All Episodes
Previous Next
April 12, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
59:58
Episode 489 Scott Adams: Monkeys, Climate, Communication, Assange, White Nationalism, Brainstorming
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, Scott.
Nice name you have there.
Come on in. Gather round.
Hey, Tyler.
Always easy. You're always early.
Kev, Jackie, Sharon, or Sharona, I'm sorry.
Come on in.
Grab your container.
You know what's in it.
Liquid. Your favorite kind.
You might be picking up a cup or a mug or a stein.
Could be a chalice, a flask, a tankard, possibly a thermos.
But I hope you have your favorite liquid in there.
I like coffee. And join me now for this simultaneous sip.
Ah, delightful.
Have you noticed that every group in this country, every identity group, gets to identify what words are offensive to that group?
And then, as a courtesy, and it is a courtesy, you ask other people to not use those words about you.
So if you're gay, you'd say, please don't use these following offensive terms when referring to us.
And I say, that's reasonable.
I mean, there are a lot of words in the world.
Why would I want to use an offensive one if I can use an unoffensive one?
Likewise, African Americans say, please don't use this word or this word.
These are deeply offensive.
To which I say, well, you know, it's a world where we have free speech, but that's actually pretty reasonable.
Totally reasonable. I'm willing to not use those few words because the world is full of words.
I'll just use the ones that are not offensive.
The reason I bring this up is that I've never had a term which I felt was offensive to me.
Until now. I don't know if any of you will join me in this feeling.
But I'm seeing the phrase white nationalist used quite often.
White nationalist.
Now, when I hear white nationalist, that feels racist to me.
Because, well, I don't need to explain it.
I don't need to give you a reason, do I? There's no requirement that I tell you why that feels offensive.
I mean, it should be obvious.
I shouldn't have to discuss it.
So I declare that from this point forward, if anybody uses that phrase around me or anyone else, then I'll ask for an apology and I'll explain to them that it's racially offensive.
Now, I doubt this will catch on.
For all the obvious reasons.
But I'm not joking.
It's not really...
This is not me-tooism.
I'm actually offended by the term.
I've never been offended by another term.
You know, people call me cracker, and what are the other things that people call white people?
I just find them funny.
Those words just all seem funny to me.
It's like, all right, all right, yeah, I'm a cracker, blah, blah.
I play air guitar.
I wear Dockers. I eat too much cheese.
Okay, I get it. I'm white.
Never bothers me.
But white nationalists?
That bothers me.
That's like a different level.
So I declare, from this point on, the only people who can use that term without apologizing are white people.
That's the way it works, right?
You can use the insult if you're talking about your own group, because the speaker determines the message, right?
Messages don't live independent of who's saying them and who they're saying them to.
You have to look at the context.
So I can use the phrase.
I can say white nationalist all day.
But if you're not white and you use it about me or about anybody else, I'm going to stop you, and I'm going to ask for an apology.
And I'm going to say that's an offensive term.
So I'm just putting down a stake there.
There's a story about a golfer who has risen to number six in the world.
He's the sixth best golfer in the world.
And here's what's interesting.
He's quirky as all get-out.
His name is Bryson DeChambeau.
No, I don't follow golf.
I'm not a big golfer. It's just there's something very interesting about this story.
It turns out that this golfer has a bunch of quirks.
He doesn't swing correctly, which you can imagine what a big deal that is if you're a professional golfer, and his swing isn't even a normal swing.
But he also does all these calculations about the temperature and the humidity, and he goes way more into the science than other people.
But he also uses clubs that are all the same length.
So there are a number of things about him.
He's got a weird swing. He does all these calculations that other people don't do.
So he tries to make it more scientific.
But he also has clubs that he's had made for him that are all the same length.
And he's risen to number six in the world.
I think it's all because of the clubs.
Think about it. If your clubs are all the same length, you can do one-seventh the amount of practice that other people are doing to get the same result.
Other people, professional golfers, are practicing with a different length of club for every type of shot.
So they have to learn every club and be able to transition from this length to this length And to do that, as anybody who's tried to play golf knows, it's really, really hard.
But yet there's no rule that says all the clubs need to be different lengths.
And indeed, common sense tells you they should not be.
They should not be the same length.
It's just stupid.
It's just a mistake.
It's nothing but a mistake in the design of the game.
So other people have made the same observation.
So he had all his clubs made the same, and he rose from something like in the top hundreds to number six.
And people are trying to figure out, okay, what is it he's doing?
Is it his practice?
Is his bad swing actually a good swing?
Is it because he does these calculations in his mind, in which he's doing the humidity, to which I say, maybe it's the obvious thing?
Maybe it's just the incredibly obvious thing that he uses sticks that are all the same length.
