« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 430 Scott Adams: Racist Spike Lee, CNN Starting Nuclear Wars, Climate Science and Immoral Children

2019-02-25 | 🔗


  • Spike Lee is racist per President Trump
    • Spike Lee movie perpetuates the Charlottesville Hoax
  • CNN flamethrower attempt to DERAIL PEACE with North Korea  
    • Did they just discover the old story?  Timed to derail peace?
  • AOC is interesting, intriguing, watchable, consistent
    • Is it immoral to bring children into this world?
    • People on the left should stop having children
  • President Trump is seeking to educate both himself and the public
    • Climate Change meeting MUST be public and transparent
    • Genuine open-minded process is key to acceptance
  • Climate Change Debate Questions
    • Unprecedented rate of rise for key temperatures
    • CO2 is the only variable rising that fast. Therefore the cause
    • The climate scientist’s graph is SELF-REFUTING on this

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 430 Scott Adams: Racist Spike Lee, CNN Starting Nuclear Wars, Climate Science and Immoral Children appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum hey everybody yes i know i'm coming to you a little bit early but i have something scheduled a little bit so i'm going to slide into your periscope a little bit early but not so early that we can't have a simultaneous because this is coffee with scott adams you are here to enjoy the simelton eighty up at all and if you are if you're prepared if you're prepared early grab your mug your copier glass years
i near chalice your thermos if you will fill with your favorite liquid and join me i like coffee for the simultaneous of let's talk about the oscar there's a funny story about spike lee having too much to drink and losing the funny thing is this is the second time he's lost and in both cases he lost to a movie that was blacker and better well actually i don't know if the movies he lost two were blacker but apparently people thought they were better one was driving miss daisy morgan freeman and the other is the green book which is weirdly a similar movies so in both cases he lost to as he says it somebody driving somebody which is very funny now the funnier part is at the
the tweeted him some shade he says so the president says be nice of spike lee could read his notes or better yet i have to use notes at all when doing his racist hit piece on your president so he's calling spy klay a racist so call spike lee a racist so i joined the president in disavowing spike lee for his racist ways who has done more for it so he's talking about himself now the president is who has done more for and americans criminal justice reform lowest unemployment numbers task it's better than almost any other president my understanding is that spike lee is a piece of crap movie includes the charlottesville hoax and the president's comments after it which means i have
seen it and don't plan to which means that no doubt that the centerpiece for this movie is a racially devisive racial hoax not well i would say worse than the jet jesse smollett hoax because if anybody is new here the president after shows phil said they were fine people on both sides of the debate about statues the illegitimate press and now apparently spike lee have decided to turn that in do something that didn't happen
which is a re imagined that or re frame it as the president saying that the the neo marching and saying anti semitic things were fine people according to the president that never happens as it was talking about they were good people on both sides of the statue issue he he was not complimenting anti far he was not complimenting the neo fake news still reporting is if it's true this piece of shit spike lee makes a movie out of it to worsen race relations in this country based on a hoax spike lee should be disavowed in the strongest possible ways he is he is a terrible force for the country divisive opportunistic pieces yet if i do say so now speaking of good movies by coincidence i watched on my
phone with my little headphones on the movie a star is born with bradley cooper and lady gaga i will tell you that i only got to watch the first third of the movie and then i stopped i'm probably not going to watch the rest of the movie is it because i did not like the movie it is not i'm going to give you the strangest movie review you've ever heard the first the third or so of the movie a star is born is so good that i'm not willing to watch the rest of the movie let me say that again as clearly as possible the first one third of a star this bar in the movie with bradley cooper and lady gaga is so good that i don't want to watch the rest of it
i mean that in a literal sense is not hyperbole i probably won't watch the rest of the it made me cry for about fifteen minutes in a beautiful way not sad way crying with like a happiness emotional feeling there is there is an emotional and i'm not going to give anything away but obviously a star is born tells you that somebody turns into a star here but the first part of the movie is so well done there it was jaw droppingly beautiful it was probably just about the best directing and acting you're ever going to say it's perfect casting and then the part of the right that i was amazed at is bradley cooper in his you know performance as
musician oh my god and here's the funny part part of the reason i hesitated to watch the movie is that i'm not a fan of bradley cooper bradley cooper has historically been cast in roles where he's a certain type of bread lee cooper guy and i don't really like that character that he typically plays he's a he's a little too handsome you know he's a little little too much of whatever but in this he plays against type he plays a heavy drinking musician got kind of a gravelly voice like this and from from the first second of this movie he nails character so thoroughly that you can't even imagine is bradley cooper it's
no i don't know if you want anything last night or not and then lady gaga was so good that's just crazy so quite literally i wept for fifteen minutes at the beauty of the first third of this movie and i think i'm not going to watch the rest and part of it is because the structure the movie is that there's something bad coming you know it's not really a movie until the third act something bad happens and then they have to figure out how to fix it and i don't think i could live through the bad thing because the the first part was so beautiful so what's the it's one of the best things will receive life but here's my recommendation watch the movie with headphones in so that you or or a really good sound system if you're in a theatre situation i guess that's okay but the the actual quality of the music this is mind boggling is just so good all right now for about that
cnn is reporting that kim jong own had used flamethrowers to execute now why if you ask the cnn is running stories right now today this morning showing kim jon un flame thrower in using a flame thrower to execute people now i'm not gonna say if it's true or false i don't know and i'm not gonna say if it's good or bad that they you know report these things in general but ask yourself why it's happening today because i don't think this was the only time they could have found out about it it does seem to be working against the national interest but it's also working against president trump and it feels to me like
