March 24, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
33:53
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom hey everybody Join me in the theme song for Coffee with Scott Adams. | |
| I think you all know how it goes, because it's different every time. | |
| But sometimes it sounds like this. | |
| All right. | |
| Hello everybody! | |
| Is it a great morning? | |
| Or is it a great morning? | |
| As mornings go, This was one of the finest mornings of all mornings. | |
| Now, let's hope the Mueller report does not surprise us and disappoint us when we know the details. | |
| But so far, this whole no more indictments thing is looking good. | |
| Looking good. So congratulations to Don Jr. | |
| and Jared and anybody else who has been... | |
| In the special counsel's crossfires and in the public's crossfires for two years, congratulations for your vindication. | |
| So, it seems to me that there are a whole lot of hoaxes that got revealed this week. | |
| Hoax number one, of course, is the Mueller report. | |
| We'll talk about that a little bit more. | |
| But hoax number two, if you're following the saga, even Wikipedia has now corrected, unless the correction's been changed again, but has corrected the record that the President of the United States never said that the racists in Charlottesville were, quote, fine people. | |
| It's been reported as a fact for two years or whatever it's been. | |
| But it never happened. His quote actually excluded the racists specifically. | |
| He called them out for total condemnation, the opposite of how it was reported. | |
| So the Mueller thing has fallen apart, and the fact that Trump praised racists in Charlottesville fell apart, both this week. | |
| What were the two most important components of TDS? Oh, you're right. | |
| I've somehow skipped the simultaneous sip. | |
| But we shall not skip the simultaneous sip, because it's time to raise your glass, your mug, your chalice, your stein, your thermos, if you will. | |
| If you've got a tankard, use that. | |
| Fill it with your favorite liquid. | |
| I like coffee. And join me for the simultaneous sip. | |
| Ah! Is it my imagination... | |
| Or is the beverage extra good today? | |
| I'm not wrong, right? | |
| A little extra good? Tastes good. | |
| Here's a little tip for you. | |
| Have you ever noticed that if you have some, let's say, keeping it rated G, some intimate marital relations with your spouse... | |
| Have you ever noticed that the food you eat immediately after that is twice as delicious? | |
| It's one of those things I noticed when I was, I don't know, probably in my 20s. | |
| But if you go to dinner, let's say you go out to a nice dinner, say within an hour or so of having some fun at home, the food tastes completely different. | |
| And you should try it. | |
| It doesn't taste the same. | |
| It's like, well, this is the best meal I've ever had. | |
| Somebody said extra salty. | |
| All right, you're terrible. | |
| All right, here's another hoax that got taken down today. | |
| Do you remember the Southern Poverty Law Center? | |
| The Southern Poverty Law Center allegedly was an organization dedicated to finding the hate groups in this country and reporting on them. | |
| Well, it turns out that according to the New Yorker, it was just a whole big scam, and the top executives are resigning or got fired or something. | |
| So the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has been the bane of the conservative world, because they've been identifying conservatives as hate groups, just got taken apart. | |
| The SPLC was an actual hoax. | |
| It was just a scam. | |
| Now, that's not to say that some of the groups they identified were not actual hate groups, because they were. | |
| And I'm not minimizing whatever they did against the KKK earlier. | |
| Apparently that really happened. | |
| But the modern version of the SPLC, according to reporting, I'll say that allegedly, So that I don't get sued. | |
| Allegedly, and according to reporting, it was a giant scam and the people there were racist. | |
| That's the most delicious one of all. | |
| It's not going to get as much attention this week because we're all looking at the Mueller thing, right? | |
| But the SPLC, turns out it wasn't real at all. | |
| A total hoax. | |
| Maybe not total, but a hoax nonetheless. | |
| Now, if you really want to, I know a lot of you, you're probably not proud to say this, but if you feel like I do this week, one of the things that you're asking yourself yesterday and today, and just tell me, have you asked yourself this, how can I most enjoy The Mueller Report News. | |
| Like, what can I do? | |
| What news channels should I watch? | |
| Who should I talk to? | |
| How can I maximize my actual pleasure? | |
| Well, one suggestion is I tweeted around, it was last night or this morning, an article by Matt Taibbi. | |
| Now look for my tweet for an article written by Matt Taibbi, who just It just tears apart the media. | |
| And what's fun about it is that he's such a good writer. | |
| It's a longish article, but that's what makes it so enjoyable. | |
| You start reading that article, and you start feeling, oh, yeah. | |
| Oh, yeah, Matt. | |
| Oh, you're hitting it. | |
| Matt, you're hitting it. | |
| And then you keep reading it, and you're like, Matt. | |
