All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 1, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
41:18
Episode 743 Scott Adams: The No Malarkey Tour, OK Doomer, No One is Above the Law, Finger Biting
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey Jerry, come on in here.
Good to see you.
Stanton Cruz, Matthias, Kevin, always a pleasure.
Oh, I know why you're here, sure.
You don't even have to say it, because I already know.
You're here for the simultaneous sip.
And most of you are prepared.
If you're not prepared, it doesn't take much.
Just a little bit of work, a little bit of effort.
All it takes is finding a cup or a mug or a glass or a snifter, a tiff, a stein, a chalice, a tank or a thermos glass, a canteen, a grail, a goblin, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip.
Go! Tingles.
Shudders. All right.
Oh, Bong Weasel, you just threw another log on the fire?
That sounds very cozy.
What is better than sipping your beverage by a fireplace while listening to Coffee with Scott Adams?
Nothing. Nothing.
That's right. Nothing. Well, let's talk about some of the funny things in the news.
Here's a little humor lesson.
Are you ready? I'm going to teach you how to make viral tweets.
Now, every now and then I catch a tweet that's just right.
It goes viral. And I did that yesterday with a couple of tweets.
When I say viral, I mean, you know...
Relatively speaking for my world, relatively viral, getting over, let's say, a thousand retweets.
So here's an example, and I'll tell you why it's funny.
I tweeted yesterday, people used to ask me why I always travel with a fire extinguisher and a narwhal tusk.
Who's the idiot now?
Yeah. So if you want to make a viral tweet, uh, It's always good to jump on something that's already funny.
So if you're trying to find a topic for a tweet or a topic for humor, you always look to the same thing.
Is the situation itself already funny before you've added a joke?
Now, if you've got somebody, a Polish chef, attacking an Islamic terrorist, Turns out he's the nicest guy, with a narwhal tusk, while the other guy fights him off with a fire extinguisher, and the third guy, who is the bravest one of all, who gets no credit, he gets no credit because he didn't have a cool weapon.
If you watched that situation, and you said to yourself, I've got to Google a narwhal.
What the hell is a narwhal?
Raise your hand if you had to Google it and look at a picture of it.
And did you say to yourself, Well, that's a pretty cool whatever the hell that is.
Some kind of aquatic unicorn.
Pretty cool. Alright, so here's tip number one for making viral content.
Also tip number one for humor.
Is the situation funny before you've even done the joke?
That's what you're looking for.
It's hard to become viral unless you're actually half laughing just hearing the basic story without the joke.
All right? So then I added the joke.
And here's one of the, well, what I call the six dimensions of humor, which if you would like more on this topic, you should Google six dimensions of humor and my name.
Or you could Google the humor formula, Scott Adams, and they'll pop up on the Internet.
But one of the six is cleverness.
And cleverness is something you know when you see it.
I don't have to over-complicate the definition.
But cleverness often can be using your environment for a clever solution to something.
Now, that solution might be ridiculous and absurd, and it might be just funny, but your brain says, oh, that's sort of a solution to a thing, but it's so ridiculous that it makes you laugh.
So the cleverness is that your ridiculous solution is close enough to an actual solution that your brain says, oh, that's like an actual solution.
Oh, no, it's not. It's ridiculous.
And then you laugh because of the incongruence.
So when I said that I always travel with a fire extinguisher and a narwhal tusk, that is an engineering solution, meaning that if I'm part of a knife attack...
I've got the two things which apparently work really well for repelling knifers.
Knifers? Knife attackers?
Then the other thing is, one of the other dimensions is...
So the first dimension was cleverness.
So you need at least two of the six dimensions of humor for something to register as a joke to other people.
So if you only put one in there, typically it doesn't fit.
You also want or doesn't work as a joke.
The other dimension is bizarre.
If you can make something that's out of somebody's normal, let's say, world, and yet make it sound like it could be, no matter how ridiculous, that too makes you prime to laugh because the world doesn't make sense.
So, because having a narwhal tusk as a weapon and a fire extinguisher is so unusual, It has bizarre just already in it.
So it's already bizarre, and there's some cruelty involved.
That's another dimension of humor.
If somebody is having something bad happen to them, that usually primes you for humor, just automatically.
You know, unless it's so terrible that, you know, you're too distracted by the horrible of it.
But if there's something just sort of mildly bad happening to somebody...
Now, for example...
