Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 25, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:39:56

Episode 2517 A Conversation With Michael Ian Black

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Michael Ian Black, Detecting Fake News, Scott Adams --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And then I'll do an introduction.
	Very good.
	I'll sip a little tea while we wait.
	Sipping is good.
	All right.
	In a moment, you should appear on my feed here.
	Hey, everybody.
	Everybody's piling in for an amazing experience.
	Let me just adjust this.
	Actually, I think we're fine.
	I think we're going to be good to go.
	So today is going to be a very special episode.
	I'm here with Michael Ian Black, who you may recognize from TV, and he's an author.
	He's got a Substack.
	He's an actor.
	What else would we add to that?
	Stand-up comedian, I guess.
	Stand-up comedian.
	Podcaster, perhaps.
	Podcaster.
	Let's add that.
	Where do they find your Substack?
	Uh, I think it's just at Michael Ian, substack.michaelianblack, I think.
	Yeah, probably just his name will be, we'll kick it up.
	And the reason we're talking is that I made a provocative statement on the X platform that, uh, all the news is fake.
	And, uh, Michael, uh, saw that and wondered, how do you know what's real?
	At least in how I figure out what's real and how do you even talk about it if you think it's all fake?
	And I thought, that's like one of the best questions that I've heard in a year.
	You know, I'm so tired of talking about which character is the good one and who's at learn and all that stuff.
	But what's really interesting is how do you know what's real?
	And I've got a lot to say about it.
	I'm sure you do.
	And so I actually prepared some notes that show the, just very quickly, that are the tools that I use that I'm wondering if you've been exposed to.
	And I could run through it, but I'd invite you to interrupt me.
	Sure.
	Because otherwise I'll do too much talking.
	Yeah, I will interrupt as I see fit, but I agree with you that the topic of conversation is exactly what you just said.
	You had posted a tweet that said, and I think I'm quoting this correctly, you cannot have a political conversation with somebody who believes the news is real.
	Exactly.
	And I took that to mean that the news is fake.
	Correct.
	Okay.
	So we agree on the basic terms.
	Yeah.
	So let's start by giving a little more, I'll give a little more definition to that.
	Now, I think the news is true when it's directly observable.
	Like they say, there's a, there's a soul.
	I'm going to interrupt you even off the top of the bat.
	I'm so sorry, because I want to get clarification on what you mean by news.
	Oh, the, let's say I'll say this stuff.
	That is important to politics and economics and science.
	The big stuff that would be both on the news but in social media where they're talking about the news.
	So stuff that is reported as fact?
	Reported as fact, yes.
	Let's go with that.
	So, I'm agreeing that things that we can directly observe are certainly facts.
	Hurricanes are hurricanes.
	A celebrity dies, he's really dead.
	The stuff, and of course there's a little hyperbole in what I said, intentionally.
	But I'm really trying to narrow it down to the domains of politics, science, and economics.
	The big stuff.
	The stuff we care about.
	Now, I do sometimes treat those things as real, because language is too messy.
	It's hard to say, well, this thing I'm talking about now, there's a small chance it's not real.
	So we do have the problem that I do talk about it like it's real sometimes.
	Can I interrupt you one more time?
	I'm so sorry.
	As much as you want, really.
	Okay, when you say something is real, is that the same thing as saying it's true?
	Are those terms interchangeable?
	Okay.
	Yeah, yes.
	And then there's a hybrid where the report is true, meaning that somebody really reported it, but maybe the facts are not true.
	Meaning they got it wrong.
	They got it wrong, yeah.
	So, here's my argument.
	My argument starts with there are some disciplines that people learn that make them better at determining what's true and what's not in the news.
	For example, if you're a plumber by training, you're probably good at predicting plumbing, but it's not really a good generalizable skill.
	If you're a teacher, you're probably great at figuring out what works with your kids in your class, but again, it's not super generalizable to the real world.
	I would dispute that.
	I would say many of the lessons that a teacher teaches in a classroom are absolutely generalizable to the real world.
	Lessons about patience, lessons about listening, lessons about empathy, lessons about curiosity and questioning.
	I'm keeping it just to the news.
	But if your argument is that Um, certain professions make you better able to discern what is real and what is not.
	It would seem to me that teachers would absolutely have maybe a better than average ability to do that.
	Let me back off from that then.
	Point taken.
	How about plumbers?
	I think you'd have to go by the individual, but I agree with you that the skills that one learns in plumbing aren't probably that relevant to media criticism.
	So I'll give you teachers, because you gave some good examples, but let me tell you what I think would be at the top of the stack.
	An economist would be in much better shape to know if the news about the economy is fake.
	Yeah.
	I've got a degree in economics.
	So when I see economic news, I'm in pretty good shape to know when it's fake.
	I've got an MBA, which teaches you to know about individual businesses.
	So if I see an individual business doing something, That doesn't look right.
	The degree you have is an MBA in business or do you have a separate MBA?
	MBA means business.
	Yeah.
	That's what the B is.
	I'm also a, I guess I'll say a famous management observer because of my comic strip.
	So Dilbert is all about the weird things in management.
	Now I would argue that there's, you know, there's no such thing as a degree in watching management.
	But if you do something for 35 years, you end up getting better at it.
	So observing managers and how they work and what's typical of a big company, I'm probably in the top 2% of people who could do that just from experience.
	That's totally debatable.
	Debatable, but you'd probably put me in the top half.
	I don't know.
	I have no idea.
	I would agree that you have been observing management for 35 years.
	Yes.
	Oh, here's the other thing.
	I also work... Sorry about the bugs.
	They're annoying.
	That adds to every podcast.
	I like a dog in the background.
	On top of that, I've worked for big companies, so I've got the real-life experience of how corporations work, which is how Dilbert was formed.
	In fact, Dilbert is only popular because the things I observe, people say, oh, that's so right on.
	That's the whole point.
	Totally agree.
	So, then beyond that, because I talk about politics for the podcasting, et cetera, and I make it a habit to watch the news from both sides.
	So I see news that's completely different on the left and the right.
	I'm sorry, go back.
	You said, because I'm an observer of politics, I see politics from both sides.
	Was that your point?
	Because I talk about it.
	Because you talk about it.
	It's incumbent on me to look at both sides so I know what's going on.
	But you would agree that you have no expert, let's say, credentialing in politics, the way you have in business administration.
	That's true.
	Right.
	So here's, let me give you some examples.
	When Fauci, and my general statement is that I'm an expert at determining bullshit.
	I'm not an expert at knowing what's true.
	And so, okay.
	So when you say you're an expert at detecting bullshit, are you credentialed in the same way at detecting bullshit as you are at business administration?
	I'll say that I have a track record, which I'll give you some examples.
	Okay, but will you give me the counter examples of when you were wrong?
	Yes, actually I have those.
	Okay, so you have been right and you have been wrong.
	As all of us have been.
	But when you say you're an expert at detecting bullshit, it seems to me that what you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is you can detect bullshit.
	Well, not with 100% certainty.
	Okay, got it.
	Yeah, nobody can do that.
	So yes, I do have some real good examples of whoppers I got wrong.
	So that'll make you happy.
	It's not a question of being happy or not.
	It's just a question of understanding where you're coming from.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So here's an example.
	When the pandemic happened and Fauci came out and said, masks will do you no good.
	I'm the only person in the country, a public figure who said, oops, he's lying.
	He believes that they are good, and he's just making sure.
	I'm so sorry.
	Let me see if I can rectify this situation very quickly.
	I'm so sorry.
	You know, it seems like if there's at least one dog going nuts on the podcast, you're not doing it right.
	I like to have at least a baby or a dog.
	All right, while we're waiting for Michael to take care of that, let me make sure I'm looking at my locals' comments.
	So sorry, I was throwing them away.
	I threw them away.
	Threw them away, all right.
	All right, so when Fauci came out and said masks won't help you, this is on the first day, masks won't help you, I'm the only person in the country who said publicly and very loudly, he's lying, that's a lie.
	And the reason I knew it is because there would obviously be a shortage of masks for the professionals.
	It would be more important for the professionals to have them.
	And that probably that was just a strategic smart lie.
	Later, much later, he admitted that that was a lie.
	And his belief was that masks worked.
	And then that turned into another problem down the road, which is they didn't really work well enough To justify the mandates.
	So I don't want to get into the details.
	I'll just say that's one example in which I was- One example of what?
	Of calling out- Oh, of you being correct.
	Of you being correct about you said he was lying when he said masks won't work.
	And importantly, the only one in the world.
	I don't know if that's true, but I'll take you at your word.
	Yeah, I haven't seen an exception.
	Here's another example.
	I'm also- I'm sorry, let me just interrupt for a second because I do think this is important.
	You just said, I was the only one in the world who said that.
	And do you mean that literally?
	All right, so here we have to talk about reading comprehension.
	If I say, hold on, hold on, hold on.
	If I say white people like cheese, you don't need to ask if I mean all of them.
	If I say I'm the only person in the world who got it right, You don't need to ask, well, how do you know?
	Have you polled everything?
	Well, I think that's important, because you're setting yourself up as somebody who knew the truth when nobody else knew the truth.
	And so, let me just finish.
	So when you make a statement that says, I was the only one in the world who said that, To me, that sounds false.