| Okay, Matt, whoa. | |
| It just keeps getting better and better. | |
| I had to give up. | |
| I actually had too much happiness. | |
| I couldn't read to the end of the article because I was actually so happy I couldn't read anymore. | |
| It was so freaking good. | |
| I mean, it's really good. | |
| If you just want to enjoy the weekend and enjoy the greater level of awareness that the entire world has just gone to. | |
| The way I'd put it, Is that we've all raised our awareness. | |
| Whatever you thought a week ago about the reliability of the news, you don't think that anymore, do you? | |
| So whatever you thought about the reliability of the news just one week ago, gone forever. | |
| Nobody will ever trust the news again. | |
| And that's sort of what Matt Taibbi was getting at, because he gives lots more examples that you've forgotten about or you haven't put them in the same story. | |
| But when you see them all collected together, it'll change you. | |
| You read the Matt Taibbi story, if you've been, let's say you've been casually following the Mueller stuff, If you're a casual follower of the news and you read Matt Taibbi's article, you will be changed. | |
| You will never be able to see the world the same way again. | |
| It's actually that powerful. | |
| All right. The president... | |
| Oh, this day couldn't be better. | |
| So the president, everybody's wondering, where is the tweeter in chief? | |
| The most prolific, provocative tweeter of all time just gets the second biggest win of all time. | |
| Winning the election was the biggest win he could possibly have. | |
| But the Mueller no indictment part, you know, there still could be some bad stuff in there, but the no indictment part is about as big a victory as any president ever had in a domestic political context. | |
| So what does the most prolific, provocative tweeter-in-chief do when he has the biggest win a president's ever had while already in office? | |
| Well, not counting, let's say, winning world wars and stuff. | |
| But he goes the other direction. | |
| He goes silent. | |
| Now, some of the silence... | |
| No, he did tweet today. | |
| We'll get to that. But some of the silence until this morning... | |
| May have been just his lawyer saying, you know, let's make sure we see what's in this thing before you get too cocky. | |
| So it could be that there might be a little bit of bad news in there and he doesn't want to crow too much about it because then it will look like he's crowing about things but then there's a little bit of bad news in there and they go, well, you've got ahead of yourself. | |
| You crowed too early or you said mission accomplished too early. | |
| So there's a risk On the celebration side, right? | |
| So the president would be putting himself at risk if he celebrated a little too early. | |
| But how can he ignore it? | |
| He can't ignore such seemingly good news just because we're not 100% sure that it's going to end up in an unambiguously positive way for him. | |
| So what is the smartest Thing you could do if you were an experienced television personality. | |
| You knew branding. | |
| You knew promotion. You knew the business model of the press. | |
| You knew the public's feeling. | |
| You knew the anticipation coming to this moment. | |
| You knew it was the biggest moment in political history lately. | |
| I mean, not forever, but lately. | |
| It's just one of the biggest deals. | |
| The whole world is waiting for this thing. | |
| So what do you do? | |
| If you're the showman in chief? | |
| Nothing. Nothing. | |
| I can't tell you how perfect doing nothing was. | |
| Because remember, what is the other thing people say about this president? | |
| What is the other hoax? | |
| Well, there's so many of them, I better narrow it down for you. | |
| The other hoax is... | |
| can't control himself. | |
| I have to stand up. | |
| I just have to stand up to say this. | |
| The other hoax that we've been hearing for two years can't control his mouth. | |
| Impulsive. | |
| Can't control his tweets. | |
| The pure beauty of that decision to not tweet for 24 hours and then when he does tweet, he says, good morning, have a great day. | |
| I don't know how you rank these things, right? | |
| Because, you know, it's easy to get impressed about something that happened today, but maybe it's not the best tweet of all time. | |
| So I want to say that the tweet is the best of all time. | |
| But the way he handled this tweeting... | |
| Legendary. Now, it could be it's just a legal strategy. | |
| He doesn't want to get ahead of himself. | |
| So it might not be as impressive as I'm hoping it is. | |
| But what I hope is that he thinks he scored a complete victory. | |
| And he knew that the best way to play it was to stay silent for the first time ever. | |
| Now, if that's what he did, And we don't know, right? | |
| I mean, it could be other factors. | |
| But if he did it for the show... | |
| Oh, my God. | |
| Oh, my God. It's just brilliant. | |
| If he did it for that reason. | |
| Now, if he did it for other reasons, who knows? | |
| We'll find out later. But just the potential... | |
| To me, the potential that he did this... | |
| Just to be a showman is so delicious. | |
| You'll never be this entertained by another president. | |
