Bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump on everybody more late this morning. But that's ok because most of you slept in. I know you're partying buncher people, so you would probably hidden in her last night New Year's Eve yeah. I stayed up until exactly midnight and then out, but I liked you sleep in today and if I make you wait, doesn't it make the simultaneous all that much better? You know it does. I hope you save some coffee for me because it's time to raise your glass, your mug, your challenge, your Stein, you're, a container of liquids, make sure is filled with your favorite liquid.

Like coffee and join me for the simultaneous it. If you haven't seen the president's new year's eve, tweets you're really for some good tweeting going out My favorite one, I tweeted rounded, I don't want to ruin the joke, so just look at the tweet of the President's tweets, one of them, Elizabeth Warren and one of them in all caps. Well, you with a wishing us all a happy new year, therefore funny I don't want to ruin the be after just see them yourself. I know I've been having fun trying to understand the climate change debate and I'm gonna help. You

through it as well as one of the things that I have complained about since the start. We unwashed citizens who are not the scientists can really understand? What's going on, it's just complicated enough: the debate over climate change. This is hard to get your rapporteur had around. What should I pay attention to what matters? What doesn't etc. So I thought I'd help break it down for you and consider this process. It's a process where we're going from not quite understanding what the ex going on to one. Until we're we're getting a little bit of clarity, I won't be able to get you to a conclusion today, but I'm going to take you to a clearer place. If that makes sense, so I'm gonna get you be a movie. you have to change and to do that I'll, be using my new double. Whiteboard system always for the big, reveal

It looked like a regular whiteboard at first, but just wait: that's not all it gets better. So here you can see. I label this the climate, none debate because it turns out people don't really debate climate legacy on each other. So there's not much of an actual debate will see if I can get the glare office. But will we'll talk well served out what the sceptics say and then about what the experts say to the sceptics cause. I support this missing right. Normally, when you look at this topic, you'll see just the experts talking or you'll see just the sceptics talking, but you know see them talking with each other, which would be useful, so I'm to try to take their arguments,

put them up next to each other, so you can sake and here's my own judgment about how much credibility you should put in each of these arguments that is subject to change everything. preliminary here, so there's the urn from the sceptics that or two is not the big driver of change that were seeing right now so because temperatures are apparently go up. Some say is volcanoes or the sun were. I think there are a few other theories about other things. I would say that Those are then debunked because,

It's easy enough to track those other things. The volcano is in the sun spots in the sun, actively, for example, and put him on a graph, and you can see that they don't match the direction of the temperature Corey to NASA. Now, I'm here to say that this is probably solid, meaning that there are enough people have looked at the other, the other possibilities that, if the, if those, if those effects match the trend line of temperature we'd know about it. So when I look at just the sceptics they will produce the charter and they'll say hey. Look at my chart. It's right here, you can see, is related to sun spots. But if that were true, I think the experts would have noticed mean even if you assume that are influenced by money and everything else

If it really was this simple, hey look at this sun chart it matches perfectly. I think they would have noticed, so I'm going to say that the experts have the credibility advantage for these simple alternatives, because they can just put them on a chart, and they say okay. Doesn't fit as well as Co2 does according to them, and one of the reasons it wouldn't FED is because the rate of change these other theories. Don't I don't think that they explain how quickly it's going up and if you don't explain the how quickly barred the rate of change you haven't explained anyway, because, as the rate of change. Important then there's the Tony Heller argument that the data historical data has been fudged is

goes there. We can tell what the data used to be because they were published reports multiple, published reports in which people were referring to the data as different than it is now, and it is a fact that data has been adjusted historically, but apparently there are reasons for it. So and that is normal to make corrections. I will put the credibility of this part of the argument at so far: zero. so I say the experts have zero credibility and Tony Heller. So far again, we're in the middle of the game were not of the end of the game. If we're gonna score it right now, totally Heller has clear advantage because he showed his work here. He showed you, here's the article says NASA says it's cooling or warming or whatever their say, and then here's what

say now and it doesn't match what they used to say and we know the data does get adjusted one of the claims of the data is only ever adjusted in one direction. We don't have an answer for that. Is that a coincidence that data is only adjusted in one direction to make it look like there's more warming, that's suspicious. So I'd give him the credibility on that, because there is no there's, no good explanation for that. I believe there is also the argument that the sum of the measuring stations YO some of them have gone out of production in the time that we ve been measuring,

And I believe part of the argument is that all of the ones that have been operating continuously don't show the warming it's only when you throw in new ones and make adjustments that you can even see the warming. Now, I'm not going to say that's true or false, I'm just going to say that the skeptic argument is strong cuz. They show their work and the and the the response to the skeptical argument. is non existent, or at least I can't find it then there's the argument that the models are bulk and the experts will say that is not true.

