« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 407 Scott Adams: Warren’s Apology Tour, Bezos Exposing Pecker, Healthcare, Green New Deal

2019-02-08 | 🔗


  • Cringe-worthy apologies by Elizabeth Warren
    • She doesn’t appear to have a sense of humor
    • Different handling, could have salvaged her political career
  • Jeff Bezos handling of private pictures that have become public
    • Pushed back against what he calls blackmail, A+ handling
  • Universal Healthcare graph that puts everything in context
    • 1. Current amount of taxes being collected
    • 2. How much more taxes are needed for AOC Green Deal?
  • AOC is over-asking and priming us, softening us up…
    • …just like President Trump does negotiating
  • Will U.S. be selling our climate change solutions to the world?
    • CO2 scrubbers are a good example
  • The good versus weak and bad climate change people
  • Border security committee finally brought in the experts
    • If we don’t see a plan from both sides, waste of time
  • Orange versus blue book cover for my new book
    • Winning cover design is orange with blue bubbles

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 407 Scott Adams: Warren’s Apology Tour, Bezos Exposing Pecker, Healthcare, Green New Deal appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
open bum bump bump bump bump and bum bum bum bum bum bum bum hey brad come on in here everybody it's time it's time for coffee with scott adams i'm scott adams an you or probably prepared with your coffee will be back to our normal time maybe tomorrow or the next day and until then please raise your cup your mug your glass your stein you're jealous your thermas fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me for the simultaneous zip ah
the weather is great smile last day here in hawaii heading out in a few hours back home all right let's talk about some of the things are happening in the news have you all watched the crib you were the elizabeth allen home sorry elizabeth warren apologies for cultural appropriation it is so hard to watch it she seems two sincere and who's surrender about the whole issue and i kind of get that i get the main point which is something i didn't know by the way
so we learn something we did learn that tribal affiliation is up to the tribe so you can't just say i've got a certain certain genetic composition therefore i'm a cherokee or or anything else i guess it just up to the tribe to decide who's in and who's out and that makes sense 'cause if if it were not up to the five then anybody could just say hey i'm a native american to give me some give me some of those sweet sweet gambolling benefits or something like that but yeah i think her political greer is completely toast uh i've told you before just a reminder that her situation is identical to my own which is that my parents told all three of us kids
that we had substantial native american blood and so grew up believing that and i believe until one year ago when i did a dna test and my percentage of native american blood zero but here's what i think she did wrong what she did wrong was the way she handled it of course but i don't think she's handled it with the sense of humor that it called for don't you think a sense of humor was necessary apparently she doesn't have one remember i told you that one and the three people don't a sense of humor this
our way to play this would have been to consider it as funny as as the people watching she should a paste of the public because the public thinks this is hilarious and she should have just agreed say yeah i got totally taken yeah if you can't trust your family who can you trust and and then the questions about whether whether she used it to get ahead she's told you blowing that because the correct answer is when i thought it was true the system allowed me to say it and why wouldn't i let me let me make a confession to you today right here remember i told you that i grew up believing that we had substantial native
can blood in my family so my siblings believe that when i was ready to apply to colleges at some point there was a box to check and i thought myself what would happen to your if i check this i think it was an indian with the phrase used back then what happens if i check this box because it doesn't say what percentage so there was a place where you could identify and it didn't it didn't have any requirements just had to say what you were and that was it so i thought what if what if i check this box and so i checked the box
in what happened was a few weeks later my my mailbox was full with a full scholarship offers full scholarship to college as i checked that box now when the when the scholarship offers came in i thought to myself what the this can't be right and then i looked at myself in the mirror and i thought i don't think i can take these full scholarships because you know even even i don't feel like a native american you know i don't feel like anybody was discriminating against me so from that point on i no longer check that box and did not accept any of the things that were offered because of that but i'll tell you a check in the box back in back in my child
