All Episodes
Previous Next
March 25, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
50:17
Episode 467 Scott Adams: Enjoying the Full-Bodied Flavor of Coffee and Exoneration. Mmmm…Exoneration
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
Come on in here.
You know what time it is.
Yeah, it's time for coffee with Scott Adams.
Today's coffee will be a special blend.
No longer will we rely on simple coffee beans for our coffee pleasure.
Today the coffee beans are mixed with the subtle and yet sophisticated taste of something I like to call exoneration.
Yes, coffee is great by itself.
Exoneration, pretty great stuff too, all by itself.
But when you combine them, you combine the exoneration and the coffee, you get the best simultaneous sip That you've had since November 9th, 2016.
And if you would, please join me.
Grab your cup, your mug, your chalice, your stein, your tankard, your thermos, fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee, and join me now for the simultaneous sip.
It's so good, it's so bold and beautiful.
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh. - Ah.
Well, of course, the big news is the Mueller response, but I thought you're seeing a lot of that in the other news, so I'd like to interview Dale, the anti-Trumper.
Dale, could you come over here?
I'd like to hear about your...
I understand you went on a big elephant hunt, a safari.
You were trying to see if you could shoot a big elephant, is that right?
That's right. It was very successful, too.
My elephant hunt was very successful.
Really? So what kind of an elephant did you shoot?
I did not shoot any elephants.
Well, you just said your elephant hunt was totally successful.
What does that mean? Well, you've got to look at the details.
We all piled into our utility vehicle in the hotel parking lot, and when we were pulling out of our parking space, we ran over a squirrel.
We ran over a squirrel, I thought you said you had a successful elephant hunt, but you didn't shoot any elephants?
I just told you we ran over a squirrel in the parking lot.
Victory! Success!
No, Dale, there's a big difference between going on an elephant hunt and getting an elephant versus running over a squirrel in the parking lot.
I don't think you can claim victory for simply killing a squirrel.
I didn't say I killed it.
Are you saying the squirrel survived?
I think it had a limp.
And... scene. So...
The hard work begins today with this Russia collusion stuff because the tough part is trying to sort out at least three different categories of people who are on the losing side of the saga.
Number one are actual, literal traitors.
People who seem to, apparently, I have been intent on overthrowing the entire country.
An actual coup.
Those people probably need to go to jail for the rest of their lives, at a minimum.
If we can confirm, if the legal system does its thing, right?
I don't want to, you know, not in favor of any, no crowd justice or anything like that.
But it does seem at this point that the likelihood that there were genuine Traitors who are trying to overthrow the country, it feels very close to probable.
I would say, well, no, it's not close to probable.
It's probable. But there's another group who are simply fooled by their own side, the people who experience cognitive dissonance.
And I would say that those people need to be understood properly.
So you don't need to punish the people who are simply bamboozled by their own side.
They're also victims.
And I would say that a lot of the TV news personalities fall into that camp.
But there's another camp, let's call them the advocates, the partisans.
So there's a group that actually didn't care if it was true or not.
And in some ways, they're the most weasel-like group.
Let me give you some examples.
From some partisans who were probably not the traitors.
In fact, I have no reason to suspect that they're the actual traitors behind this whole thing.
But they're also not the people who were just fooled by it.
They're people who apparently, I can't read their minds, but based on their actions, it seems that they're just partisans and they're going to stick with the story no matter what.
Here are a few of them.
This from David Frum, F-R-U-M, famous anti-Trumper.
Here's his tweet from this morning.
There's five bullet points.
And this is his response to the Mueller conclusions.
A truck of TVs is hijacked.
Now, the first thing you're going to say to yourself is, what do a truck of TVs have to do with Mueller investigation?
What? So the first thing you need to know is, if somebody has retreated to an analogy, they've already lost.
Right? Because they're not using the analogy to make a point.
They're trying to win the argument with an analogy.
And you can't do that. You've already lost if you're trying.
He goes, so number one, a truck of TVs is hijacked.
Number two, your son meets with the hijackers.
Three, your campaign manager shares root information with them.
Four, you are recorded on video saying, I love truck hijacking.
Five, the TVs are in your house.
Happy No Collusion Day.
So he had to change the situation that actually happened, the one with no collusion, into an entirely unrelated and imaginary crime in order to convict him of the imaginary crime.