	Now if your point is I'm exaggerating and whatever, fine.
	I don't know you well enough to know whether or not you're exaggerating and whether you mean that literally.
	I'll tell you.
	I'm always exaggerating.
	So whenever I talk about universals, they're never universal.
	Okay.
	So if I say it's light in the daytime, I allow that there could be an eclipse.
	So there's just some ordinary assumptions.
	All right.
	But I'll try to be more careful because I see that that could be a sticking point.
	Now, on top of this, part of my talents are I'm a hypnotist.
	Were you aware of that?
	I'm a trained hypnotist.
	I know that you claim to be a trained hypnotist.
	I don't really know what that means.
	It means I went to school for it.
	I got certified.
	I've been practicing it.
	I've been studying persuasion.
	I've written on it.
	I've got a best-selling book on the topic.
	So that allows you to sort of be a BS detector as well.
	And so Fauci really stood out as obviously a BS to me.
	Now, did anybody else get it right?
	I didn't hear of any.
	So I'll just back up to the claim that I interacted on that question a great deal, and nobody suggested that anybody else had the same idea.
	Fair enough.
	Here's some other examples.
	When Trump recently was asked about what he would do about the spiraling debt, he said that he would take care of it with growth.
	You know, grow the economy so we'd have more taxes.
	Now, because I have a background in economics, I know that's not a real answer.
	That's bullshit.
	Now it's bullshit, because if our debt were, let's say, a trillion dollars, and we're adding $100 billion a year to it, you probably could grow your way out of that.
	But anybody with even a little bit of economic knowledge knows that when you have a $35 trillion debt, and you're growing it $2 trillion a year, you can't really grow out of that.
	So that's an example.
	If you didn't know economics, you'd say, Hmm, that sounds like a good idea.
	I'd rather grow than increase taxes.
	Here's another one.
	When the, uh, this helps me old and have having seen a lot of patterns.
	So, you know, if I'm 30% older than you, I've got 30% more pattern practice.
	So here's one that I called out as did many people.
	Um, I said that the jobs reports would be fake.
	Because that's just always the case when the incumbent also is in control of the people who do the data.
	So the jobs report... When you say the jobs reports are fake, you mean they're just made up out of whole cloth?
	Oh, let me finish.
	That will be the answer to that question.
	So it's very common for the jobs report to come out and then they revise them later.
	That's actually a normal process.
	But what is predictable is that the first story will be whoever is in charge, in this case it's Biden, is doing great on jobs.
	Look at these numbers.
	I recall a quarter very recently where it was revised up.
	This is during Biden's administration.
	I don't have that information in front of me, so it's entirely possible I'm mistaken, but I do recall very recently it was revised up.
	So today it was revised down.
	So today, today it was massively revised down.
	But in addition, if you've worked with data, a lot of my corporate jobs were data and projecting and trying to predict the future, which isn't really a thing.
	Um, if you knew that you knew that the numbers were probably cooked anyway, meaning that it had a lot of part-time people that a lot of migrants got jobs.
	If senior citizens are going back to work, that's not good news.
	So you can't even tell the good news from the bad news.
	Is the job report designed to include seniors, part-time workers, migrant workers, etc.?
	Or is there some exception that these job reports that you're talking about are including numbers that aren't traditionally included in the job reports?
	Uh, everybody gets a job is probably included, but what's different is whether it's good news or bad news.
	If you heard that all of the jobs went to senior citizens, you would think that's bad news.
	If you heard that all went to 20-somethings getting out of school, you think that's the best news ever.
	I don't know that I agree with that, but okay.
	Well, uh, I mean, you're stating an opinion about what I would think, and I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that, but okay.
	Economists would agree with me.
	All of them.
	A hundred percent.
	Again, I don't know that that's true.
	You're making claims, and I don't know.
	I don't know if a hundred percent of economists would agree with that statement, and I suspect you don't know that either.
	Actually, I do.
	A hundred percent of economists would agree with this statement.
	That if all the jobs went to senior citizens, that's not nearly as good as if all the jobs went to young people.
	That would not be a disputable claim.
	Okay, I'll take your word.
	All right.
	Have you ever heard of Gell-Mann amnesia?
	Have you ever run across that?
	No.
	Gell-Mann amnesia.
	This is one of the most important things to know to look at the news.
	So there was a physicist named Gell-Mann, and he would read the news, And, uh, he would see a story about physics, physics, which was his expertise.
	And he would say, Oh my God, they got everything wrong.
	And then he'd see another one about physics and like, they did it again.
	It's wrong again.
	Every time I read about my expertise is wrong.
	But then he would turn to the next page about something that was not in his expertise.
	He'd say, Oh, that looks right.
	And one day he realized, wait a minute, could it be an accident that everything I know about is wrong?
	But the things I'm not an expert on are right.
	Maybe it's all wrong all the time.
	So one of the things that maybe you've experienced, I'd love to see if you've had this experience.
	If you've had the press write about you, you've seen how inaccurate it is.
	Have you experienced that yet?
	No.
	Here's what I have experienced.
	And I think this is similar to what you're talking about.
	So I remember a profile was written about me for I want to say GQ, but it might have been another magazine.
	And the profile that I read didn't necessarily reflect back to me what I thought of myself, but I didn't think it was inaccurate in terms of what the writer may have thought about me, if that makes sense.
	Sure, sure.
	I wasn't misquoted.
	Nobody was lying about me.
	And over decades of my experience, I'm trying to think, and I don't think I've ever read anything about me from a reporter that was just wholly untrue.
	I don't think.
	All right.
	So my experience, having been the subject of news hundreds and hundreds of big stories, they're wildly inaccurate.
	Even on basic things like what my jobs were, where I live, I mean really basics, who I married, my age, and then if they try to interpret anything about what my opinions are, that's just all ridiculous.
	So the first thing, the first filter I put on it is that just because I'm not an expert in that field doesn't mean it's real, because the news is terrible at getting the right context.
	Often the facts are right, as you said, but sometimes the context is left out.
	Let me give you some, uh, here's another example.
	Uh, in science, science told me for years that having two drinks a night was fine.
	In fact, it might make you healthier.
	I've said for 30 years, I know that's not true.
	And I'm using my economics degree to tell you that the only people who would do those studies are the people who sell alcohol.
	And if the study went the other way, they wouldn't show you.
	Now, if you don't understand that science is motivated, meaning that the only person who's going to be able to afford a big, multi-year, $10 million controlled study with a placebo, are the people who are selling something, because nobody else does it.
	So, you can't really trust a study done by somebody who can make millions of dollars if it goes one way, and they'll lose money if it goes the other way.
	Because you can expect they would simply hide it if it went the other way.
	And if it were inaccurate, but in their direction, they'd put it out and see if anybody noticed.
	That's the world I live in.
	Okay.
	Now I can speak from experience because it was my job to give data to my bosses.
	And I remember going into, when I worked for the bank, it was my job to say if each of the branch outlets were doing a good job so that the managers could be evaluated.
	And I took the data to my senior vice president and I said, Um, I can guarantee that the data is crap because it comes from all different places.
	There's, there's no credibility to the data.
	So therefore my conclusions are also useless.
	You really can't tell who's doing a good or bad job.
	The data is garbage.
	The seat of vice president of the bank said to me, I know, and I don't care.
	I only use the data when it agrees with what I wanted to do.
	That is the only way that corporations work.
	And I was on the inside.
	So I went to another company just to make sure it wasn't that one company went to the phone company.
	And it was my job to do analyses that agreed with what my boss wanted to do.
	And so I did.
	And that's where I learned that whenever there are a lot of variables involved, it's the assumptions that drive the outcome.
	It's not the data.
	Now, if you haven't had that experience.
	It's the drive, the outcome, not the data.
	I'm just trying to understand that.
	Okay.
	Keep going.
	All right.
	So an example would be.
	If I think the discount rate or the interest rates are this, it looks like a good idea.
	But if I assume that there's something else, and there was lots of room for assumption, we could go the other way.
	So I can simply pick my assumptions based on how I wanted the output to look.
	So OK, so here's an example of.
	Uh. An agency that in my estimation is not lying about this, and I'd be curious to know what their agenda would be.
	So, for decades, NASA has been saying that climate change is real, it's man-made, and it's a growing threat.
	Why would they lie about that?
	Excellent question.
	That was going to be my big climax, to talk you out of believing in climate change.
	So, can we save it?
	The only reason I'm reluctant to is because we're going through a list of your accomplishments and your background, and that's fine, but it hasn't gotten to the heart of the conversation, which is the media.
	So I'm willing to accept everything that you've said to this point, but that's not what the conversation is about.
	I think it is.
	I thought we were talking about how I can determine what's true in the media.
	Is that wrong?
	Okay.
	Sure, sure.
	But to me the larger question is the claim that all news is fake.
	That's the question I'm interested in.
	Right.
	So here's another one.
	I've also studied mass hysterias.
	So when, uh, when I saw that there was a story that said the Russians have a secret sonic weapon that they're using on our embassies, I said, Oh, that's a classic mass hysteria.
	When they said the doctors have found actual real damage in these people, I said, that's a mass hysteria.
	And months and months and months go by.
