Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 3, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:22:04

Episode 478 Scott Adams: GND, Border, Democrat Chaos, Hallucinations, Puerto Rico

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, come on in.
	Still room. It's a big digital world.
	You can all fit.
	You just have to sit close to each other.
	Good morning, good morning. You know, those of you who are here quickly, the quick people, the smart people, the good-looking, sexy people, You're here early because you like to enjoy the simultaneous sip.
	And it's coming up now.
	Grab your cup, grab your mug, your glass, your container, your stein, your chalice, your tankard, your thermos.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid.
	I like coffee. And join me now for the simultaneous sip.
	Ah, good stuff.
	A lot to talk about today.
	First of all, I will be giving a tutorial a little bit later today on how to be a professional writer.
	So it's going to be part of my series on taking 20 minutes to teach you 80% of what you need to know about something you care about.
	So that'll be a little bit later today.
	You don't need to know the exact start time because since it will just be a lesson, it's actually probably better if you just catch it on the replay.
	So it'll be posted for everybody.
	We'll put that on a podcast and also on YouTube.
	And I'll tweet it around so you won't miss it with some links.
	So later today, look for my tutorial on how to be A professional writer.
	At least 80% of what you need to know.
	In other news, you may be following my startup, WenHub.
	We make the interface by WenHub app, and we just got listed, our crypto token, called the Wen, W-H-E-N, just got listed on a second crypto exchange.
	Now, if you don't follow the world of crypto, that doesn't mean anything to you.
	If you do follow the world of crypto, that was a long way of saying, you wish you owned it yesterday.
	So, last week was a good time to own some when, because I think it's, you know, the last I checked, I don't know if it's still there, but it's tripled in value.
	Now, when I say tripled in value, went from one cent to three cent, which is, you know, sort of typical in the crypto world, there are no guarantees it will keep going up.
	But the things you look for are, is it connected to a real company with a real product?
	Yes. And is it getting on exchanges?
	And the answer is yes.
	So we just added our second exchange, and there is more coming up.
	But we'll talk about that a different time.
	Let's talk about the President's speech last night.
	He had a great line that I tweeted around.
	And I can't reproduce it because the way he delivers it is what makes it funny.
	And I think it's because it's him.
	Oh, the two exchanges are LA Token And Hotbit, H-O-T-B-I-T. Somebody just asked that question.
	So those are the two crypto exchanges.
	So the president's joke, or at least a laughing point, it wasn't a joke exactly, in his speech yesterday, and he's so relaxed at this point.
	Have you noticed that he's sort of in the pocket?
	When he gives a speech these days, he looks so comfortable with In his role as president and in front of the public, it's fun watching him enjoy himself.
	In case he's had a couple of good weeks, especially.
	But the thing he said that was funny was he mocked the Green New Deal, as he often does.
	And then he said, talking about the 2020 election, he goes, he says, if they beat me with the Green New Deal, I deserve to lose.
	And he just laughs at it.
	And what I love about this is he's the greatest trash talker to his competitors that there ever was.
	Because it's one thing to have a good reply for their best policy initiatives or their most popular ones.
	It's one thing to be politically ready.
	It's another thing to simply mock them for their strongest policy positions.
	Just to say, it's so ridiculous.
	I sure hope they do that.
	He actually said he hopes they don't change their mind before the election, which was hilarious.
	I guess the president also is asking the public What they think of his 2020 slogan, he's not convinced yet, but he's thinking of going with Keep America Great.
	I think it makes sense, except that the acronym is awful.
	It's K-A-G, CAG. Now, it doesn't feel right.
	It's just a terrible acronym.
	But I also believe that MAGA was a terrible, terrible acronym.
	MAGA literally sounds like a maggot.
	I mean, I don't know what you think about it when you hear it, but I never liked the four words, and you may have noticed that I don't use MAGA if I can avoid it.
	You probably haven't heard me say it many times unless I have to talk about it because it's part of a story.
	So I don't think that the acronym should prevent him from doing it because it didn't make the last one bad.
	And, you know, I think it's the right choice to keep America great.
	Let's talk about Nadler.
	So you all know Jerry Nadler is the president's nemesis who's planning to launch a whole bunch of lawsuits against the president and pester him to death.
	Well, it turns out there's a back story.
	That I didn't know about.
	Now, I still don't know the details, but this is a fascinating bit of context for this whole drama.
	And the context is that apparently Nadler has been Trump's nemesis for over 20 years.
	He's been his nemesis for Manhattan.
	So I guess, I don't know the details.
	I assume Trump wanted to do things with building buildings in Manhattan and maybe Nadler was trying to stop him.
	I don't know if it was that or some other kind of business they had.
	But Nadler has been after Trump for 20 years.
	Doesn't that change completely how you see Nadler's current actions?
	You no longer see them as an action of somebody who's trying to do something for his job.
	It doesn't have anything to do with his job.
	It's just a 20-year battle that apparently Trump, according to Trump, has been winning for 20 years.
	Who knows how true that is, but that's Trump's version.
	Speaking of true, I watched a hilarious little clip of Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo talking.
	As they often do, they do the split screen when they're transitioning from One of their shows to the other.
	And they were talking about Trump failing the fact-checking and how they were exhausted from checking all the facts and how his supporters don't think that's important because those are not the important facts anyway.
	Now that's my feeling, and of course I wrote a book with that as my subtitle, that the facts don't matter.
	Now there are two ways to look at this president.
	One way is he's a big old dumb liar who says a lot of lies and they don't pass the fact checking.
	So that's one view of this president.
	My view of this president is that he's operating at a higher level than most of us.
	And by that I mean he understands that the facts literally don't matter.
	They don't matter to persuasion.
	And I'm talking about the small facts.
	I'm not talking about the big facts, such as there are people coming across the border.
	ISIS does exist.
	I'm not talking about the big facts.
	He gets those right. I'm talking about the little stuff.
	He gets all of that sort of...
	Hyperbolically wrong, meaning it's sort of in the right direction.
	He's making a point.
	He's telling a story. It's an anecdote.
	You don't need to know about the details, because they kind of don't matter.
	They really don't matter. Now, he knows that, and so he doesn't try to fix it, because he's not trying to fix something that doesn't matter.
	If you start seeing him lying on the big stuff, you should get worried.
	But if he's failing all of the fact checks on the little stuff, the anecdotes, the little persuasion stuff, don't worry about that at all.
	But here's the funny part.
	So when Cuomo and Lemon were talking, Cuomo was talking about 2020 and about Trump, and he says...
	Cuomo says that he can't see Trump winning because the poll numbers are so bad.
	And after Cuomo says he can't see Trump winning, Don Lemon literally laughs.
