to do is put in your profile information and you can have a donate button.
I have a donate button, and if anybody wants to support what I do on Periscope, you can do that at Patreon, because I do have a Patreon account, Scott Adams says, or you can do it at the interface by WenHub app.
And let's, yeah, Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson have talked about creating an app for conservatives for donations.
Let me...
I don't know where that's at, but let me make a general statement.
I don't know how much experience Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson have of working with developers and creating apps.
And I also don't know if maybe it's already almost done and somebody was working on it, but I'll make a general statement.
However long you think this should take, You're probably not even close.
The reason that my startup could create this function is because we had 95% of it done for another purpose.
If you were to start from scratch and just say, I'd like to build a competitor to Patreon, if you talk to a developer, the developer would say, yeah, that could take me 60 days.
Two years later, you would almost be done.
So my guess, I don't have any inside information, so I'm just going to make a general statement, that however long Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson hoped it would take for their solution, probably they're finding out That it's not even close to whatever the first person told them.
So usually the first person you talk to says, yeah, 60 days.
I can slam that together and it'll be solid.
60 days comes and goes.
It's going to be two years.
All right. Somebody says, I'm a developer, and I agree.
Yeah. If you talk to anybody who's a developer, you'll get a similar description.
So I'm rooting for Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson to succeed in whatever they're doing.
So I would love to have options out there.
If it's better than what I'm doing and it works, well, that's the way it goes.
But I worry that it's not imminent.
But I don't know.
So that's up to them to say how imminent it is.
What's my opinion on Judge Jeanine's suspension?
You know, I don't even remember what exactly she said that got her suspended.
So I don't have an opinion on that.
I do like the fact that Donna Brazile is joining Fox News.
I think that's a good play.
I like her.
I like Donna Brazile as a TV personality.
I think she'd be, from just a business perspective, I think she's a solid choice.
Yeah, people are saying, but she's a cheater.
But we know that, right?
So you could discount that.
When she talks about the news, you can say, well, that either rings true or it doesn't.
▲
Export Selection