That's a partisan. So this is not somebody who's fooled by the story.
And it's unlikely that he was some original traitor, plotter kind of guy.
He's just an illegitimate voice.
Here's another one from Peter Dow, friend of Hillary Clinton, D-A-O-U. And he goes, Thread, the ultimate gaslight.
So he's sticking with the gaslight theme.
He says, the Mueller saga is the ultimate gaslighting of the American people.
Totally credible statement.
We saw Trump ask Russia to hack Clinton's email.
They did. We saw him repeatedly bow down to Putin.
We saw him obstruct justice and boast about it to Russian operatives.
I don't remember anything about that.
But... What I said to that was, evidently, Trump supporters know how to recognize jokes, personal persuasion used on dictators, and confirmation bias.
So, Peter Dow gives three pieces of what he thinks are evidence.
The first one was a joke, when the President said, hey, Russia, if you have those emails, I'd like to see them.
He said that during the debate.
The second one is, Personal persuasion he uses on dictators.
Yes, he's nice to Kim Jong-un.
Did it work? Yeah, it worked.
Apparently it worked. The president is nice to President Xi in China.
Did that work?
Did it work to be nice to President Xi?
Yeah, it totally worked.
Because he can go tough on the negotiating and still be respectful.
It worked. Did the president try exactly the same technique that we've seen worked two times in a row?
Did he try that same technique with Putin, which is to be nice to Putin personally, but to put sanctions on, go hard, and do everything he needs to do in the political realm?
Yes. Same method.
We saw it work twice right in front of us.
Is there reason to believe it's a bad strategy with Putin?
It's not a bad strategy.
It's actually the smart strategy.
In fact, if you were to rank all the different ways you could approach Russia, the very best one is to be respectful to their leader and also go as hard as you possibly can against anything that needs to go hard, you know, the military, the, you know, everything else.
So when you're seeing the partisans They're not to be taken seriously.
I am loving, as I'm sure many of you, watching the compilation clips of all the pundits who have been saying for two years that the end is near, the end is near, the end is near, it's the beginning of the end, the beginning of the end.
There's a bombshell, bombshell, bombshell, bombshell.
All to find out it is for naught.
Now, I watched...
I've been watching the news pretty much non-stop for the last day.
I don't know that I've ever been more entertained.
Because watching the actual reactions of the people who bought into it, the people who were actually, I'm going to say, brainwashed, in my opinion, Most of the famous news hosts who are the classic, you know, the anti-Trump category of news hosts, as far as I can tell, they believed the story.
And the way you can tell is because how disappointed they are and how surprised they are.
And how deeply damaged they are for one reason or another.
So you can see it in their faces and in their reactions.
And those are not the faces and reactions of people who knew all along it was a hoax.
Are they? As you watch the reactions of the anti-Trumpers, the TV types in particular, wouldn't you say that for the most part they seem genuinely surprised?
That's my impression.
I'm not mind reading, so I can't know for sure.
But my impression is, they do seem genuinely surprised.
So I would say that they were actually taken.
And one wonders if they're going to have a response To being so totally screwed by the people they believed were on their side.
Now, I don't believe that the professional news people are being fooled by the David Fromms.
I don't think they're being fooled by Peter Dow, because the professional news people know what a partisan looks like.
A partisan is a partisan.
You don't take them too seriously.
In fact, you should discount 100% of what they say.
And I think the news people largely know to do that and largely do that.
But apparently, there was a whole other class of pundits who they thought were closer to the reality-based approach who completely bamboozled them.
They hypnotized them.
And here's the question that I ask.
In the next week...
Here's what to look for.
Here's what to look for to find out if the news is even a little bit legitimate.
Now, I am willing to accept honest mistakes.
In my opinion, there are a whole bunch of people in the news industry who honestly believed a version of reality.
I would say that was a mistake But not one that should be career-ending, in my opinion.
Those should not be career-ending mistakes to actually believe something.
But here's how you can tell if they are legitimate players.
In the next week, if you see the news business bringing on TV psychologists, maybe hypnotists, To explain why they and others were so completely fooled by this, they would be legitimate players.
So the legitimate news people are going to bring on medical professionals.
They're not going to bring on more pundits to explain what we've already seen.
If all they do is bring on more pundits to say why they were really right, despite being obviously wrong, Then you can't give them any credit.