	He laughs and he says, have you seen what the Democrats are doing?
	Now, I'm going to give Don Lemon credit.
	All right? You know, which maybe I don't do that often.
	But Chris Cuomo is running as fast as he can into an invisible brick wall again.
	And at least Don Lemon sees it coming this time.
	I don't think Don Lemon saw it coming on the first election.
	But this time, he sees it coming.
	And the thing that I think Don Lemon understands, that maybe Chris Cuomo isn't quite around the corner on yet, is that when people are looking at Trump today, they're imagining Trump running against some kind of an ideal candidate.
	Because that's how you think about it.
	You don't have a candidate.
	So you're thinking, well, it's going to be some great person out of these 16 who doesn't have too many problems, a lot of good stuff coming to the party against this mean old Trump with all of his flaws.
	It's going to be a slaughter.
	We're going to kill him. But what Don Lemon may be realizing...
	That Chris Cuomo has not caught up to is that President Trump is not going to be running against a concept.
	He's not going to be running against a generic ideal candidate.
	He's going to be running against someone who the Democrats themselves have savaged by the time that person gets to the nomination.
	Whoever runs against Trump will be a real person with some serious flaws.
	And those flaws will be quite evident by the time we get to the final vote.
	So, you know, as I said way too many times, I can't tell you how many times I said this before 2016.
	I kept saying, remember, Trump doesn't have to outrun the bear.
	He just has to outrun His camping buddy, because the camping buddy is the one who's gonna get eaten by the bear, the old joke, right?
	So he only had to be better than Hillary Clinton.
	And so I said early in the last election, all you have to look at is what he does to Clinton's popularity.
	You don't have to look at how low Trump's popularity is.
	Just look what he's doing to Clinton, because if that's lower, He wins.
	Now, he didn't win the popular vote, but he did enough to diminish her standing to win the electoral college.
	All right. The new superstar, up-and-coming star on the left, is Pete Buttigieg.
	Apparently, he was the third best fundraiser, surprising people.
	What we like about him is that he is very smart.
	People like him. I was impressed that I'd read a number of articles about Pete Buttigieg and him running for president.
	And here's the impressive part.
	They don't go out of their way in articles to say he's gay.
	I read a bunch of articles in which that fact is not mentioned.
	To which I say, finally, like, finally, can we get to the point where you could be a gay man doing anything, and nobody says a gay guy's doing something?
	Can we just stop saying that?
	And maybe Pete Buttigieg is the guy who, you know, breaks that seal.
	Now, it's still mentioned.
	But you have to look for it.
	Because for a while, when he was in the race, I didn't know he was gay.
	It didn't matter. But when I found out, I was like, wow, this is different.
	It's different that nobody's making that a point.
	Contrast that with the news in CNN today is that, quote, we got the first black lesbian mayor of a major city, I guess.
	Her name is Lori Lightfoot, and she just became mayor of Chicago.
	Now, the article makes the point that she's a woman, she's black, and she's a lesbian, and she's the first mayor.
	And I read that and I said, oh, there we go again.
	How about woman becomes mayor?
	Or how about we got a new mayor?
	How about leaving out the woman, leaving out the black, leaving out the lesbian part?
	Can we get past that?
	Can we just say the Democrat won?
	Can we just...
	How close are we?
	How close are we to just saying that doesn't matter anymore?
	Like, I don't know if we're close enough, but at least Buttigieg seems to have crossed that line.
	And I'll say again something that I don't think...
	I guess that enough.
	You know, there's talk about the presidential race and there are four, am I right, four women who have announced, which would be the largest number of women running for president.
	And I'm not sure, I hear that a lot.
	People don't really talk about a woman might be president because Hillary Clinton really solved that problem.
	We now imagine A woman president with nothing special about it.
	It just seems that's going to happen eventually, maybe this time, maybe next time, but nobody's really talking about it being a disadvantage.
	Buttigieg's problem is that he's white and male, and I'm not sure that being gay is going to be enough.
	For the Democrats with their intersectionality and their identity politics, maybe.
	I'll tell you, if he got the nomination, I feel like he'd be formidable.
	So we'll keep an eye on him.
	I'm still saying it's going to be Harris, but we'll keep an eye on him.
	I feel like Buttigieg is not running for president this time.
	I feel like he's raising his profile.
	And he's a young guy, so maybe it's really about the election after that.
	He may just be getting into the game for the one after this.
	All right. Let's talk about closing the border.
	So, quick, what is President Trump's signature policy?
	What's the thing that identifies him the most?
	Answer, border security and immigration.
	That's his signature thing.
	What has the president been getting beaten up by his critics for three years?
	The border and immigration.
	What have his critics been saying for three years?
	It's not that big of a problem.
	So don't be a hard ass to the poor people who are just struggling, trying to make a better life, because it's not that big of a problem to the United States.
	What changed recently?
	It just became a big problem, right?
	Is anybody saying today, I mean literally today, is there anybody on the left or the right who would not say, yeah, it's a frickin' crisis.
	It's a crisis. Now, they might be thinking of it differently.
	It's a humanitarian crisis.
	It's a resource crisis.
	They're not thinking of it so much in terms of crime.
	But they should be.
	Because if it's true that somewhere between 30 and 80% of all the women who try to cross the border are being sexually assaulted, you can't take the crime out of the question.
	The humanitarian crisis isn't just about they need jobs.
	They're getting raped on the way here.
	So, it's a big, big problem.
	Now, What do the Democrats think of when they see this situation?
	Do they process that they have this perfect child-parent situation that they're just realizing?
	Here's how I describe the child versus the parent point of view.
	A child says, I want candy.
	The parent says, it's almost time for dinner.
	It would be better if you don't have the candy, because in the long run, it would be good to have a good diet.
	That's the parent view.
	What does the kid say when you say, you know, you should wait for dinner and eat a good diet?
	What does the child say?
	They say, I want candy.
	I want it now.
	Because the child cannot process the long-term effects of things.
	The adult has learned...
	That the near-term things, you have to be looked at carefully because you want to see what kind of precedent you set.
	You want to see what that does in the long term.
	What has the president been saying about the border forever?
	If you don't fix it, it's going to get worse.
	If you make it attractive to come to this country, it's going to get worse in the long term.
	Yes, being kind sounds great.
	Everybody would like to be kind.
	Everybody would like to be generous.
	But if you do that, do you know what's going to happen in the long term?
	You're going to end up with a crisis.
	So the president's view, I'll call it the parental view, that being nice to people in the short term...
	It's great. It feels humanitarian.
	It feels like who we want to be as Americans.
	It feels compatible with the American spirit.
