All Episodes
Feb. 8, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:14:57
Episode 2013 Scott Adams: Climate Hoax Explained, State Of The Union Graded, New Printer Destroyed

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Marco Polo report on Biden Crime Family SOTU review and funny reactions Matt Walsh on "the talk" Dr. Richard Lindzen on climate change Whiteboard1: Energy Business Whiteboard2: Climate HOAX, The Money Train ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
- - - Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
Although things might get a little brutal a little bit later on this livestream.
Got a little problem with my printer.
You may have heard what happened to the last printer.
The last printer was destroyed on the floor of my office for non-performance.
But I've replaced it with a brand new HP laser printer, which has no option for finding Wi-Fi that I can determine.
So, I'll probably decide by the end of this live stream whether I should destroy it on my floor.
For your entertainment.
I think $500 is not too expensive to entertain you.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to another level, all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice, a sign, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to the day.
The thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Now, I'd like to speak to the boomers out there. - Okay.
Boomers, I know we get a bad reputation for not being able to handle technology very well.
And you know, maybe that's deserved.
Maybe it is.
It's possible.
But the other possibility is that we're busy and there's a category of problems that I find I can't solve.
And I want to see if anybody has the same problem.
If I have a big problem, I will dedicate a lot of time to solving it, and then I do.
So I find that I can solve my big problems quite efficiently.
If I have a small problem that I can fix in maybe a minute or five minutes, I'm really good at fixing those.
If it's a five-minute problem, I'm on it.
If it's a big multi-day or even multi-week problem, oh, I can solve that.
But there's a category of problem that I can't solve.
And I think I'll be the first person to call this out as a civilization problem.
This is a really, really big problem.
And it goes like this.
I have a number of small problems.
They're small problems, but they might take more than an hour to fix.
For example, I had some credit card problems with a lost credit card.
So everything that's connected to my credit card starts throwing up and then I have to go add a new credit card.
So I had a subscription to the Hulu service and it told me, oh, your credit card's gone so you can't keep watching.
So I said to myself, well, I'm a boomer, but one thing I can do is Add a new credit card to an app.
I mean, how hard is that?
Right?
That's pretty simple.
So I open the app.
And the app says, oh, not here.
You don't add that credit card in the app.
Go to our website.
So I go to the website.
Now I'm approaching five minutes in.
Do you see the problem?
Because I'm starting to hit my five minute limit, and I'm not going to be anywhere near getting ready.
So I go to the website, and I'm thinking, well, if it's just a website, and I just put in my email, should be fine.
Should be five minutes.
And the website says, use iTunes.
What?
So I go to the app, to the website, to iTunes, and I don't have iTunes on my computer.
Am I going to download iTunes, and the reason I don't have it is because it's an enormous problem?
I mean, I don't want it on my computer.
And if I put it on there, would I really be able to figure out within iTunes how to update my credit card?
Because I don't even know what that has to do with my credit card and Hulu.
What the hell does iTunes have to do with Hulu?
So what do I do?
I've made the decision to never watch Hulu for the rest of my life.
Now, I'm not blaming Hulu.
I'm not blaming myself.
I'm just saying that if it's a small problem, because watching Hulu doesn't change my life, right?
I can watch something else.
So Hulu can never be solved, because I will never put an hour of time into it.
And if I did, I could totally solve it.
Totally.
Now, if I were 25, what would I do in this situation?
Because I was 25, I know what I would have done.
What would you do if you were 25?
You'd spend an hour.
Right?
You'd spend an hour.
Because you have an hour.
And you really want to watch Hulu.
And you don't have much else going on.
So I'd spend an hour and I'd fix it.
I'm not sure this has to do with being a boomer.
I think it has to do with what I think my time is worth.
And I'm not going to spend an hour so I can watch more Hulu.
So the other day, I noticed I started getting ads on YouTube, which you don't get if you've paid for the, what's it called, RedTube or something?
If you paid for the subscription on YouTube, you don't need ads.
But the same credit card problem took down my RedTube, so I started getting ads.
Now, I'm unwilling to watch any service with ads.
I don't watch network TV with ads.
I won't watch anything with ads.
So I say to myself, well, I'm going to have to go put in my credit card.
I could not figure out where in the world I would update my credit card.
It might be on my phone.
Is it an Apple credit card that somehow interacted with YouTube?
Is it somehow connected to Gmail and Chrome, because it's all Google?
It's not on my app.
So I spent five minutes Spent five minutes looking for how to update my credit card.
Couldn't find it in five minutes.
Not RedTube.
I guess RedTube's porn, isn't it?
What's the name of the YouTube service where you don't see subscriptions?
YouTube what?
Premium.
YouTube Premium.
Alright, whatever it is.
That was too much information.
So now my current decision is to never watch YouTube again or to spend an hour trying to unfuck that.
I think I'm never going to watch YouTube again.
Why is it so hard to figure out where my credit card is when I'm trying to update it?
Now take my printer.
I got this new HP laser printer because I destroyed my other one on the floor for being defective.
The laser printer comes up and the only thing it says for setup is go to your computer and use the HP software that you download.
So I go to my computer and it says find your printer on the network.
But there was nothing to ever put the printer on the network.
So I only have one interface and the interface doesn't say anything about a network.
All it says is It should be on the network, but no way to do it.
There's no separate menu.
There's no settings.
At least I can't find it.
Now, if I spend an hour, could I make my printer work?
What do you think?
If I spent one hour, I think I could.
Do you think I will spend one hour?
Or do you think I will spend five minutes destroying it on my floor in front of you, and then order a different model that might work the first time?
Because if I order a new one, you know, my time is fairly valuable.
So if I just destroy the HP for not having a user interface that works for me, and I just buy another one, the new one will come, and I might be able to set it up in five minutes.
So, what do I do?
What would you do?
Somebody says, return it.
I basically don't return anything, because I'm not going to spend the extra time.
So, do I destroy it for your entertainment, or do I spend an hour trying to fix it?