If you see somebody who is just absolutely wrong, and they say, I was completely wrong, and I gotta say, I really thought there was something to this Russia thing, I was just completely wrong.
But what I think we ought to do is understand why I was so wrong, and why other people were so wrong.
So I'd like to introduce my next guest.
I don't have a guest, but I'm talking about what they should say.
And the next guest should be an expert on cognitive dissonance.
An expert on confirmation bias.
That's the expert that needs to be on all of these shows this week.
If you don't see that, you're not seeing anybody who's even really trying.
Because it's obvious what's up now.
It's obvious that this was always a psychological phenomenon.
If we don't see it reported as a psychological phenomenon, there's no reporting.
There just won't be an expert talking about the news.
Because the news is no longer just the Mueller report.
That's the factual basis, right?
And it's news by itself.
But there's a news on top of that that's the real news.
The news on top of the Mueller report is Why did anybody believe it in the first place?
Why were people taken in by confirmation bias when others were not?
Is it simply that people just reverted to their teams, and it wasn't that one team was smarter or could see through it, but rather they were just rooting for their team?
And that may be the whole explanation.
But I want to see the psychologists explain what we just experienced.
I've seen the pundits.
Alright, in the same week that this hoax died, and in a way it kind of stepped on the other news that I think was at least as big.
The other news was that we know now that the Charlottesville fine people quote was always fake news.
It was always fake news and you can determine that with certainty.
By looking at the transcript, you can see that the president, when he said fine people, without any prompting, specifically excluded the racists in Charlottesville from being in the fine people category.
But yet the news, for years, has reported that he called the racists fine people when he said in clear words, literally the opposite.
Now, Wikipedia has now corrected it with My help and a lot of other people's help, and Joel Pollack has been reporting on this for a week or so.
And so at least Wikipedia has corrected the hoax.
The mainstream news has not, and I'm not sure I would ever expect them to do it, but we no longer have to doubt that it was a hoax because the data is clear, it's public, you can see it.
I asked Snopes to take a look at it, but I don't know if they ever saw my message.
I never got a return comment.
Somebody says, did I fall for the hoax?
I did not ever fall for the Charlottesville Fine People hoax, because to me it was always obvious in context what he meant.
And I did not fall for the Russian collusion hoax.
So I personally did not fall for either of those.
I did fall for the Covington kids hoax when I saw the first video.
As soon as I saw the accurate video, I clarified and apologized immediately.
Once you see the actual context, it's obvious that the original one was a fake.
So I'm not beyond being fooled by the news.
Far from it.
But these two particular hoaxes I did see early.
Here's an interesting thing that I did not see coming in this whole saga.
The United States is the most powerful country maybe in the universe.
It sort of depends if there are other civilizations in the universe.
But let's say our solar system.
The United States is the most powerful country, powerful military, powerful economy, most powerful country in the world.
There's only one thing that this country needs to weaponize all that power.
And you know what that is.
It's a common enemy.
If the United States is fighting with itself, which we like to do, if we don't have someone else to fight with, we'll fight with each other.
We're sort of a fighting country.
We're kind of a scrappy bunch of people, right?
We like to fight a little bit.
Maybe that's just every country.
But every now and then, we get a common enemy.
Do you remember when ISIS was our common enemy?
ISIS doesn't have territory anymore.
We just went in there and just wiped out their whole territorial holding and a whole lot of people.
Because when we have a common enemy, there's not much that can stop the United States, and it's not going to be another country.
We have a common enemy.
We now have a common enemy in, and I'm not talking about the fake news.
The fake news is a problem.
The fake news is a problem.
The common enemy in this case is whoever fed the fake news.
Whoever used the fake news as a tool, that's our common enemy.
There is somebody in this story, and we don't know who yet.
Well, we don't know.
Let's face it. We sort of do know.
I'm not going to name names because it's a little early, but we kind of know.
We kind of know who's behind it all.
At least we know some of the names.
We might learn some more.
But there are some genuinely evil people.
There are some seriously evil people in this story.
Yeah, I'll let you speculate on the names.
Some of them are more obvious than others.
But, yeah, I would say of the likely guilty crew, there are at least two that you can at least have a conversation about the death penalty. there are at least two that you can at least Yeah.
I would say. So I think the death penalty...
Is there a death penalty for treason?