	It feels compatible with our history to be welcoming to immigrants.
	It's who we want to be.
	In every possible way, the short-term decisions are to be kind.
	But the long-term implications of being a little bit too kind is that more people come until you have a crisis.
	This is the parental view.
	This has always been Trump's view.
	And now it is unambiguously proven true.
	Unambiguously proven true.
	His signature issue, the most important thing that he staked his entire Legacy on is absolutely frickin' correct.
	And you can't doubt it anymore.
	Now, when I say you can't doubt it, that doesn't mean his critics won't actually doubt it, because they will.
	Because that's how it works.
	But it's gotta be tough to see the Russia collusion thing fall apart.
	And then, a week later, to see that the President's signature issue was 100% correct, that if you create an incentive to come here, even if you didn't believe it was a problem before, and I think reasonable people could say, well, I get that it's a problem, I get that crime is coming in, but that's a risk we're willing to take.
	You know, I get that reasonable people were on both sides of the immigration issue.
	But you can no longer doubt that changing the incentives creates a long-term problem.
	That's now a settled question.
	And Trump was right.
	All right. So the president has threatened to close the border.
	With Mexico, which smart people on both sides of the political aisle say, no, that would be too draconian, that would be too much of a hit to our economy, it would be too much of an obstacle to good relations with Mexico, it would just be terrible, diplomatically, economically, just terrible.
	I'll accept that to be true.
	Because smart people on both sides are saying it.
	That's a pretty good indication that something's true.
	But, does the president mean it?
	Is it a bluff?
	Or is it serious?
	What is special about this president?
	What is special about this president is that you don't really know.
	That's what he brings to the party.
	He tells us this.
	He said in the most direct language, I'm going to be unpredictable, and I will use that to my advantage.
	How many times has he said that in direct language?
	He says, I'm going to be unpredictable, and it's going to be an advantage.
	I'm going to use that advantage for the country.
	So when President Trump says to Mexico, the government of Mexico, I'm seriously thinking of closing the whole border, what does the government of Mexico say about that?
	Do they say, don't worry about it, he's freaking bluffing?
	Nope. I'll bet they don't say that.
	I'm sure some people say, I think he's bluffing.
	Pretty sure.
	I'm largely, more likely than not, he's bluffing.
	But it's not a chance I want to take, because if they're wrong, it's going to be really expensive for Mexico.
	So, Trump noted, and the fact checkers will have to weigh in on this, that the Mexicans stepped up their game at stopping people at their southern border who were trying to come from those countries through Mexico to the United States.
	Now, I don't know if Mexico has done enough, but I think we can conclude, once again, that when the President said, I'm going to be unpredictable, watch how well this works, in essence he said that, And then he took that talent to this question and said, hey, I'm seriously thinking about closing the border.
	Did they take him seriously?
	I'll bet they did.
	We did. I mean, this country takes it seriously.
	Yes, Brandon Darby did weigh in in a tweet, and I believe that he was supportive of this as at least a credible threat.
	And he pointed out the number of people getting sexually abused trying to reach the border.
	So, here's a question I ask myself.
	Is there any reason you couldn't close the border except to shipping?
	Wouldn't that get you most of what you need?
	If you close the border except for trucks that are carrying goods back and forth, Wouldn't we get most of the benefits of closing the border without the crushing impact of the economic hardship?
	You know, you wouldn't lose any avocados.
	You wouldn't lose any car parts that we need to make cars.
	If you let the trucks go through, you know, and check them carefully, of course, as always.
	Would that work? I haven't heard anybody mention that option, so that's just a question.
	Alright, I'm saving my best stuff for last.
	Oh, this next point is apropos nothing.
	You all know Alyssa Milano, actress and activist, political activist.
	And she's being politically active again on some, I guess, abortion questions or something.
	And I saw a headline on Fox News referring to her as actress.
	So I have an objection to that.
	And it's a personal one.
	Because it's a personal issue because people call me a cartoonist when they want to diminish my impact in this realm.
	And so it's a diminutive.
	It's a way of putting somebody in their place.
	It's like, well, cartoonist.
	Actress. Actress.
	I would like to submit...
	That as much as you dislike Alyssa Milano in terms of her policies, you might hate her tweets, you might dislike her personally.
	But dear God, she put it in the work.
	Can we stop calling her actress?
	Can we call her activist?
	Because what she's doing now...
	Probably is bigger impact than what she's done as an actress for a while anyway.
	And I'm not mocking her career.
	I'm just saying that she's more notable now as an activist.
	So it just bothers me when I see her being diminished by that kind of a label because it happens to me.
	I don't like to see it happen to anybody else.
	All right, we're going to get to the good part.
	Are you ready for the good part? I created quite a bit of animosity in my viewers yesterday, and I want to revisit something, but I'll do a better job of it.
	And the topic is this.
	We were talking about Tucker Carlson mentioning the Green New Deal on his show the other night, and he said that it was a power grab.
	And then I talked about it and people went crazy and got mad at me for doing, I don't know, such an illegitimate or bad job or being irrational or not listening to people.
	I got a laundry list of complaints.
	Now, if you've been watching me for a while, what does it mean that I made some points about this power grab, green deal deal thing and I got a laundry list of complaints that are all different?
	What does that mean? Well, you know what I say it means.
	I've been saying this for a long time.
	The laundry list means you don't know why you're mad.
	You're just mad, and I got a laundry list of these problems.
	A whole bunch of people with different problems tells you that the real thing that's bothering them, maybe they don't know.
	They're bothered, and then they're looking for a reason for it.
	All right, but here are some of the reasons that people were mad.
	They said, Scott, when you talked about the power grab proposition, Tucker's idea, and a lot of you watching this have the same idea, that the Green New Deal is really about power and transforming society and creating more socialism.
	That's the goal.
	And that the policies are less important than the larger goal of power and socialism.
	And I reject that view.
	But in so doing, I took Tucker's conversation about the Green New Deal...
	And when I talked about it, I called it climate change.
	And people said, illegitimate, you took Tucker's conversation about the Green New Deal, and you changed it to climate change.
	And don't you know, Scott, that the Green New Deal is not just climate change, and in fact, it's been specified more.
	So, as of today, there are a little more detail, nothing like real detail, but a little more meat on the bones from AOC, Describing what is part of the Green New Deal.
	And it includes the following things.
	High-speed rail, healthcare, universal unions, essentially.
	Free college, 100% renewable energy, zero emission energy sources, wind and solar.
	No bans on transportation.
	So nothing about no airplanes.
	There's nothing like that in it.
	Emphasis on poor communities to fix racial injustices and injustices against the poor.
	Family sustainable wages and affordable housing.
	Now, most of the things on the list...