When this guy was getting stabbed with the narwhal tusk.
See, I'm just... You don't even have to add the joke.
All I have to do is say, this guy was being stabbed with a narwhal tusk, and you're already laughing.
That's perfect. That's good fodder for a comic.
All right. So, and then when I said, who's the idiot now, that sort of brought it all together because you could see that I thought I was being clever by having a narwhal tusk and a fire extinguisher with me all the time.
And I got kind of lucky because it turns out those are useful.
All right, so those are a few of the dimensions of humor that are in that.
Another one that went semi-viral yesterday was, I showed a picture of, I have to pause and say this for a second.
As bizarre as it is for a narwhal tusk and a fire extinguisher to be part of a national story, have you come to think about how perfect those two tools are for stopping a knife fight?
Let's say you knew there was going to be a knife fight sometime next week, and you were going to be in it.
And you had all the time you needed.
To use your environment to fashion the perfect defense, but you live in a country where you don't have guns.
So a gun would be the perfect defense.
A sword would be pretty good.
But it would be hard to beat a five foot long pointy pole, the narwhal tusk, and a fire extinguisher that the other guy is using.
Because if you just have the pointy thing, maybe he can grab it and stab you.
And if you just have the fire extinguisher, well, he could probably just sort of run through it and stab you.
But if you've got one guy with a pointy thing and one guy with a fire extinguisher, you can take care of business.
The third guy, who was actually the bravest, because he had no weapons at all, and he'll be lost in obscurity.
He's just like guy number three.
He didn't have a cool tool.
Alright, so Joe Biden announced the kickoff of the, I'm not even making this up.
If you haven't heard this story, I promise you, I'm not making this up.
This is actually really in the news.
That Joe Biden has branded his bus tour the No Malarkey Tour.
Now, I ask myself, what was the campaign staff meeting like when they kicked around this idea?
I feel as if it looks a little like this.
I'm going to invite Dale to do the Biden campaign decision-making process in one act.
Dale will be playing the part of a campaign advisor on the Biden team.
I, without my Dale beard, will be playing the part of Joe Biden while they're deciding on the No Malarkey Tour.
So, does anybody have any ideas for branding our bus tour?
Yeah, I do. I do.
I think we should call it the No Malarkey Tour.
Pretty good. It's pretty good.
What? Yeah, we'll call it the No Malarkey Tour.
People love that.
People love when I say no malarkey.
Okay. What's malarkey mean?
Well, it means sort of like foolishness and, you know, BS, that sort of thing.
None of that. So no malarkey.
This is, believe me, This is going to hit home.
People say Trump is a brander.
No, no.
I will take him under the bleachers behind the school any day, and I will brand him like a drum.
I will brand him so hard.
No malarkey. It's going to make America Great Again look like spittle.
It's going to look like nothing.
Point of clarification, if I may.
No malarkey, was that your first choice?
There's nothing else?
Do you have? I'm just asking.
Was there anything number two or three on the list?
I mean, just in case. I'm just saying, just in case.
The no malarkey thing, maybe tomorrow you wake up and you don't like it as much.
Just in case.
Is there anything number two, number three?
Nope. Nope.
No malarkey. No malarkey.
That's it. I have made my decision.
Okay, point of clarification.
Point of clarification. When you say no malarkey, how comprehensive is that?
Does that include no shenanigans?
Are there no shenanigans?
No malarkey. Just keep it simple.
We don't have to get into the shenanigans, but no malarkey.
Well, okay. No shenanigans.
We don't need to say that, but how about Lollygagging?
Is lollygagging in or out?
Forget about the lollygagging.
There's just no malarkey.
Just keep it simple. No malarkey.
Right, right, well, but...
How about kerfuffles?
Any kerfuffles?
Nothing. Moxie, gobsmacked, rapscallions?
Nothing. Just malarkey.
That's all. No lollygagging.
No fiddle faddle. Just malarkey.
You heard me. It's gonna be a winner.
And then we see a photo of the no malarkey bus parked in front of what would be his rally.
And it was an hour before the rally and there wasn't a single person there.
There was just nothing but a bus that said no malarkey.
And that's when I tweeted, apparently they were only coming from the malarkey.
So, what do you get when you go to a Trump rally?
Well, you get a lot of malarkey.
Let me tell you that.
You want malarkey?
I'll tell you where to go.
Go to a Trump rally.
Are you gonna enjoy it?