I have to Google that.
Hold on a second. Is there a death penalty for treason?
Uh... Let's search for death.
Penalty is death.
Definition, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.
Treason is specifically limited to levying war against the US or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
So, treason seems to be a war context.
So let me ask you this.
Does that apply to a country that has nuclear weapons aimed at us?
We're not technically in a state of war with Russia, are we?
But they do have nuclear weapons aimed at us.
Well, if somebody's aiming a weapon at you, are they your friend?
I mean, I don't think, do you think Canada has any weapons aimed at the United States?
I don't think so. So it says that under those, the penalty could be death or not less than five years of imprisonment.
Wow. And then I guess there are different states, you know, so the states have their own laws, apparently.
There's a federal law and then there's state laws.
So my guess is that somebody like Alan Dershowitz would say treason does not apply because we're not in a state of war technically, and that might be the case.
So it might be true that there's no treason possibility unless you're in the context of war, and then that would be arguable.
So I think probably that would not be on the table.
So my best guess is that the death penalty is off the table.
How about sedition? Somebody says.
Let's look up sedition. Let's all learn about sedition.
Is the overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends towards insurrection against the established order?
So basically, working to overcome the established order.
Is there a penalty?
Is there a penalty?
Well, okay, we have different countries have different laws on sedition.
In the United States, we have the Alien, or we did, do we still have the Alien and Sedition Acts?
For the punishment of certain crimes, false or scandalous and malicious writing, that can't be against the law.
It looks like this section is too long for me to read live.
All right. Well, it's a punishable offense, but I would have to be more of a lawyer to sort out whether that applies in this case.
All right. So, if I had to guess, I would say that the government and the justice system will start moving against the original plotters.
And that might take years.
I mean, Trump might be, you know, done with his second term when we learn anything about this.
But I'm pretty sure Lindsey Graham is not going to let go of this.
Now let's talk about some politics.
So you saw me praising the president's Showmanship instinct by not tweeting for, what, almost two days?
He didn't tweet about this whole, you know, the wrapping up of the Mueller report.
And then when he did tweet, it was just sort of basic.
I think his tweet was, well, let's check the president's tweets this morning.
He may be tweeting while I'm talking.
So let's look up Trump.
and see what he has tweeted this morning.
So he covered it just straight.
He said 18 hours ago, he goes, no collusion, no obstruction, complete and total exoneration, keep America great.
Now, there is absolutely no hyperbole in that.
There is no exaggeration.
There is no false statement.
There is no provocation.
But here's what's cool.
There is no revenge.
There is no politics.
He just gives us the facts.
So he goes 48 hours or so, whatever it was, a day plus, without tweeting anything.
And then he just gives it to us straight.
Is that the President Trump?
You expect it? See, that's the beauty of it.
One of the major elements of publicity, of brand, of managing people's attention, is knowing when to violate their expectations, because that's what makes you pay attention.
If you're a little bit inappropriate, that's why people watch.
And he has chosen, obviously, to stay completely vanilla.
He's intentionally being boring because the news cycle itself is so good for him.
The last thing he wants to do is say something and draw attention away from it.
So he couldn't go too long without saying something, so he just puts it in the record.
No collusion, no obstruction, complete and total exoneration, just the facts.
Brilliant. What would be the one thing that would scare the country the most?
Now that we know that the Mueller report results, the high-level results, what would be the worst thing the president could have done?
The worst thing the president could have done is to say, now we're going to try to jail the people who started this.
Total mistake.
Total mistake.
Don't go there. You do not want to go for revenge, or even hinting at it.
You do not want to go...
Low, because you're sitting on the high ground right now.
You don't want to change that.
Anything you could do could be a mistake that could hurt you, but there's nothing you could do to make this better.
There's nothing the president could say to make this better than it already is.
It's as good as it can freaking get.
So the way he's playing it is just brilliant.
Now when he gave his live comments, I guess he was heading to the helicopter or something.
Again, he put his personality on it.
But he didn't go hard.
He did not go crazy.
He did not go revenge.
He did not go emotional.
He sort of just played it straight.
Gave the people a little news bite to keep the existing story going without changing it.
Didn't want to change it.
Because he's smart. All right.
So Nadler, Nadler is still going to be going after the president.
But what do you feel, you being the public, what do you, the public, feel about Nadler and his what will be continuing pestering lawsuits?