So it amuses me to see that the obvious is ignored when it's obviously that.
He has one-seventh of the practice time to get the same result as all the others.
All right. There's a story out in Japan that scientists are putting human genes...
Into monkey brains.
That's right. They're taking human genes and they're injecting them into monkeys.
What could go wrong?
What could go wrong turning your monkeys into human-monkey hybrids?
Well, I'll tell you what could go wrong.
Just about everything.
Just about everything.
I've seen Planet of the Apes and I'm pretty sure that's how it starts.
But I was fast-forwarding to a time.
Imagine if science started making monkeys smarter.
At what point did they get rights?
You know, Planet of the Apes, I always thought was science fiction.
But if you could take, let's say...
I don't know what the numbers are.
Let's say that compared to a human...
A smart monkey would have an IQ of 20.
I don't know. Whatever it is.
There's probably no way to measure the IQ of a monkey.
But let's say it's 20, and a human is average 100.
What happens if you could put some genes into the monkey and raise that monkey up to 60?
An IQ of 60.
Couldn't read, couldn't do math, but could navigate the world.
Could fetch you a beverage.
Could do some janitorial work.
At what point does the monkey actually get rights?
It's a real thing.
I never would have thought that would be a real conversation, but we might be 10 years away from asking the question, are these hybrid monkey humans more human or more monkey?
Is it more like your pet or something else?
Interesting question.
So more things going on here.
So I predicted yesterday that it would be great if the president did not take a position on Assange, at least not right away, because it would leave the press not knowing who to object to.
And so the president, sure enough, went soft on the issue of Assange.
He just said, well, it's not my thing.
I'm not really paying attention to it.
I don't know anything about it. Now, we don't have to assume that's exactly true.
I'm sure he got briefed on it.
I'm sure he knows as much about WikiLeaks as we do.
You know, we the public.
But he's decided to just stay out of it.
Now that created a vacuum because the people who don't like the president didn't know what to agree with or disagree with because they didn't really take a position.
So they were using his old statements during the campaign and trying to make something out of that.
But even the dumbest observer doesn't take anything that's said in a campaign too seriously.
And I think most people knew that the president was making light of and having fun with the fact that Wikipedia was doing things that were bad for Hillary.
And it's obvious when you see the old clips, he's just sort of enjoying that situation.
You shouldn't make too much out of it.
So I checked the headlines today.
So I went to CNN to find out how they treated the biggest story from yesterday.
It was the biggest story yesterday.
How does CNN treat it today?
Well, let's go to CNN. Let's see what CNN says about it.
Let's see. Don't see anything.
I'll keep looking. Okay.
GOP at a loss over Trump's past praise for WikiLeaks.
So the only story about this on the front page of CNN is about how they can't quite tell what side they're on.
Now, they don't say it that way.
So that's my framing, is that CNN can't tell what side CNN is on.
Now look at the headline from CNN. GOP at a loss over Trump's past praise for WikiLeaks.
In other words, CNN notes that the president had been soft on WikiLeaks, but the GOP at the moment are being hard on him.
And then you've got Tucker Carlson and, I think, Hannity, who are essentially saying he should be treated like a journalist, which would be going soft on him.
So, CNN can't tell what side they're on, so they just sort of recused themselves.
They just sort of made it not news today.
So today, today is not news.
So, and Fox News didn't say a whole lot about it, because people still haven't sorted out what team they're on, which is what I predicted.
All right. Pence and Buttigieg feud over faith.
So this story just won't go away.
So Pence and Buttigieg are, I guess, differing over religion and gay rights, etc.
And I don't know if anybody's noticed, but...
Pence is not running for president, and we assume he'll be on the ticket for vice president, but he's not really running for president, and he's not really saying much about these past policies that he's had, Pence says.
And so we have this weird situation where the Democratic candidates that have been announced, or we expect to announce, are so weak The CNN doesn't even compare them to President Trump.
The best they can do is that one of the candidates has some advantage over the vice president.
That's it. The best that CNN could come up with this week, because the president's had such an amazing week, you know, WikiLeaks, I'm sorry, the Russia collusion thing went his way, the economy's screaming, you know, things are just really, really good.
For the President at the moment, and in a bad way, because immigration got to be such a crisis, nobody can be happy about that, but at least you validated that the President's political instincts on that turned out to be right.
So the President is just crushing people at the moment.
He's just having a really good little period in history.
So the best they can do is find out that one of the candidates for President has a little bit of an advantage Over the vice president.
So that should tell you things are pretty good.
New polls showing Buddha Gigi on the rise.
Okay. So remember I told you that it looked like CNN was nominating Buttigieg to replace Kamala Harris because she's too boring?