Yeah. You're gonna love the malarkey.
In fact, after the Trump rally, what are the parts that you quote back to your friends while laughing uproariously?
Is it the statistics?
No. Is it when President Trump thanks the other people in the state he's having the rally?
No. No. That's probably not the part you talk about later.
It's the malarkey.
If you want to fill your stadium, you better bring the malarkey.
That's what I'm saying. People like their malarkey.
Malarkey? Deeply underrated.
I say, give me more malarkey.
And that's not even counting the fact, as Libby Dibby, Susan, no, as Susan pointed out, on the internet, that malarkey has no in front of it.
Have I taught you...
Anything about putting the word no in front of a bigger word that is the one that carries all the meaning?
How does your brain process that?
It does not process it as no malarkey.
It processes it as malarkey.
Malarkey. So we have proof positive that the Biden campaign does not know anything about Psychology, words, people, branding, politics, or much of anything from this century, I suppose. But if you want to know more about your phonograph or your VHS tapes, you should talk to Joe Biden because he's got that stuff down.
Down, I tell you.
Now, you may be saying to me, as many people have, okay, boomer, Technically, I'm a boomer.
I'm actually, I think I'm at the young end of the boomer range, I believe.
And Mark Schneider is popularizing the counter phrase, especially against the people who think climate change is going to kill them pretty soon.
And his counter is, okay, doomer.
Pretty good, isn't it? Okay, Doomer.
So every time somebody tells you that the world is going to end because Trump is so bullying, just say, okay, Doomer.
Every time somebody says, if we don't get rid of Trump, my God, our whole country is going to fall into the ocean in dishonor.
Okay, Doomer. It's pretty good, isn't it?
Yeah. It'll grow on you.
Believe it. Believe me.
Here's a little persuasion tip for you.
You're hearing a lot of people when they talk about the president and they're talking about the Ukraine phone call and the whole concept of impeachment.
Here's a phrase you hear a lot from the Democrats.
No one is above the law.
Now, that's a really clever phrase.
It's a persuasion phrase.
It is not a factual statement because, in fact, we live in a world where people beat the law all the time.
So nobody should be above the law.
But, of course, some people do manage to get away with stuff, both be they poor or be they rich.
We have a system that's kind of leaky.
But anyway, that's not the point.
When somebody says no one is above the law, and let's say they're talking about the president, what technique is that?
Students of persuasion, you've heard me talk about this, to infinity.
And you probably never noticed, there it is, somebody said, it's thinking past the sale.
That's the technique being used.
If I say that about Trump, no one is above the law, I'm trying to make you uncritically believe that the law was broken.
I haven't seen one. There's no law that's broken.
So by saying that somebody is saying no one is above the law, that's one of those bumper sticker sayings that we just accept as true.
If you hear the phrase, no one is above the law, how many of you disagree with it?
Zero, right? There's zero people Think people should be above the law.
Forget about the fact that sometimes people get away with stuff.
Nobody thinks it should be that way.
So it's super sticky because it's a familiar phrase.
Familiar little phrases like that have more power than they should.
Because they're familiar, you also process it as true.
I hear this all the time.
Nobody's above the law. True.
True. Now, it happens to have the advantage of actually being a real thing.
Nobody is above the law in this country.
But it makes you think past the question.
Now, here is my suggestion.
You know how Trump is really good at turning around the other team's attack.
They said he and his group were using fake news, so he turned that fake news into an attack on CNN and MSNBC, and it worked really well.
So he's really good at taking the gun out of the hand of the mugger and using it to shoot the mugger.
Here's how he should use this.
When somebody says of the Ukraine phone call and looking into the Biden situation, no one is above the law, here is the correct response.
That's why I was looking into the Biden thing.
Because no one is above the law.
If you accept the principle that no one is above the law, That takes with us some assumptions.
And one of those assumptions is that you see something that looks like it might be against the law, even if it's not guaranteed to be against the law, it's worth looking into.
Because if you don't look into it, well maybe somebody gets away with breaking the law and remember.
No one is above the law.
So if Trump turned this around, no one is above the law, and started using it about why he would ask Ukraine to look into the Biden thing, because, correct me if I'm wrong, what is the one thing that the Democrats say over and over and over again They say that he's digging up dirt on an opponent, and that the reason all of this is bad is not because there was just a person he was looking into, it's because it was his political opponent.