	And then the report comes out.
	There's no sonic weapon.
	We think it was a mass hysteria.
	Now I knew that on day one because I studied mass hysterias.
	If you study them, you'd know it was a classic.
	You personally have concluded based on everything that you've read that Havana syndrome is nothing but mass hysteria.
	And, uh, and, and, and are we now at the point where science is sort of respectable science establishment has also said that, or is that still your claim in your claim alone?
	No, that that's now the, the common narrative is that has been debunked as a weapon.
	There are still some people saying they think it is, but the more common narrative is they studied it to death and they found out there were some sounds that were happening.
	Um, and it's still a mystery, but they've kind of ruled out the weapon thing.
	Now the, here's how you can rule out the weapon.
	Even if you didn't know about mass hysterias, it's the, it's the Scott Alexander rule.
	Scott Alexander was a blogger who pointed out the first time I saw it, uh, it's a pseudonym by the way, Scott Alexander.
	And he pointed out that if you see a story that says a dog bites a man, well, you probably won't see that story because that's ordinary.
	Dogs bite people.
	If you see a story that a man bit a dog, well, that'll probably be in the news.
	But here's the second part.
	It's almost certainly not true.
	So about 19 out of 20 stories, this is my own estimate, that are fantastical on the surface, turn out not to be true.
	So when you tell me that there's a secret sonic weapon that the Russians are using to really do an act of war on America by attacking an embassy, and doing it more than once, That is a fantastical story, which the Scott Alexander rule would say, you can't know for sure, but there's a 19 out of 20 it's fake.
	Let me give you another example.
	So here's an article from The Insider from March 31st, 2024.
	A year-long investigation by The Insider in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel has uncovered evidence suggesting that unexplained anomalous health incidents, also known as Havana Syndrome, may have their origin in the use of directed energy weapons That's what they always blame with the fake news, by the way.
	Say that again?
	There's a whole bunch of blaming Russia things for hacking and things that sound very similar.
	If you haven't seen the pattern, it's not as obvious, but go ahead.
	Well, I'm just giving you the headline.
	So it's Der Spiegel.
	It's 60 Minutes.
	And it's the Insider, which is an organization that I don't know.
	And they're saying uncovered evidence suggesting may have their origin in the use of a directed energy weapon.
	And when I looked at the NIH and National Institute of Health report on Havana syndrome, it sort of suggests exactly what you just said.
	No evidence of MRI detectable brain injury or biological abnormalities compared to healthy volunteers who reported Havana Syndrome.
	Now, let me give you a rule that I think is really useful to this conversation.
	You never really know what's true.
	So, in this example, for example, maybe... Wait a second, wait a second, wait a second.
	You never really know what's true.
	100%.
	But you claim to know what's true.
	No, you're doing that 100% thing again.
	You never 100% know what it is.
	Forgive me, I am fairly literal.
	So, if you tell me something, and you use specific words, I'm going to treat your specific words as what you meant.
	All right, but can you handle the fact that it never means 100%?
	Let me give you a universal.
	I will try, but as we're sort of going through this, I may ask for clarification from time to time.
	So to get away from that standard of, you know, the 100% thing is problematic.
	The thing I use is whether your worldview predicts.
	So if you don't predict, you're probably not close to reality.
	So when Fauci said these masks don't work, I predicted he was lying and it was right.
	Okay.
	When the sonic weapon was introduced, I predicted they would never find evidence of the weapon.
	Now, the prediction is correct so far, but could it be wrong tomorrow?
	Yes.
	But the prediction so far is good.
	Here's another one of the same type.
	We have these credible sounding reports that there are UFOs that have been captured with actual dead aliens and they're a big warehouse.
	The Scott Alexander rule says, Nope.
	That's so fantastical that, you know, it's not true.
	My prediction is we'll never see one of those, uh, aircraft.
	So, so far that's true.
	Now, tomorrow we could see one.
	And then I would say, Whoa, that rule didn't work that time.
	So there are none of these rules that are going to work every time.
	Except that in the case of UFOs, for example, we have seen on radar eyewitness accounts, many eyewitness accounts from different views of the same incident.
	We have congressional testimony to this effect.
	We have under oath.
	We have voluminous evidence of the existence of UAP.
	And I'm on the same page with you that there are things happening that we don't understand and reports that we've not explained.
	Right.
	What I'm saying is that we don't have a warehouse with 12 UFOs in it.
	That we know of, but yes.
	So my prediction is that that's as close as I can get to truth on that, just that one corner of the issue is there'll never be a warehouse with 12 UFOs.
	All right, let me give you some others.
	Were you aware?
	I feel, honestly, I feel like I have enough.
	Like, your predictive powers at this point, I'm like, great.
	But let's talk, can we talk about the media or no?
	I think I'm going to, I think, I thought we were.
	Let me give some examples.
	We're talking about Fauci.
	We're talking about UFOs.
	Oh, I see.
	I see.
	But we're not talking about the reporting of those stories, which is what I'm interested in because you told me that I can't trust the news.
	All right.
	So to me, I see it all as the news.
	Fauci talking is the news.
	That's why I asked for clarification on what you meant by the news.
	And the news is the reporting of facts and events that actually took place.
	Would you agree that when Fauci said masks are not necessary, that the news all reported... The news covered what he said.
	Yes, I totally agree with that.
	Okay.
	So I think we're on the same page.
	I don't know.
	Let me keep going.
	So what I wanted to know, and see if you don't want to do this, because this is what I plan to do, I wanted to tell you what tools I'm using to determine which of the news stories are real.
	So if I could run down a few more, you'd have something to challenge there.
	Are you aware that the CIA is known, it's documented, that they've used fake UFO sightings as distractions from news that they didn't want covered?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And did you know that, uh, the CIA used to manipulate our movies and TV shows and media for the benefit of the country?
	You know, trying to make us all patriotic and believe what the government was saying, but then that was illegal.
	It became illegal.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	And then that became illegal.
	Uh, and then Obama made it legal again.
	So in other words, our CIA can propagandize us today.
	Did you know that?
	I'm aware that the Obama administration passed a law saying that Voice of America, and I feel like Radio Free Cuba or whatever it was, were allowed to broadcast in the United States.
	Is that the story you're talking about?
	I think that's a subset of the larger rule.
	They said there was nothing prohibiting You know, some kinds of persuasion coming from our intelligence people directed toward the United States.
	I would need more information on that.
	Do you have a link?
	Not with me, but I could probably get that.
	So, just for the sake of this conversation, we can move on, but I will not take you at your word on that.
	That it's legal for the CIA to propagandize the United States citizens?
	Yes, I will not take your word on that.
	I'll stand on that being that it's legal.
	Okay.
	Did you follow the Twitter files and all the expos... Very vaguely.
	Okay.
	So it got more attention on the right.
	The basic idea is that the intelligence people and the FBI were very deep into the social apps and telling them what they thought was real and what wasn't, and trying to convince them to do less of this.
	And there was a lot of banning and censoring, etc.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	That's, that's a, that's a claim that I don't agree with.
	You're saying the government banned certain users on social media.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	I'm saying that the government work with the social media, but when the government comes in and says, you know, you really ought to do this, social media is at a weak position.
	So I think most of them caved.
	Okay.
	Again, I'm not going to take you at your word for that.
	Here's what I will agree with, because I do think there's probably truth in what you're saying, which is that the government would look at certain accounts on Twitter, for example, and say, this person is, I don't know what their excuse would be, but fomenting violence, for example.
	And we think you might want to take a look at this.
	Well, hold on, I have to interrupt you there.
	I don't know if the violence was ever an issue.
	It was mostly about pandemic misinformation and political misinformation.
	A lot of the people who were banned and suppressed were later found out to be the correct ones, especially the doctors.
	The doctors who had alternative views about vaccines and stuff.
	So we do know that the government, because of the Twitter files, through the FBI and through the actual just government itself, had deep ties and that a lot of people who worked for the social media programs Wait a minute.
	Wait a minute.
	Wait.
	When you say deep ties, you're implying something that I don't believe to be true.
	What you're saying, again, this is me being literal.
	So if I'm, if I'm misunderstanding you, please tell me.
	When you say the FBI has deep ties to certain social media, and maybe all of them, What I hear is the FBI is controlling social media platforms.
	When you say deep ties, to me that means exerting control over, as opposed to relationships with social media companies, which I would expect, and alerting them to mis- or disinformation, and suggesting Maybe heavy-handedly suggesting, I don't know that that's the case, that they should do something about that.
	But that's different, I think, than having deep ties to media.
	I think deep ties means that they had people who had regular relationships and regular meetings.
	I think there was even an office of the FBI in Twitter headquarters.
	Entirely possible, I don't know.
	But I would argue that if the CIA is your friend and wants you to do something, it's not a peer relationship.
	If the FBI says, you know, we'd really like you to do this, and here's our argument, and the social media doesn't want to do it, and there were cases where Twitter actually said no, it's hard to say no.
	So here's what I found from December 16th, 2022.
	This is in the National Review.
	And this is what I would expect, by the way.
	Hold on, I just have to get rid of these pop-ups.
	It says, this is the beginning of the article, the FBI frequently communicated with Twitter's trust and safety team before Elon Musk acquired the company.