CNN wants their side to win, but they also need to stay in business and get clicks and be interesting.
Kamala is very uninteresting.
I don't know why exactly, but she is.
Buttigieg is way interesting.
He's just way interesting.
Everything he does is a little bit interesting.
He's not my candidate, and I still find him interesting.
So that's a real good sign.
Sort of AOC-like.
He's got a little bit of charisma going on.
So here's the front top left of CNN today.
Pence and Buttigieg feud over faith.
That's the top headline. So it's about Buttigieg.
Then it says...
Two down it says, Opinion, Christianity's future looks more like Lady Gaga than Mike Pence, which is sort of also pro-Bottigigi.
And then, Buttigigi on Pence, I'm critical of bad policies.
And then, this is all the top headlines on CNN. I'm not skipping anything.
These are all the top ones.
Then the next one, also about Buttigigi.
Opinion, Buttigigi is a symbol for a rising Christian left.
How about the next one? Oh, it's about Bodegigi.
New poll shows Bodegigi on the rise.
What's the next headline?
Let's see. Oh, analysis.
Mayor Pete surges into the top ten.
What's the next headline?
Oh, Pete Bodegigi's not-so-secret weapon as his husband, Chasten.
That's right. Here are the top headlines.
I'll count them. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
The top eight headlines in the top left of CNN's story, and of eight, they're all about Buttigieg.
I just realized that even the Kasich headline, let me click on that.
Let's put up these poll numbers again that I was just talking about and show people...
It's about Bonajig also.
So even the one headline that didn't have Buttigieg's name in it or refer to him, obviously, I click through and it's about Buttigieg.
The top eight headlines are pro-Buttigieg on CNN. Do we have any doubt about where CNN's going now?
Let's go over to MSNBC because it would be interesting if they did not.
If they did not agree.
So let's see what their headlines look like.
So the top stories on there are, they're still shocked about the bar's recklessness.
That's their top headline. But over on the right, something about immigrant tent cities.
And then the second, the third one is, Buttigieg goes from cordial to critical on Pence.
So it's the third headline on MSNBC, but it's positive in a sense for Buttigieg.
So it seems that that's the decision that's been made.
We have a story today that apparently the Trump administration reportedly, who knows what's true, but reportedly they considered having ICE relocate all of the illegal immigrants that they had to release They would release them in sanctuary cities as sort of a punishment, I guess, to these sanctuary cities for being sanctuary cities.
Now, this, of course, is being reported as some kind of, you know, Hitler kind of idea that's so bad and it's using the immigrants as pawns, to which I say, Isn't everybody using the immigrants as pawns?
Can you really call out anybody in the United States who's involved in any political anything?
Can you really say that there's somebody who's not using the immigrants as pawns for political purpose?
There's nobody like that.
The President is doing it.
The Congress is doing it.
The Republicans are doing it.
The Democrats are doing that.
The city mayors are doing that.
I'm doing it right now.
You're probably doing it in your free time.
There's nobody who isn't using the immigrants as pawns to make their case.
So let's stop trying to act like there's somebody who didn't do that.
Show me the person who isn't using the immigrants as pawns to make their political case.
But I was thinking about this idea and I had a few thoughts.
First of all, any reports you hear about a plan that floated and got shot down, you shouldn't take that too seriously.
I know we want to read into the evil minds of people based on the ideas that they floated.
And maybe you could tell something about people by looking at them.
But it's really unhealthy To look at an administration's floated ideas as opposed to the ones that make it all the way through and become the actual policies.
Floating ideas, you should assume that there are lots of bad ones.
There should be lots of bad ones and only a few of them become good enough to get all the way through and become policy.
So it's totally illegitimate To criticize any group, and I would say the same thing if this were coming out of a democratic, you know, secret talks, I'd say the same thing.
It might scare me that they were even considering something, but every organization throws out one bad idea after another, they wrestle with them, and then the good ones rise to the top.
So it's really unfair to judge people by the ideas that they rejected, right?
However, I asked myself, would it have been a good idea?
Now, politically, it would have been a terrible idea because the Democrats would have ripped it to shreds.
But it would have made an interesting argument by itself, which is, if there's nothing wrong with these immigrants and the sanctuary cities are the ones who say, well, that's the case, we must not treat them like they're They're bad people, right? We should treat everybody nicely.
If that's what they want, doesn't it make sense that they would get most of the immigrants who ICE has processed and released?
Wouldn't it make sense that they're the natural place for them?
And they would be in a position of trying to defend why they don't want these people in their sanctuary city.
So it's kind of brilliant because it would back them into arguing against their own position.
So their own position...