Some of those models high end cast well, meaning that they would explain the past and some of them, but not all of them do a pretty good job of getting pretty close to the rate of increase in temperature, not exact, but in a directional sense, they're close enough that we should be worried. Is that credible Well, here's the here's the first problem, if you have lots of models, lots of different models and- and I think everybody would agree- there have been hundreds of them- some of them are going to be closer than others, but it doesn't mean that they have a model that predicts things. just means they have a lot of models. So if you have a lot of models some of them were somewhat close to the actual reality that doesn't mean you models can predict, doesn't mean anything.

It only means you have a lot of models and you discarded the ones that didn't work. So I would say that the critics have the stronger argument on the models and now wait for it. Wait for it, I promised you the double wayward experience that double way morning Yes, I have upgraded my word so that there is a way board on the back of a White board. Has right. Its away board, but when you turn it around it's another whiteboard Oh yeah, twenty Do you That your hard so there's continuing the debate, the sceptics who say the economic forecasts are not reliable and they would say,

because economic forecasts over eighty years are never reliable. It's not even a thing. There's No such thing as an eighty year old eighty year, financial forecasts, that's useful, that's not a thing. What do the experts say when people like me, who have degrees and economics and experience making financial forecast, what the experts say when we say there's no such thing as an economic model, this useful over eight years. They say what. That's right: have you seen anybody argue this point? Have you seen anybody any experts say: oh here's, good reason why in this case, only. Not in any other cases ever been known in the history of the world, but in just this case with climate with all the variables

this is the one time in all of human history with a financial model, an economic model is reliable. Do they say that No, they don't. They hope. You don't notice. The people who understand modeling say this. Isn't even a thing is ridiculous is just persuasion now, let me point to say: I've been talking to you about persuasion for a few years now, mostly about Paul I am in favour of persuasion, even when they use hyperbole even one. facts are not accurate. As long as the direction that you persuading people is positive, that is for the greater good- and I see I see less examples of that with say, president job, Climate change I'm going to give them the same benefit of the doubt, which is this if their persuading us in the correct direction.

Let's say to save the world to improve, improve our economy, to make things better for the poor. If that's what's happening. then you're being a little loose with the facts is ok as long as the right, but what, if they're not right, is being loose with ie? The thinking loose with the facts and not right. That could be a problem, but are they write hard to know, then the other? The other point is that I guess is the IPCC.

The economic forecasts was that over eighty years, climate change might take off ten percent from our GDP, and that was reported by people who don't do economics as catastrophe, just as a dire problem because will lose ten percent of what we could have had over eight years, to which everybody who can do math says ten percent. Over eighty years we wouldn't even notice. Literally, we wouldn't notice, is being called the biggest problem on earth and yet their own numbers say it's no big deal now. How did they explain

That their own numbers say it's not that much of a big deal. I love you put it in the in this context. If I told you right now that the current GDP is ten percent lower than it could have been, if we'd made different decisions eighty years ago Would you say to yourself my God, it's a catastrophe, or would you say to me, I don't even notice you. I wish things were better, but I don't even I don't even register it as a problem. I didn't know it could have been ten percent better So what do the experts say when you point out that their own numbers say it's not a big deal? I think the response is something like right: yeah

So I am in favour of it being direction really accurate, as opposed to as opposed to precisely as long as you're in the right direction, but we don't know that or at least we unwashed masses don't know that. So here's here's an offer. I like to make I think there is any chance that this can happen. but I would love to host a public debates which is a good representative of all sides but it wouldn't be a debate in the normal sense because I don't think that's useful rather be a conversation in which I would grill both of them and I would control the conversation. So we.