this is yet another obvious example where cnn is literally and i don't mean this in any hyperbole it feels like they've taken a position against the american click you know i know i wish that i could ever wish i could say that with more doubted my voice as in the question gee are are they taking a position against labor good people but it's sort of obvious that that's what they're doing now i don't know if they internalize it that way i don't know if they said it sells well we're really going to screw the public eye i hope they don't but it's so obvious that this is the wrong week to run that story it's not in the interest of the american people
it doesn't give us information that we really just deeply need to know this week as we sort of basically knew that they were bad bad stuff happening in north korea all it does is put it in our heads so all it does is bring to front of mind the most destructive thought in terms of supporting whatever kind of deal that may or may not come out it's it's shocking that we could imagine that there a news organization because whatever this is is so plainly destructive to american interests and indeed world world interests the i don't know how you explain i don't hate groups in it with any good intentions there may be a way but i don't know how all right
so aoc did a live stream last night there's i heard maybe she took it down but i saw some clips from it in which she was cooking and talking again from her apartment i gotta say you're going to get sick of me saying this but is really watchable meaning that i you know i saw a clip and i was inspired to it and you can imagine how many people send me clips all the time people send me clips all day long and it's a clip of her cooking and chatting and i think it's not even live like why do i want to see this i still collect it i mean i couldn't help myself so she's got that thing you know i don't think it's because she's attractive like like she is but i don't think what's causing me to click on it you know the world has other attractive people in it i think it's
i don't know what it is but then i watched several of the clips and they were all interesting you know i'm not saying that i agreed with what she's saying because i didn't but it's all interesting she's got that thing where she can be more interesting than other people and it is definitely not it's not a function of her looks it definitely is not but one of the things she said was that you have to really ask yourself if it's if it's immoral to have children did you hear that and the reason is you would be bringing children into a world that you destroyed with climate change that would be her view and that is it roll to bring children into a world that you've just destroyed so yeah
you might happily die yourself before climate change ruins everything but those kids are going to be really screwed and i thought to myself don't we always don't we always hear people say well of climate change is real why why are people building real estate on the coast of climate change is real how come banks you know wire banks making loans to people who are building on the coast and and those are good questions right i think they're a good answers to those questions you know meaning that well i will get is that but there are there are answers to why rich people would build on the coast and
it's because the the rich people they can take a chance if you're rich you don't have to worry you build a build a house on the coast some day you lose your house you build another house so that's part of the reason but i like her consistency if she's gonna say that the world is additive some point and we may not be able to recover unless we act aggressively and we're not acting aggressively the it's a perfectly reasonable question they ask yourself if you should have children and so here's what i thought it was funny let's say you're a conservative and let's say you also don't believe climate change is the big risk the scientists say either because you think humans will figure out how to get a handle on it or you think that the science was overblown whatever it is you think if you're a conservative
do you have any reason to stop having children probably not so conservatives have a clean philosophical path should they not believe in climate change or not believe that it's the end of the world children people who are climate alarmist do not have a reason to have children because they would be they would be bringing children into a world that's going to be destroyed so should you start the people who believe in climate change stop having children is that wrong should conservatives not be recommending that people believe in in climate change stop having children because it would be immoral to believe you're bringing children into an end of the world situation
conservatives could be right or they could be wrong you know i'm saying just the conservatives who don't buy in to climate change they could be right they could be wrong but it would not be immoral to believe everything's fine and also have children we'll be right or wrong but it's moral it would be a moral decision so i think it's fascinating the aoc has presented a reason that the people on her team should not reproduce i'm not that's not an exaggeration right i'm saying was she said i'm saying that aoc has made a convincing argument convincing to people who believe in climate change as a dire threat is a convincing argument that people on the left should stop having children just save all right let's talk about climate change there's first of all this there's this new
to climate adviser named william happer now happer is he's a lightning rod for criticism because he said recently that he he he equated recently carbon to the jews during world war two and he and wisely said in public the c two like the jews in world war two because they were demonized co2 is deep and that is now the jews were demonized world war two and similarly they were both good for the world meaning co two is good for the world in terms of being a plant food fertilizer and and the jewish people are good for the world so that's why he meant to say worst analogy ever if you wanted to reduce confidence in your judgment
just make a hitler analogy with c two now i was watching i was watching a clip in which jake tapper jake tapper was talking about it and it was just sort of sort of a mentally shaking his head if you will you know at that the choice of that as a as an allergy possibly one of the most ill placed analogies of all time yeah that said he was not being hired for his analogy may no but nobody said hey happer we'd like to hire you for this sciency climate science position but not until we can test your analogy making is 'cause analogy making is quite bad but we don't know yet if he could do this job so i'm going to be open minded about it but i think it's in