We'll think about that while we talk about the rest of this.
I saw Michael Schellenberg tweeting that Somebody's figured out that the U.S.
Navy divers blew up that Nord Stream pipeline that people were wondering who blew it up.
Remember the United States blamed Russia for blowing up their own pipeline?
Is there anybody who can admit being embarrassed for ever imagining that Russia blew up its own pipeline?
Is there anybody who would be willing to say, okay, I'm embarrassed I ever thought that?
You should have been embarrassed if you ever thought that Russia blew up its own pipeline.
There's not a chance in the world that that happened.
Now, I'm not sure I believe this story.
You know, I don't know how anybody knows that there was a midsummer NATO exercise and Navy divers surreptitiously planted these explosives months in advance.
Meh.
Maybe.
Possibly.
But who knows?
So I don't believe anything that's, you know, Got sources like that.
The President Biden's spokesperson, Corinne Jean-Pierre.
I love Greg Gutfeld's new name for her, Cringe Jean-Pierre.
Cringe.
She's hard to watch without cringing.
Here's what I find interesting about watching her.
There's yet another clip of Corinne Jean-Pierre trying to speak in public and it just goes all wrong.
And I thought to myself, there's a lot of people in that room.
Do you think there was even one other person in that whole room of reporters and other politicians or whoever's there, I don't know, other staffers.
Do you think there was even one person in that room who would not be able to form a sentence.
The only person in the room who couldn't form a coherent sentence was the spokesperson for the United States President.
And we're kind of okay with that.
What would it take?
What would it take to get fired?
It seems like there's nothing that's bad enough.
For the Democrats to admit, all right, all right, maybe we ought to make a change here.
I mean, we literally, without any hyperbole, have found the least capable communicator in the entire country, and put her in charge of communicating for the President, who is the second worst communicator in the world.
I mean, how did we get to this point where the president and the spokesperson for the president can't speak?
Well, anyway, here we are.
So, do you follow Chef Andrew Gruel on Twitter?
He's a well-known chef whose last name is Gruel.
G-R-U-E-L.
That's like the dentist who's Dr. Chew and the baker whose name is Baker.
But Chef Gruel, he reports that there's lots of automation happening in restaurants now.
So there's a Korean barbecue joint that uses robots to deliver food.
What do you think of that?
Robots to deliver your food.
Well, I plan to open someday a Dilbert diner where it's a restaurant for lonely introverts.
So instead of two tops and four tops, the normal tables, you just have one tops.
Everything's just for you and your laptop.
Just a one chair, a table, and a place to plug in your laptop.
And you'd order on your app, and the robot would bring it to you, and you wouldn't have to deal with any humans whatsoever.
The Dilber Diner.
Who would go?
Oh, and also the kitchen would be primarily robots.
Mostly a big robot that makes everything.
You would go to that?
Yeah, and Chef Gruhl reports that the robot restaurant is packed, so people love it.
Now at some point it would no longer be a novelty, so it's not going to work that way, but I think the Dilbert Diner is just begging to be made.
What do you think?
All right, Elon Musk has teased That he's going to be introducing sometime real soon, Master Plan 3, The Path to a Fully Sustainable Energy Future for Earth, will be presented on March 1st.
And he says, the future is bright.
Now, I could not be more interested than this.
Here's what I want, because you probably know that there are a number of people, Alex Epstein being among them, who say that the sort of all-electric world just can't work, like the math can't work.
But Elon Musk says it can.
Elon Musk says it can.
So don't you want to see that conversation take place in public?
Wouldn't you like to see Elon Musk defend his opinion that we can get there with batteries and solar panels and maybe some windmills and eventually get rid of our carbon stuff?
Wouldn't you love to see that conversation?
Because here's my problem.
I don't actually know who's right.
I guess that's always my problem.
But I'm not sure it is possible.
But I'm also not sure it's impossible.
It feels like it's within the realm of something we could get to, but maybe we don't know how yet.
So there might be difference in assumption of whether we can innovate our way to, you know, a better efficiency.
And maybe that's the only difference.
Yeah.
It could come down to the only... Yes, I think Elon Musk is pro-nuclear as well.
So let's throw in nuclear.
All right.
A weird thing happened to me as I was flipping through channels last night looking for reactions to the State of the Union, which we'll talk about.
And I came across The Young Turks with Cenk.
And here's what I was expecting.
I was expecting, wow, that Biden is killing it.
He's so good.
Donald Trump was a horrible person, and aren't we glad that Trump is gone and Biden's in?
And instead, it was closer to the opposite.
And I didn't watch much of it, but the brief part I saw appeared to be Cenk Uygur?
I have to apologize to him publicly for not being able to say his name correctly.
That's on me.
So, it looked like Cenk was turning pro-Trump and it looked like somebody waking up.
And I'm wondering if anybody's noticed it.
Now, he didn't go so far as to say, I like Trump, he was better than Biden.
I mean, that's way farther than he went.
But it looked like, it looked like the spell was breaking.
And I watched it with fascination.
Because he was saying things that were just sort of objectively true.
Without any spin.
And the objectively true stuff was not leading him to his old opinions.
Objectively true was sort of leading him into the promised land of actually understanding what's going on here.
I don't know.
Just give it a look and get back to me, okay?
Just look at his reaction to the State of the Union.
And get back to me and tell me he sees it, right?
Like he sees that Biden's not quite all there.
I think he does.
I think he does.
So something interesting might be happening there.
All right, here's some more info on the Biden crime family.
I'm going to call them that from now on because normally I would not accuse people of crimes unless I was sure that they were really crimes.
But I'm sure they're really crimes.
Part of the Part of that is because the Marco Polo report has a 630-page report with over 2,000 citations and 459 alleged crimes committed by the Biden family and their business associates.
And that report has been sent to the House and the Senate and the U.S.
Attorneys.
459 crimes were identified, I think mostly from the laptops, or the laptop.