If somebody says, why are you looking into potential crimes of your political opponent, what's the best answer?
No one is above the law.
Now what I have heard Trump supporters say is, And I've said it a bunch of times.
I say it in the long, complicated way.
And I say it like this.
I'll say, well, you know, if Biden was leading in the polls to be the next president, it's a very high priority that we look into foreign interference.
And by the way, even though maybe that should have been done at a lower level, Department of Justice and Bob Barr, it's just common sense that the boss has to kick it off.
You want a public statement by the other boss.
Because once he's committed in public and you talk leader to leader, you're going to get much more cooperation at the lower levels.
Okay, that's the argument I've been using.
Complicated, right?
Completely valid, in my opinion.
Completely valid. But kind of complicated.
Compare that to this.
Oh yeah? Why was it just a coincidence that the only time that Trump cares about this corruption...
Why is it the only time he cares is that it happens to be his political opponent, Scott?
Explain that. That the one time he cares is his political opponent?
Explain that. No one is above the law.
Who was going to do it?
Right? Who else was doing it?
Was somebody else looking into it?
I'm not aware of anybody else.
If Biden was above the law...
Then, of course, of course you should not look into him.
He's above the law. But if he's not above the law, maybe you look into it.
Maybe you see if anything's there.
Now, let me be clear.
The no one is above the law thing is just persuasion.
It's not really thinking, per se.
It's persuasion.
But it could be used both ways, is my point.
Apparently the Newsweek reporter who reported that Trump would be spending his Thanksgiving tweeting and golfing got fired because people pointed out that no, he wasn't spending Thanksgiving tweeting and golfing.
He was serving meals to people in a war zone or fighting people.
So Newsweek fired that person.
And I think this is another sort of a cousin to the Gelman effect.
Now, a reminder, the Gelman amnesia effect, I write about it in my best-selling book, Loser Think, which you probably have already ordered, but if you haven't, there's still time today to get it.
And the Gelman effect, most of you know what this is.
It was created by a physicist named Gelman, and whenever he would see a news story about physics, that was the one topic he knew really well.
And when he would read the news stories about physics, he would say, oh my god, they're wrong, every time.
Really, every time he read a story about physics, Being one of the top physicists in the world, he would look at it and say, they got everything wrong.
And then he would have amnesia at the very next story he would read, because he would think that was probably all right.
Now, is it a coincidence that the only time he knows the content, he can tell it's wrong?
But all the other times when he doesn't know much about that content, he accepts it as true.
What are the odds of that, right?
So, the point of that being that the news is horribly inaccurate more often than you imagine, but you just don't know it because you're not close enough to the details.
I was going to tie this in with that Newsweek firing person that's So the... Here it is.
Normally when the news gets something wrong, you don't always know about it.
And in fact, the news, especially the opinion people, will double down and say, we got it right, even though the facts seem to indicate they got it wrong.
So you don't have that many clean examples.
Where somebody just makes up the news.
But this Newsweek situation was one where we all get to see behind the curtain.
Because we know with complete certainty there's no ambiguity about what Trump actually did on Thanksgiving, there could have been no time, and I don't think it's been suggested there wasn't any time, that it was ever in evidence that he was going to spend that day golfing and tweeting.
So, even though he used some decoy, you know, diversion to sneak over to Afghanistan for security reasons, it's such a clean example where you see that somebody literally made up some facts and then put them in a national publication.
Yeah. So, it's sort of jarring.
Because you don't have situations where you can determine the actual facts with complete ambiguity after the fake facts have been published.
What's more common is that the fake news will say, it's another bombshell proof of the president colluding with Elbonia or whatever.
And then, you know, there's lots of news events after that, but you never get like a completely ambiguous You know, debunking.
It's rare that you have the fake story and then 100% guaranteed it's fake the very next day.
That just doesn't happen.
So like the Gelman effect, take something from that.
You should take from the fact that this one time we could know for sure what was true, and you could compare it to what was reported, and they're just opposites.
All right. So...
What else we got here?
So, I think those were the...
There's a shooter who injured 11 people on Canal Street in New Orleans.
Don't know much about that.
That just happened.
News will be slow because it's a holiday weekend.
Didn't Trump say he alone can fix it?
I don't know what you're talking about.
It's not the first time they have stolen from you.
Stolen what? Google sociopath versus psychopath.
Trump. Why?
What happened to the Kurds?
Yeah, there's a good question, isn't it?