Is that it doesn't matter how many immigrants there are, you still can't be deporting them, you can't be treating them like second-class citizens, and that you can't have...
You know where I'm going on that, right?
So the kindness philosophy probably has a breaking point.
And it looks like it might have been at least one idea that was floated and taken seriously in the administration is to find out where the breaking point is.
To give them enough people that they would change their mind about whether it's a good idea to have a sanctuary city.
That would be using human beings as pawns for political purposes.
So it's hard to get behind that, and that's probably why it died.
Because in the end, it wasn't a good enough idea to make it all the way through the filters.
And I would agree with that.
But there's certainly something good enough about the idea that I don't feel bad that they talked about it.
Because they're trying to solve a psychological problem as much as a physical problem.
The psychological problem is how do we be nice people ourselves while doing the things we need to do to protect the border?
Because they're a bit conflicting.
You can't be nice and a hard ass at the same time.
It's hard to justify being both of those.
President says, let's be a hard ass.
The sanctuary cities say, let's be nice.
The president could change their mind by changing the facts.
The facts are how many people are in their sanctuary city who are the kind that were released by ICE. So it's an interesting way to change how people think by changing what is actually happening on the ground.
And it wasn't a terrible idea.
It's just one that probably would not have passed the political filter, and so it was probably better that they didn't do it.
And there would have been legal challenges, etc.
So, you all saw the pictures of Assange being arrested, and he was being dragged out, and he was all bedraggled, and he had long gray hair and this big beard.
And I thought you should save a clip of that.
Just, you know, bookmark it.
Just save that clip of Assange being pulled down at the embassy.
Because around Christmas time you could save some money.
Tell your kids that Santa Claus got arrested.
Say, kids, there won't be any presents this year.
Santa Claus got arrested.
And your kids will say, that's not true.
You say, I'm afraid it is.
Look at this video on my phone.
It's Santa.
He's being dragged out of the North Pole.
He's been arrested. Maybe don't do that.
All right. I guess Chuck Schumer is calling Assange a Russian spy.
Is there any evidence?
Have we seen any evidence that Assange is a Russian spy?
Tucker Carlson says he's not.
But I think it would be more accurate to say that we don't see evidence of it.
So, in the same way that you would say, I'm not a Russian agent, but all you really know is there's no evidence of it.
I'm actually not a Russian agent, in case you're wondering.
But it's astounding that Schumer makes that claim.
And I looked on CNN to see if they would highlight that.
I thought, oh, they're going to love, it's going to be some more Russia collusion stuff from Schumer.
CNN's going to love it. And I looked on their page.
Nope. Even CNN, they may have reported on it, but even CNN is not going to highlight Schumer claiming it's the Russians again.
Even CNN has learned their lesson about this Russian thing.
It's like, maybe we'll take a pass.
Chuck, Schumer, it's all yours.
We'll just sit this one out, maybe.
Didn't work out so well last time.
All right. I'm having lots of people arguing with me on Twitter, and they say the same thing no matter what the topic is.
So there are several topics in which their responses are the same thing, and it sounds like this.
But we heard it in his own words.
Or, she said it in her own words.
We heard her words.
Scott, how can you tell me I'm wrong?
I heard her exact words.
Now, people are saying it about Candace Owens, and there's still people who are saying, but she praised Hitler.
I heard it with my own ears.
How can you deny what was right there?
And you heard it and you saw it.
How can you deny what you heard and saw?
They say the same thing about the president.
He said, the neo-Nazis were fine people.
How could you not know?
You saw it with your own eyes.
You heard it with your own ears, Scott.
Stop being so obtuse.
And there are several other examples like animals.
And now Omar is getting the same treatment.
Omar is getting the treatment where she referred to 9-11 as some people did some things.
And now people are saying, my God, Omar is disgracing the memory of 9-11 and dismissing it like it was unimportant, and it's the worst insult to the patriots who died, etc.
Let me make the same comment.
About all of these situations, from fine people, through Hitler praising that didn't happen, through Omar's comments about 9-11.
When somebody communicates, especially to an audience, they must make some assumptions about what the audience already knows.
Just remember this.
It's a very important point.
Anybody who communicates to an audience, as I'm doing right now, you have to make assumptions about what the audience already understands.
Because if you didn't make that assumption, you could never describe anything.
You'd have to... You'd say, okay...
But you understand we're talking about humans, right?
And there are humans who live in other places, and they come in all kinds of different ways, and they breathe, and sometimes they talk.
You could never describe anything unless you assumed what the audience already knows.
Here are some things that you should always safely assume the audience already knows.
And this is not a comprehensive list, but these are things your audience already knows.
9-11 was very bad.
They already know that. Omar doesn't really need to tell you that.