| It's just not going to happen. All right. | |
| Apparently, Rachel Maddow's reaction to the Mueller report is, quote, this is the start of something, apparently, not the end of something. | |
| Well, okay. | |
| Let's see how that goes. I told you that the Mueller report probably wouldn't change more than, I said, 10 basis points. | |
| In other words, if 50% of the world believes that Trump was a Russian puppet, That the 50% will not change by more than going from 50 to 40, so about 10 points there. | |
| There's a Fox News poll, and they asked people, what are the odds that they will change their opinion based on the Mueller report? | |
| 41% said there's no way that the Mueller report will change their opinion, no matter what's in there. | |
| No, those people are weirdly self-aware. | |
| They're weirdly self-aware that data doesn't change their opinions. | |
| In a weird way, I respect people who say, yeah, if all the data changes, I'm not even going to change my opinion. | |
| If you're willing to actually say that out loud, I at least appreciate your honesty. | |
| All right? There's something wrong with your brain. | |
| That's a separate question. | |
| But the honesty? I like it. | |
| But apparently... So 41% said the Mueller report, no matter what it is, isn't going to change their opinion of the president. | |
| 29% say there's a small chance. | |
| So you've got, what, 70% of people say there's almost no chance that the Mueller report changes their opinion. | |
| But 7% say... | |
| There's a strong chance. | |
| So remember I said sub-10%? | |
| So 7% say, yeah, there's a strong chance that this will change my opinion of things. | |
| Just about what I thought. | |
| Now, what happens if 7% of the public goes from anti-Trump to, well, maybe I've overreacted? | |
| If 7% of the country... | |
| It really does move from, I got a real problem with this president, to, gosh, the news may be exaggerating what's wrong with this president. | |
| Where is the slaughter meter? | |
| Let me reintroduce, for anybody who doesn't know the concept, I've introduced the idea of the slaughter meter. | |
| The slaughter meter is what will happen in 2020 presidential election. | |
| If none of the variables change from where they are right now. | |
| In other words, if just you straight line the trend. | |
| Now, of course, that can never happen because there will be lots of surprises and dips and, you know, there will be hills and valleys. | |
| But it's fun to do. | |
| So here's the thing. If you had the election today, I think people are saying Bernie will win or Biden will win or something, but that's not what we're saying. | |
| We're saying if all the variables stayed the same and then you just project down to what that would look like in 2020, it would be a slaughter. | |
| The president would win one of the biggest electoral college victories of recent history. | |
| So the slaughter meter is pinned at 100% chance of slaughter. | |
| Now, that's not a prediction, because the prediction is lots is going to change, and so the slaughter meter will go up and down between now and 2020. | |
| It's just where it is today. All right. | |
| Here's another hoax that got killed today. | |
| You just don't know it yet. | |
| You know that I've been looking into climate science. | |
| Trying to figure out what's true and what isn't. | |
| Now, I'm still on the fence as to whether or not there's a major problem or not a major problem. | |
| Because my main conclusion is both sides are lying about a lot. | |
| One of the sides... | |
| Presumably is not lying about everything. | |
| But it's very obvious, once you start digging into it, that both the skeptics are, most if not all of them, are lying. | |
| Well, or wrong. | |
| But the climate scientists, even if everything that they say is true, even if everything they say is true in terms of the big picture, About half of all published studies tend to be not reproducible, and probably half of what you hear about climate change is more about the marketing of the idea, | |
| and that stuff is mostly BS. So both sides have so much BS that it's hard to figure out which one has the kernel of truth. | |
| So that's where I am. | |
| So my personal situation is I'm right between them. | |
| Both sides can't be trusted. | |
| And so I don't know how to square it. | |
| But there is one thing I'm going to give you my current preliminary ruling on. | |
| One of the main claims of climate science is that it's settled. | |
| Right? So if there were some conclusive way to find out that it's not settled in a way that's not, you know, crazy skeptic stuff, Then you would debunk the main claim that it's settled. | |
| You would not have debunked the notion that it might be a big problem. | |
| So, separately, it could still be a disaster. | |
| And the scientists could be completely right about that. | |
| But, independent of the actual reality, there's how certain are we? | |
| And the claim of the scientists are that we're certain to the point where it's just a fact. | |
| So I gave a challenge recently by Twitter. | |
| I tweeted a skeptic's graph that said that in the beginning of the century, the rate of temperature increase was similar to the rate now. | |