	The sixth installment of the Twitter files expose series reveals between 20 January 2020 and November 2022 over 150 emails were exchanged between the FBI and former Twitter trust and safety head Yoel Roth. It does not say they had an office at Twitter.
	And it says the FBI social media specializing task force born after the 2016 election expanded to 80 agents and collaborated with Twitter to hunt down election meddling by foreign actors.
	Now, I don't have a problem with any of that, and I'm not sure why you do.
	Well, let me give you an example.
	There were a lot of things that were censored through that process, and it was other entities, it wasn't just the FBI, other government entities, that turned out to be true.
	So, medical things from highly qualified medical doctors, but it didn't fit the narrative, so it was suppressed.
	By the way, Amazon... I'm not saying that they didn't, but I'm just saying this article seems to suggest that it was about election interference and election misinformation.
	I don't see anything in here about COVID.
	Maybe that's a different article that I will find.
	But keep going.
	Well, we could talk about election disinformation, that's a fun topic too.
	Alright, let me keep going.
	One of the ways you know something's true is if the opposition fact-checkers say it's true.
	In other words, if there's an entity that does fact-checking that's very Republican, and they've always been very Republican, but they fact-check something that's bad for Republicans, that's more credible.
	Likewise, there are some fact-checkers like Snopes, who is famously pro-Democrat.
	Or at least, that's the image they present.
	Recently, Scopes debunked the Fine People Hoax.
	Were you aware of that?
	None of your news carried it.
	What?
	That Scopes debunked the Very Fine People Hoax?
	The Fine People Hoax.
	Can you define what the Very Fine People Hoax is?
	So the hoax was that Trump once called neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville fine people.
	And who reported that?
	The entire press consistently, and it became, it was actually the centerpiece of Biden's entire 2020 campaign.
	So again, let me just go back for a second.
	Your claim is that The news reported that Trump said, and I think, I think, I think you're putting this in quotes, Nazis are very fine people, unquote.
	Is that what you're saying?
	Yeah.
	The exact quote was, uh, they said that he called, uh, the neo Nazis and the racist fine people.
	That's what they said.
	Now it's not a quote because the quote doesn't exist.
	What he actually said was, I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the racists.
	They should be disavowed totally.
	But Joe Biden never said that Trump said that he called Nazis very fine people.
	What?
	I can play you his election ad right here.
	This is from his announcement.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Are you saying that the centerpiece of Biden's entire campaign, which was that Trump did say that, Are you saying that Biden did not have that as a senator?
	Seriously?
	No, what I'm saying is, I mean, Biden used the Charlottesville incident and the violence that occurred there as the launching pad for his election.
	Biden never said that Trump said that Nazis were very fine people.
	In fact, he goes out of his way to say, and I'll play, I'll play it for you.
	Oh my God.
	I've got his words right here.
	Do you want to hear them?
	Okay.
	So I don't, I'm assuming you can hear this.
	Uh, I should tell you that I've been listening to compilations of Democrats and him saying it all day.
	Wait, I'm sorry, what?
	I've been listening to compilations of him saying it, Biden and the news, for the last 24 hours.
	Saying that Trump said Nazis are very fine people?
	It's the single biggest story in the country.
	I don't know how you could not be aware of it.
	This is amazing.
	It's currently not the single biggest story in the country by any stretch of the imagination.
	Hold on, hold on.
	It was the centerpiece of Biden's campaign.
	Yes.
	He's going into a debate that will be hosted by two of the people who have reported it as true for years.
	And it's the most important thing, because it's the thing that made people think that Trump's a racist.
	You're making a very specific claim, and I just want to be clear.
	Your claim is that Biden said that Trump said that Nazis are very fine people.
	Yes.
	He did not say that.
	No.
	Every time he gave a speech.
	But I'm telling you, I tried to play the audio for you and you interrupted.
	So let me play the audio.
	Hold on.
	If you have one audio, that's not going to tell anything.
	So I need to show you one where he does say it, right?
	After I do, yes, absolutely.
	So the claim is that Biden launched his entire campaign on the incident at Charlottesville.
	You and I agree on that, by the way.
	That's absolutely correct.
	Further claim is that Biden said that Trump said that Nazis are very fine people.
	And what I'm telling you is in his original campaign video, which launched his campaign, he does not say that.
	So, so I would like to prove, I would like to prove my claim by playing the audio.
	Okay.
	Is that cool or no?
	Yeah, good.
	Okay.
	That's good.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Somebody's probably somebody's going to send me a link in.
	Are you playing it?
	That's pretty much the quote from Biden.
	So he does not say in that.
	I didn't have any sound.
	Oh, well, I'll just I'll read it to you.
	Hold on a second.
	He says.
	Uh, the words of the president of the United States that stunned the world and shocked the conscience of this nation.
	He said they were quote, this is Biden talking, there were some very fine people on both sides, unquote, very fine people on both sides.
	With those words, the president of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate Wait, but he said that the people marching in Charlottesville were very fine people.
	does he say? Trump said Nazis are very fine people.
	Wait, but he said that the people marching in Charlottesville were very fine people.
	Is that what you're saying? No. Uh, he's saying, uh, the quote he's quoting Trump and the quote that he uses is, so this is Biden talking, quote, he said there were, and then Biden quotes quote, there were some very fine people on both sides, unquote, with those words, the president of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those
	spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it.
	So your interpretation of that is that he called some of the people who were marching, and we would both consider racists, that he called them fine people?
	Is that what you take from the quote?
	I'm saying, what I take from the quote is, and I'll just quote back what Biden said, With those words, the President of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it.
	That's what I take away from it.
	The moral equivalence argument.
	So the moral equivalent between whom?
	That would suggest that he said that... Between the opposing sides at the Charlottesville rally.
	So that's not what happened.
	What's not happened?
	I'm quoting Biden.
	So you should quote Trump.
	If you quote Trump, what he said was, I'm not talking about the racists and the neo-Nazis, they should be condemned totally.
	Now, condemned totally is the opposite of a moral equivalence, and that's what he said at the same time he brought up the comment.
	It wasn't later or revised days later.
	He wanted to make sure that you knew he was not making a moral equivalent, but they cut that part out.
	And you probably only saw the part where they left that out.
	So Biden leaves it out too.
	Do you notice that it's not in his quote?
	Don't you think it would be relevant for Biden to have said, at the same time he said that, he said, I condemn totally the racists.
	Because that would mean not a moral equivalence.
	Yes, however.
	However?
	I think you're ignoring is the larger context in which all of this took place.
	And it goes back to the beginning of his campaign, which I think you know, when Trump came down the escalator and called immigrants, rapists and murderers. And he said, and I'm sure there are some very fine people. Now, when you take when I take that statement, what I hear is most of the people coming into this country illegally are rapists and murderers.
	And some I assume are very fine people.
	So what do you take away from that statement?
	Well, so I think you're doing that absolute thing again.
	When Trump ran for office, he said, I use a lot of hyperbole, which is exaggeration.
	He didn't say that in his announcement speech.
	He didn't say... No, he didn't.
	No, he didn't.
	Hold on a second.
	Let me finish my point.
	When he came down the escalator, Introducing himself as a candidate for the presidency of the United States, he did not say, I use a lot of hyperbole, so forgive me when I say they're sending rapists and murderers and some, I assume, are very fine people, unquote.
	So, I'm not quite sure what you mean.
	So, separately, I don't think it matters that he said it at the same time.
	It's something he said that At one point, I don't think I've ever heard, I mean, he probably, it's entirely possible he has, I don't think I've ever heard Trump say, I use hyperbole and exaggeration to make a point.
	Yeah, he does.
	And he wrote a whole book about it, The Art of the Deal.
	It's all about, you know, big first offer and... So he's actually quite famous.
	And he says that I'm a salesperson for the country, which means, you know, I'm going to exaggerate.
	So what you're saying is we shouldn't take Trump's words I'm saying this is a reading comprehension issue.
	That my reading comprehension, when somebody who says I exaggerate about everything, and he said it so clearly, there's a whole book about it, that when he says something like they're bringing murderers and rapists and some are fine people, I say, oh, there's another one of those exaggerations to make it sound like it's a little worse than maybe it is, but directionally,
	People who like Trump have come to learn that directionally they like where he's going, more security at the border, but they don't take the literal stuff too seriously.
	I do.
	Well, his supporters don't.
	But I do understand why that would be a problem if you took it literally.
	Now, here's a prediction.
	When I talk to people about the Find People hoax, and they find out for the first time that it was a hoax, and that it was a centerpiece of Biden's campaign, I predict.
	I'm not granting that it was a hoax.
	What I'm granting is what you did say, which is that he did say, I totally condemn Nazis and white supremacists.
	I will grant you that.
	He did say that.
	Hold on, please let me finish.
	What I'm not granting you is that it was a hoax in the sense that it was reported In my memory, and maybe you have counter examples that will jar my memory, it was reported, I never heard anybody report that Trump said Nazis are very fine people.
	Also, I will repeat that it's not a hoax, because when you look at it in the totality of the context of the Trump campaign, it all came within a larger discussion about Trump's racial attitudes.
	Okay, so here would be the way the right would interpret what you just said.
	Okay.