Now, obviously, 459 crimes is, I assume it's stuff like, he smoked crack once, that's one crime.
Then he smoked crack again, that's the second crime.
Then he smoked crack again, that's the third crime.
So probably, you know, Like 43 of these are just smoking crack.
So crack is not a crime?
Well, I don't know.
So I don't know how many actual crimes there were, but the financial ones are the ones I worry about.
So let's talk about the State of the Union speech.
So here are some of the funnier reactions.
And before I get to them, I'd just like to say something.
Because on this livestream, we like to take the high road.
I'm all about the high road, right?
I don't like to get down in the weeds and blaming people and stuff.
That's small, that's small.
We're above that.
And one of the things that I, is my new, I guess it's my new calling, is to try to get people to stop Judging an entire group by the worst members of the group, right?
I mean, that's the lowest thing you can do.
I mean, that's literally racist, sexist.
I mean, it's literally the worst person you could be.
So do not judge the entire group by any individuals who are bad.
We don't do that.
So that's why I'm not judging Democrats by the fact that their leader is a demented criminal.
Do not judge all Democrats that way.
It's only the leader that they voted for and look like they'll vote for again.
So just because they vote for somebody who's a demented criminal and a liar, that says nothing about them.
So do not take the fact that they voted for him by an overwhelming majority and knew exactly what they were getting, that's no reflection on them.
So we're not that kind of people.
All right, Thomas Massey had an interesting tweet about the State of the Union and Biden's performance.
He said the tone began as, quote, animatronic father at Disney carousel of progress and quickly switched to, quote, man shouting at kids to get off his yard.
That's pretty funny.
A Twitter user named Mr. Joshua said this.
This is my favorite one about Biden.
That's exactly what I saw.
Because the yelling didn't match the message.
like watching an old Chinese fight scene dubbed in English.
That's exactly what I saw.
Because the yelling didn't match the message.
It's like, "Where's my pencil?
Where's my pencil?
Where's my pencil?" Where's the pencil?
That's what it felt like to me.
And then Geraldo.
Geraldo tweet.
I honestly can't tell if Geraldo is pranking us.
So I'm going to read Geraldo's tweet.
And I don't think he's pranking.
I don't think he is.
But see if you can tell the difference between a real tweet and something that's obviously a joke.
Alright, I'll just read his tweet.
So this is Geraldo.
Because the steady stream of naysayers critics who think Biden's a stuttering babbling old fool.
But that antique didn't show up at the State of the Union.
The president we saw was robust, confident, and in control.
He won the nomination for re-election last night.
Parody or reality?
It's hard to tell, isn't it?
It's sort of hard to tell.
He had another tweet praising Biden, which makes me think is real.
Did he actually see that?
Like that was his actual honest opinion when he watched it?
Because it could have been.
It could have been.
Now, I happen to think that Geraldo is a straight shooter.
Whether you like his opinions or not, I have great respect for him, both for his careers and the fact that, as far as I know, He's brave, he's patriotic, and he tells the truth.
You might not like his opinions, but as an American citizen, he's one of the best, in my opinion.
And I think he's great on Fox, by the way.
He does his job on Fox really well.
But here's what I saw.
If you're giving a State of the Union address and you tell a whopper of a lie, like some Republicans want to sunset Medicare and Social Security, which means basically end them.
Now he did specify that it was some Republicans, and he was very clear once they started yelling at him that he wasn't saying all Republicans.
But do you think that the State of the Union was where he should have been saying that Republicans want to end Social Security and Medicare?
Now, it turns out that there are a few Republicans who are suggesting that.
But there's no way it's going to happen, because the vast majority of Republicans would never do that.
So it's not a real thing.
But bringing it up is just grotesquely Misleading, political, divisive bullshit.
And I loved the Republican reaction to it.
The Republican reaction was they just yelled liar.
They just yelled at him while he was speaking.
And he had to stop and fight his way out of it.
Now, I'm totally happy with the Republican response.
Are you?
You know, I wouldn't have mind that if that happened to a Republican Neither.
Because if you say something so overtly divisive and overtly misleading, people should stop you in the middle of your speech and just start shouting at you to get out of town.
That's exactly the right thing to do.
And again, I would have supported it no matter what side the president was on.
That was so over the line.
So inappropriate.
And the Republicans called him on that.
That was pretty funny.
My other favorite part was when This is so stupid.
This is so stupid that the Republicans laughed out loud, and it was just an honest response to how stupid he was.
He said that people are complaining that the oil companies don't want to invest, and he's not stopping them from investing.
He's just telling them that we only need oil for another 10 years, so why don't they invest?
Because, you know, they have 10 years to make money.
And the Republicans literally laughed out loud.
Now, I hope I don't need to explain why that's so dumb.
Does anybody need that?
Nobody needs the explanation of why the oil industry is not interested in massive investment for a business that's only going to last 10 years.
Does anybody need the explanation?
I don't think so.
Literally nobody would invest in that kind of a business.
Nobody.
And Biden's up there in front of the country representing America, the capitalist ideal of the planet.
And he's up there saying, oh, I don't know why they don't invest for that 10-year gain.
Well, I'm trying to put them out of business as fast as I can.
And if I could make that 10 years, five years, I'd do it as fast as I could.
Yeah, why don't you want to get into that business?
That's just stupid.
Am I wrong?
How else would you describe that?
I mean, I don't even think it's senile.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was on the teleprompter.
If it's on the teleprompter, it's not really a senility problem.
But wow!
Wow!
And then I tune into MSNBC to see what the crazy people are saying.
I hear Lawrence O'Donnell's voice saying, this was the worst possible night for Kevin McCarthy.
What?
What?
What state of the union was he watching?
What?
And he said, he went on, Lawrence O'Donnell, this is over for McCarthy.
The year is over.
So I guess Geraldo and at least one person on MSNBC saw a commanding performance by Biden which guaranteed him the nomination and will make the Republicans sad and ineffective for the rest of their time on this earth.