How do you feel about that now that you know the whole Russia collusion thing was a fraud?
Does it feel the same?
Because if you thought the Russia thing was real, then anything that Nadler was going to do felt also legitimate, didn't it?
Because they felt like they were sort of part of the same universe of complaints.
So as long as you were still allowed to imagine that the Mueller thing was going to come up with some real dirt, it was also reasonable to think, well, Nadler will come up with some more real dirt.
So if Mueller was legitimate, maybe Nadler is too.
They're both sort of just investigating the president for similar things.
Why wouldn't they both be legitimate?
But now that we know that the Mueller report, and I will say that Mueller and his team were legitimate, as far as we can tell, what does that do to NADs, or old NADs as I like to call them?
It doesn't make him look good, does it?
And so, I'm going to start referring to Nadler and anybody who's sort of on his team, because there will be a small team of people swirling around Nadler and being his supporters.
So I've decided to give them a band name.
You know, when you name a band, it kind of gives them an identity.
So you have to give your band a name.
I'm going to name...
Nadler's band, Nadler and the Dingleberries.
So his new musical name will be Nadler and the Dingleberries.
The Dingleberries will be the little lawsuits and the people swirling around them.
Yeah, so it's Nad's and the Dingleberries.
And they shall become the free...
They shall become the free advertisement for Trump's 2020 campaign.
Because Nadler went from something that maybe could help the Democrats to something that's going to be a gigantic image problem for the Democrats.
Here's why it's an image problem.
Now that Mueller has shown that there was nothing there, Nadler is exposed as just a partisan.
Before you could say, well, maybe he was trying to do the work of the country.
Maybe, of course he's partisan, but maybe it's also good work.
You don't know. But now you're free to say, now this is just partisan.
Whatever he's going to come up with is just going to be BS. It's going to be pestering the president.
It's going to be presidential harassment.
And so he must be mocked.
For his work.
We, the people, should be part of the solution.
And we can be.
By simply putting him in his proper place in history, Nads and the Dingleberries are now the greatest threat to the presidency.
And they're also ridiculous, and they're also not much of a threat.
So let's treat them the way they are, Nads and the dingleberries.
I think it's catchy.
Do any of you remember when I went on the Sam Harris podcast podcast?
I don't remember when it was.
Was it... Was it...
I'm not sure.
A couple years ago?
And... Sam Harris is a notable anti-Trumper.
And we talked about things including Russia collusion and including...
I don't remember if Charlottesville came up.
It might have. But how does that conversation look now through the filter of current events?
Because if you look at it now, I'm pretty sure that Sam was on the side of there's something here with this Russia stuff.
I don't remember all the details.
But I would love to catch up with him and see if his thinking has changed about what we've been watching for the last couple of years.
And the reason that Sam is interesting, and I know everybody has their fans and their haters, he's got his share, as do I. Well, I would say Sam Harris is different from other people in the conversation because he's legitimately fact-based, meaning that that's his brand, right?
His brand is facts and reason.
And I would love to see how, if at all, he has reassessed his filters Based on the current events.
It's possible he hasn't.
But I would say that he, more than anybody else in that universe, has a solid, let's say, I would give him high expectations that he's revised how he's looking at the entire situation.
If the only thing you revise is how you looked at the specific case, then you haven't learned the lesson.
The lesson is not, hey, we were wrong about that one thing.
That's not the lesson.
The lesson is not we were wrong about this one thing, this Russia thing.
The lesson is how easily we can be fooled.
Once you understand the bigger lesson, you can start asking yourself seriously, wait a minute, could I also be fooled about this other thing?
Let me give you an example.
Climate change. What is the most common opinion about climate change from the people who think it's a problem?
The most common opinion is it's settled.
The scientists are soundly on one side.
There's plenty of science, plenty of measurements.
It's done. Now you've seen this Russia thing.
Now the Russia thing obviously has no connecting tissue.
To climate change, just completely different topics.
But once you learn that you can be that certain about something on the Russia collusion stuff and be wrong, completely wrong, you have to take that thinking, if you're a functional thinker, you have to take what you learn from that and move it over to other cases and at least ask yourself, should I be on guard that this has happened more than once?
And here's what I would ask you to consider, and I just discovered this this week.