Hitler was a horrible, murdering, you know, evil person.
If I don't mention that specifically, it doesn't mean I don't believe it.
It means that I assume you understand that.
Candace Owens doesn't need to tell you specifically why Hitler is bad or that she doesn't like him.
She had every right to assume that that part was understood.
When the president said there were some fine people in Charlottesville, he did go on and detailed that he wasn't talking about the neo-Nazis.
So he said, specifically, I'm not talking about them.
But he shouldn't have had to do that because he should have known that you understand that, that the president is not Supporting the marching neo-Nazis.
You shouldn't have needed to explain it.
Likewise, when Omar says some people did something in 9-11, you should be able to know that she's talking about 9-11 and she's not saying, oh God, I'm glad people got killed.
She's not saying something like that.
People are saying it's a false equivalency.
Alright, if you're saying it's a false equivalency, then you have been triggered into cognitive dissonance.
In this and other cases, well, whenever you see somebody saying, Scott, you're making a false equivalency, or anybody is making a false equivalency, the person making the false equivalency argument, and by the way, I have a chapter of this in my new book.
Anybody who makes the false equivalency argument, and somebody's saying right now, but Scott, you just said that in your own words.
So you're seeing people modeling the bad behavior right here.
I'm not making a false equivalency.
I'm making a statement about communication.
Communication always has to assume that there's some things you already understand.
So she was simply making a point.
She referred to 9-11 and she didn't need to detail it because you all know the details.
Why did she need to detail 9-11?
Is there anybody here who didn't know what she was talking about?
And now somebody says you're an idiot.
So most of you who are mad at me are making the assumption that she's downplaying it exactly the way people said Candace Owens was downplaying Hitler.
I'm not saying there's any moral equivalence.
In fact, I rarely say anything has moral equivalence to anything else.
I'm saying that your filter on it is just as defective as the other side.
Somebody said you're Omar blinded.
Everything you're saying about me and what I'm saying about Omar is the same thing that people were saying about the Candace situation.
You should assume that Candace knew Hitler's bad.
You should assume that Omar is not in favor of blowing up buildings in the United States full of innocent people.
She's never claimed she's in favor of that.
I don't think you should assume that.
Now, if she ever did say that, then you could say, I disagree with her about her opinions of 9-11.
And I'm sure there are aspects of that you could disagree with.
But Cartoon boy jumping through hoops.
Do you see how triggered the comments are?
This is fun. And somebody says, no way.
Omar is a Muslim. Candace is not a Nazi.
What? Did that make sense?
Somebody's saying it's a mistake.
You'll give me 24 hours to correct it.
Now, so let me say again.
There's nothing I'm doing which is a moral comment.
I'm not making a moral judgment on anything.
I'm not making a moral judgment comparing any two things.
So if you imagine I am, that's your imagination.
Somebody else is saying it's a false equivalence.
There's no equivalence being made, not a moral equivalence.
It's not an equivalence argument.
If you feel that I've said that, that's actually your imagination.
The statement I'm making...
Is that if you don't understand what the audience already knows to be true, then you can't understand language.
So language has to include what you understand to be true.
All right. Somebody says, Muslims think we're all infidels.
Has Omar said that?
Has Omar said that you're all infidels?
Omar wants to see Jews wiped out.
Has she said that? Now if she has, of course I will condemn her.
But, and in fact, I'm not arguing, I want to be very clear here.
Nothing I said here is a defense of Omar.
Do you understand that?
Can you understand this point and separate it?
Can you separate my opinion of Omar, which is very low, as a politician and as a force in our government, I have a very low opinion of her.
I think she's more bad than good.
Nevertheless, language works the same no matter who's talking.
I'm talking about a language rule that you make assumptions about what people already know.
That's all. And that point is not a moral judgment.
It's a language statement.
You have to understand and make some assumptions about what the other people already know.
Nobody disagrees with me, but many of you are disagreeing with me.
So look how many people are disagreeing with me without disagreeing.
If you watch the disagreements that you see going by, You'll note that they're not actually disagreeing with anything I've said.
They're disagreeing with something they're imagining.
What they're imagining is I've made a moral equivalence, which I haven't.
And I'm saying it as clearly as I can say.
There's no moral equivalence implied, nor do I imagine one.
It's just a communication statement.
Somebody says you're making excuses for it.
That's your imagination.
That's your imagination. I've made a rule that would apply to every person in every situation.
Is that making an excuse for anybody if I've made a general rule that applies to all people in all cases?
No, of course not. Scott could be wrong.
Case in point, somebody says.
Wrong about what? Do you disagree that language makes an assumption about what the audience already understands?
That's my only point.
It's my only point.
Man, the triggering here is wonderful.