	And whether it's right or wrong, this is how we would interpret it.
	How we would interpret it?
	We meaning people who are of a different opinion.
	I'm actually a Democrat.
	You just said how we would interpret it, so I'm just trying to get clarification on who we is.
	We, the people on the other side.
	So the right.
	So you're on the right.
	Got it.
	The right as well as Scopes, or Snopes.
	So Snopes is a fact checker.
	But I'm just trying to understand that you're saying you're on the right.
	But let me drill down.
	So Snopes says... Wait, wait, wait.
	I don't want to get past this point because you keep saying I'm a registered Democrat, but then you say we on the right.
	So I'm trying to understand which it is.
	I'm a registered Democrat.
	Who's on the right.
	Who agrees with a lot of things.
	So you're a conservative Democrat.
	I'm a what?
	Conservative Democrat.
	I don't like to label myself.
	You just said you're a Democrat.
	You just literally labeled yourself.
	For clarification, I'm a Democrat so that I don't get a list of Republicans, because that sounds dangerous at the moment.
	That's another conversation.
	Okay, but you're a Democrat because you're on the right.
	Got it.
	But I don't associate with all the topics of the right.
	It's just I like Trump.
	I'm more like a Democrat who likes Trump.
	There's a lot of those now.
	Elon Musk, a lot of the tech guys.
	So it's a very common category.
	But anyway, the point is that Scopes says very clearly that Biden did say that, or that it's a, it's a common hoax that the president said that.
	We'll send you some videos after.
	So there's a little compilation clip of Biden saying it.
	So I'll, I'll send that to you after.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So here's a couple other things just to make it quick.
	Um, when the year 2000 bug came out, people were worried, but I wasn't because I had experience in tech.
	And I said, no, they'll just write a program to find the things and correct it.
	And that's what happened.
	Uh, let's get to, I think you want to get to, uh, climate change.
	You want to jump into that?
	No, I just want to talk about the media, which we haven't talked about at all.
	I'm not interested in talking about specific issues so much as how they're reported.
	Are you trying to do some like weird little thing where you're gonna say that all the things I say are fake don't count because of the media?
	It seems like you're not being honest right now.
	It feels like you're just playing some kind of game here.
	Can we go back to the beginning of our conversation, the very beginning?
	Where we talked about the tweet that you sent that I responded to.
	You cannot have a political conversation with somebody who believes that the news is real.
	That's what's happening right now.
	Okay, hold on. Then you said, and you said, I'm able to discern what is real in the news.
	And then you gave me how and why, because of your MBA and your hypnosis and your expertise in all sorts of things.
	And I granted all of that.
	I said, okay, great.
	And then we got into specific issues.
	The issues themselves, to me, are irrelevant to the conversation about the media and how the media reports things.
	So that's what I'm interested in talking about.
	That's a separate conversation.
	Okay, but I don't understand that.
	So the topics are as reported by the news, and if I say this topic was reported wrong by the news, am I in the wrong conversation?
	No, you're absolutely in the correct conversation.
	So if we talked about how the news reports climate change, And then I tell you why I think it's wrong, would that be in the right conversation?
	It would be, except that we're moving on from topics where I feel like you... I'm not done with the topic, but I feel like you are, and so you want to move on to the next topic.
	Which one?
	The fine people?
	Charlottesville.
	So what I'm interested in is quotes where Biden said, Nazis are very fine people.
	I'm interested in journalists saying that Trump said, Nazis are very fine people.
	Because then we could agree.
	If a reporter had said, Donald Trump was out today saying Nazis are very fine people, then I would go, yes, Scott, you're absolutely correct.
	That is wrong that they said that.
	So how about this?
	So that would be a point of fact, which I believe tens of million people would agree with.
	And you would not.
	But we can solve this after.
	Why don't we follow up?
	I'm trying to stop it now because it seems to me if the Charlottesville hoax is as prevalent as you say, then I don't understand why you wouldn't have this at the tip of your fingertips.
	Because I already demonstrated that Biden didn't say it.
	I had it at the tip of my fingertips.
	Then you don't have that information.
	That's all I'm asking for is a number of journalists saying that Trump said Biden, that Biden So I've watched a number of those clips just today.
	find people.
	All right, so I thought by now somebody would send me, so I've watched a number of those clips just today.
	People, hoax, clips.
	So, find people, hoax.
	So the trouble is doing searches online.
	I was able to do searches very quickly online and I found arguments that countered yours.
	Well, you didn't look on Twitter or X. What do you mean I didn't look on Twitter or X?
	On X, there are a bunch of videos that show that.
	Those videos should be widely available, I would imagine, on YouTube or Google.
	Okay, but is the question whether I can do it while you're watching?
	If you want to wait, I'll do it.
	Yes, actually, because we're having a conversation about whether something is true or not.
	And if you can't show me that it's true, then... Hold on.
	Okay, great.
	I'm happy to hold.
	So, to my users on X, could you do me a favor and send me the links Just DM him if you're watching, and I'll search for him at the same time.
	But it's surprising to me, I have to say, because I know you spend a lot of time on this.
	This is common knowledge.
	So I don't have a link.
	I don't have a link.
	It's not common knowledge if you can't support it.
	All right.
	But the question is...
	The question is, did reporters say that Trump said Nazis are very fine people?
	Oh, actually, let me ask AI.
	Will you take that?
	Not really.
	We all know AI hallucinates.
	Fair enough.
	Let's see, where could I search for that?
	Google?
	Bing?
	Yahoo?
	Well, the trouble is I don't know what the search term would be, because if I do find people hoax, I get too many hits.
	What I'm looking for is something within it.
	It seems like you've been talking about this for years, that you should have it at the tip of your fingertips, and I don't understand why you don't.
	Well, I don't have at my fingertips that Trump said those things about immigrants.
	That's common knowledge.
	I had it.
	Well, you looked it up.
	That was easy.
	Yeah, I'm asking you to look it up.
	That's all I'm asking for, is you to look it up.
	All right, so let's see.
	Looking things up on my phone is always a mess, but let's do that.
	Okay, find people.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	Well, he called all those folks who walked out of that, they were neo-Nazis.
	Shouting hate.
	Their veins bulging.
	But he said specifically that he was condemning them.
	No, he did not.
	He said he walked out and he said, let's get this straight.
	He said there were very fine people in both groups.
	Right.
	Anti-Semitic slogans.
	Carrying flies.
	That's exactly what he said.
	He said, can you specifically say Nazis are very fine people?
	He said no.
	He said there were very fine people on both sides.
	So that's not at all supporting what your claim is.
	Biden is saying that Trump said there are very fine people on both sides.
	If Trump said Nazis are very fine people, Biden directly says no, he did not say that.
	We can play the clip again.
	Let's play it again just to get it clear.
	Let's play it again.
	Damn it.
	There it is.
	Why would that not play?
	Today we are here to examine one of the most critical and debated... Well, you win.
	So I disproved Bill Hoakes.
	Cool.
	What's that?
	I disproved No, you won that I can't find it while you're waiting.
	Because it doesn't exist, Scott.
	Because it doesn't exist.
	Mr. Vice President, are you aware that you're misquoting Donald Trump in Charlottesville?
	He never called neo-Nazis very fine people.
	No, he called all those folks who walked out of that, they were neo-Nazis.
	Shouting, hate, their veins bulging.
	He was calling all those people.
	Let it play, let it play, because in the very next sentence he says, he tries to ask Biden if he quoted that.
	Mr. Vice President, are you aware that you're misquoting Donald Trump in Charlottesville?
	He never called neo-Nazis very fine people.
	Okay, so then, Biden describes...
	...that there were neo-Nazis shouting hate, their veins bulging...
	But he said specifically that he was condemning them.
	No, he did not. He said he walked out and he said...
	No, he did not.
	He said there were very fine people on both groups.
	There were very fine people on both sides.
	He never said Nazis are very fine people.
	He just said they were Nazis.
	Yes, he described what he saw, which is people with veins bulging and marching and saying terrible things.
	Then the reporter says...
	But did you say Nazis are very... Did you hear him say Nazis are very fine people?
	He says, no, let's get this straight.
	He said there were very fine people on both sides.
	He did not say... Who is he referring to?
	Who is he referring to if not the Nazis?
	You're playing semantic games.
	What you said was your claim is Biden said Trump said Nazis are very fine people.
	The clip you just played disproves that claim.
	He did not.
	Biden goes out of his way.
	Let me just finish.
	Biden goes out of his way to say, no, let's get this straight.
	He said, meaning Trump, there were very fine people on both sides.
	Biden disagreed with the statement that Trump said Nazis are very fine people.
	So I don't know.
	He agreed with it.
	He agreed with it.
	He didn't!
	He said, yeah.
	We've played it twice.
	Let's play it a third time.
	All right.
	All right.
	So listen for the yes.
	Mr. Vice President, are you aware that you're misquoting Donald Trump in Charlottesville?
	He never called neo-Nazis very fine people.
	No, he called all those folks who walked out of that, they were neo-Nazis, shouting hate.
	He said they were neo-Nazis.
	Yeah, you're right.
	Okay, so let's play it again.
	I mean, keep going, keep going, I mean.
	We're referring to the same people.