	Are not climate change.
	So people said, they said, Scott, when you are arguing against this power grab thing, you change Green New Deal to climate change so you could argue this different thing as a sprawl man.
	Here's my response.
	You're all wrong.
	I did exactly what you said.
	I started with the Green New Deal.
	I change that to climate change for clarity, to make it easier.
	It's exactly the same point, the power grab point, of the entire Green New Deal and all of its elements as it is just the climate change part.
	So everything I would say about just the climate change part of the Green New Deal, about the power grab part of it, applies to all the rest of it too.
	So just for convenience, I'll talk about the climate change part, If that part is true, well, then maybe the other parts are true, too, in terms of it's all a power grab.
	But let's just for simplification talk about the climate part of the Green New Deal.
	And I believe that whether or not Tucker was thinking the same way I am, the point still stands.
	Now, here's what I object to, and I think that when I explained it the first time, it was not clear.
	Because people said, Scott, Scott, Scott, it's obviously a power grab, because you would be centralizing things in the government in a way that they're not already centralized, and when you're centralizing power, well, that's a power grab, right?
	Currently, the power is not centralized, but if you were to centralize it in the government, that's a power grab, that's the point.
	Here was my objection to that.
	It's not the goal.
	Here's my belief, and I'll make my point.
	I believe that the people who, both the voters and the politicians, the voters and the politicians, everybody who thinks climate change is a big problem, is primarily concerned with climate change.
	I don't believe that there are people, either professional politicians, AOC or anybody else, I don't believe any of them don't believe climate change is real.
	Let me say that in a more, no double negatives.
	I believe that AOC believes that climate risk is a real risk, and that the motivation of the people who are pushing that Is that they're trying to fix what they see as real problems and also the biggest problems.
	I believe that the voters and the politicians who are on the same side of this actually believe it.
	Now somebody is correctly challenging me for saying that it's mind reading.
	And that's exactly the right thing you should say.
	You should say, are you reading their mind?
	You know, why would you say that?
	And here's, I'll make my argument.
	My argument is that, first of all, we've never heard of any whistleblower come forward, which none of these are individually proof, right?
	I'll just give you my case, and you have to look at it in total.
	We don't have a whistleblower to say, I worked on AOC staff.
	She's just, this is all just a big fake.
	She doesn't believe climate is a risk.
	She's just saying this for political reasons.
	Now, usually you can find somebody who will say something like that, but we have not seen that, or at least I haven't seen it.
	If you've seen it, let me know.
	So we don't have a whistleblower, but that doesn't mean it's not happening, because people might all be clever and keeping their secret.
	What we...
	I have personally, in all of my conversations about climate, I've never even had a whiff that anybody who believed it was real was just hoaxing me.
	Not once if I had even a sniff that the people who say they care about climate change are just kidding and that it's all a scheme.
	I've never even got a little bit of that.
	But again, that's just my impression and my experience.
	That's not proof of what somebody is thinking.
	And then I ask, Who exactly is getting this power?
	Can you define what that means by getting power?
	Because every major policy changes power.
	So when people say, it's obviously the result of this would change the power structure, I say, well, that part I'm not arguing with.
	It is unambiguously true that the Green New Deal would change power Budgets, it would change what people do, and therefore it would change sort of who's in charge of what people are doing.
	All that's obviously true.
	But it's also true of every political major action.
	There's no such thing as a major political program that doesn't change the power structure.
	Even if all you do is change the tax structure, you're changing who has, you know, you're basically, anytime you change money, You're moving power, because money is power.
	So the government only knows how to change the power structure.
	That's pretty much all they do.
	So when you say the Green New Deal or climate change, just as a subset of it, if you say those things are for changing the power structure, I say, you haven't said anything.
	Because that's just politics.
	If you're saying that AOC just wants to get power by pushing these proposals, I say that's how all politics works.
	It would be like saying Trump only is pushing immigration to get elected.
	That just describes politics.
	Everything a major politician does is to get elected, to get power, To change who has the power.
	So to say that as a special complaint about climate science or about Green New Deal, the larger category, to say that the reason they're doing this is for power, then somebody says, so we're right. Ha ha ha.
	You think you got me now.
	You got me now.
	But you don't know where this is going yet, do you?
	So this is called pacing.
	This is the part where I agree with you.
	Away from the good part. So it is true that there would be a massive power shift in lots of different ways with the Green New Deal.
	It is also true that that's the same statement you can make for any major government program.
	It could be moving it one way or the other, but it would be a major power change.
	Here's the part where I disagree.
	Intention. It is not in evidence.
	That people don't believe that these policies are good and that they're only doing it for effect.
	That they're only doing it for their careers.
	That they're only doing it for money.
	That they're only doing it for power.
	Now, it's simply not in evidence.
	But, the crazy part, and here's the tin foil hat part, is imagining that you see it and it's right in front of your face.
	And I'm going to give you a real life example And I'm going to use Tony Heller as my example.
	I have to tie a couple of things together.
	Tony Heller, I have noted as the most persuasive critic of climate change.
	So he doesn't believe climate change is the big problem that scientists do.
	He writes on his website, voluminously, lots of articles making his argument.
	I have labeled him the most persuasive of all the critics.
	Now, I also said in an offhand comment on Twitter yesterday that Tony Helder had been debunked, which Tony Helder did not like when he heard it.
	I don't know, you may be watching this too.
	So let me explain that.
	When I say debunked, I could have added more context to that.
	It would have been a little more clear.
	I mean that for everything that Tony Helder claims, The climate scientists have an answer, which as a non-scientist, I read Tony's original thing, I read the response, and I say, huh, I can't fact check either one.
	But this definitely looks like a real response to what Tony said.
	Now, of course, Tony also debunks the debunkers, and then they debunk him back, so it's infinite turtles all the way down.
	My point is that there are answers within the scientific community to everything Tony says.
	As far as I can tell, every major claim, there's a credible-looking counter to it that says, no, you're all wrong.
	I don't know who's right, so when I say he's debunked, that doesn't mean science is settled and that's it and everything he says is wrong.
	I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there is a counter to it that looks credible in every case.
	Now, here's my problem with Tony.
	He makes a consistent claim across all of his points about climate in which he says the intention Of the people involved is fakery.
	So he implies intention in every number that's wrong.
	Not accident, not bad science, not anything but an intentional plot.
	Now I keep saying, where do you see intention?
	And the best example that he gives is in the so-called Climategate emails.
	Let me get rid of this critic.
	So his best evidence is the Climategate emails in which somebody said that they were using a, quote, trick to, quote, hide...
	Hide the decline. In other words, explain a past period of temperature that didn't make sense with the climate change models.