open up the heavens and you got you got free stuff so if you tell me that as a low income guy who is trying to make make it in this world that if i see a form where i can check thanks honestly meaning i actually honestly believed i had legitimate reason to check that box and i could get ahead because of it and i could take advantage of the system in a way that this system was designed to take advantage it was designed for that if you could check the box honest you get to have those benefits i don't there's anything to apologize for now in my case it was a step too far and i wasn't willing to take advantage of that
but i'm not sure i would hold it against her if she obviously believed that that she had that in her background she wasn't richie that washing all right uhm let's talk about contrast oh she handled it with how jeff bezos handled the national enquirer outing him for his girlfriend while he was still married apparently still married part is not the big problem because i guess he and his wife sonority you decided they were splitting so having a girlfriend was not the not the embarrassing part the embarrassing part was that the private messages and some private pictures came out now well basous did is instead of
instead of just apologizing and doing whatever people normally do in that situation he totally confessed roda roda publicly and how did the national enquirer for as he says trying to blackmail him those are those are his words and he handled it perfectly in my opinion so i like the way he put it which is if someone like him can't you can take on a a blackmailer as he calls it you know who can so that's pretty pretty noble sounding persuasion and i just like the fact that he just one right at it and didn't yeah we didn't
he didn't apologize and he didn't defend his personal actions nor should he nor should it's none of our business but i love the fact you wouldn't directly at it so he gets an a plus pretty heavily his crisis pr crisis i guess whereas elizabeth warren gets an f
hi sir the funniest part with the headlines because the the ceo of the national enquirer his last name as packer and since the subject of the story with these alleged exposed to pictures so we say of basis is manner that the headlines were basil's exposes packer possibly the best headline of all time you can't get better than that national acquired in two or three hi today's my traveled
yeah so i'm i'm done with vacation today uh what else we go down so as we're talking about health care and especially in the context of socialism uh uh huh that what are the questions i ask myself is how long will it before somebody on either the pro universal health care or the anti universal health care so i'd produces the graph or the statistic that just puts it all in in context here's what i'd like to see i'd like to see you someday inform the public in a way that the public understands for how much of a cost of healthcare is it might be just we just need
two numbers one number might be the let's say the total amount of taxes that we pay now and then the other number is how much do we have to add to that to pay for universal healthcare so so just just give us two numbers current amount of taxes collected and then how much we would need to collect in order to pay for you know the the aoc version of a green new deal or whatever we got going on there montana state went in reduced health care costs for the entire state i don't know what that means i mean i know what the words means but i don't know anything about that story
ten thousand what uh all right so the other thing that the let's let's as green new deal for a moment now the thing that i don't know anything about the alex jones versus joe rogan thing well look into that so the thing with the green new deal is that as ridiculous as it sounds on the surface it's part of a longer term persuasion in which things which seemed ridiculous not long ago now seem like just a bad idea so watch the evolution from the things that are the green new deal going from absolutely crazy crazy stuff
two well we don't want to do that yeah they're they're softening softening up the country so it's it's a trump yeah it's a trump play so that they're asking for so much the anything they get is gonna like a good idea or going to look like a win so we're all getting primed and and they're doing a really good job of that oh man all right so i see socialism expanding in this country no matter what if it doesn't happen in the if it doesn't happen in the next few years it certainly i happen when robots take all the jobs hi so heading toward today where that universal income whether you
work or not is going to come so those of you who say my god that's a crazy idea to pay people so you don't want to work um i would say it might be a crazy idea but it's one that's going to come it's only a question of why i think it could be fifty there's way could be a hundred years away could be twenty five years away as soon as outside the jobs we we have enough stuff for everyone as long as some people as long as some people don't want much and so yes we can put up with people the unwilling to work it have worked in a job where half of the people are making things worse and half of the people are doing something productive the half of the
people who are doing something productive would be just as happy the other half just didn't do anything you we really don't need everybody to do something 'cause there robots will be doing enough for us but i think we'll get to a point where there will be two tracks in this world one track you can if a reasonable quality life on free incoming free healthcare but you won't have much you'll have the the most basic phone you won't have any yeah it just you don't have your own transportation so just be lots of stuff you won't have and the people who want that stuff that extra stuff are going to still work so uh i think we're heading toward that universal universal income sooner or later might be fifty years away but we're going to
