« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 261 Scott Adams: Warren’s DNA test, Khashoggi, Climate Change

2018-10-15 | 🔗


  • Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test results
  • Khashoggi story, more and more speculation popping up
    • He may have been much more than just a journalist
  • President Trump’s 60 Minutes interview with Lesley Stahl

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

Find my WhenHub Interface app here.

The post Episode 261 Scott Adams: Warren’s DNA test, Khashoggi, Climate Change appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
boom boom boom bump bump hey tyler hey jeffrey i'm a little bit late this morning not my favorite day a virus jet or steven good morning everybody so i woke up this morning to find out in a tweet that christina has broken up with me so i just read the tweet myself so obviously i knew there was something brewing but wasn't expecting that this morning so if i don't seem like i'm in my normal mood i think you understand that not having a good month but not for
but let's talk about elizabeth warren now before we do that will you join me for the simultaneous ip please do elizabeth warren did something that's just sort of delicious delicious news it's a kind of news that you sent yourself i'm glad there's news because this is interesting news and the news was that with war and had a dna test done to find out if she has any native american in her and turns out that she got a dna expert to look at the results and he concluded that there was a very high likelihood that there's some native american in her background now i was surprised that you can't confirm it but i guess the way
yeah that works is there's always a little bit of uncertainty especially if the line goes back awhile so there was some possibility that the line goes back far enough that she might be one five hundred and twelve american indian don't know for sure she might be one slash thirty two so i think the range says she could be as between one slash thirty two and one slash five hundred and twelve but here's the here's the interesting thing about it is still feels to me tone deaf and the reason the reason seems tone deaf is if you seen the commercial so she's developed this whole campaign ad around it in which he shows the he does pictures of her family and her relatives talking and then then she shows the test results
being read by the dna expert and and then she ends at all by talking the pride in their heritage and then install standing next to her family and the family is why does looking family you've ever seen in your life and i thought to myself again if you're african american ann you're looking at her celebrating her 132nd two one five hundred and twelve range of native american may or may not actually be in are pretty sure it is but might not be so there's at least some chance it's not very small chance is not so she did prove her claim so i would say that the reliability of the test
probably it looks like it did prove her claim but she took what could have been good which is a simple fact and then she she ruined it with the visuals because if you just think of elizabeth warren an so here's the other way to have played it if you just think of elizabeth warren and then think of is she or is she not native american and then present you with a dna test and an expert this as yash is she's almost certainly got some native american inner not much wouldn't that be like a total win like that would be a complete win the only images in your head or elizabeth warren herself and the d in a test supports your claim that's a clean win but instead she builds a commercial around it in which the focus is on her
whiter than white relatives in her and it just there's a whole bunch of white people standing around celebrating not being white i guess or not being entirely white and i thought to myself if you're african american and you're seeing these wider than white people smiling because they may have one five hundred and twelve native american what's that feel like so so the the visual of her standing with her super white looking family i think it detracted from the message 'cause it just looked like she was taking advantage again you know the claim against her is that he took advantage of it and there she is she does a commercial taking advantage of it in other words she did in fact build a commercial that by any
any reasonable interpretation was taking advantage of her now it was it was couched in a defense it's like hey have attacked me here's my defense i just proved you wrong that parts good but she took it a little too far and started making it feel like it was an important advantage he had in some way it just felt like she sold that too hard i don't know if anybody else will have the same impression but like all good news stories it holds open the possibility uh that either side
it has an argument yeah that's what makes a good story so the people who say she should not be talking about being native american are going to use the low number and say she's only one five hundred and twelve native american and people who are supporting here is going to say what the she could be as much as one thirty second that's pretty close that's a lot less fair so everybody gets a little bit something out of this there's something to like something not like um let's talk about this guy who i will call khashoggi but unless
going to the people on the news we're trying to pronounce it correctly and i cannot speak arabic and i could not even begin to pronounce correctly his last name but it's something like chuck joe g should show guy or something like that but you know i'm talking about so the the journalists who got killed in the embassy allegedly by saudi arabia confirmation to be determined um and remember i said there's probably more to this story than we know and she enough of them or just keeps coming out there's just more and more and more now none of it is entirely surprising but there's just more of it so there's this more more suspicion that he had he might have had some dirt
the royal family he might have been the biggest threat to overthrow the royal family in saudi arabia in favor of you know the muslim brotherhood he invited better spy for united states he could have been turned by us so there's all this speculation most of which has no evidence to back it up except you know sketchy evidence it and the more they i see it see about it the more i wonder if the right framing for this is early arabia kills a journalist because that's the way it's being reported it's being reported that way because the news is run by journalists
so and journalist see a journalist get killed by a government you can bet that they're gonna make a big deal about that and then they should in and they are but this gentleman but chuck shogi work to show whatever he's is way more than a journalist disney i'm not even sure as fair to call him a journalist in although that was his occupation apparently it feels like he was more of an activist more of a revolutionary is living in self imposed exile which is you know that's got a least make you scratch your head there might be more going on here than band then just being a journalist so we may we may never know but what is clear is that the usa and saudi arabia don't want to be enemies