	I looked at the same language and I said, I don't see it.
	I'm reading exactly the same thing you are.
	You say this clearly shows their intent to deceive.
	I read exactly the same words and I don't see it.
	What I see is two people who know each other Did I actually lose the connection here?
	People are saying it's frozen.
	I'm still arguing against a straw man.
	Wait for it, will you? Wait for the reveal.
	All right, so...
	All right, we're back now.
	I don't know how much you missed there.
	But Tony Heller says that the fakery in the data...
	Is intentional faking the data.
	He uses the ClimateGate emails as one of his largest pieces of evidence of that.
	They say they're using a trick to hide the decline.
	Those are their words. I read exactly those same words and I don't see what he sees.
	I see them just talking casually.
	Hey, I used your formula.
	I used your trick. That's just the way you talk to a friend.
	Hide the decline means you're trying to explain...
	Why there was this blip?
	It needed to go away.
	You were sure it wasn't real.
	You found a way to hide it.
	You used the trick. I don't see the plot.
	I just see people talking.
	Now, let's take this to another example.
	I continued this conversation and asked for evidence that it's all a giant plot for socialism.
	All right. And Tony sent me this article.
	So this is an actual article I'm going to read you.
	That's an official UN article.
	It's from the United Nations Regional Information Center for Western Europe.
	So this is an official United Nations document.
	And Tony sends this to me to say, it says here, in clear language that you can read, this is Tony's interpretation.
	He says, the article makes it very clear, so it's very clear, that the goal, remember the word goal, is altering the world economy, comma, and the imaginary climate crisis is the excuse.
	So Tony is sending me some text from an official document that he says, right in front of your eyes, is making it very clear that the goal is altering the world economy, in other words, more socialist, And the imaginary climate crisis is the excuse.
	So I thought, oh my God, there's an official document that says that?
	And so I read it.
	And I'm going to read it to you.
	And it's just, you know, a couple of paragraphs.
	They're very short. So see if you hear that when I read that.
	Hear that their goal is to change the economy...
	And that the imaginary climate crisis is the excuse.
	Now the person talking here is the top UN climate change official.
	So if Tony Heller is right, the top climate official in the UN said in public that the real goal is to change the economy and that the climate stuff is fake.
	See if you see that in what I read in her quote.
	All right, so this top climate official is optimistic about a treaty, blah, blah, blah.
	And then she says, however, the official, Cristiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN, blah, blah, blah, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and the necessary transformation of the world economy, the necessary transformation Transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.
	So she talks about a necessary transformation of the world economy.
	And then below she says, this is the first time in history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally.
	She's actually using the word intentionally.
	So watch what comes after intentionally.
	With a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.
	So did you hear her say that the climate thing is not real, but the goal is socialism?
	Did you hear that in what I just read?
	I want to see your comments before I go on.
	Somebody said yes? Who else heard it?
	Yes. Somebody say no.
	Yes. We got more yeses.
	We have a no. We have a yes.
	Somebody says I didn't hear it.
	Somebody says kind of.
	Somebody says no.
	No. No.
	More no. No.
	No. I'm just reading your comments.
	Yes. Yes, absolutely.
	Yes. No.
	I heard it. No.
	Yep. No. No.
	No. Nope.
	No. Now, for those of you who said yes, what are you thinking?
	And I'm seeing more yeses come.
	Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
	Somebody says no, not technically.
	Somebody says pretty damn close.
	Now lots of yeses.
	Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
	A few more no's.
	Some more confused.
	Alright, here's my rule.
	What have I taught you about hallucinations?
	If you walk into a room with one other person, and one person is in LSA, there are two people in the room.
	If there are two people in a room, and one of them says, there's an elephant standing in front of us, and the second person says, I don't see an elephant, which one is hallucinating?
	The person who sees the elephant...
	Or the person who doesn't.
	This is a really good rule.
	And it works a lot.
	The person who sees it is almost always the hallucinator.
	Because if somebody can look right at the evidence and say, I don't even know what you're seeing.
	Alright, I'm going to read this again.
	And I'm going to tell you why you think you see it, but it's not there.
	First of all, On the surface, the thought that the head climate person at the UN says, just imagining that the head climate person says, no, climate change is a bunch of BS, we just want to change the economy to socialism.
	Right there, you should have stopped and said, I don't even need to read that article.
	You should have told yourself, I don't need to read the article, because that can't happen.
	I mean, it's impossible that that happened.
	There is also a rule, this is the Scott Alexander rule, he talks about this, that if something seems like ridiculous in the news, like somebody reports something and you say, that, it would be amazing, like aliens landing on Earth and capturing all our dogs.
	You hear a story like that and you go, wow, that's amazing.
	When you hear stories that are amazing, they are almost always false.
	Not just this story, but in general.
	Here's an amazing story.
	The President of the United States polluted with Putin, and now he's a Russian agent.
	Did you need to wait three years to know how that would turn out?
	I didn't. I applied the Scott Alexander rule.
	If it sounds like it's ridiculous, there's a 95% chance it just didn't happen.
	Sure enough, it was fake.
	Alright? So, without even reading the text, you should have said, no, there is no world in which the head of the UN climate stuff went in public, in front of a publication, in front of a crowd, and said the climate change stuff is fake, we just want socialism.
	Now, so first of all, it didn't happen, but let me tell you why you think it happened.
	Here's what she said, and I'll read you the key parts, just the parts that matter.
	She said, the fight against climate change is a process, so that part we all agree, and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference.
	Is it true that if you fight climate change, it is necessary to change the economy?
	Yes. The context is not socialism.
	The context is getting off of fossil fuels.
	Now you know the correct context.
	Now that you know the context she's talking about is it's going to be a big for the economy to move from fossil fuels to green fuels.
	Nothing about socialism, right?
	Just regular moving from using oil and coal to moving, you know, probably wind and solar and whatever else she thinks.
	That's her context.
	Now you know the context.
	Listen to the same words again now that you know the context.
	There'll be a necessary transformation of the world economy.
	Right? There will be a necessary transformation of the world economy, because it's a major thing to go from fossil fuels to green technology.
	That's all she's talking about.
	You agree with that.
	She's just saying something you agree with.
	Now, her other statement, she says, this is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally Within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.
	What is the economic development model?
	You think it's socialism versus capitalism.
	That's not the context.
	The context is the economic development model is burn coal, use oil.
	That's the context. If you believed she was saying that climate change isn't real and that it's really all about socialism, that's a hallucination.
	It's caused by you think it's going to be there.
	It's caused by maybe weird paranoia.
	It's caused by whatever makes people believe in conspiracy theories.