that all right did you notice that there are two headline stories today about bodies being stuffed in suitcases can we make that up there are two headline stories about bodies being stuffed in suitcases one is that your show you thing coming up again because there's more evidence that the crown prince i had one of them dead it became a headline again today and then there's some woman who tragically murdered who was also stuck in the suitcase like how many stories could there be about dead people in suitcases that's a weird thing yes a part of the green new deal is that they want to do away with air travel
in favor of ground travel with railroads and some kind of high speed railroads i don't know all listen to that argument you know obviously you're not going to have a high speed railroad across the oceans or maybe you can i don't know maybe only figured out a way to do that but i don't think so well here's another question for you yes let's say you let's say you accept that climate change is coming and that it's dangerous so let's say you
accepted the notion that it's going to be a problem for the world one of the things i'm wondering is will it be an equal problem for all countries because i'm starting to think that the united states is going to make a profit on climate change other countries might be in a lot of trouble but i feel like the united states is going to make a profit on it and here's help if we get to the point where let's say things are not that bad in this country the united states but there are other countries that desperately need to solve climate will probably be selling them a lot of stuff you china is going to need some co2 scrubbers and you know a lot of things are going to need to be re mediated and people are going to buy things to replace stuff they lost i'm wondering if we're heading a situation where the united states
because we're really good at figuring out how to make profits on stuff i order for to make a profit on this may maybe the rest of the world is suffering cuz it wouldn't be the first time we figured out how to make a profit on change let me put it in more general terms anytime there's a big change but whatever that changes you have to spend a bunch of money so if the climate changes or the industry changes urgent just anything big changes somebody spending a lot of money and it makes me wonder if the united state it will be so far ahead of this be selling all this green tech and you carbon scrubbers and ocean
maybe desalina zation maybe fusion so it'll be interesting to see if we make a profit on it alright i tweeted out today another example of what i've been teaching you about climate change which is that the idea that you and i as citizens can do our own research on climate and come to a reasonable result is an illusion it's an illusion that you can do your own research as a citizen and come to an informed decision on climate change it can't be done and i tweet it another example that and it's on the basic question of whether historically c two in temperature
moved in lockstep and specifically whether or not the c two came first before the temperature changes because there are two schools of thought one is that c two is driving temperature and the other is that it is not and if you look at the climate experts will say yes we figured out the past you talk to the skeptics will say no you got the pass wrong you talk to the experts again will say no 'cause skeptics you think we got it wrong but we included more than you think so it's actually right and then i just tweet it again tony hellers response to the response to the response which is completely convincing which is the problem both sides are completely convincing if you're listening to the right critics some of the skeptics are
not convincing third just terrible but the tony heller's the richard lindzen the judith curry you know there are several skeptics who if you listen to them last they are completely convincing but then you listen to the response to the response to the response and you can flip back and say ok the other side is more convincing now but there's no end to it until you reach a point where you don't understand what they're talking about and then what do you do so there is no situation in which citizens can figure out the truth of this lord monckton would be one of the least credible
however i would put him on the low credibility scale which is different from being wrong i want to make a careful distinction when i talk about kredible the it means when you listen to them do you say oh yeah they sound they sound believable even if the wrong i would say that moncton is not even slightly kredible uh even if he's right you might be right um yeah i mean i don't think i'm going to start ranking them all but there's a there's a pretty big difference in credibility alright a climate