The other funny thing he said was, name me a world leader who would change places with Chairman Xi as head of China.
His context was that he's so hard on China, and China is now in such a bad position because of how hard Biden is on him, that there's no leader in the world who would want to be the head of the second largest economy in the world.
Because little Kim, he likes running his hermit kingdom, and he would certainly turn down a promotion to be the boss of China for life.
So, that was stupid.
That was literally just stupid.
Am I wrong about that?
I mean, how else?
Now, and keep in mind, I think that was on the teleprompter.
I think it was on the teleprompter.
How in the world did so many people allow that to get on the teleprompter?
How in the world?
Because this has nothing to do with politics, right?
This is not even a political statement.
It's just stupid.
It's just literally stupid.
I don't know what else to say about it.
Sarah Huckabee did a good job of, you know, the counter-programming after the State of the Union.
But here's the part I like the best.
She said, quote, giving every child access to a quality education, regardless of their race or income, is the civil rights issue of our day.
A plus.
A plus plus plus.
How many times have I told you that if Trump, or really any leading Republican, simply stated their policies in the smartest frame, they would be unbeatable?
But they don't do it, for whatever reason.
There is just complete, easy, free money laying there, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders picked it up.
This is exactly the right frame.
This is everything.
Number one, she understood the priority best.
Who was it recently saying that the biggest risk to the United States was the teachers' union?
Somebody said that was a bigger... Somebody, a pundit said that?
Matt Gaetz?
Well, I've said it, but somebody else said it.
Somebody famous said it recently.
Yeah, I've said it, of course.
Oh, it was Pompeo.
Yes, I'm sorry.
Mike Pompeo.
So, have I ever mentioned how smart Mike Pompeo is?
Do you have any idea how smart that guy is?
He's not ordinary smart.
He's like, sort of off-the-chart smart.
Now, I don't love him for president, because I've got some problems with his policy preferences, but He is really smart.
You can't take that away from him.
Anyway, so here are two Republicans who have correctly identified the biggest risk to the Republic.
That's good.
That's good.
But they're getting very close to just a perfect framing of the education thing.
And I think you could even go a little further.
It might be hard for a National politician to say what I'm going to say.
But here's something I've said before, and I would love to see him say it.
We're never going to agree on reparations.
So let's do what we can do.
Let's do what's doable.
What's doable is fixing the biggest part of systemic racism, which is the school system.
But you have to fix it for the poor white people, the poor Asian people, Asian American people, the poor Hispanic American people.
You have to fix it for everybody.
And if you do, this would be speaking to the black American community, if you can join with us and just fix it for everybody who is poor, you will have done the greatest service for the United States ever.
Right?
It would be bigger than anything.
And that would be something that the black American community could own.
They could own that.
One of the biggest accomplishments that our country could ever hope to have.
Fixing education.
And if that's not worth anything to you, to have that sort of, you know, in your history.
We teach Black History Month, right?
So there's a genuine sort of universal interest in making sure that the black American community is completely credited for historical accomplishments, etc., contribution.
This could be bigger than all of that.
Because this gets to America, basically.
Right?
The thing that made America, America is that the various disparate groups could get along somehow.
That we had a system that would make all these different people be on the same team.
So this is the biggest one.
If you make this work, I would say you could add another month to Black History Month.
Make it two months.
Because I think we would all be grateful to be on the same side for something that big.
Here's something I learned today from Congressman Troy Nels.
I didn't know that the cartels have an Air Force.
Did you know that?
It's not very big, but apparently there have been 10,000 cartel drone detections.
Not 10,000 drones, but 10,000 detections.
So I guess the cartels use the drones to survey for law enforcement and for other stuff that they might need.
They have an Air Force.
Now, do you think if we just keep waiting, it'll be easier to take them out?
I have a feeling we ought to maybe get on this.
Because they've got a little bit of a Navy and a little bit of an Air Force already.
I don't think it's impossible that they could get missiles.
I feel like they're going to have I believe that if they're not already dropping bombs from the air with the drones that they have, then it's going to happen really fast.
I think the cartels are going to be bombing their enemies with drones.
If not already, they might already be doing it.
So maybe we should get on that.
Part of the State of the Union was talking about the talk.
Apparently there's something called the talk.
that black families often have with their kids when they become driving age, maybe before.
And the talk is, if you're stopped by a police officer, to treat the police officer respectful and make sure that your hands are shown.
Basically, the talk is telling people how to handle the authority figures without getting killed.
Now, Matt Walsh pointed out that it's not just black and brown families.
Like, who thinks that only black and brown families have that talk?
So, Matt Walsh said, "When I started driving, my parents talked to me about what to do if I'm pulled over, and explained that I should be respectful to the officer.
This idea that only black families need to have this conversation is just utterly ridiculous nonsense." Now, my parents never had this conversation with me.
And I'm not sure why, but I'm not a mind reader, but I speculate.
Here's my speculation.
I think my parents never sat me down and told me that I should avoid resisting a police officer with a gun.
They may have, and I'm just speculating, they may have thought that I'm not a fucking idiot.
They may have.
Because if I were, An idiot.
I wouldn't know not to start a fight with a guy with a gun.
But I was trying to think at what age I had independently figured out not to start a fight with somebody with a gun.
I'm thinking it was age three.
Age three.
How old were you when you realized that starting a fight with somebody who had a gun and a reason to use it, how old were you when you realized that was a bad idea?
About three, right?
You're probably watching TV, and you thought, wow, if one of them has a gun, and that other one doesn't have a gun, all right, two and two.
Yeah, yeah, you don't want to start a fight when somebody has a gun.
So, do you really need to have... Do you really need to have that talk?
All right, I said something highly provocative today.
It's a question, but I actually wonder.
Has anybody who is sober, and that includes drugs, right?
Sober.
Has there ever been someone who was sober and had an IQ over 110 who has ever been killed in a police stop in a vehicle?
Like ever.