	But Tony Heller points me to this and says it's right there on the page.
	It is not right there on the page.
	It is not even close to being on the page.
	There's nothing like that on the page.
	They don't mention their belief or disbelief in climate.
	It's not there. And when they talk about the economic development model, it's obvious that the context is carbon to green fuel.
	That's all they're talking about.
	Now, would the effect...
	of doing all these Green New Deal things create more of a socialist government.
	The answer is yes. But it looks like the people involved, and all evidence suggests, they believe that these are the way to solve these problems that they see as problems.
	So, it is not an evidence that it's a plot.
	And where else has Tony Heller made a similar kind of claim in which he has imputed intentions where none exist?
	Alright, so I just showed you this example where he sees intention that just doesn't exist.
	The other place he does it is when he says, continuously and non-stop, that the official climate people, NASA or whoever else, Fake the data for temperature.
	Most of his thoughts are around that one point, that we used to have a certain set of data, and they've faked it to wrong data to make their point.
	Now, when I listen to the people on the other side, I say, he says you fake the data.
	What do you say to this fake data charge?
	The climate people who understand the whole world there, they say, it's not fake data, it's adjusted.
	Now, if you believe that it's fake data, and you hear me say, it's adjusted, you just laughed, right?
	You're like, Scott, adjusted data is just fake data.
	You can't do science, and then if you don't get the answer you want, go back and change the data.
	That would be fake. That's not science.
	You don't change the data if you don't get the answer you want.
	That's fake science.
	Right? Some of you are saying that right now.
	I'm pacing you because I know some of you are saying that.
	But here's what the scientists say.
	They say, we published the details of why we adjusted it.
	We adjusted it when we realized there were imperfections in the data.
	For example, some of the thermometers had been in rural areas, but over time, somebody built an airport next to it, for example, and the airport was a heat sink.
	So that would have made that thermometer inaccurate because of the heat from the nearby airport that was added after the fact.
	So we took some adjustments to account for the fact that we know this measurement was wrong.
	I mean, we know. We told you why we know.
	We showed you our evidence.
	We show you the calculation we used to adjust it.
	And then there are a number of other situations in which they've adjusted the data after the original measurements.
	But here's the thing Tony leaves out.
	They tell you exactly why they changed them.
	They show you what they changed it from.
	They show you what they changed it to.
	They give their methodology, and it's public.
	You can just look.
	Now, is it faking to show your work?
	In the scientific realm, that is literally the opposite of faking, because anybody can check their work.
	Anybody can go in there and say, all right, you made these adjustments, why?
	You know, I'll go to that same thermometer, I'll see if that was reasonable.
	So people have gone, you know, I don't know the details, but people have checked into it.
	They have convinced themselves that there was no intention to fraud.
	These were just legitimate adjustments to the data.
	So we have at least two data points in which Tony Heller has assumed bad intentions where it is not in evidence.
	Somebody says you're not a scientist.
	Does that matter? Does that matter to anything I've said so far?
	That I'm not a scientist?
	All right. And there is an entire website that's dedicated just to debunking, in their words, debunking everything that Tony Heller says.
	So there is an answer to everything he says.
	Now, my own view is that there are two outstanding skeptical arguments that, if they're not answered, would debunk climate science as being legitimate science.
	But not in the sense that the scientists are frauds.
	There is evidence that maybe there are things they haven't accounted for, or they may be fooling themselves, but there is not evidence of fraud, in my opinion.
	Alright, so Tony has seen fraud in the emails where I don't see it.
	He's seen fraud and fakery in the data, where it's not in evidence as far as I can tell.
	And he sees it in this article I just read, where it clearly doesn't exist.
	So we have three data points of Tony Heller seeing a hallucination That I don't see.
	And I'm looking at exactly the same stuff.
	All right. So, here's my point.
	All policies, including the Green New Deal and everything in it, including climate change, which is a subset of the larger category of things in Green New Deal, they all change power structures, as all policies do.
	The immigration policy that the president is doing changes the power structure.
	It's moving money from one thing to another.
	It's decreasing the power of the immigrants.
	It's decreasing the power of Democrats because they would like more immigration to increase their voter roll.
	There is no such thing as a big political action that doesn't change the power structure and the money.
	So if you're saying, well, let's claim a thing.
	It's all about the power grab.
	You have said...
	Nothing. There's nothing in that statement.
	It's an empty statement, which is what was blowing my mind.
	And what blew my mind yesterday, and I had a stunned reaction, if you saw it live, I was actually, I got goosebumps.
	I couldn't believe what I was seeing.
	I saw people repeating the talking points.
	It's a power grab, it's just a power grab.
	And I predicted accurately that if I took some guess, they could not describe what they meant by that.
	That it would just be word salad or they would change the subject.
	And you saw right in front of you that nobody could argue the point.
	Then after the point, when I was done with that, a lot of people piled onto Twitter to say, Scott, you created a straw man by changing it from Green New Deal to climate change, even though, I'm telling you, that doesn't change the argument.
	The same argument for the whole Green New Deal As for the climate part.
	Same argument. Doesn't matter.
	I did that intentionally. I changed it for clarity.
	You said that I'm not listening to the arguments.
	That is correct.
	When somebody changed the subject, I cut them off.
	So I'm not going to listen to something that's on the wrong topic, of course.
	So I'm going to try it again.
	Would you like me to try that again?
	So I'm going to change my microphone while you're thinking of your best arguments.
	I'm not going to take anybody in the top eight, so I'll look for whoever joins from this point on.
	I'm going to ask you to defend your notion that the Democrats are only involved in a power grab and that they don't believe in climate change and they don't believe in the other parts of the Green New Deal.
	All right. So I want to...
	All right.
	I've got people jumping in.
	Let's try...
	Oh, let's try Daniel.
	Daniel, I am going to add you, and you are going to make your argument, I hope.
	And Daniel's coming on in a minute.
	Looks to be a little technical difficulty.
	Daniel, are you there? Daniel?
	Daniel, are you there?
	Daniel is not ready to take a call.
	We'll try somebody else. Let's try Chris.
	Chris, you are up next to argue that the Green New Deal...
	Chris, are you there?
	Again, are you here to make an argument that either climate change or the Green New Deal are really just a power grab?
	Yes, I am. Please make your argument.
	Okay, well, first of all, I would say that you misrepresented Tucker's position in the beginning in the sense that there's not just one person sitting behind a desk twirling his mustache seeking power.
	Wait, hold on. Hold on.
	Let me stop you there.
	I'll give you plenty of time to make your point, but I'll only interrupt for the benefit of the audience if there's a factual point or to keep you on topic.
	I did not represent Tucker's point as being somebody behind a desk, like some individual person.