| And in between those two rates that look similar was an unexpected sort of plateau or cooling. | |
| And that the theory of CO2 being the main driver of temperature would not explain why the early part of the century and now have a similar slope because we have so much more CO2 now. | |
| It should have been earlier it was low and now it's high. | |
| That's what it should have looked like. | |
| But the graph, if it's correct, says that we had two periods separated by decades that were the same slope. | |
| And one of them had a lot of CO2, and one of them had a lot less. | |
| So how does CO2 explain that when it was completely different, and yet you got the same thing? | |
| And then the more problematic part is the part where the temperature wasn't rising from 1940 to 1980. | |
| So for 40 years, there's some general agreement that the temperature wasn't rising too much. | |
| So the question was, how does the current theory of CO2 and anthropomorphic global warming, how does it explain the fact that there was something that looks like it's off-model, you know, that there was some 40 years where there wasn't the warming? | |
| And I want to read to you... | |
| From Skeptical Science. | |
| So Skeptical Science is a site that does what I consider a really good service, whereas they try to take every skeptical argument and then they debunk it using the best science. | |
| Now, the writers of this website I don't necessarily think are climate scientists themselves. | |
| Maybe it doesn't matter, because they simply use the available science. | |
| So they point to the study, they point to the graph, they point to the temperatures. | |
| And they have a very long list of skeptical claims, and they debunk them quite well. | |
| So every time I've looked at their site to see about a skeptical claim, I'll read the claim and I'll say, ah, a skeptical claim looks pretty solid. | |
| And then I'll go to their site and I'll say, oh, okay, I guess it was BS after all. | |
| But this latest claim I had called out a sort of like the key lever. | |
| You know, if the claim is true, it really means something, and if the claim is false, that means something else. | |
| And so I want to read to you the exact quote from Skeptical Science, in which they explain the 40 years, from 1940 to 1980, roughly, where the CO2 warming theory doesn't seem to fit the graphs. | |
| So how do they explain it? | |
| Now remember, the question we're asking is, is climate science settled? | |
| And here's the scientific argument from Skeptical Science. | |
| It says, so what caused the cooling period that interrupted the overall trend in the middle of the century? | |
| So they're talking about that same period, 1940 to 1980. | |
| And then they say, the answer seems to lie in solar dimming. | |
| The answer seems to lie. | |
| Does seems to lie? | |
| Sound like they know what they're talking about for sure. | |
| I'll keep going. | |
| A cooling phenomena caused by airborne pollutants. | |
| So they say, it seems to be caused by airborne pollutants. | |
| And they say, the main culprit is likely to have been. | |
| So in other words, to explain a 40-year period in our recent 100 years, The language used here on the pro-science side of the debate, the exact language here on this one website, Skeptical Science, is the main culprit is likely to have been. | |
| Likely to have been. | |
| Does likely sound like settled science to you? | |
| Let me go on. The main culprit has likely been an increase in sulfate aerosols, which reflect incoming solar energy back into space and lead to cooling. | |
| And they say that there might have been two causes that would be unique to 1940 through 1980 that would not be the case today. | |
| They said those two causes would be industrial pollution, basically, Because back then, industry polluted more. | |
| They didn't have the same environmental controls. | |
| So point one would be industrial pollution, and number two would be volcanic eruptions. | |
| Now, all right, so the first part has said two weasel things. | |
| It said that the answer seems to be, and then they said the culprit is likely to amend. | |
| In other words, a clear admission that the scientists don't understand a 40-year period in the last 80 years according to their own best settled science. | |
| So it's settled science that can't explain 40 of the last 100 years. | |
| In fact, that's just the 40 years where temperatures weren't going up. | |
| Do you know what else it can't explain? | |
| The 40 years before that, where it was going up at the same rate it is now. | |
| So there's something like, I'm just, this is not an exact number, but something like 80 of the last 40 years, I'm sorry, something like 80 of the last, I don't know, 120 years, are not explained by the settled science. | |
| In fact, it conflicts with it. | |
| You know, so they have strong evidence So when they say it's likely that the aerosols are likely that the pollution were the explanation, they do have more. | |
| The article, you know, gives more scientific studies that seem to confirm that. | |
| Not confirm, but rather suggest that it's true. | |
| But, so this is a very big proponent of anthropological global warming, and this proponent only refers to the theory as being likely and seems to. | |
| All right? But it gets better. | |