The very least I believed, you know, the smallest claim that I believed was absolutely true, is that the climate scientists have a good understanding of the last hundred years.
Now, you could argue that they may have less of an understanding about, you know, ancient history.
But for the last 100 years, we could measure things better.
You know, we have a much better grip on the variables.
So I thought that the climate scientists could explain at least the last 100 years.
But it turns out that there's a gigantic part of it, like the first half, in which they just say, well, we think it was aerosols, and maybe there was something about industrial pollution.
Because the first half of the century doesn't really, not the half, but the first half of that hundred years or so doesn't match the CO2 prediction, meaning that the CO2 is the only lever you need to look at.
Because the argument is that earlier CO2 was not the only lever and that aerosols and pollution and maybe, well, the aerosol from the pollution and maybe volcanoes were skewing what the models would have told you if CO2 had been the only variable.
Now, I believe what I'm saying is true.
And of course, in the climate change era, you have to assume that, you know, you're always on shaky ground no matter what you're claiming, it seems.
But if that's true, then it's certainly not true that the scientists are darn sure that they know what's going on.
Because if they don't know why the model didn't work, meaning that they're not all on the same page.
So some people think they know.
But science has not agreed.
There's not a definite idea of why the temperature is even done when it's done, even in the last hundred years.
So, I would say...
That the limited claim of climate science that we know what's going on with great certainty for the last hundred years is disproved by their own statements.
Because they will tell you clearly that we think it was the pollution in the volcanoes earlier, you know, I don't know, 50 years ago or whatever.
We think it was the volcanoes and we're pretty sure it's likely it was the pollution.
Does that sound like they know what's going on?
That's the opposite. If they said it's definitely these things, then I'd say, okay, well, you've got a handle on this.
If they say it's likely these things, that's not everybody being on the same page.
Likely doesn't get it done.
All right. Because I don't think anybody's told you That their models are just likely.
They pretty much tell you that we're in deep, deep trouble, and it's guaranteed.
So, while I... I'll get rid of this guy.
Troll. Goodbye, troll.
So, my claim, just to be very clear, I'm not making a claim one way or another on climate change.
I don't know if it's a gigantic problem and should be our biggest issue.
I don't know if it's not a giant problem.
I just know that the one individual claim is debunked, which is that the scientists are on the same side and they understand what's been happening for the last hundred years or so.
Because they don't. Not for sure.
So it's only the certainty part that's in question.
All right. Do I have any thoughts on Apple's streaming service?
Well, that's a whole new topic.
I'm sure it will be pretty good, because Apple doesn't make bad products.
Do you think Trump should re-examine?
I don't know what you mean. Did the Russian model get debunked?
What model? Um...
Yes, Matt Taibbi's blog post about how badly we got taken on this Russia collusion stuff is a must-read.
It's just brilliant writing, and it's also factually illuminating.
Um... NRA? I see a lot of questions coming in.
They're all over the board here.
Climate change model.
Why does somebody keep saying climate change model to me?
So yeah, the climate models.
Oh, I think you're prompting me to give you an update on this.
I made a climate change challenge.
And it was this. There are 31 or so major models.
Usually there's one model per country.
So each country has their preferred climate change prediction model.
But there's one of them that's different from the rest.
It's way different. And it's the Russian model.
The Russian model that's way different from the rest is the only one that's been accurate lately.
So all of the models hindcast, meaning that they all accurately describe the past, but that's the easy part.
It's easy to make your model describe the past.
The hard part is getting it to predict.
Only one of the 31 or so models has done both.
It's the Russian model.
Now, the awkward part is that the Russian model is nowhere near all the other 31.
So the other 31 are like, we're all doomed.
It's the end of the world. It's somewhere in this range.
And the Russian model is way down here.
And the Russian model says, eh, it might get a little warmer, but no big deal.
So I simply ask the question, do I have the facts right?
Is it a fact that there are 31-ish models?
Is it a fact that the Russian one is different from the rest?
Is it a fact that the Russian one says there will be warming, but not that much, that you have to think it's the end of the world?
And is it true that the Russian model is the only one that has been right in recent several years?
That's all I want to know.
If that's true, then the climate change...
Certainty, the climate change, settled science, is not true.
And I ask that question of the most effective skeptics that I interact with on Twitter, and there are a lot of them.
I interact with a lot of climate...
I'm sorry, not skeptics.