	I reject the point that it's a power grab, but I accept Okay, well then the question would be, which political party tends to want to expand the bureaucratic state in order to make sure that these new policies are followed by us,
	the PDU? The Democrats are trying to expand the bureaucratic state and the status philosophy of controlling the freedoms that we enjoy now.
	So do you think that Trump is trying to do border control to win the election?
	Is that his purpose?
	To win the election? I don't think it's necessarily to win the election.
	I mean, if you look at all the polls, his solutions for getting control of the border aren't necessarily to have strong support among the majority of the population.
	Let me just say why I asked that question.
	If you think that President Trump's intentions are to do something good for the country on the border, in other words, that he really believes the policy, It will also help him get elected, he hopes.
	That's just part of politics.
	But he believes that it's a real thing with a real objective, right?
	You would say that about border security and the president.
	Would you agree with that point? Yes, I would agree with that point.
	However, I would take issue with it for this reason.
	Donald Trump wanting to get control of the border will not impinge on my freedom as an American citizen.
	If the Green New Deal is passed...
	Hold on, hold on. So I don't want to go too far afield into arguing the Trump border stuff.
	Let's go back to the Green New Deal.
	The only point I'm making is that if you believe that the policy makes sense...
	Then you should be talking about the policy makes sense.
	And of course, if any politician does something that makes sense, they would also probably get more power for that.
	So that would just be normal politics.
	Now, I heard you making another point, which was it wouldn't affect you.
	The border stuff wouldn't affect you.
	That was your point, right?
	Right. It wouldn't affect my own personal freedom if Donald Trump gets security of the border and we know who's coming or not coming to the country.
	Would it affect the electoral situation in this country?
	In other words, depending if immigration is more or less...
	Yes, it would slow down the demographic shift that we are currently experiencing.
	Right. So in other words, slowing down immigration...
	Would keep power with Republicans or at least maintain their power base because they would not be letting in a lot of people who would end up voting for the other side.
	So would you agree that whichever way immigration goes, it'll either be a big advantage of power for the Democrats if there's open immigration or it will be a way to maintain power for the Republicans because they'll limit the number of Democratic voters coming into the country.
	So would you agree that the immigration issue...
	It has a huge power element to it.
	Of course it would.
	Okay. So the fact that there is a big transfer of power in the immigration issue doesn't make the president a big old power grabber.
	It means he's doing his job, but there is an effect that power...
	Power is affected by it.
	Let's get back to the Green New Deal.
	So I think we're in agreement on the fact that all big policies tend to shift power.
	That's just built in. You would agree with that, wouldn't you?
	Yes, I would agree with that.
	However, the difference, if I may make a point real quick, the difference between the two topics is that Donald Trump getting control of the border, exerting his power as the executive to do that, is not going to further infringe on my rights as an American citizen.
	The Green New Deal, if it is passed, will infringe on my freedoms as a citizen because they will control everything from what car I can drive to if I can fly an airplane to how much beef I'm able to eat every day.
	So it's a little bit different.
	I don't think that they're necessarily the same.
	So Chris, you're not on the right topic.
	So I will agree with you.
	That you will be affected by the Green New Deal and it would change your options in life and your opportunities and everything you just said.
	So everything you just said, I agree, but it's not the topic.
	Oh, I'm being nominated for president.
	That's nice. The topic is that the belief that the Democrats are doing it for power.
	So that's the thing that you need to defend, and I don't hear you defending that.
	You just said it's bad for you, which I totally agree with.
	I'll make it simpler then. Everything that politicians do is in a quest for power.
	Yes? You said everything they do is or is not?
	Is in a quest for more power.
	Yeah, our system allows that if the politicians do a good job as the citizens see it, they almost certainly are rewarded with more power.
	The same with capitalism, same with politics.
	Success gives you more power, so we agree on that, right?
	Yes, we do. People are saying that you slayed the question, but you're not even on the right topic.
	I don't mean this to be an insult, but Chris, would you agree with me?
	That you saying it's bad for you and reduces your options, that I first of all agree with that, and it would be true for me as well as it is for you.
	But that is not the same, would you agree, as the question of, are Democrats doing it primarily as a power grab?
	Those are different questions, aren't they?
	Yes and no. On one hand, the job of government is to ensure our freedoms, right?
	And I think in the Green New Deal...
	Well, Scott, the Constitution was written to limit government's ability to infringe on our freedoms, yes or no?
	All right. Can you make this point succinct?
	I'll agree that freedom is built into the Constitution, but...
	But how does that have to do with the fact that your question about how it affects you personally is a completely different topic than the fact that the Democrats are trying to grab power?
	Because the grabbing of power in this instance is a limiting of my freedom, which is against the principles upon which the Constitution stands.
	Alright, so we're in complete agreement, but we're on the wrong topic.
	Real quick, real quick, Scott, just real quick.
	I just have to say that I only downloaded Twitter and Periscope so I could start following these conversations live.
	I've been watching you on YouTube for years.
	I resisted the temptation to download the Twitter and the Periscope, but I only did it just so I could participate in these conversations.
	Well, thank you. Really appreciate you taking my call.
	Keep up the good work, Scott. Alright, thank you, Chris.
	Alright, Chris was...
	Chris was a good sport.
	And we're going to take next caller.
	All right, so this is interesting.
	I'm watching the comments as we're talking.
	What I saw was a completely different movie than at least what half of you saw.
	I saw Chris talking about a completely different point, which is that socialism is bad for Chris.
	We all agree with that, right?
	There's probably nobody on here who has a different opinion.
	But was I ever arguing that socialism is good for Chris?
	No, it was just a different topic.
	And yet, as clearly as I say, that's not talking about the Democrats wanting to grab power and not believing their own policies.
	Completely different topic.
	And see, there's somebody, Scott lost this one.
	I'm looking at your comments.
	Chris beat you up, they're saying to me.
	Take the L, Scott.
	Is there anybody on here who understands that Chris wasn't even on the same topic?
	Am I the only one who sees that?
	Everybody's saying that Chris won.
	So let me accept that the overwhelming opinion The overwhelming opinion is that he demolished me.
	But isn't it also true he wasn't on the same topic?
	Is there anybody who will challenge me on that question?
	Somebody says, what was the topic again?
	The topic was, are the Democrats pushing the Green New Deal and climate change within it as a power grab?
	Is that their purpose?
	And they don't really believe in the programs.
	Chris said, socialism is bad for Chris.
	Are those even close to the same topic?
	All right. So, I believe that most of you are hallucinating.
	And I mean that with love.
	I'm not saying you're broken.
	I'm not saying there's any flaw with your brain.