Why is there not a lot of reporting about all the atrocities happening with the Kurds left in Syria?
Is it because things are working out or because we just don't have good reporting?
Because it could be both of those things, right?
It could be that we don't have reporting and it's working out.
It could be that it's mostly working out, but a few people are getting killed who shouldn't get killed because it's a war zone and there are mortal enemies involved everywhere.
But maybe the number of deaths is not high enough relative to the danger in that area that it looks like a special problem.
I don't know. They made a treaty among three nations.
That is correct. Oh, by the way, those of you...
I did settle the mystery.
Some of you know that on my book, sometimes the subtitle says, How Untrained Brains Are Ruining America, but that I noticed that for some of the copies...
On the inside, the subtitle is wrong.
It's actually a different subtitle than is on the cover of the same book.
So this is one of the versions I have, where it says that one train Marines are ruining the world instead of America.
Now, we looked into this, and our best guess is that there are around 300 copies that have this error.
And the error was caused by the versions that say world, We're for the non-American audience.
The version that says America was for America, of course.
And the printer mixed up one of the pallets.
So there was just around 300 or so, we think.
Could be wrong. About 300 of them that have a mixed title is different from the subtitle.
And I happened to get one. That's right.
It's a collector's edition.
If you got one of those, you got a rare one.
Looks like a bunch of you got them soon.
I think whoever got them first were more likely to have it.
So the people who bought it in the first 300 probably are the ones that have it.
I'm just guessing that's the case.
Did you see Biden talk about his leg hair?
I did not see it, but I saw the transcript of it, and I didn't know what to make of that.
I did not do it.
Alright, let me stop this.
I'm going to talk to one of the users here, at OTURisk, who says CO2 is plant food.
You need to catch up.
Alright, so here's my advice.
If you want to be engaged in the conversation about climate change, there are a couple things you can say that will just signal to everyone involved that you don't know what you're talking about.
And that you haven't looked into it enough to have any kind of an opinion.
Alright. One of those things that signals you don't know anything about the topic is CO2 is plant food.
It's true. Plants need CO2. It's not a thing you should say about climate change.
Because while all the scientists understand that, they all do.
Trust me. Every scientist knows that plants need CO2. Everybody knows if we did something to remove too much of it, that that would be a problem.
But nobody really thinks that's much of a risk.
There's a lot of risk we might have too much of it, say the scientists, but there's not really any real risk we're going to remove too much of it because we would see it coming so far in advance and we would stop doing that.
You know, unless we did something stupid like seed the ocean with self-growing bacteria that ruined the earth or something, but I don't think we're going to do that.
So if you're entering the conversation at the lowest level, sort of the preschool level, On a conversation that you would need a PhD to really understand, the simplest, least useful signal that you don't know what you're talking about is to say the statement, CO2 is plant food.
That is no more useful than to say humans breathe oxygen.
Everybody knows it.
It's just not relevant.
It never will be. The other thing that signals that you don't know what you're talking about on the topic of climate change is...
That all of the global warming is caused by sun fluctuations.
One thing I can tell you, as I say in LoserThink, if there's one thing I can say with complete certainty, the scientists who study how warm the atmosphere is have considered the sun...
To think that they have forgotten to consider the Sun and all of its elements of being the Sun, to imagine that the scientists who study this for a living Forgot that.
It's just that you're reading some whack-ass website that makes these claims, and you need to get out of the entry level.
So it's okay to enter the conversation without knowing much, but you're going to be signaling your complete lack of understanding of the topic by saying either, CO2 is plant food.
Thank you. Thank you for telling us that water is wet.
Humans breathe air, and that if you drop a heavy object on your foot, it will hurt your foot.
There's nothing in the statement.
So don't act like you added something.
And if you think that the scientists forgot to consider the sun when considering warmth, Then you need to up your game.
They did consider the sun.
They looked at the flares.
They looked at all the historical stuff.
They considered the sun.
All right. If it seems like I have too much of an attitude about that, it's because I think the whole climate change thing is a big topic.
It's a big topic in the sense that it's important.
It's important if we have a problem, it's important if we don't, because there's a gigantic set of decisions either way.
So it's an important topic, and if you're coming at it at the kindergarten level, You should just stay out of it or study up a little bit more.
But CO2 is plant food.
It's just saying water is wet.
Everybody knows. The scientists consider the sun.
So there's that.