All right. She knows it's a terror attack, yet chooses to describe it that way.
Now, I'm not arguing that she minimized...
Did you hear me say that she did not minimize the tragedy?
She did minimize it.
She did. Did Candace Owens, the way she casually talked about Hitler, minimize his evil?
Yeah, she did. Was that her point?
No. That wasn't her point.
It's just sometimes people assume that you already know the evil.
She doesn't need to state it.
Alright, that's enough on that. I'll let you, the people, the crazy people talk about that.
There was an article, I tweeted around a video this morning of a crazy guy Who believes that the only solution for climate change is to get rid of capitalism and, you know, reorganize the whole Earth.
And the reason I tweeted around is because of his eyes.
His eyes bug out sort of like AOC and sort of like, you know, the Helter Skelter Killer, sort of like Schiff.
And those bug eyes, I've been trying for a long time to figure out what they mean.
Because the bug eyes don't happen even with the same person.
They don't happen all the time. Somebody's saying Candace and Omar aren't equivalent in any way.
Did I say they're equivalent?
Did I say that? If you look at the comments, you'll still see people arguing passionately against things they imagined I think or imagined I said and didn't.
I didn't. There's only one point for you to argue.
Is it true that when you communicate, you have to make an assumption about what the audience already knows?
That's all. That's my only point.
Anything else you say about she's a Muslim or blah blah blah blah blah blah, I'm not even arguing that.
I don't disagree or agree.
I'm not on that topic.
Alright, so the crazy eyes, I've been trying to interpret when I see them.
And I'm looking for the pattern, and I think I might have a pattern.
And the pattern is this.
If somebody tries to tell you something that is clearly just a rational, real-world-based thing, they don't have those eyes.
And look for it.
Look for this pattern. So if somebody said to you, there's a crisis on the border.
So this is me. I'll be a pundit.
There's a crisis on the border, and something needs to be done about it.
My eyes would be normal.
Because I'd be saying something that's true, it's real, it's today, anybody can go check.
There's no imagination involved.
But when somebody is trying to convince you to join their hallucination, that's when their eyes get big.
It goes like this.
You'd say, Scott, how are you today?
I'm fine. I'm good, yeah.
How's the weather, Scott? Weather looks good.
It looks sunny today. Looks like it'll be warm.
What'd you have for breakfast?
Oh, I had a protein bar and some coffee.
Scott, what should we do about climate change?
The only thing we can do about climate change is reorganize the entire economy of the world because we're all going to be dead in possibly 12 years.
Scott? What are you doing later?
Later I've got some meetings and stuff like that.
I can do some stuff. Now, look for this.
I'm going to propose this as a Hypothesis.
The hypothesis is that there's something happening in the eyes that are reflecting imagination, or literally hallucination.
So I believe that when people get those eyes, and Cory Booker gets a lot, it's because he's imagining something that even he or she doesn't believe.
So when you see the eyes, it's something they don't believe themselves, and they know it to be imaginary.
And they're still trying to bring you in.
So look for the bug eyes when somebody's telling you something they personally don't believe, but they're trying to bring you into their imagination.
Yes, the president is totally a Putin puppet, and it's obvious from all of the secret things that I have that I haven't shown you.
So, bug eyes.
Look for it. Have you noticed that a huge amount of the news is just word news?
Word news.
Pure word news.
In other words, the news used to be about stuff that was happening, and now it's turned into news about words.
So in the news we're talking about is Court sanctioned surveillance the same as spying.
How many hours of news coverage have been dedicated to figuring out if there's a difference between the word spying and surveillance?
That's not really relevant.
What's the difference between wiretapping and surveillance?
It doesn't matter.
They're just words. What matters is what happened.
Is it legal?
Is it not legal? Is it ethical?
Is it not ethical? Those things matter.
But the word doesn't matter.
If you're trying to win the argument by winning the word, you're never going to win.
Likewise, the whole Candace Owens thing was about some words.
The whole Omar stuff was about some words.
The entire argument about the world has turned into arguments about which words got used.
I've never seen anything like it.
Let me talk about climate change.
When I grew up, and people in my age range, I want you to see if you can validate this.
When I grew up, my father built a bomb shelter in our basement that we didn't know what it was for, we found out later, but it was a bomb shelter to protect against nuclear war.
And we did the duck and cover drills to be ready in case there was a nuclear war.
It's like, if there's a nuclear war, get under your desk, kids.
You'll be fine. Now, the impact of that is that as a child, and I want to see how many other people thought this, when I was probably 12 years old, I didn't expect to live to old age because adults were telling me that nuclear war was so likely I needed to actually get ready for it.
So I believed that the world would end in a nuclear fireball sometime in my adulthood, if not sooner.