| In the same argument, a little bit down the page, on skeptical science, is this sentence. | |
| Wait for this. | |
| It says, as a final point, and so now, as a final point to the same topic, it should be noted that in 1945, the way in which sea temperatures were measured changed, leading to a substantial drop in apparent temperatures. | |
| Once the data are corrected, Once the data are corrected, it is expected that the cooling trend in the middle of the century will be less pronounced. | |
| Let me put this in my own words. | |
| If they use the data that they had before, which they know to be wrong, it still explains their theory. | |
| In other words, their theory works When the data is wrong by their own description. | |
| Because this was just a whole explanation of why, well, yes, it still works because you throw in the aerosols, you throw in the pollution, you throw in the volcanoes, you throw in the CO2, it all works. | |
| It all works by their own description with incorrect temperatures. | |
| And then it goes on to say that it will work even better When they fix the temperatures so they're correct. | |
| What kind of a theory works if the data is correct and also works when the data is incorrect? | |
| Because that's what they're saying in pretty clear language, that the current incorrect ocean temperatures totally explained. | |
| You just have to throw in some pollution from the 40s, throw in a little volcano action, bam! | |
| CO2, you got it. | |
| All variables have been explained. | |
| If that's true, then when you correct the ocean temperatures, your theory should no longer work, right? | |
| Because then the curve, which they say has now been completely explained away by pollution and by volcanoes, no longer needs to be explained away. | |
| So how does the theory still work when the data changes? | |
| All right, so here's my point. | |
| Nothing I've said would disprove the basic notion that we have a climate catastrophe and that humans are the primary cause. | |
| So I've not said that's debunked. | |
| Be very careful about that, right? | |
| I'm not debunking, based on this information, anything about the actual outcome and the danger. | |
| I am debunking, and I'm going to say this as a conclusion, Like science, I can change my conclusions if the data changes. | |
| So in science, when they say there's a theory, the scientific meaning of theory is that it's basically proven. | |
| Sure, if new information came up, we would revise our theory. | |
| But in science, theory means as good as a fact for all practical purposes. | |
| Yes, still it can change because that's how science works. | |
| I'm going to say the same. | |
| I would say based on science's own best argument... | |
| They have said in their own words that it's not settled. | |
| Or at least it's not settled that their models can predict. | |
| So, we still might have the danger. | |
| That part, I don't know. | |
| But I can say for sure that the scientists have been lying to you and that, like the fine people hoax in Charlottesville, like the Russian collusion, Like the Southern Poverty Law Center. | |
| The claim that it's settled science is debunked by the scientists themselves. | |
| I'm just reading their own theory. | |
| So, but don't take that as saying that climate science is debunked. | |
| Just the certainty of the claims. | |
| All right. Wasn't that fun? | |
| Alright, that's all I got today. | |
| I'm going to be watching the Sunday shows. | |
| I haven't decided if it's more entertaining to watch Fox News take their victory laps, or is it more entertaining to watch CNN pretend nothing happened? | |
| MSNBC is just batshit crazy. | |
| I mean, they're... If you look at their fallen faces, they're literally just sputtering and making stuff up at this point, you know, far more than before. | |
| So I'll probably be flipping across channels. | |
| I hope you do, too. | |
| Now... I'm probably going to turn on the Interface by WinHub app and I'm going to make myself available as an expert to the press. | |
| So the Interface by WinHub app, for those few who don't know, is my startup's company. | |
| It's a free app and anybody can sign up as an expert on anything. | |
| So I'm going to... | |
| I'm going to... | |
| Change my description. | |
| I'm going to say, ask me about the Mueller report. | |
| Ask me about the Mueller report. | |
| I'll make this just for the press. | |
| So, if the press wants to ask me about the Mueller report, damn it, Press. | |
| Press. I will lower my price to zero. | |
| My hourly price will be zero. | |
| And you can ask me about Mueller. | |
| All right. So I'm now online. | |
| So I'm an expert online. | |
| If anybody who is a member of the press, the press, if they want to quote on this whole situation, just to give their story some color, I would be happy to give you that quote. | |
| So the beauty of this app is that nobody has to trade contact information. | |
| You can contact me through here, and it would be an immediate video call. | |
| And I will give you a press-worthy quote. | |
| And I, if somebody says, can we listen in? | |
| Well, I would let you listen in if I knew it was going to happen right away. | |
| But I don't know when somebody's going to contact me. | |
| Yeah, the Slaughter Meter is at 100% right now. |
Export Selection