so there we are two countries who really really don't want to be on the other side of each other because you know the there's an enemy of our know how does that work we have a common enemy in iran for example and saudi arabia looks like it's heading in the right direction i'll be at more slowly than many people would like but least directionally they're heading toward loosening up a little bit getting a little friendlier with israel working better with the united states until this happened i think we really need to know weather this show gig i was up to something bad now i don't know how to how offended
to be about this you know there are lots of things in the news where you actually feel yeah actually feel something yourself so if you know if there's something that's an affront against the united states i kind of feel it you know you probably do too if there's a risk to the united states i kind of feel the risk you know north korea was a good example you can actually feel that risk every day and there are other things that are very central to the united states our economy you know our trade deals etc these things are you can feel them almost because you feel like you're part of the country and when something happens that effects the country you feel it but with this journalist being killed in a saudi embassy in turkey our
we feel it yeah the the media is trying to make me feel it's by connecting it to our relationship with saudi arabia arabia and so if something bad goes goes wrong there and there's been risk of that yeah i would feel that but i'm having trouble caring frankly it's not the other he's not an ordinary journalist in which i would care a lot because if they are killing ordinary journalists who just happened to be critics that would be one thing but it does feel as though there might be more going on and i don't feel like forever going to know what that more is we're just not going to know what's going on it will never know so under those circumstances since the
original crime doesn't really i just don't feel it it just doesn't feel like a united states problem it feels like somebody likened it to a mafia hit against their own bull it feels like the mafia killed a member of the mafia so technically he was in a competing mafia right so he was he was the one who may not be on the same side as the mafia might have a different godfather or something but it still feels like feels like their business far more it feels like my business and we'll see if that makes any difference going forward let's talk about climate change so the president did a sixty minutes interview in which i that would be a lot more news and i'm seeing little clips taken interview in which the anti
the media is trying to turn it into something crazy even trying to turn it into something provocative but i don't know did we just get used to it did the world just get used to president trump and now when he gives us sixty minutes minutes interview i felt as though he said something that would have been news making every every thirty seconds but there's just there's just not much there is there it feels like you i said all the things you expect it to say he was a little bit provocative like eo is is he doesn't say things away people say it but it didn't feel key quite ever made any big news which had to be disappointed to them but one of the new is that they're pulling out to try to turn into news is that the president said something about climate change
doesn't know how much of it is you know human caused versus natural cycles but that they take that perfectly perfectly reasonable sounding i'm going say sounding so i don't talk about science they take a reasonable sounding explanation that he is that we're not sure in the president's opinion this is not my opinion in the president's opinion we're not sure what's going on but that there are natural cycles and so it's hard to sort out what's natural and what is it
no i'm not smart enough to know if that's a good explanation or a bad one i'll just say that's his explanation you know i'm my own my own exclusions of climate change a little different and you've heard them before but even that they had to take out of context to turn it into news if you keep it in context he's just saying that the other scientists are political so here's what he said if you keep the context scientists are political you have to be careful about their there mass agreement on this issue as a political issue fair right if scientists are involved but scientists are involved in a very political political situation
even scientists would agree that introduces bias that's important to say right it's not just the president who would say there's bias involved with climate change even sign this other kinds of scientists right scientists who study persuasion who study people who study the mind all of those scientists would agree that if you take reasonable objective scientists and put them in a supercharged political environment in which they do have and do have a side the odds of that influence the end result very hot right so so far what the president said scientists agree with which is if you put normal
objective people who even intend to be objective and a highly political situation you should have less credibility in the results that's a fair statement now the the scientific process is supposed to you know check for that that's why you have duplicated x parents is why you have peer reviewed stuff but at the same time in in the news last week we saw the hoax that was played on the on the reviewers of the scientific studies the papers that get published and we saw that people could just make up stuff and get their papers published fairly reliably so there was a group who played a long term hoax in which they wrote just crazy papers and tried to get them approved that was interesting is that they chose an area of science
that they knew was highly politicized so they did a test which very which very similar which is very similar to what the president was talking about with the climate scientists which is the the hoaxers did all their papers in the social sciences area which is super political and sure enough the super political area ignored science so it was a whole bunch of scientists who review papers they do the peer reviews and they decide what's in the publication but the hoaxers demonstrated that more likely than not you're going to find pure review for things that people politically agree with independent of the science that's been shown
this week so when the president makes the same case he's he's a pretty strong ground because just last week it was shown to be true the politics influenced whether something is published how people think about whether they agree so that part's demonstrated beyond a doubt in in my opinion and there but other studies showing that scientific papers and studies are hard to reproduce in fact most of the times are not reproduced sorry getting messages it it was a call from
listia you're right so i will get back to her and i guess that's all for today i'll talk to you later
Transcript generated on 2019-11-12.