And I feel like it damaged me.
I feel like that psychological abuse...
And, you know, they weren't doing it to abuse.
They actually believed it would be true.
But I feel it was damaging.
And I think that it was...
It rewired me in a way that I probably took into my adulthood in ways that are not productive.
Maybe they were productive, but I doubt it.
And now we're seeing that with AOC and the 12 years to take care of climate science before we're all dead.
Now, to be fair, when she said the 12 years, the people on the right like to misinterpret that.
They like to misinterpret it as we'll be dead in 12 years.
Again, AOC made an assumption about what the audience already knows.
And she assumed that the audience already knows that when she says we've got 12 years to take care of this or else we're all dead, she assumed you already understood that she meant 12 years to get serious, not that we're dead on the 12th year.
But, you know, take years of bad conditions And people would die.
But you should have understood it as an exaggeration, and you should have understood it as, we need to get ready soon.
In 12 years is a good period to think when you should get serious.
But when that got out there, it turned into you're all dead in 12 years.
And if you ask a school kid, ask a 14-year-old kid, What their future looks like.
What are they going to say?
A 14-year-old kid has been told by adults who are manipulating them for political reasons.
The children are just being manipulated for political goals.
They're being used as pawns.
Same as the immigrants, right?
The immigrants are being used as pawns for a political game.
The children are being used as pawns for the climate science political game.
Everybody's a pawn. But they're scared to death.
That is so wrong.
Now, I suppose you could somewhat explain it away by the fact that the people saying it believe it.
And I think they do.
I think that most people who are climate scientists or warriors believe it.
All indications are that most of them are not lying.
I think they actually believe it.
And maybe they're right. We'll find out.
Speaking of climate change, why isn't it big news that it's already been solved?
Solved in the sense that we know exactly what paths are possible, and we should do them both.
You know, we know that Generation 4 nuclear is possible, and it would be the biggest impact on dealing with climate change, and we know how to do it.
So really, it looks like a solved problem to me.
Problem, solution, takes a little time, you know, it'll take the government doing some good things, but, you know, nothing too hard, and then solved.
Now, at the same time, you could go hard on solar and wind just to make sure that you've done everything you can.
But the solution to climate change, already here.
There's not really...
Among the people who understand Generation 4 nuclear and also understand climate change, let's say a Bill Gates type of person, they already know where this is going.
Because there's only one way it can go.
There's only one potential solution.
So it's almost a certainty that we're going to be pursuing that path.
But I want to talk about a weird little scientific, I guess, debate that I find myself in.
And maybe you've seen this.
I've been talking about climate change and when the scientists go back and they adjust data Because they think the thermometer was in a place that, let's say, an airport moved where the thermometer had been for years.
The airport absorbs a lot of heat, so the thermometer that was placed originally not by an airport, but now the airport is there, doesn't record the temperature accurately anymore.
So the scientists say, oh, this is a special case.
Let's do some kind of an average or some kind of a calculation to account for the fact That this temperature is no longer reliable after this point.
Something happened. And then there were also issues about some thermometers were checked in the afternoon and some in the morning and they have to calculate, you know, an adjustment for that.
So I've said, what's wrong with going back and improving data as long as you show your work?
As long as you're not hiding anything and you say, you know, I'm adjusting these and here's why.
What's wrong with that?
And then the scientific purists say to me, Scott, Scott, Scott.
Oh, my God.
You're so stupid.
I almost can't.
I just can't. I can't even explain to you how stupid you are right now.
Scott, you can't do a scientific experiment, and then when you don't get the answers that you expected or wanted, go back and change the data until you do.
Scott, don't you understand?
You can't do that.
Because that's just being an idiot.
That's not science.
To which I say, what?
In what world is it wrong to correct the data and show your work and then rerun the experiment?
In this case, the experiment, if you're talking about climate change, the experiment is to rerun the models once you've fixed the data.
Now, Is it a flag that you should question when you see somebody changing the data to get the right answer?
Yeah, of course.
It's a total flag.
It's a total flag.
You should look at that very carefully.
But if they do it publicly, here's why we changed it.
Here's my paper saying why I changed it.
Here's what I changed it to.
You can all look at it and make your own decision about whether this change was good or bad.
And now that I've changed it, I'm going to rerun my models, the normal process of iterating science.
And apparently there's a big argument on the internet that I'm an idiot because I think it's okay to publicly say, oh, my data was bad.
Here's why I'm changing it.
Let's rerun the experiment.
Is there anybody here who's going to argue with me on that?
Because I feel like I have the most solid argument in the world, and when I see pushback on it, I feel like maybe I'm missing something.
Somebody says garbage in, garbage out.