I interact with them, too.
But I interact with a lot of climate science...
Let's say, hobbyist experts, as well as some who are actually scientists.
And the ones who are really good at debunking the skeptics are really good at it.
So there are two of them in particular who are always in my feed, and they are just shooting down the skeptics like crazy.
The skeptics are coming in, but what about this?
And then they say, well, this study debunks it.
So they're these great debunkers.
Debunkers of the skeptics, not debunkers of the science.
And yeah, Steve Goddard, he's part of who they debunk.
And I don't mean they debunk everything Steve Goddard says, Tony Heller.
I don't know that they debunk every claim he makes, but a lot of them they have debunked.
Now, when I say debunked, I mean that they have an argument that looks strong.
Who knows who's right?
It's hard for me to judge these things, but they have strong arguments that To counter the skeptics.
And I simply asked, is there a strong argument to counter this one claim, this one small claim, that the Russian model is the only one that seems to work and that it doesn't predict doom?
And things got really quiet.
Now, it's possible that one of those debunkers actually did produce...
An argument to debunk that point, and I haven't seen it.
So if somebody has seen it, let me know.
Because Twitter is sort of a tough place to make sure you've seen everything.
And those conversations are so detailed and long, you just wouldn't know if something scrolled by.
So if anybody has seen an argument against that point, that the Russian model is the accurate one, I'd like to see it.
So I don't have a conclusion, but I will tell you that I've been asking a lot of skeptical questions about climate change for months and months and months, and that's the only one that didn't have a quick response.
So it makes me wonder if there is a response.
Somebody said how to contact me.
Twitter is best. Just send a tweet and Include me in it.
And if you've got an argument, I'd like to see it.
Because it is better if you do it in public.
I'd like other people to see your argument too, because they might have a counterpoint to it.
All right. I think...
Somebody said, so the climate is not changing?
I believe all the models, including the Russian model, say that the climate is changing and that CO2 is a key variable.
I believe all of them, including the Russian model, say that.
But they have different sensitivities.
I believe also that the Russian model is the only one that uses an accurate input For one of the key variables.
Now, that's another claim that's made, but you don't need to know about that claim so much as just whether or not it's the one that's been...
All right.
Pardons, somebody asks.
Somebody says, what about pardons?
Well, some are saying this would be the perfect time to issue pardons.
Because the president is in such a winning place, he's got the goodwill at the moment, and he could just slide them through the news cycle, because the news cycle would ignore them relative to the bigger story.
I believe that's not the case.
I believe he might want to wait a little bit.
Now, I don't know what a little bit looks like.
A little bit could be two weeks.
A little bit could be a year.
So I don't know what wait a little bit looks like, but it's somewhere between two weeks and a year.
Because the news cycle right now is so unambiguously positive that you don't want to do anything to disrupt that.
You need the news to just flounder for a while in a way that's just so good for you.
Once it's done and the news has moved on to other fake news, because you know it well, so once other fake news is in the news and the president is being attacked, That's a point where he might have an opportunity to change the news cycle.
Because the moment he gives a pardon, that becomes the news.
So he has a positive news cycle with the Mueller report, giving him full exoneration.
The worst thing he could do is pardon people who committed real crimes the same week.
Because then suddenly people say, well, okay, you were exonerated, but I don't want to talk about that anymore.
Let's just talk about this sketchy thing you did with your pardon.
So, yes, I believe he has a clear glide path.
So he has a glide path definitely for pardoning All the minor players.
So he can definitely pardon Roger Stone.
I think that one's easy.
So the Roger Stone pardon, I would say, is something close to guaranteed if Stone doesn't take care of his own.
It's possible that the Stone thing will just go away on its own.
I don't know. But I think that's an easy pardon.
Manafort is a tough one.
And I'm not sure I'd even recommend it.
Because Manafort was a flat-out crook.
He only got caught because of this dragnet, but there's nothing you can say about being a tax cheat.
That happened too. Jerome Corsi would be an easy pardon.
Flynn, as far as I know, would be an easy pardon.
So I think he has a total glide path for Flynn, Corsi, and Stone.
Manafort's a little trickier.
All right, Papadopoulos.
I don't know if, is a pardon necessary for Papadopoulos?
He's already out. Does that even help?
Maybe it clears his record or something?
All right, that's enough for now.
▲
Export Selection