promise seeing something that others are not good point so i remind you of the bigfoot rule if there are two people standing in the field and one says hey look it's bigfoot right in front of you and the other one says i don't see him now in my example let's say bigfoot is not hard to see he's just standing ten feet in front of you according to one of the people so one of the people says it's bigfoot right there in front of me and the other one says i don't see any bigfoot there which one of them which one of them more likely same the same person is one who doesn't see it and so it's generally true that the person who sees a positive thing that someone else doesn't see and they're looking in the same place you can almost
so his believe the one who doesn't see it so as long as they had the same information at the same point of view um in climate change we're seeing that the climate alarmists are looking at you know events and and records being set and saying look there it is there's the signal the signal is clearly visible at the same time the skeptics are looking at exactly the same stuff and saying known as a the signal might be there were not saying it it will never be there but it's not there now so you have two sides looking at essentially the same data one sees a lot happening and the other sees nothing i would side with the people who see nothing but that doesn't tell you whether climate changes
real and or dangerous it just tells you that the the signals might be you know over interpreted at the moment which is completely different from there are no singles so i don't think you can make too much of the fact that somebody sees something in the current environment because most of climate change is about what's going to happen in the future anyway mmhm the climate is so complex i do not believe we have the tech to protect it alright with that that reminds me of a i want to talk about how you would persuade say you are climate scientists and you wanted to persuade people that there was a big problem the the the worst when
persuade is to do these complicated complicated prediction models because by their nature they're not believable and so people who have experience in the real world see if complicated model this predicting what's going to happen in eighty years and were automatically out it's like ok i'm out if you're going to make your case with a complicated model predicting something i know can't be predicted i don't want to hear anything else you have to say so the production models are bad persuasion for people like me probably good provision for half of the country but for people like me as soon as i see that model in like okay that's your something b s about that if you can't make this case without that model i'm not so not so we're so here's how they should adopt they should get rid of the models and they should just say in the past one hundred years the temperature is going up whatever a degree or whatever it is
we know all of the things that cause temperature to change and we i don't find any of them to be correlated except c two in the past one hundred years so we know all the factors and we've looked at them all and the only one that's correlated to c two and it's going of one degree and save fifty years or whatever it is then you say if it kept doing this we're going to be absolutely dead but we don't know it's going to be in twenty years or a hundred years we can't tell now if you come to me and tell me that story and say we we've narrowed it down we know all the reasons and there's only one one possible thing left over and if it's all checks all the boxes and we've already seen it raise the temperature and the amount we're spewing into the atmosphere will
will certainly raise it more and we're to be dead we just don't know if it's in twenty years or a hundred now you give me that argument and you're going to scare the pants off me and then suddenly i don't have anything to argue with right that would be a solid argument that i would find persuasive but as soon as you show me the hockey stick and start talking about how you do what the temperature was ten thousand years ago i started saying well
do you do you really know what the temperature was ten thousand years ago here's another exploration which i heard recently you probably heard that the the land based temperatures have been adjusted and that if you didn't if you didn't adjust them it wouldn't look like so much warming us up it's the adjustments that are making it look like the warming is happening let me look into that little since the story a little bit more about why they were just and here's why
i think is the story i'm not a hundred percent sure i've got this right but this is what i i think so far there were lots of land based thermometers some of them happen to be where cities or airports grew up after the three monitor was there which means that the temperature around that would would be war because of all the concrete in the airport or the or the city around so so i just noticed that some of those thermometers were being influenced by things around so they took those thermometers and move them so that they would be away from these warming centers but what do you with the measurements from those thermometers that were wrong you've got years of wrong measurements now only for some thermometers well apparently what they do they look at the other thermometers and they say for example ok
other thermometers are in this area that were not affected went up by one degree so let's just a justice of the one and say that if it had not been next to an airport probably would have gone up one degree also if you don't need it millions of thermometers you know a a sample is probably good enough and i'm sure that they know what that sample looks like so once you do that you've got a new set of adjusted temperatures and the skeptics say that's no fair because those are not real temperatures those are adjusted temperatures so the the question you ask yourself is