saying that the white house is bringing together experts to debate the question of climate science and how to approach it i don't think that's getting enough attention here's what i believe about president trump that might be different from what most of you believe very different i believe that if president trump educated the public at the same time he was educating himself on climate change and it looks like this process is meant to do both to educate the government and educate the public if they do a right now if we don't hear what this group produces if we don't if it's all not transparent then i would be totally opposed to it so in mind so just in case you're wondering hey scott why do you always say good things about the white house why do you always say good things about president
let me let me lay down a marker if they do this climate change in a meeting where they try to you know fine tune the government's approach to climate change and the public does not have a view on this total franken mistake like a a rookie stupid mistake that would be that would be like j give take lee incompetent to have this meeting and then not make it transparent to the public we really need to watch this thing right if it really is a case of life and death and the fate of the planet and it might be and i'm i'm up my position is i'm too ignorant to know exactly trying to figure it out with the what if they don't make this meeting transparent and they don't have real
climate scientists in there and a lot of them you know if they if they don't take this serious right in front of the world so we can all watch at the same time the government is getting educated huge mistake i would also assume that money was involved if they do this thing poorly and it looks like the fix is in just come up with some secret meeting and then it just happens to be a result that's good for the oil industry uh i'm not going to be a fan and i'm going to come down pretty hard an it right but i don't want to prejudge it if what they're going to do is bring in the right experts and and do something that's transparent film the meetings maybe produce a report that has maybe the the main opinion and even some minority opinions something like that something very transparent then i would say
it might be one of the best things only administrations ever done on this topic so and here's what i believe that's different from what most of you believe i believe that this president probably has a genuine concern he needs to know more about this topic and the if you did it might change his actions so i don't think he's got a decision and he's just looking for some people to the back i don't think that's what's going on i think that the president is actually could be persuaded the climate change requires some kind of a deeper action than we're doing i believe he could be persuaded
yes there's a process that's transparent incredible and the right people are in the room i think that could happen and i think he would be open to that and i think he could change his mind in the public as long as he had the backing from the right you know right group of scientists let's talk about the credibility of climate change so i went to skeptical science which is a blog which tries to debunk the skeptics of climate change and so it does a really good job of organizing the arguments and saying here's what the skeptics say and then here's what the experts say to debunk the skeptics and so i go there too check out their organs and i'll show you a couple of the arguments and i'll show you in this will tell you the problem so here's there's a there's a debate on c
i won't be able to see it too well let me let me bring down the temperature of this little bit maybe you see now so here's a graph of glaciers losing ice and as you can see the insurers are is it nice and here really important part they're losing ice more recently at a higher rate now of course the skeptics debate whether the glaciers are reducing but i would say this the site does a really good job of of should of showing statistics pointing to the public information the shows that the glaciers are decreasing now here's here's the part where i get in trouble here's a summary of that so here's the clay
the claim the claim is the temperatures are rising and that the rate of rise is unprecedented you need the unprecedented part in order to sell the story because the unprecedented part uh along with the fact that co two is the only variable this moving in the same way tells you the c two is likely the so let me say that again science
no there are lots of things that could affect temperature the sun's changes in the sun you know there's the the direction of the you know the the bed the position of the earth for so to speak the volcanoes etcetera there are other greenhouse gases some scientists have a real good idea of all the things that could affect temperature but only one of those things co two is changing at a rapid rate which matches the what the scientists say is the temple increase yeah and one of the places you would expect to see this temperature increase is and here's another key not on land in the united states so the climate scientist do not claim that the land temperature of the united states will necessarily show
much of the impact of climate change because most of the warming is going to go into the oceans and into the poles so if you're looking at glaciers you're looking at something more directly sensitive climate change 'cause that's where the warming is going so if the scientists could show that the glaciers are definitely mill and i would say this site the skeptical science mix that case convincingly cuz apparently there are thirty five glaciers that they've been tracking for decades and i think three thousand four hundred and thirty five something like that are substantially smaller so i'm going to say it feels to me like a fact that the glaciers are in fact shrinking an have been shrinking for decades
but then there's the graph i just hold on i've gotta go in a second the graph the graph shows that the glaciers have been decreasing but here's the thing the graph shows that there's this unprecedented decline that is really the main case if you didn't have this if you didn't have the unprecedented decline you wouldn't have an argument and then i look at their graph and i say to myself but wait a minute there own graph shows the same rate of decline before there was much c two so here was the best argument against the sceptical claim the best argument and it was self refuting i'm looking at their own graph this there's there's an unprecedented drop and i say what do you mean is unprecedented
looking at your own graph in the 40s there was the same drop by the way this is the richard lindzen argument i borrowed this from him he was the first one i did this and said what do you mean it's unprecedented your own graph shows it right here it's very press a dented it was precedented without any c two so i'm not going to make it i'm not going to call as to whether they are right or wrong about glaciers i will make the claim that the way it's presented is as a fraud in other words the way it's presented looks illegitimate even if it isn't you know what i mean i'll talk also tomorrow about that ninety seven percent of scientists agree but for now i gotta go and i'll talk to you later
Transcript generated on 2019-11-10.