	So Biden is agreeing that the topic is neo-Nazis, right?
	Yes.
	Biden is agreeing that the topic is neo-Nazis.
	And that the topic is what Trump said.
	So, all right.
	So the topic is neo-Nazis.
	He said specifically that he was condemning them.
	He said he walked out and he said, let's get this straight.
	He said there were very fine people in both groups.
	They're chanting So he started out by defining the groups.
	He defined the groups.
	Let me clarify what Trump said, which was the point.
	The reporter said, are you aware that you're misquoting Trump?
	Biden has not quoted Trump as saying Nazis are very fine people.
	And we haven't found that quote.
	Oh, man.
	If I'm being overly semantic, please tell me, because I don't understand what you're saying.
	Your claim, and correct me if I'm wrong, if I'm getting your claim wrong, I apologize.
	Your claim is that Biden said, Trump said, that Nazis are very fine people.
	Unquote.
	That's your claim, right?
	Alright, so this is some bullshit.
	This is some super bullshit here.
	Let me see if I can explain this.
	Is that your claim or isn't it?
	Yes or no?
	No.
	Fucking no.
	Let me explain it to you.
	Your claim is not that Biden said that Trump said Nazis are very fine people.
	No, you're doing this fucking thing where you're changing my words like you don't understand how language works.
	Let me explain how language works.
	The conversation is Nazis, neo-Nazis, and racists.
	I use them interchangeably, and you fucking know that.
	So when I say that he says something about Nazis, I include neo-Nazis, I include racists.
	They said racists, I'm including neo-Nazis, I'm calling neo-Nazis Nazis.
	Is that clear?
	If that's clear, Then the fine people that Biden explains are the neo-Nazis.
	He says it directly, and he says that Trump called them fine people because they're on the other side.
	Who else was he talking about?
	Biden.
	Okay, I can't get into Biden's head, but... Just say what he said.
	Hold on, hold on.
	The initial question from the citizen was, are you aware That you are misquoting Trump when he says Nazis are very fine people.
	Which he didn't answer.
	Right.
	They agreed.
	Biden then says, Biden then describes the people who were at the Charlottesville rally, whether accurately or inaccurately to, you know, Okay, but you and I both agree that there were Nazis, white supremacists, racists, etc.
	at that rally.
	Right.
	Okay, so then the reporter says, asks for clarification about the quote, right?
	We agree on that.
	He was asking why you said it, yes.
	Okay.
	And then Biden answers, let's get this straight.
	And he quotes Trump again.
	He says there were very fine people on both sides.
	That's different.
	No, he started by saying that there were neo-Nazis.
	Okay.
	And he never mentioned anybody else until he said there were fine people on both sides, which would suggest there's neo-Nazis on one side and the anti-Nazis on the other side.
	Let me put a pin in this for a second, because I think we can both agree that this conversation was happening in a very public space where there is probably room for misinterpretation and mishearing on both sides.
	Yes?
	Do we agree?
	Yes, and I would go further and say if that were the only evidence... Oh, here I got some more.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	Also, as an aside, before you play it, before you play it, before you play it, before you play it, and I want to hear it, as an aside, let's say, for example, that Biden did say that Trump said Nazis are very fine people.
	And I don't know that he did.
	To me, that is irrelevant to the conversation that I wanted to have with you.
	Which is about the media, not about a politician.
	But let's hear this next example.
	Trump supporters had recently started to claim that the president didn't actually say neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, quote, very fine people, even though he did say it.
	He did say it.
	Absolutely incorrect.
	There's more.
	But you also had people that were Here's the part that got out.
	that will watch of the two sides Mm-hmm.
	Hold on.
	So here's Biden himself.
	Of course my phone breaks, just at the most important time.
	Let's get back to Biden here.
	Charlottesville, Trump's very fine people, he praised.
	Let's get back to Biden here.
	There were very fine people on both sides, including marching with Nazis.
	From white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Trump's very fine people, he praised.
	Those people marching with neo-Nazis, the KKK is very fine people.
	Saying that neo-Nazis and Klansmen and white supremacists are very fine people.
	Who was that last person?
	Not sure.
	You know what, it's fine.
	You're changing history, you're changing culture.
	And you had people, and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis or the white nationalists, because they should be condemned to total...
	But you also had people that were very, very fine people.
	Very fine people on both sides.
	You had people in that group, excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures as you did.
	You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of the park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
	George Washington was a slave owner.
	Was George Washington a slave owner?
	So will George Washington now lose his status?
	So you can see that the media, which is what we're here to talk about, was... What?
	I saw one journalist say it, You saw Jake Tapper, he's hosting the debate.
	I'm sorry, go back.
	Can you show me Jake Tapper?
	I didn't see Jake.
	I heard him, but I thought that was him.
	Take down, are we gonna take down statues to judge?
	Trump supporters had recently.
	Ah, fuck it.
	It'll find it in a second.
	didn't actually. Let me fast forward a little. Ah, fuck it.
	We'll find it in a second.
	Here's Jake.
	Very fine people. Um, and the presidents of the You're talking about Tapper.
	I'd rather stay on Tapper for a moment.
	Tapper quoted Trump correctly.
	Very fine people on both sides.
	Trump's verified people in the closet.
	Let's hear Biden.
	Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	You're talking about Tapper.
	I'd rather stay on Tapper for a moment.
	Tapper quoted Trump correctly.
	We're verified people on both sides.
	And then he said, including marching with white supremacists, which is true.
	Well, I'm the only person I know who actually interviewed people who attended the rally.
	Irrelevant.
	That's irrelevant.
	I'm talking about Jake Tapper.
	You brought up Jake Tapper, so I'm going to finish the conversation about Jake Tapper.
	Are you saying that what Jake said is true, or that it's true that Jake said it?
	I'm saying it's true that Jake said.
	Jake correctly quoted Trump.
	No.
	And then said... No, he did not correctly quote him.
	He left out the key part of the quote, which is, I'm not talking about the people who are marching.
	Okay.
	That's the key part.
	That's a misquote, not a quote.
	It's not... Okay, great.
	So this is a question of interpretation, and it's also a question of context.
	Because when Trump says there were very fine people on both sides, and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis or the white supremacists, who I totally condemn.
	You're missing the larger context, which is what I was talking about when I said it began with his initial campaign.
	Oh, no.
	So you can't use another hoax as proof of this hoax.
	He did not say that they were sending rapists and murderers, and some, I assume, are very fine people.
	He did.
	I don't want to keep going in circles about this, because I think it's... He did, and that's a hoax.
	It's a hoax because the ordinary way to interpret that is that he's exaggerating and there's too much crime coming across.
	The ordinary interpretation...
	What I interpreted it as is Trump saying, they're sending rapists, they're sending murderers, and some, some, meaning a minority, I assume, meaning I have no idea, are very good people, or very fine people, whatever it was he said.
	So, you and I, obviously, and this through no fault of either you or I, hear language very, very differently.
	It doesn't mean that one of us is correct and one of us is incorrect, because it is subjective.
	Well, one of us is putting a filter on this, which is that everything he says is an exaggeration.
	And that is something you can see for yourself.
	If everything he says is an exaggeration or a lie, and he does frequently lie, how can you trust anything he says, which gets us back to the original question and the original point of why I'm on your show, which is that the media always lies.
	So the answer is, I started out with saying I don't trust him when he says he can grow our way out of the debt.
	Right.
	Because I've got some background in that.
	But when he says a sentence that is clearly hyperbole, and he says, I always use hyperbole, and then you observe him using hyperbole every time he talks, then you say, oh, he's a hyperbole guy.
	I shouldn't take that too seriously.
	OK.
	Now, if you're saying, in the art of the deal, he said, and I believe you, because I haven't read it, he says, I often use hyperbole to make my point.
	That's a very different scenario than when you're running for President of the United States, when your words matter, when precision in language matters, when the words that you say are going to become policy Here we agree.
	At that point, hyperbole is no longer your friend.
	You're handing a tool to your enemies to say, he said this thing and he's lying.
	By the way, a lot of people on the right would agree that his language is unnecessarily provocative.
	I would agree with that.
	There's no argument there.
	A lot of lies.
	Right?
	What's that?
	It's also a lot of lies.
	Would you agree with that?
	Yeah, I would say that both presidents lie about pretty much every major topic, at least a little bit.
	Well, there's a difference between lying a little bit and lying consistently.
	Trump lies consistently.
	I mean, it's all written down.
	I mean, we've got all of his lies categorized.
	If you were to take, let's say, the top five things that Biden is running on, I don't think you'd find any of them to be true.
	But that's not unusual.
	That's not even a cut on Biden.
	Let's talk about the top five things he's running on.
	The fine people hoax.
	He's not running on that.
	He's not currently running on the fine people hoax.
	He's running on...
	Immigration.
	He's running on inflation.
	He's running on the economy.
	He's running on competence.
	He's running on abortion.
	So those are, I would say are kind of the five, the top five.
	So abortion is, is its own category where I don't think anybody's lying about abortion.
	I'm sorry to interrupt, but I just feel like we're not talking about what I'm here to talk about, which is the media.
	We're talking about politicians.
	Um, How do you talk about the media without talking about the topics of the media?