what does it look like if you were just remove all of the adjusted thermometers if you just took all of the adjustments and threw them away and ignored all of those thermometers forever what would it look like that would look like is the curve that scientists publish it would look exactly like doki stick so we know or this is the scientists argument that although many of the thermometer temperatures have been adjust good even if you took them out of the question you still get the same answer so it doesn't matter whether they were adjusted or not because the adjustments are public there well understood although
it is usually averages of the other thermometers that were nearby pretty solid pretty solid method now have i explained that correctly i guarantee you that a skeptic who knows more than i do will say scott you just explained that wrong and that the real thing they did is x furthermore guarantee you that as soon as the skeptic tells me why i got it wrong and gives me a persuasive reason why i was wrong the person who does the measurements is going to come in and say no no the skeptic got it wrong 'cause this is what we did uh so you can't really get to the bottom of it as a as an ordinary citizen you cannot get to the bottom of this uh now the other thing that people say is that
these satellite measurements that we've had since one thousand nine hundred and seventy nine are the good ones and you can ignore all the land based thermometers you can ignore all the buoys you could ignore all of the ice core sample you could ignore all of it and just look at the look at the satellites but here's the problem this well it's only measure atmospheric temperature which is only about ten percent of where c two warming seems to go most of it goes in the ocean so if the satellites are measuring the atmosphere and the atmosphere is not of a problem that probably doesn't mean anything because the warming wasn't going into the atmosphere anyway or at least ninety percent of it wasn't so pretty much everything that the skeptics say is
easily the bond but everything that is said in the debunking it is also easily debunked etc forever so that they have infinite debunking possibilities both ways all right um compare the temperature of your pool to the outside air well if the if the result is that the atmosphere is should eventually
reflect the ocean temperatures um then would it be true that ninety percent of the heat is going into the ocean can those things both be true um the atmosphere should reflect the ground temperature but would that be true if ninety percent of the warming ends up in the ocean i don't feel like i can square those two things then there's the question of the coral so one of the one of the stronger arguments for climate change being the problem is that the coral is bleaching
bleaching means it turns white because their stress on it and that the the great barrier reef in particular is turning white and looks like it's going to be dead pretty soon countering that is apparently that there are some corals that are more resistant than others yeah so i'm getting there to the debunked part so there are skeptics who debunk the coral stuff by saying there have been lots of bleaching's in the past and coral is very hardy and and the no side of justin in in real time it doesn't even need generations to adjust you can adjust it in real time to changes in temperature but there are people who debunked into bunkers on that i have to distance we do know how to seed coral
and we do know how to find cooler water feels like we could fix that you know it it feels it feels well into the category of fixable problems because if the coral doesn't fix it itself we could give it a little boost and take some coral legs and and spray them or it's a little bit cooler or at least you we can breed them more resistant ones in the lab and then the original area with the more resistant ones uh the coral bleaching netflix documentary is hoaxer effect and somebody else says it's the acid it's not the warming well there is some dispute on that but i don't think the climate scientists believe there's a dispute yeah the australian professor who published a paper about the good health of the reef was fired
but that doesn't mean he was right yeah it's easy to say he was fired it must have whistleblower well maybe two reasons he could be fired one is there's a global conspiracy or he was wrong and the repairs but it's one of those two things all is there anything else i should have been talking about today so i heard that the committee that's talking about the border security uhm yeah we'll talk about that so many of the talk about border security apparently brought in the experts i don't see a report on that but have the experts already informed that committee because i want to see if the the media reporting on
border security funding committee i want to see if they're doing an honest job because i want to see a picture of what the experts produce and then i want to see what they come up with and i want to see what's the difference oh yes will talk about my book cover so if you don't see pictures of what the teams are coming up with then they're are just worthless complete waste of time which i i don't expect any kind of agreement to come out of this meet this working group all right nancy is not holding the meetings i don't know what that means