	You are operating as completely As completely normal human beings.
	If you believe that it was a power grab, what you heard on that conversation was completely different than what happened.
	Somebody says Chris was exactly on topic.
	All right. I've got to ask another question.
	I want somebody to come on here and explain to me why that's the same topic.
	We'll make it simple.
	Somebody says he's off topic, so there's at least one person who's not hallucinating.
	I want somebody to tell me, don't argue the big case about socialism.
	Just tell me that you think that's the same topic.
	I want to take a caller.
	I don't know if the caller will be arguing that, but I'll take Mark.
	And if Mark has a different point, I might make it short.
	Mark, you there? Again, did you see the exchange with Chris?
	Okay, I saw the whole thing, and yes, sorry, you're right, he was off topic.
	But I'm going to pass media training, and I'm not going to answer your question, because your question is, do the Democrats believe?
	Which puts me in a spot.
	The mob, I don't care what the mob believes.
	Is it a grasp against freedom?
	So, do the rank-and-file Democrats believe it?
	Yes, they do.
	You are fully right on that.
	But in the end, and I've run for politics a couple times, it is easier to control the less people there are to bribe.
	So what happens is if you aggregate power, it's easier then to bribe either with favor or with power or with money less individuals.
	So will this aggregate power?
	Mark, do you think I disagree with that?
	Actually, no. I just wanted to clarify because you're right in your question.
	The Democrats, the rank and file AOC, she believes it.
	But I don't care what the mob believes.
	If you have a brilliant idea, do you necessarily share all the details?
	When it gets down to the mob, are they motivated by the same thing as your idea?
	So will this reduce freedom?
	Hold on, let me clarify.
	Mark, are you saying that you believe...
	The top Democrats, let's say AOC and people pushing the Green New Deal.
	Are you saying that the real secret objective is that once power is consolidated in the government with more socialism, there will be fewer people to bribe and it will give, let's say, AOC personally more power because she can bribe people easier?
	Connect the dots. It will not give AOC more power because of that.
	She will be used as a tool because of her skills.
	But there are people that believe that they can make the best decisions for us all, even though human history shows that maximum freedom is what moves us forward.
	So who are the people specifically who are plotting to get this power and manipulate it to their benefit?
	Names and names. Bernie Sanders absolutely believes that an elite group of people can make decisions.
	He does believe it's better for people, but he wants a small group to make it because he would implement things to reduce your personal choice.
	So what you've described, I agree with.
	And what you've described is that Bernie prefers a certain kind of system that we would describe as socialism, and that's not in question.
	So I think we agree. Can I ask you what your educational and or career background are, just in the simplest way?
	What was your major?
	What's your current career?
	I started in commerce.
	I lived in Taiwan for a while.
	I'm a chiropractor and I've run for political office twice and seen the back room and both sides.
	All sides are disgusting.
	And what's your educational background?
	Commerce degree and chiropractic degree.
	Commerce degree. Okay. Thank you.
	You're awesome, by the way.
	Thanks. All right.
	So, here's a little pattern to look for.
	The people who are having trouble following my argument and separating, you know, what's the Green New Deal and what's climate change and what's the power grab versus what's affecting Chris and stuff, look for the professions.
	Yeah. So you saw that Mark, who had a background in commerce, where you learn decision making and you learn to isolate things and you learn to look for the variable that's changing.
	That's generally a good background for understanding how to separate things and analyze things.
	And you saw that when he came on, he agreed with me totally.
	As far as I know, there was nothing in that last phone call that I disagree with even a little bit.
	I mean, he moved the topic a little bit, but it was something I agree with.
	The people who were disagreeing with me and saying, Scott, Scott, Scott, you got everything wrong, they tended to be writers and artists and musicians because they conflate.
	If your background is the arts, then everything seems to be connected and meaningful.
	If your background is science or business or economics or engineering, to give some examples, your skill is to isolate and And separate.
	That's how you understand your world.
	So the people who can isolate and separate tend to agree with everything I've said today.
	And the people who see things as sort of connected have no understanding of the points I'm making.
	That it's almost like their filter on the world is so different that it's like my words don't even make sense.
	Right? So, somebody says, scientists don't agree with you.
	I don't know what point you're talking about, but typically, since my policy is usually to agree with scientists, I would say that's not right.
	You didn't ask Chris about his career.
	I did not, but I wish I had.
	All right. Somebody says that the last caller kicked my ass.
	All he'd said was things I already agree with.
	I don't know how that's an ass-kicking.
	So, Those of you who think that anything I said made sense, what do you make of all the people who are saying, I'm in crazy town now?
	How do you process that?
	I'm just wondering.
	Somebody says I'm a PhD physicist and I agree.
	All right, let me take one more caller and see if the profession is predictive.
	All right, I'm going to take Tony.
	And when Tony joins us, we're going to see if profession and background, or educational background, are predicted.
	I can hear you.
	Did you agree mostly with the things I've said about this topic, or did you mostly disagree?
	Yes, I agree with what you're trying to say.
	My background is multiple degrees in engineering, and...
	I know that, right?
	You said that...
	Right. Basically, it's a matter of input versus output is the way I look at it, like the intent versus the outcome.
	Right. Right.
	So what you just did there is a skill that is easy to you, but I think we can see that some people just have never practiced it, don't have it, don't have any background.
	You very clearly zeroed in On the two things that needed to be separated.
	The intention and the outcome.
	That's exactly what I've been saying.
	And you, with your training and your degrees in engineering, you hear it the first time.
	It's like, oh yeah, of course.
	You're going to separate this from this and then look at them separately.
	So that's all I wanted to ask.
	I want to see if I can try this again with a couple of other professions.
	But thank you.
	Thanks for coming on. Alright, I'm going to take another one and see if this pattern holds.
	I'm going to pick Josh.
	This could be trouble.
	We'll see. Josh, can you hear me?
	Hi. Josh, let me ask you first if you've been following the grab thing.
	Yeah, not really. I was about to cancel this.
	I missed some of the content.
	So, all my contacts is from this Periscope.
	From what you saw, did you think or was I in crazy town and the people who were telling me I was crazy were more on target?
	Which did you feel? Yeah, no, I thought you were making sense.
	And what is your educational background?
	What's your degree? What do you do for them?
	I'm a mathematics major and I'm a math tutor.
	Yeah, so this is my point.
	is that you're certain.
	Thank you.
	That they know how to separate things and isolate things.
	That's all I wanted to ask Josh.
	All right.
	So look for this. I guess the broadcast is breaking up.
	Anyway, later today I'm going to do my tutorial on how to be a professional writer.
	You don't need to catch it live because it'll just be a little lesson you can replay at any time.

▲