I don't think so.
So I think the thing that we're avoiding is it's a stupid drunk problem.
We're a stupid, inebriated problem.
We keep asking like it's some kind of police problem or some kind of a race problem.
It's just a stupid problem.
It's a stupid problem.
Stupid and drunk, right?
I don't believe any black person who was totally sober and, let's say, was smart enough to have a job, wasn't a criminal, had a job, I don't think any of them have ever been killed.
And if they were, it was because something weird happened.
Now I tweeted this, and I expected a bunch of people to say what you said.
So here I'm seeing the comments, OMG, seriously?
I was looking for, I thought people would give me examples of the opposite.
But they gave me examples of people who were killed not in car stops.
People who were drunk.
But are we at a point where we can just say this?
Yeah.
No, this has nothing to do with race.
I'm not bringing race into it at all.
I'm saying that no matter who you are, if you're sober, and you're an adult, and you have an IQ over 110, I'll bet nobody's ever been killed by police.
Unless it was just the weirdest situation of, you know, mistaken something.
Some kind of mistaken identity thing.
But that would happen no matter what you did, if it was a mistaken identity.
No, that's not true.
That is a racist statement.
If you think that speaking about IQ in this context is racial, it's not.
That's on you.
You're making that connection.
I'm just saying that if you're smart and sober, you don't start a fight with somebody who has a gun.
Do you?
And if you do, I'm not sure you have an IQ of 110.
Maybe you have some anger problem.
But the talk isn't going to help you.
How much is the talk going to help you?
Alright, anyway.
Those are just some questions.
I'll probably get cancelled for saying that.
And that's fine.
There's a new piece of software that should scare everybody in the creative industry.
Especially if you make movies.
So I saw this from Machiavelli's account on Twitter.
And the new software is called Runway.
And it'll be hard for me to describe exactly what it can do, but I'll give you some examples.
You can take any existing video, And you can combine it with some other video, and you can say, use the style of the other video, and just make a whole complete video with that style.
Now, that doesn't quite explain what it is until I give you the example.
So the example showed a video of somebody walking on the moon, you know, moonwalk.
And then separately, somebody took a video of themselves walking in the snow.
And then they said, combine these two but use the style of the spaceman.
And so, the person walking into the snow turned into a moonscape with a person in a space outfit walking through the moon.
They basically created a whole movie with a style, costumes, and everything else just by one sentence.
Use the style of this video.
That's it.
And then as the person who made their own video moved around, they were just moving around, but wearing a spacesuit.
And you can do that with faces, backgrounds, people.
You can create an entire movie just by walking around in your own clothes, and then later, you know, bringing a style over, and the entire movie will be populated.
So you don't even have to go frame to frame.
Say, all right, in this frame, replace this with this.
It does it all.
Instantly.
And perfectly.
Now add that to the fact that you can reproduce any voice now.
With AI.
And you can type in any dialogue.
And you might not even have to give a dialogue.
I think we're pretty close to the point with a few different AIs.
It's not all in one AI.
But a few different.
I think you could write the script.
And have it create the movie.
In about 10 minutes.
Here's how you do it.
You say, hey AI, I'm not sure which one you use for this, but one of them does this.
Hey AI, write me a movie that has a three-act structure and is in the style of, and then you name a famous movie writer.
Or something in the style of Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible.
But it's a new movie, And just use that style.
And by the way, you should read this book called Save the Cat that tells you how to write good movie structure.
The AI will write the entire movie in about a second.
And then you take that whole script and you say, use this style.
Use the Tom Cruise style of what the Mission Impossible movies look like.
And then you walk outside and you walk around Maybe you're even in your own office doing stuff.
Or maybe you don't even need to.
Maybe it just creates you, puts you in the movie, and has you do all the scenes.
So I think you might be able to create an entire movie in maybe two minutes.
And that's already here.
Already here.
So everybody who kept saying, Scott, Scott, Scott, this AI you keep talking about, it's always in the future.
It's the flying car.
Oh, the flying car is going to be here tomorrow.
Where's my flying car?
And I've been saying, no, it's software.
When it gets here, it's going to be here really fast.
It's going to be not here, not here, not here.
Oh shit, everything changed.
And that's where we are.
We're in the next year cannot be predicted.
You cannot predict next year.
And this is the first time in history that that's been this true.
I mean, you can't predict pandemics and stuff.
But nothing's been less predictable than what's going to happen in the next year.
It could be anything.
I don't think it'll be bad necessarily, but it could be anything.
So that's where we're going with that.
I recommend a YouTube interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson and Dr. Richard Lindzen, which you should just Google, you can find it.
So search for Dr. Jordan Peterson and then climate change or Dr. Richard Lindzen, L-I-N-D-Z-E-N.
Now, the first part of the video, is a whole bunch about the credentials of Dr. Lindzen, which are extreme.
And the reason that Peterson spends so much time on his credentials is that he's going to say something that will blow your mind.
And unless you know how serious a scientist this guy is, it's just not going to work.
Like the communication can't even work until you know how much of a You know, a study is scientifically.
All right.
So he's right at the top.
You know, best schools, best experience, right place.
And he's at an age where he saw the entire climate change narrative created.
And so he explained how the narrative was created, which I'm going to call tentatively a hoax.
Hoax isn't exactly the right word for this, but it gets you close to it.
He explains how it arised.
And in a way that is completely convincing.
Now, do you remember the documentary effect?
You have to really beware here.
The documentary effect, as I've described on Twitter, is when you watch one documentary, you think it's totally true, because they will leave out the other argument.
If you never see the other argument, you're going to be really, really convinced by the one you see.
So when you watch this, be careful.
Because it's super persuasive.
Super persuasive.
But you're not seeing the other side.
So just keep that in mind, right?
So keep a little bit of skepticism alive, but man, it's persuasive.
And one of the things that Dr. Linzen does that's persuasive, since I talk about persuasion a lot, is he ends on the best down notes I've ever heard.