so i want to tell you a funny story about my upcoming book book cover i don't have pictures to show you or maybe i do let's see if i have a picture on my phone to show you will go low tech here so we tried a number of a number of pictures and came up with this one which let's see if i can find an angle that you can see this probably not you're not going to see it sorry you have to take my word for it there's a oh let me take down the take down the brightness see if that makes a difference the other elves so this is the one i approve so this is this is going to go with
you're seeing the version in which brian added a hand so the hand is not part of the design that's just to show what it looks like and here's what's funny about this so i had a blue that was like similar to the blue in the bottles and then i had an orange called cover and i should people two different covers and i do you like the orange or do you like the blue and the vote was kind of split or people want it other people wanted orange so i said to my editor at the publisher i said to any people like seems in like one something like the other is there anyway we could do two covers could we have one isbn which is you know it's it's like the social security number for a
but can we have one identifier number but two different covers and people can buy the one they want now it turns out that's impractical for a number of reasons so for publishing reasons it just doesn't work but but i was unclear and describing it so when i said can we have two cover i said it in unclear way and my editor interpreted it as can combine the two colors can you combine a cover that has orange and blue and so they came back with a cover that was combined and it turned out that was a good one now you can't really see the the color is washed out on here so this is more of a more of a vibrant orange than what you see the back cover so here's the fun part of the story the winning design was completely accidental
'cause it wasn't what i asked for but what i got was then what i asked for the designer taking this new direction which was a complete miscommunication on my part came up with the best one yet so anyway you can't see it clearly on the phone because of the colors get washed out here but people seem to like it so that was the psychology in the winter put a coffee ring on the cover yeah yeah maybe i should have put some coffee on there that would've been a good idea all right
anything else happening anything else you want to know about ok all right designers are like that somebody says that was a happy accident oh oh shift colluding with lens simpson apparently we know that adam schiff had a brief conversation with it with the the guy who put together the dust hey but we don't know if that was a substantive conversation they were just happen to be at the same event so i just don't know how any of that matters at this point volcanoes somebody saying have we considered volcanoes under the ice caps 'cause if the those are warming up the earth that could be what's going on here and i don't know the answer
do we have a way of knowing what kind of volcanic activity happening everywhere under the ocean there's another thing do you know that mcafee is clone thing is mcafee cloning himself now i can't wait uh so i'm going to try my first split screen with bill pulte on monday so we can to get an update on the urban blight and i'm going to show you some ideas for what to put there and some of those ideas might have an implication for climate change everything is connected it's an indirect connection but i think you'll see what i mean alright nadler and the acting ag
not really paying too much attention to that except if if i were the attorney general and somebody asked me to testify congress i'm pretty sure i'm i'm going to answer your cbd oil question i'm pretty sure i would resist testifying to congress at all costs i don't know what is the penalty for not testifying or for showing up in just taking the fifth is is there any is there any kind of penalty if you just show up for congress and say i agree to show up but i'm just going to say i'm not talking to me it would be flat out stupid just flat out stupid
the answer even one question from the congress i guarantee if congress ever calls me in front of them i'm not going to answer any questions would you would you answer a in front of congress it would be the dumbest thing anybody ever did i would figure out what is the penalty and it's probably better just to take the penalty yeah we'll see what happens there somebody else is cbd oil hoax um i wonder that myself but probably and here's here's my provisional opinion subject to change my
visual opinion as a oil is probably effective for a range of things so my guess is everything i've seen the cbd oil has been tested enough that we know it does have certain number of benefits in anecdotally people talk about it all the time but probably people are claiming too much probably people are claiming too much about cbd oil but that that's just my provision opinion but i think it does have benefits yes alright just looking at your comments the art of the deal that would be that would have been a funny
that would have been a funny title all right uh i think we've said everything we need to say for now and i will talk to you later
Transcript generated on 2019-11-10.