be them talking about anything they want to talk about. It would be me directing the conversation directed specifically at the sceptical arguments so that we can have an answer. Now. I've heard stay your terms, so I will do this for free, so it won't cost anything. I would need a studio if somebody like Dave, Reuben he'd, be a perfect one. once do host something like that. Maybe we that out But we would need some pretty serious experts on both sides and if we could bring them together, I will And probably, I think I would also preview it with both of the experts In other words, I'd have Exchange enough information through me that they both knew what the other was going to say so I went,

either expert to show up and deal with any question that they had not been prepared for so another It's the only questions that would be our base. Questions would be ones that both experts saw before the event. And then they know they. Heather they'd have their responses ready as best they can, once you're in the same room. I might drill down a little bit, make sure that you know will really get into it and nobody's avoiding any questions. So that's my that's my offer to the world for free. If I can find a you know, then you and to experts. I will host a conversation nodded debate. I do have sympathy for the experts

who don't want to get on stage with somebody who's? In that case, all right, cuz. Somebody just send case that you don't want to really get on the stage with him and and and treat them like they're serious. But we don't have to worry about that cuz all of the questions ahead of time and nobody has to get on stage until they're happy that these are useful questions. Do it on my tennis court, I'll be good for a sound. My tennis court is very echoey and I don't know that we need an audience, so that would be fun to be more fun to have an audience but not necessary so if climate change is the biggest risk to humanity,. then I say: let's treat it like. It is. Let's try to convince all the sceptics and by Who would do a better job of convincing sceptics too,

leave in the risk of climate warming than me, I'm really kind of the perfect person. If you can convince me, I can give Vince other people, but so far on I'm almost exactly Sense right now, I'm exactly on the fence between Should I be worried about this or it looks like a bunch of bs to be I'm right there, some sort of perfectly well nobody's unbiased, but I'm as close as you're gonna get. I think now, there's other good. News is related to this topic. I tweeted this yesterday. Apparently Bill gates has said that twenty nineteen and beyond what the world needs to be working on is nuclear power. And bill Gates argues that it's really are our only

good solution for everything from climate change to be powering the economies in the future. There's no other technology that will get close here What special about that? I said that the most important news in the world, most important news in the world is a bill gates as decided to push for more nuclear power in the United States, mostly in the United States. I think he's talking about, but I would assume that applies globally as well, and here's why bill gates is not a Republican. So that's the first thing, so somebody who is not a republican and not a conservative and very clearly not pushing for nuclear power. Ok, that's that's already man vice dog, so that makes it a story, and it also gets your attention.

Number two bill gates is one of the smartest people in the world period, and unlike other smart people every, but he agrees with that statement. You can. they won't. You will about bill gates, you can say no one is younger days. He did anti competitive things. You criticise them all. You want by here's where you care criticising he's one of the smartest people in the world. Here's the other thing about bill gates. Nobody bought him off. Nobody bottom off, how many people can you say that about with complete complete confidence theirs? sceptic that you can really trust, isn't getting money from somebody. There's no scientist there. You can really trust. Isn't getting money from some industry by bill gates,

doesn't leave any more money in fact he's trying as hard as we can to give it away. When he says this, outside the Box of where you would expect him to go, which is nuclear power. In this case when he says something like that, do you have any doubt the that's a sincere opinion. You doubt that's unique, If he were a politician, you'd say it's a politician. if you were in the industry or in any way trying to make money You say if I could trust that he's just taking aside but he's not he's bill. Frickin gates. He's richer than God he doesn't leave your money and he doesn't need anybody else's money. He is dedicated the whole second half of his life to helping the world and he's demonstrated that with the gates charities. So there's no question.

where his self interest is his self interest. Is the interest of the planet very clearly you wouldn't even say it's just you know United States Centric because he's working Around the world to better the world is not even a: U S, centric opinion He is the most independent opinion, maybe in the world, and I say that. because he's also the richest, the richest person, can have the most an independent opinion as one of the things you get with money nobody's by you, and we know it. then you end that House Marty is and then you add that to the fact that he doesn't talk about stuff until he's really looked into it. Here's the other question: do you doubt the bill gates has looked into the question of nuke?

Your power, you don't doubt that you know he's done a deep dive, he's probably spent years looking at it and he's We decided. After all this study and with all of US intelligence and all of his lack of biased that that's the place we ought to put our attention. It's a big deal is a big big big deal, because if you can change the energy footprint on the planet, you ve changed everything. You Eve: goose economies, you save the planet to you you ve, really, you just changed everything so when I say that the biggest news in the world, it really is because the fact that he is committed to it in public- and he is Bill- Gates, love Moraine.