Now, here's what I mean.
You would sound unconfident in your own opinion if you end in an up note.
So if I said, I think the moon is made of cheese.
I think there's climate change.
See, that sounds unconfident.
And I've taught you before that if you end on a lower note, you sound like you know what you're talking about.
Well, we've got climate change.
Climate change is caused by the CO2.
Right?
So if you end on the low note, you sound like a serious person who knows what you're talking about.
Dr. Linzen ends on the best low note you've ever heard, because he actually drags it out a little bit.
So he'll say something like, I'm just making this one up, but he'll say something like, the climate change, is caused by a variety of things, but I'm not so sure it's entirely caused by the CO2.
And he just, he just milks that low note.
So he sounds so smart.
And he actually is.
So, you know, it's, it's compatible with his actual knowledge.
All right.
Here is what I learned from that.
Number one, global warming is not the first time That the energy business has been attacked.
And there was some speculation.
But why is it that, you know, first there's global cooling, so don't use this.
First there's, then there's pollution, so get rid of your energy.
Now there's CO2, so get rid of your energy.
It seemed like there were lots of reasons, historically.
And this is the historical perspective that Dr. Lindzen gives.
And, and you wonder why.
I think this is sort of my take on this.
But one of the things I haven't considered is that there's some group of people who are more about income inequality.
Meaning that everybody in the energy business and anybody who uses it is probably wealthy.
People who don't use a lot of energy, probably less so.
And the people who think everybody should be a little more equal, a little bit more socialist, are maybe not so happy that people are getting rich in the energy business.
They just like a little less of it, a little more green stuff so we're all about the same, you know, everybody's eating granola.
Now, of course this is a mind-reading, speculative thing, right?
We can't know what people are thinking.
But, I don't know, what do you think?
Do you think there's any group of people who are just sort of jealous of the prosperity of others?
Do you think that's the thing?
Because jealousy is such a universal thing, you'd expect there's some of it.
But I don't know, the part that I'm not completely on board with is does that jealousy translate into wanting to take out the big rich energy business?
Probably.
Probably a little bit.
Then you've also got the media alarmists who can make money by going after the energy business.
You've got the green opportunists and entrepreneurs who can make money because the alternatives are being funded, so people are happy to be against the energy business.
You've got brainwashed kids who are against it, not for reasons, but because they're kids and because they've been brainwashed.
Which is how all kids learn everything, basically.
Of course, there's China who would like the energy business to go out of business because that would make us less competitive.
There are posers who just want to look good and say, oh, big energy is bad.
So there are people who are just basically, it's about their identity.
And then you've got these weird people, the anti-humanists, who believe that the planet is better without people.
For a while I thought they didn't exist, but there actually are some of them.
And they're kind of noisy.
There aren't that many of them, but they can be prominent.
So there are a whole bunch of reasons historically that the energy business has been attacked.
But Dr. Lindzen points out that the CO2 attack is the smartest one.
Do you know why?
Because there's always going to be CO2 in the air.
So you always have something to complain about.
Because CO2 will just always be there.
It doesn't matter what you do.
So you just always have something to complain about.
Alright, so.
I would say that this part is more speculative than what I'm going to talk about next.
The next part blew my mind.
I've never heard this.
And, of course, this is more opinion.
This is opinion, not fact.
But this is Dr. Lindzen's description of how we got here.
How we got here is fascinating.
If it's true, right?
So here's his take.
It started out this way.
A scientist, now this is, you know, generically, this is how it works.
Generically speaking, a scientist will do a paper and say, hey, it looks like, it looks like CO2 might make us one degree warmer by some date.
Now, what's missing from that is, therefore, the Earth will be destroyed.
Scientists didn't say that.
Scientists just said, hey, I think temperature might go up a little bit.
But that turns into a panic by the time it gets to the media and it gets to the advocates.
So the advocates turn this non-scary statement of, well, maybe you temperature up a degree.
They turn this into the world will end, which was never what the scientists said.
And then the politicians say, oh my god, my god, my god, we have to do something about this because the media's got all our voters whipped up.
So they say, we will put massive amount of money into this to fix it.
And that money goes back to the scientist who wants to say, oh, I didn't say it's an emergency.
I just said the temperature might go up a little.
If they say it might be emergency, well, you know, you don't know if it's an emergency.
Maybe we should study it.
So you very quickly created a situation where the only way you could get funding was to say there was a panic and we better do something about it.
And once that dynamic started, Dr. Linzen talked about two times that he got a paper published in a scientific publication, and both times the editor was fired immediately because his papers didn't agree with the narrative.
Apparently you would be fired immediately If you tried to stop the money train?
Because think what would happen if you published a paper that said, oh, oh, you can stop sending all this money.
You can just save it.
Don't send any money to scientists.
My paper has shown that climate change is no problem.
You couldn't get that published because the money train was too big.
So where we are is we're just in this weird situation where a lot of people have probably convinced themselves it's true, but it was never based on science.
Because none of this came from the scientists.
The scientists were just responding to the money, and then of course they found confirmation.
Of course they did.
Because that's where the money was.
The money will get you anything you want.
If Congress funded science to find ghosts, Like actual ghosts?
How many ghosts would the scientists find?
A lot.
Yeah, the answer is a lot.
They would find all the ghosts they could find.
They would find indirect evidence of ghosts.
They would find a video of a ghost.
They'd find ghosts talking to you.
They'd have, oh, there would be ghost, ghost, ghost papers.
All right, so then there were a few other things that Dr. Lindzen confirmed that I had always suspected.
Do you know what the value of a peer-reviewed study is?
Do you know the peer reviewer is just checking to see if you did the obvious math right?
That's all they do.
They're just looking for, is the paper interesting?
So it has to be like different enough that it's worthy of attention.
Is it interesting?
And is there any obvious math problem?
That's it.
And then the public thinks that it's been reviewed by another scientist, and since two scientists have looked at it and agreed, it must be pretty good.