	Because we can talk about how something is reported versus whether or not we can say that that report was real, and we defined real as being true.
	Oh, so let me just go through some of my other tools.
	This might help you.
	One is that if you have an anonymous source, it's almost always wrong if they have something wild to say.
	There's an anonymous source about Hillary Clinton wanted to drone Assange.
	Now, those are anonymous sources.
	I just didn't hear you.
	I didn't hear you.
	Hillary Clinton wanted to what?
	There's a story that Hillary Clinton once mentioned in a meeting when she was at the State Department.
	Why don't we just drone Assange?
	I mean, kill him.
	Now that's reported by anonymous sources.
	Anonymous source also says stuff about Trump.
	And when they say things about Trump, I say, you can't trust an anonymous source.
	Now I apply that to Clinton as well.
	Don't trust him.
	So that's a good rule.
	If it's an anonymous source, there's another one.
	Hold on.
	Let me just respond.
	Yeah.
	In general, I agree with you.
	You should not take anonymous sources.
	You should take them with massive grains of salt.
	However, if you can then do follow-up reporting on what that anonymous source says and get somebody on record as either confirming or denying it, then it's helpful.
	Right.
	I agree.
	But generally those will turn out to be false.
	Generally the research doesn't find them.
	For example, do you remember the story that Trump tried to strangle the driver of his car on January 6th?
	Yes.
	That was in the news.
	Yes.
	But that was, but hold on, hold this up before we get there.
	That news was based on testimony by Casey Hutchinson who reported it.
	Okay.
	And then, and then when they didn't ask, they didn't ask for... I'm so sorry, but, so in my memory... So that wasn't anonymous.
	You're right.
	Your point is taken.
	That wasn't anonymous.
	Okay.
	But in my memory, the journalists then reported what she said, right?
	Right.
	That would be an example of a story that's true.
	She did say that.
	It's accurate that she said it, yes.
	And then what they didn't follow up on is to talk to the driver, the one who got strangled.
	And if they had, he was trying to tell a story that nothing like that happened.
	But I had seen that story.
	I had seen the story where the driver said that didn't happen.
	But it took a long time, and the January 6th committee, I believe, never asked him to testify, which would be weird.
	So let me give you a few other... There's a number of stories that I know the truth of because I was actually behind the curtain, and I was kind of a key player in some big stories.
	So I can't teach you to do that.
	You just have to be there.
	There are probably at least five things that history will report as true.
	That I know not to be true.
	Okay.
	And I can't tell you about, but I wish I could.
	I would love to tell you why climate change is more of a scam than you think.
	But is that off topic for you?
	It's not off topic.
	No, okay, sure, let's talk about it.
	But I will stipulate that I don't know enough about climate change to have probably the most informed opinion about it.
	All right, so neither of us are scientists, so I'm not going to say that I know science and therefore I'm overruling the scientists.
	That's not going to happen.
	Let me tell you just what my bullshit detector tells me.
	Number one, we learned in the pandemic that as long as scientists have a boss, They're going to agree with the boss because the boss has a fiduciary responsibility to the company, to the stockholders.
	Okay.
	So who are we talking about specifically?
	Are we talking about Fauci?
	So regular doctors.
	So during the pandemic, most probably, I don't know, 95% of regular doctors agreed with the vaccinations and agreed with the program that the government presented.
	We found out later that a lot of things were not true, such as the vaccinations didn't act as a vaccination.
	They didn't prevent as much as we thought, just maybe a little bit in the beginning.
	And so there was a case where you could see that the people were seemingly agreeing with the people who paid them.
	In other words, if the boss of the hospital says, you cannot go out there and say vaccinations are bad, we're making a fortune giving vaccinations, because they got paid a lot to give vaccinations.
	So the doctor would lose their job, lose their reputation.
	So it turns out that during the pandemic, you really couldn't trust the experts.
	It's because the experts had a boss, and the boss couldn't buck the narrative, because it would be bad for business.
	But climate change is the same situation.
	Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
	I don't want to move on from COVID because I don't agree with that at all.
	Which part?
	That they have bosses?
	No, obviously, everybody has bosses, although most doctors, I assume, are in private practice.
	No, actually, that's what everybody thought.
	When HMO and whatever, they belong to these larger health organizations.
	Yeah, almost all have bosses now.
	No, okay.
	So, where I disagree is, My understanding of the COVID story is that it was unfolding very quickly, that there was a novel virus circling around the world.
	That people hadn't seen before.
	Information was scarce at first.
	It was constantly being updated and revised.
	Those updates and revisions were reported by the news.
	Donald Trump started the Warp Speed, Operation Warp Speed, to get the vaccine into the hands of as many people as quickly as possible.
	All of that was reported.
	The deaths were reported as COVID was occurring.
	And it seemed to me that from where I was standing as a consumer of the news, what we were witnessing was a fast moving story happening in real time with a lot of difficult and conflicting information that resulted in a lot of trial and error in terms of what the best way to approach this pandemic was.
	I think that's a fair characterization.
	Let me just make the general claim that if somebody is getting paid for an opinion, you can't trust it.
	Is that fair?
	Sure.
	They could be right, but you couldn't trust it just because they said it.
	I don't think you could.
	I agree with you.
	You can't trust it on its face.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So climate... You can't really trust any opinion on its face.
	Well, so earlier I said that if somebody who's on the other side from you politically ends up agreeing with you, that's a little more credible because they're taking a risk.
	You know, it's the opposite of being paid, being unpaid.
	So there are some cases like that.
	All right, so in climate science, if you were a climate scientist and you said climate change is not real, you would lose your job, basically.
	You really wouldn't have a chance.
	At what point?
	Because decades ago, there were people saying, scientists saying, I don't think this is real, and I don't think any of them lost their jobs.
	At the moment... Because as the science became clearer and clearer and clearer that climate change is real and man-made, which even the Republican Party at this point agrees with, Um, all right.
	Let me, let me say what I believe just in case.
	So people don't get, uh, I don't know if the planet is getting warmer.
	I don't know that.
	I don't know if humans are causing it a little bit or a lot or none.
	I don't know that.
	Cause that's the domain of science.
	Uh, my criticism is the climate models and the credibility of the people.
	Now the credit, if you ever heard of this scam, there's a scam where you get in the mail.
	Uh, recommendation for a stock.
	And it says, this is going to go up way if you buy it and then you don't buy it because it looks like a scam.
	Next week they send you another stock and they say, look at this one.
	You can check for yourself.
	It went up 50% and you get three in a row and you say, finally, these guys are magic.
	I'm going to invest in the fourth one.
	It turns out to be a scam.
	Now the way that's done is they send out different recommendations to thousands of people.
	Some of them are right by luck.
	Then the ones who are right, they send out just new ones to just that group.
	And there will always be a few people left who magically got a whole bunch of correct recommendations.
	And they'll think, Oh, these guys are magic.
	So that's how the scam works.
	That's the way the climate models work.
	No.
	Hold on.
	Let me, let me finish it.
	There are hundreds of climate models.
	And the reason there's not one is that they disagree on what the climate model should do.
	The climate models are revised, and the ones that don't work, the ones that don't hindcast, as they call it, if you heard that word.
	Hindcasting means it's the opposite of a forecast.
	It means if this model had existed, it would have predicted the past.
	Right.
	Exactly the way we model the Big Bang, for example.
	Right.
	The Big Bang, which has been largely debunked.
	I'm not sure if you saw that story.
	It has largely been debunked.
	However, there is controversy in the field about it.
	It definitely has not been debunked.
	So here's the thing.
	Having a lot of experience with... You just threw out a huge statement that isn't true.
	You just said the Big Bang Theory has been debunked.
	It has not.
	Oh, it's been debunked in the sense that they found universes that couldn't exist.
	They have not found other universes.
	Hold on.
	They found other, I think... Galaxies.
	They found galaxies that should not exist if we're really 13.9 billion years old.
	Yes.
	So that would mean that what they thought about it must be wrong in some substantial way, but they don't know what that is.
	But that does not debunk the Big Bang even a little bit.
	You're conflating different things.
	Well, I would say it's debunked in terms of a smooth, it started as a thing 13.9 billion years ago and then expanded.
	The age of the universe may be in doubt, that is true.
	But to say the Big Bang has been debunked is just flat out incorrect.
	And when you say things like that, you're misleading your audience.
	It's not true.
	Well, I would argue that simulation theory... You don't have to argue it, it's not true.
	Hold on, you didn't hear the rest of the sentence.
	Okay, I apologize, I apologize.
	I'm a proponent of simulation theory, as is Elon Musk and a lot of smart people.
	And just to be defined for people who don't know, simulation theory is the theory that we are currently living in a simulation.
	We're in a simulation.
	Yes.
	So if we're in a simulation, then none of that stuff's real.
	Yes.
	In other words, the Big Bang.
	And the logic of it is, it's probably a trillion to one odds that we're in a simulation.
	Although, even in a simulation model, the Big Bang could also still be true.
	Because the simulation could have started with a Big Bang.
	Yeah, but it wouldn't be true in base reality.
	It would just be true in our simulation.
	Sure.
	So anyway, but the point of that was that if you have lots of models and you're allowed to tweak them in the past, oh it didn't work for the past, now I have to tweak it, and you can add models and you can subtract them, that's not modeling and that's not science.