All right. They considered it and still got the models wrong.
Well, here's the thing.
As I described in LoserThink, as long as you're willing to discard the models that didn't work, and you've got hundreds of models, you're always going to have a model that works.
Even if your model doesn't work...
All right, let me make that point better.
Let's say that the possible range of where the temperatures will be in the future is this.
Let's say it's a big range.
And you got some models that say it's here, some here, some here, some here, some here.
But everybody agrees...
That temperature is going to be somewhere in this range, all right?
So, if the temperature comes in, let's say at the lower end of the range, they'll just throw away the ones at the top.
And they'll say, those were not predictive.
Let's try again next year.
And more people will make some new models, so by next year, there'll be some new models.
And they'll look at them all, and they'll say, hey, a few of these models came pretty close.
And then we'll throw out a few more.
As long as you're adding models and throwing out ones that didn't predict, you are guaranteed to have some models, because they're all through the range, you're guaranteed to have some models that appear to predict.
Does that mean that they did predict?
Totally unknown. There's no way to know.
If you have enough models, some of them will always look like they're predicting.
Especially if you're adding new ones all the time.
Because you can add new ones that got all the history right on day one.
Say, look, my new model predicts the past.
What's the word for that?
You know the word for predicting the past.
You don't predict it, you hindcast it.
So, there are two situations you could guarantee was true.
One, if scientists are really good at making climate models, you would expect that there would exist some climate models that are good.
If scientists are good at it, and they've done their job really well, the outcome should be some models that look like they're really close to the actuality, right?
The other possibility is if scientists don't know what they're talking about, and they're just randomly producing models, What would be the outcome of that?
Exactly the same.
Exactly the same.
Whether they were randomly generating them, so long as they were within that sort of large-ish range of possible, you would always have models that appeared to predict.
Whether you did it completely incompetently and it was just randomness, or you knew exactly what you were doing and you just nailed it.
So if you don't understand that there would always be models that appear to predict even if they don't, then you don't understand how to look at the models and what kind of credibility you should put on them.
Now, and then when they take it to the next level of the economics of it, well, that's just guessing.
All right. That's about all I need to talk about today.
I'm looking at your comments here.
Waiting for Scott, Scott, Scott.
Somebody had a book removed from Amazon for questioning the role of CO2 in warming.
I'm not sure that's wrong.
So there are different kinds of skeptics when it comes to climate change.
And people come at it from completely different areas, and there are just parts of it that they question.
So Tony Heller is famous for questioning the measurements And has questions about whether the measurements have been accurately recorded, whether they got, you know, tweaked for effect, etc.
So that's one kind of skepticism.
You know, Tony does more than that one kind, but that's one he's known for.
The other kind is what somebody just mentioned.
There are scientists who say, hey, the whole basic chemistry and physics that you all think is true is not true.
That CO2 doesn't actually...
Have an impact on warming.
That falls into the category of, I suppose anything's possible, but if you had to look at a category that the majority of scientists agree and are probably right, that would be where I would look.
Because on the basic chemistry and physics, that's stuff you can test.
It has been tested, you know, in a lab.
So you can see, hey, if I've got this little artificial atmosphere and I add some CO2, did the temperature go up?
Oh, it did. So if your skepticism is on the chemistry and the physics of CO2, you're probably, and I'll say, 98% chance, a crackpot.
So should Amazon allow a crackpot?
Who might have damaging scientific thoughts on Amazon?
Well, that's a tricky situation, isn't it?
Because as soon as somebody's in charge of deciding who's a crackpot, you'll never get any new ideas.
Now, if you told me to bet, if you said, Scott, you're going to have to put a bet.
Gun to your head, you don't get out of this bet.
You have to make a bet. Does CO2 caused by humans cause the temperature of the Earth to go up fast enough that we as a civilization should be concerned?
Yes or no? Is the basic chemistry and physics right that adding CO2 from humans will cause the temperature to go up?
I'm going to gamble yes on that every time.
Because that's something scientists can get right more likely than not over time.
But when they go to the models, that gets sketchy.
And when they go to the last phase, which is the economic models, that's just absurd.
So you don't put the same credibility on the basic science, which is probably pretty solid, as you do with the models, which are a good try.
Might be right, maybe not.
And then the economics, which is just guessing.
All right, that's all I got to say.
I know everybody tunes out when I talk about climate change.
You must be sick of it by now.
▲
Export Selection