Must be solid.
Nothing like that's happening.
Peer review doesn't have any value.
Except, you know, checking the basic math, I guess.
None.
In fact, peer review prevents papers that are against the narrative.
So peer review actually hides the truth.
Because one part is, oh, here's a paper from Dr. Linzen.
Nope.
Sorry.
Peer review reduces the truth.
It does not reveal it.
It reduces it.
By its nature.
By design.
Not design, but by its nature.
And then the funniest thing was listening to Dr. Linzen describe how the prediction models for climate science have been created.
Now I can't summarize it in a way that would do credit to it, but suffice to say that if you imagine that Dilbert is sort of a universal thing in all business, science too.
Apparently the models are as ridiculous as you knew.
They're ridiculous.
And it doesn't take more than a few minutes of him talking about them before you're actually laughing So I'll just give you one example.
This is just one example.
When a climate model doesn't work, like it wildly goes too high or too low and you know it's wrong, they'll put in a, what do you call it, like a moderating variable.
They'll just put in a variable that stops it from being wildly wrong, but the variable is just something they make up.
A damper, right?
They put in a damper.
A dampening variable.
A dampening variable is just a variable they make up in their head to make it come out the way they wanted it to come out.
It's literally not even close to science.
Not even close.
And so we're spending a gazillion dollars based on these predictions that no reasonable person thinks are credible.
Nobody.
Nobody involved thinks they're credible, unless they're making money by selling them, of course.
So that's just a, you know, a taste of it.
So, oh, and here is my favorite part.
Everything that you thought was true turns out to be true, you know, or at least confirmed by somebody who was in the middle of it.
And one was, do you remember the other day I said, do you really believe that scientists can measure the temperature of the Earth?
Do you remember me saying that?
And just laughing?
Did anybody ever believe that was the case?
If you ever believed that scientists could measure the temperature of the Earth and then compare it to what it was before, there's something wrong with you.
Like, nobody who's lived five minutes in the real world thinks that's possible.
And then I'm listening to Dr. Linzen talk about it.
It's like, no, it's not possible.
And no, they haven't done it.
They've produced a number.
They have produced numbers.
But no, you can't measure the temperature of the Earth.
That's not really a thing we can do.
And there's an obvious reason.
You can measure a whole bunch of places, but every place you didn't measure is a place that could be storing some extra energy that you didn't know about.
So you're not really measuring anything.
You're only measuring those locations, and even those locations, and he had a number of other criticisms that would convince you beyond a doubt that it's all garbage.
Now, given all that, if you imagine that his take on it is true, could you call climate change a hoax?
Does that word fit?
Now, keep in mind that he says that 97% of scientists, including himself, would agree with the statement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it would increase warming to some amount.
So he's not arguing with the basic idea that CO2 can cause warming.
He's just saying it's not an important amount of warming, compared to all the other variables.
Yeah.
All right.
We have a possibility, I suppose it's a small one, that Trump will be considered right about this as well when he called it a Chinese hoax.
Now that's like hyperbole.
China is one part of the story and hoax isn't exactly right because I'm not sure that these people were lying.
They may have just motivated reasoning.
Oh, if you're going to give me money, I believe this now.
People will come to believe whatever is consistent with their thoughts that they're good people.
If they think they're good people, they're not going to imagine a world in which they're lying to get money.
They'll imagine that they actually believe that their studies are useful and telling you something.
So I'm not sure hoax is the right word, but definitely I'm of the current working opinion That climate change is ridiculously absurd in terms of its risk.
And that there's no real long-term risk.
We'll probably be safer in the future, not in more danger.
So that's my current view.
And it's not too far from my view before, except more confirmation of things that I thought were obvious.
The things I thought were obvious from my own experience, there's no way you can make a climate model that predicts.
I did not need Dr. Lindzen to tell me that.
Because I've worked on a lot of prediction models.
And you know that it's the assumptions that drive them.
It's not the data.
The data doesn't drive them.
It's your assumptions.
And your assumptions are guesses.
So, I mean, I knew that because I've done data models.
But if you've never done them, you think, oh, scientists are doing them.
They might have some science in them.
There's no science in them.
There's no science in those models.
So, I knew that.
I also knew, just from living in the real world, that you couldn't measure the temperature of the Earth and know that you had something useful across time and all that stuff.
I knew that.
Just common sense.
If you lived in the world, you knew it.
Now, that doesn't mean those two things did not alone mean that we had no risk.
But when I hear Dr. Lindzen talk about it in context, and you realize the whole history of how the energy business has always been under attack, and when one attack doesn't work, they just change it to a new attack, through history.
Oh, here's some hallucination.
So somebody says to me, Craig Baker says, you, in capitals, stated that the models are good and improving in relationship to Tony Heller.
That is something I never said.
Craig, you are hallucinating.
If you believe I ever said the models are good?
Really?
I don't know what drugs you're doing, but that's literally the closest to the opposite of what I've ever said.
Oh, and Craig is yelling in caps.
Yeah, Scott, you did say the models are good.
You see what I deal with every day?
There's like an actual living person who is smart enough to get on here and make a comment who believes that what I've said consistently forever was the opposite.
And believes, Craig believes he saw it.
He actually believes he saw it and lived through it.
Well, let's see, what else we got going on here today?
Oh, did anybody see the War Room with Steve Bannon talking about me?
Did anybody see that?
It's on Monday, I guess.
He had a guest on and they were talking about my long COVID opinions, etc.
And so he brings on the guy who has a different opinion from me.
I'll call him my critic, just for a shorthand.
And the critics complained because I said, that their heuristics beat my analytics.
And he wanted to correct that.
Oh no, Scott.
We used analytics.
We used analytics.
You're not the only one who used analytics.
You're making it sound like you analyzed and we guessed.
But here's my clarification.
When I said your heuristics beat my analytics, the context was that I guessed.
My analytics were guessing, which I've said as clearly as possible.