Okay. So there are still people who think That fixing data and showing your work publicly is a bad thing for science to do.
Were you supposed to just run this experiment on the bad data and just publish the bad data?
Was that what you want?
Or were you supposed to just throw out the whole thing because it didn't work on the first try?
When you know that you could just adjust the data and do it again.
I don't know. Somebody is still saying garbage in.
If you're one of the people who left a comment saying, garbage in, garbage out, I'm not sure you're following the topic.
Introducing discussions on data by changing it is tainting data.
Throw out the bad data.
Did that comment make any sense?
Did that comment make any sense?
Somebody says, show the raw data.
They do. So you can find the raw data and you can run your tests against the raw data.
But why would you use the raw data when you know it's wrong?
Why would you use raw data when you know it's wrong?
But I've seen a lot of people say that.
No, no. You've got to use the data that you know is wrong.
Because otherwise you're just, you're tampering with the data.
To which I say, shouldn't you want to tamper with data you know is wrong?
That's the data I want to tamper with.
So somebody says, take a class on data science.
Do you really think I could take a class that would change my mind on this?
Now somebody says, we don't trust the adjustments.
Now, that's fair.
You should not automatically trust the adjustments, but that's why they publish their method.
so you could go check it out yourself.
Somebody says you don't adjust the data, you adjust the experimental variables and run the experiment again.
Okay.
Really? So if you know you have bad data, You would adjust your models, variables, and run it again using the bad data?
That's your suggestion?
Somebody says, data doesn't change.
It is what it is. No.
Data changes. Who says data doesn't change?
When you have better information, you change your data.
People are fighting for this point pretty hard.
The changes are all in one direction.
Not true. It has been debunked that the changes are all in the same direction.
That has been debunked.
They are in both directions.
Data was wrong is unprovable.
Is it unprovable that a thermometer that you used to check it in the afternoon is going to have, on average, higher temperatures than if you checked it in the morning?
Is that unprovable?
I'm pretty sure that's provable.
Somebody says, why do you think almost all adjustments tend to fit the alarmist narrative?
Well, that's been debunked.
Apparently that's not the case.
It's about half and half.
Is the video being adjusted correctly?
Well, that's science.
They say what they did, they show their work, and people can check it.
It doesn't mean it's right every time.
Somebody says, if you don't like the outcome, then change the data.
Really? So somebody is saying, what's your alternative?
So somebody is questioning me here.
If you don't like the outcome, you change the data?
Come on! To which I say, if you show us why you changed the data, and your argument makes sense, and we can check it, and we can check why you changed it and what you did, and we could even change it ourselves if we don't like it, That's science. It's completely acceptable.
Somebody says it's a bad technique.
Scott, you forgot the sun.
You're triggering me.
You're trying to trigger me. So anyway, I'm amazed but I guess not surprised that there are so many people Who are in favor of using bad data when you have an option of using improved data?
Apparently, that's a preference.
People would prefer the bad data.
All right. Somebody says, fudge the data books.
No! So, here's a sub-conclusion on climate change.
All of the people who say the data was fudged have no credibility, even if the data was fudged.
So that's maybe a hard point to understand.
Even if there was some fudging of data, it's not an evidence.
What we have in evidence is people that adjusted the data, showed their work, published it.
You can go look at it.
You can look at the original data.
You can look at the change.
It's all there. But most of the climate scientists, the climate skeptics, will tell you that it was fudged for some secret purpose and nobody knows why they did it and they didn't show their work.
And just none of that's true.
Just not true. Somebody says, Dr.
Shiva addressed this. Well, I haven't seen the argument yet, so...
Somebody says made-up data is improved.
So the argument that the people who are triggered into cognitive dissonance, and you can see there are a lot of them right now, if you've been triggered into cognitive dissonance, you're hearing me say they adjusted the data for reasonable reasons that you could look at and you would agree with.
Measurements taken in the morning are going to be cooler than measurements taken in the afternoon.
So if you have some temperatures that are one and some of the other, you want to adjust them to be the same if you can't.
And show you work. And then people are redefining that as making up data so that they can maintain their worldview.
Your worldview has fallen apart.
All of you who think that the data was fudged, you're just not factually correct because all the fudging has been public.
And you can look at it. Nobody fudges things and then shows you.
It's like, hey, I told a lie.
Here's my lie. Here's what I originally said.
And here's why I lied.
Here's my lie. That's not really a lie.
If you explain it, It's not really fudging.
It's not faking. It's not lying.
It's just adjusting.
That's all it is. All right.
But what about those chemtrails, somebody says?
All right. I'm going to leave you to your cognitive dissonance.
It looks like I triggered a lot of you.
▲
Export Selection