	That's more like horoscopes.
	No, because I think you're mischaracterizing how modeling works.
	Modeling works by inserting assumptions into an algorithm and having them spit out the results, right?
	We agree with that.
	Yeah, of course.
	Okay.
	So what scientists are trying to do in, what do you call it?
	Hind modeling or rear modeling?
	Hind casting.
	Hindcasting.
	What you're trying to do is insert parameters into the model so that it spits out a model that resembles what we observe.
	And in doing so, you're getting closer and closer to what you believe to be the truth.
	It is not the same as horoscopes.
	What you're doing is you're trying to find what is the correct representation of the universe.
	So, for example, The scam that you put forward, which I agree is absolutely a scam, I'm familiar with it, does not in any way shape or form bear a relationship to climate modeling.
	No, I agree.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	That was an analogy just to kind of prime you.
	It's a bad analogy.
	And it's a bad analogy because the scam artist is going into it with the intention of scamming people.
	In other words, they know that they are entering false information into the bloodstream What would happen if a climate modeler came up with a model that said the climate is not getting warmer?
	to climate modelers who are entering information into their models to the best of their ability to determine what in fact is the truth.
	That's a very, very, very different scenario.
	What would happen if a climate modeler came up with a model that said the climate is not getting warmer?
	What would happen?
	Then you would submit that for peer review.
	You would have people look at your model and if they agreed with it and were able to replicate your findings, they would treat it seriously.
	If they can't, they wouldn't.
	That's the way this country works.
	Now in the real world, they would, uh, they would shut up and they would tweak it until it agreed with the, the, the real world modeling.
	In other words, in other words, anybody who's working for money, They don't have the option to disagree and keep their jobs.
	That's not an option.
	That's not true.
	In the real world, it's true.
	It's not true.
	Where I think there is truth in what you're saying, and I do think there's truth in what you're saying, is that- Money drives everything.
	Where I do think there's truth in what you're saying is that there are certain assumptions in the scientific world and in all industries, in all worlds, that if you're an iconoclast and you go against them, you're gonna get tremendous amounts of pushback to the accepted wisdom.
	That is certainly true.
	And there will be times when the person who is pushing back against the accepted wisdom is 100% correct.
	And that will be borne out over time if they submit their shit to peer-reviewed journals or they're able to have their findings replicated by other scientists.
	That is the scientific method.
	Now, we've had climate models since probably the 70s, right?
	And they've predicted that by now the oceans would be rising and the hurricanes would be worse.
	And that hasn't happened.
	And what we're seeing is that hurricanes are worse, and this season... No, no, no, no, no, no.
	Fact check.
	Hurricanes are better.
	Again, like, this is not a topic that I am familiar enough with to debate the science of.
	But let's just go to the NOAA.
	National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
	And let me just say, I'm just Googling right now, I have no idea what I'll get.
	Are hurricanes getting worse?
	Let's see what they say.
	According to NOAA, climate change is making hurricanes stronger and more common.
	Intensities.
	Model projections indicate that tropical cyclone intensities could increase by 1-10% with a 2% Celsius warming.
	That's the model, not the actual.
	The actual is that they're about the same.
	Okay, so we can look at what are the most intense hurricanes on record?
	We haven't had any bad ones in years.
	2005, 2019, Hurricane Lorenzo.
	This hurricane had winds estimated to have reached 160 miles per hour.
	That was one of the worst ones.
	Hurricane Allen, 1980.
	Sustained winds of 190.
	And Dorian, 2019, was also one of the worst ones.
	So, it seems to me that hurricanes are increasing in intensity.
	Well, we can't fact check this one.
	Let me just say that... But why isn't the NOAA an acceptable resource?
	You said that the models say it's going to go worse.
	Yes.
	I'm saying that since the 70s, their predictions have not been accurate.
	Not always, certainly.
	Have global temperatures risen?
	In the last, how often do you want to say, 20 years?
	Do you believe that we can measure the temperature of the earth?
	The temperature of the earth?
	Do you think we can measure that?
	Um, I'm not sure what you're, I'm not even sure I understand the question.
	Do I take individual thermometer readings all over the place and model those to understand whether the average temperature has been rising?
	Yeah.
	Do you know about the Heath Island problem?
	If you've never heard this, it's like you've never experienced a conversation about climate change.
	Let me explain it.
	So there are sensitive thermometers put around the world, but they maybe cover less than 1% of the world.
	And they measure the temperature in their little area, and then they extrapolate from there.
	But the problem was that they tried to put them away from cities, because cities create warmth because of all the concrete.
	So it wouldn't be a good temperature, you know, it'd be distorted.
	But what happened was that the thermometers stayed where they were, but the cities grew.
	So you had a whole bunch of heat island problems that come from the cities that distort the thermometers.
	So we don't have, we don't have a way to really compare it.
	I'm going to go again off climate.gov.
	This is from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
	Climate change, global temperature, yearly surface from 1880 to 2023 compared to the 20th century average.
	Blue bars indicate cooler than average years.
	Red bars show warmer than average years.
	NOAA, based on data from the National Centers for Environmental Information, And what we see is a graph that starts in 1880 and goes to 20, it looks like 22 or 23.
	And the graph shows that from 1880 until about 1940, temperatures were cooler than average.
	From about 1960 till today, temperatures are warmer than average.
	But more than that, the trend line on the red temperatures is increasing enormously.
	So, I'm going to take the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration's word over yours.
	All right.
	So, what I've claimed is that I'm not an expert in the fields, but I can tell bullshit when I see it.
	So, do you think that's bullshit, what the NOAA is reporting?
	I think it's bullshit that they can measure the temperature smoothly from the 1800s.
	Okay.
	So, what about from the 1960s?
	What about during the pandemic when CO2 dropped to a fraction and the temperature stayed the same?
	Because it takes years and years and years for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to dissipate.
	I'm sure you know that.
	But there were several years of... Three or four years.
	Yes, yes.
	It takes many, many years for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to dissipate.
	I know you know that.
	But they're also saying that the temperature is, you know, sort of smoothly going up with CO2.
	They're not saying it's smoothly going up.
	As I said, the trend line is upwards.
	Yes, the actual chart is jagged.
	But over the last 50 years, it's been going up.
	I've got a dental appointment I'm going to have to run to, but let me give a closing statement, then you can.
	Sure.
	Um, so what I said was it's hard to have a conversation with somebody who believes the news.
	You said a conversation about somebody who believes the news is real.
	Right.
	Yes.
	The climate change argument is a really deep well, which I've spent countless hours in, and I can tell you I've seen both arguments.
	I've seen the official argument, and I've seen the skeptics.
	The skeptic argument is much stronger.
	According to you, who you just agreed is not a climate scientist in any way, shape, or form.
	But a really good bullshit detector.
	And I do know, I do know that models are not... And I think your vaunted powers of bullshit detection may be overstated.
	But you use hyperbole.
	Anything may be overstated.
	I think it is overstated.
	And I don't grant you that you're an excellent bullshit detector.
	It would take longer to give you my track record of that, but I'll accept that.
	So, do you have a closing statement?
	I haven't prepared one, but sure.
	I came on your show today to discuss whether or not political news is real.
	We did not talk about that at all.
	We talked about Climate change.
	We talked about Charlottesville.
	We talked about politicians.
	We talked about whether scientists are being truthful because they have to answer to bosses and whether doctors are being truthful.
	When I asked for some evidence, political evidence on the one statement I think you should die on this hill.
	You should say that.
	Everybody should go research that and find out if Biden made that claim.
	It's a claim that you have been making for years and years and years.
	You could not find any journal... I take that back. You did find one journalist saying it.
	You did find one journalist who said it. And I will grant you that.
	I think you should die on this hill. You should say that.
	Everybody should go research that and find out if Biden made that claim.
	I'm just saying...
	And by the way, if you're right, then you win everything.
	Great.
	But I did research this in preparation for the interview, and like you, I could not find it.
	I could not find a journalist saying that Trump said Nazis are very fine people, or quoting him.
	The conversation for me was interesting, absolutely, and thank you so much for having me.
	I'm totally happy and honored and flattered that you had me here, but unfortunately it was not the conversation I was hoping to have.
	So thank you so much for hosting me.
	I hope your audience hates me at least a little bit less than maybe they did beforehand, but I suspect they hate me more.
	That's the way it works.
	I know.
	Oh, believe me, I know.
	But thank you for the respectful conversation.
	Thank you for hearing my side.
	I hope I gave you the respect of hearing your side to the best of my ability, even if I was interrupting.
	I appreciate it.
	Okay.
	But I do often need clarification because I don't always understand things or how they're meant.
	Thanks for having me.
	Let me thank you as well.
	It's kind of brave for you to come over here in territory that's maybe not your natural territory.
	And I love getting out of the silo and finding out what other people think.
	It's actually fascinating.
	Listening to your views, I found absolutely fascinating.
	And me, you.
	So maybe we should end on the positive.
	So thank you very much.
	Thank you, Scott.
	Michael Ian Black, look for his sub stack, look for his podcasts, and maybe we'll talk again.
	Anytime you want!
	All right, thanks and bye for now!
	Take care!

▲