Is, is the smartest guy that we know who is not influenced by politics? Smartest person in the world is not influenced by politics, so you take that seriously. I hear the deserts will become habitable if, if any, because we're love so just think about this. Imagine imagine if you could desalinate water as much as you want for almost free, which is why fusion power would get you or even nuclear power. We get you closer because it would be. cheaper energy? So the only problem with the salinization is that cost a lot in terms of power. If you take them,

Our number down, you have all the water you need for anything, you want and suddenly you can start reforest in deserts and what happens when you can reforested desert economically, you can actually decrease, it's so apparently hurricanes form at least argues. Let's say Florida, they form around the deserts in northern Africa because its heart at a certain time ear and that's what causes the high temperatures and kick start the hurricanes. You could actually reduce the power of hurricanes if nuclear power became more practical, think about that nuclear power would reduce hurricanes. and we already know how to do it. I suppose you have a problem with building machine

to draw seo to enter the air. Should we ever decide to do that? There's a there's, a decent argument, the says we can have a lot more co2 and everything will be fine, but suppose you got the point where you did decide to do it. We need is a lot of energy. need to clear power, so nuclear gets you almost everything. You need that taxes world the next level and I think that's a powerful, an important thing Yes, we all know plants and trees need co2 and greenhouses, use it to two fertilizer,

Do you wanna reactor in your backyard? No, I do not, but do we have to put nuclear reactors next to people? Is there a compelling reason than nuclear reactors have to be an inconvenient places such as earthquake fault lines in such probably not right, there's gotta be there's gotta be some way to put them. Were there not in populated areas and still get the power to populated areas so there's. I think there is much to be done and power transmission. Somebody says do I believe in goes no simple answer. No. Somebody is talking about the reactor in their pants. Ok, I'm not sure you're on the same topic but good for you.

Yeah, so there's lots of technology that we know all quite understand from sorry I'm reactors to whatever so does seem to me like. We have a way forward if we can get through the red tape now what what president would be the best president to work with bill gates on removing regulations and restrictions and getting nuclear power going and is in a safe fish way? Who would be the best present in the world. to work with bill gates. On that very thing, President Trump. Here's use the argument that I've been making about President Trump from the start. He's not. President Trump is not an inexpensive president, meaning that he comes

with some rough edges. We all know what they are there there well reported to you now is that the things that give people trump arrangements syndrome are well document, so that parts definitely a cost. but don't we see that he seems to do things Another personality could not have done, for example, the progress in North Korea and end again, Kim Kim Jong Moon. just pronounced for New year's. Here he has reaffirmed in public his desire to be completely nuclear free. He just wants nature the United States does its partners I'm not sure another personality could have Gunnar said. I'm not sure another personally would have cut regulations as much I'm not. Or another personality could get us to a good place in the Middle EAST. There's something unique about this precedent.

that, although it comes with some cost, he does things that I think another president just could not get on, and we may be glad about that. In the future, one of those things may be that he could work with bill gates in a way that another president just couldn't couldn't make something happened, so I think there's another one of his superpowers is who we can work with and how bold he can be in doing things you didn't think he was gonna do like moving that capital to General Jerusalem, removing the embassy to Jerusalem, so they're, just some things as president does the other people just wouldn't do, and sometimes we need those things together. But it's not free. Let's check that the stock market for a moment, the new This is reporting, that's a big old black eye for the president, because the stock market, wind down what six percent this year.

but I would argue that all of that is from the FED and the reason that the FED, is raised to slow down the economy is because it was too hot. If you had a problem like if you could somebody said here's a portfolio of problems, I want you to pick one of these problems that you have to live with you, but you have to pick what you can't pick no problems. You have to pick a problem from this basket problems in every region, and you pick one that says the stock markets down six percent. because the FED tried to slow it down because the economy is so good. The economy is so good. The FED had to slow it down. That's your problem is that a problem. Probably not because it argues that in the long run the stock market will be fine and you shouldn't be in the stock market unless you're in there for the long term, so that

that goes down six percent a year after being on a tear is actually good news. because it's only being slow down artificially because it was too hot theirs. The best news in the world. Somebody says? There's a correction: will you live anywhere you want, but the fact is, it is a negative side and is only bad if you want to sell all of your stocks this year, which would have been a bad strategy? No man, what heavily hotdogs could I e in a row still zero vegetarian? I'm a basket jerry nation. I I think I have said enough for today get back two year holiday and I will talk to you later.