So analytics was not a real word in this context.
I was saying my analytics because I was guessing.
So I analyzed it, but there was nothing to analyze, so I guessed.
So their biggest complaint is my use of a word, which is the opposite of how I used it.
So that was the biggest complaint.
Second biggest complaint was, uh, you know, he says something about long COVID, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And then, After noting that my big question was, how could anybody know the risk of long COVID?
He never got back to that.
I only have one question for all my critics.
How did you calculate the risk of long COVID?
And watch how they can't answer the question.
They actually have to change the subject.
All of them.
Every one of them will change the subject.
And he did the same.
So, once you see the seven tells for cognitive dissonance, once you know the seven, it's really obvious every time you see them.
So, I'll tell you the seven tells again.
Changes the topic, add homonyms, mind reading, word salad, using an analogy in place of reason.
You can use analogies, but don't use them in place of reasons.
Insists it's complicated and can't be summarized.
And then there's the so tell, where you say, so you're saying that water is dry, where they had something that you didn't say.
So I think you see that in every case.
So if you want to see another example of that, just watch the war room with Steve Bannon.
Now some of you say, and I guess I have to reiterate that, that you didn't calculate long COVID because nobody knew what the risk was.
I didn't know what the risk was.
So that's why I guessed.
That's why you guess, because you didn't know what the risk was.
All right.
I have a cold now, as far as you know.
All right, looking at your comments.
You gave long COVID too much weight and still do.
Did that comment make sense?
So in order for me to have given long COVID too much weight, that suggests that you know the risk of long COVID.
Please tell me how.
Please explain how you knew that, because I don't know it.
Now, here's another factor that I've never said out loud directly.
If I were 25 years old, would I be worried about long COVID?
Let's say long COVID would take you out for a month.
Nope.
Nope.
Because if I lost a month of my life to long COVID at age 25, it's such a small percentage of the rest of my life that that would be a reasonable trade-off.
Now, at my current age, how many good years do you think I have left where I'm healthy and I can do what I want?
Maybe two.
Maybe two.
Because I'm at the age where people younger than me are dying from old age.
People younger than me are, like, suddenly dying.
And even if I don't die, I'm in a very thin window where I could still do physically active things.
You know, I can still play tennis if I want to, whatever.
So, if I got my ass kicked for, let's say, a few months, that's actually a pretty big percentage of the two years that I feel confident I might have.
So, long COVID to somebody who only has a few years left, is not the same calculation as if you're 25.
And a lot of people made the mistake of assuming that everybody's the same age or everything.
All our calculations are the same.
My calculation wasn't anything like your calculation.
I literally thought, maybe I have two years, so long COVID is a big percentage of that.
So whoever said I'm giving too much attention to long COVID, it's too much for a 25-year-old.
Too much for a 40-year-old.
I don't think it was too much for me.
And the only decision I've ever talked about was my own.
I've never recommended anybody do anything.
I'm 65.
Alright.
Did the printer get fixed?
No.
Please arrange a conversation with Dark Horse.
What do I have to say?
I mean, my whole argument is, you were guessing on long COVID, therefore you were guessing.
Do you know how the conversation would go?
Let's not talk about Dark Horse.
Let's say I did an interview with somebody who thinks I got everything wrong.
Here's how the conversation would go.
Scott, how did you calculate long COVID?
Well, word salad, word salad, word salad.
Okay.
But how did you calculate it?
Oh, word salad, didn't matter, didn't matter, assumed it away.
Well, okay.
If you assumed it away, then you calculated it as a low number.
How'd you do that?
Well, word salad, word salad, word salad.
It would be useless.
Useless.
Do you think there's anybody on the other side who would listen to that and say, oh, you know what?
Wow.
Yeah.
In your case, in your specific case, long COVID would be a big variable.
And you know, now that you pointed out, nobody can calculate what that risk is.
Yeah, you're right, Scott.
I had not thought of it that way.
Do you think it would go that way?
Does anybody imagine it would go that way?
No, no.
So you're living, you're living in like a dreamland.
Where reasonable people can talk about reasonable things and then somebody will change their opinion.
I've never seen that.
I've never seen that at all.
Now, I was also accused of mind reading for thinking that other people had not considered everything in their decision.
To which I say, I don't have to read your mind.
I just have to look at Long COVID and know that you didn't talk about it.
Because you just told me you didn't consider it.
There's no mind reading.
It's right there.
You told me you didn't consider it.
That's what I'm saying.
We're on the same page.
Oh, and here was the assumption that was built into this.
The assumption is that the sicker you got with COVID, logically, the worse your long COVID risk would be.
Now, I don't have a confirmation of that.
But that's my point.
My point is, I don't know.
But it does make sense to imagine that the sicker you are, you know, the worse your symptoms could be.
So that was built into the assumption of things I don't know.
Same as any illness, correct?
All right, that's all I got for now.
Lance, you didn't understand my point, so let me explain it to you.
So Lance says, with a so, he starts with a so.
That was literally one of my seven tells for cognitive dissonance, but okay.
He says, so you don't think Brett and Heather would understand your point.
Is that what I said?
Did I say that Brett and Heather wouldn't understand my point?
Nope.
It's easy to understand.
I'm saying that they would be triggered into cognitive dissonance because they understood the point, right?
The cognitive dissonance is because they would understand the point.
If they didn't understand the point, then they wouldn't be triggered.
It's understanding the point that triggers the cognitive dissonance.
So no, I don't believe there's any realistic way I could talk to my critics, because they would go into crazy town right away.
And it would just be, it would just be a shitshow.
See you Dr. Funk Juice.
Everybody say, say see you later to DJ Dr. Funk Juice, one of my favorite, one of my favorite livestream followers and Twitter followers.
Always appreciate you.
The Banker's Beast.
What's that?
All right, that's enough for now.
I'm going to go talk to the locals, people, after I make them totally private.
And I'll talk to you YouTubers tomorrow.
Bye for now.
Export Selection