« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 432 Scott Adams: CNN Opening Capone’s Vault (Cohen Testimony), Climate Hijinx

2019-02-27 | 🔗

Topics: 

  • Actual CNN headline today:
    • “Watch Trump try to pull off the ultimate distraction”
    • His purpose in pursuing NK denuclearization…is distraction?
  • CNN Fake News Don Lemon reads BOMBSHELL Cohen statement
  • Congressional Rep Matt Gaetz tweets about Cohen
    • Dirtiest trick I’ve ever seen…also kinda relevant
    • Tweet focused the countries attention on Cohen’s lying
  • Charlottesville Hoax Update
    • Joel Pollak calls Chris Cuomo a liar, 2,000 retweets
    • We’re saying it’s a CNN fake news story, loudly
    • This is the dog that doesn’t bark
    • NO pushback from CNN, no disputing what we’ve said
  • Chairman Kim and President Trump’s chemistry
    • President Trump’s “focused charisma” is very strong
    • Their personal connection seems genuine to me
  • History will eventually see President Trump was first to understand
    • Our NK problem was the lack of INTERPERSONAL relationships
    • President Trump and Chairman Kim are getting along
    • Chairman Kim and SK President Moon Jae-in get along
    • The more those relationships develop, so does peace
  • Climate Change Update – Whiteboard: IPCC Says?
    • Is “extreme weather”, confirmation of climate change?
    • CNN article says extreme weather is from climate change
    • CNN is saying they’re connected
    • Notice they are NOT saying it’s human induced
  • SQUIRREL!!! Uh…sorry, what was I saying?
    • The House convened a sub panel on climate change
    • Dems didn’t show up, Republicans did
    • Why aren’t Dems serious about impending “apocalypse”?

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 432 Scott Adams: CNN Opening Capone’s Vault (Cohen Testimony), Climate Hijinx appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
bum bum bum bubba bear bear bear i hung bumbum bum bum bum bum hey everybody go on in here it's time for coffee with scott adams that's maine and new year you that's all we need no it's not all we need we also need a beverage i like coffee and if you like a beverage and then you like the simultaneous hip grab your cup here ok you're jealous your style your thermas if you will and join me for the simultaneous ip oh thank you for that super heart i appreciate that
well there's a lot of news according to cnn president trump is deviously denuclearize the korean peninsula to distract from michael so in this testimony i'm not even making that up that's an actual headline you know word article it's an article in cnn's page that he's literally using n korean denuclearisation as a distraction from michael cohen now correct me if i'm wrong it seems seems like we already know what cohen's going to say because it's been reported
but here are some immediate observations there's this conspiracy theory that there's nothing in my cup yet you can see that there is ah delicious so does it seem to you that this whole cohen testimony is a lot like geraldo opening al capone safe remember the story of rell this many years ago her although had an exclusive special in which he had discovered al capone safe and he opened it on live tv only to find that it wasn't much in there i love her aldo but that was a funny event his life and that we're watching the the cohen bombshell
happened to turn on tv late late last night and don lemon and his assembled battle talk about what they knew already colin was going to say because i guess there's some release release of a statement or something and i kept waiting for the bombshell did you do that did you have the same experience i did it's like oh god there's a bombshell coming where's the bombshell and he kept reading things as if they were bomb except the thing bombshell about it was the way he was reading it and so to are you a demonstration of don lemon or anybody else cnn reading the bombshells from michael cohen i give you dale dale can you come over here there are bombshells
hi safe from michael golf let me read a few this is gonna be big folks michael cohen is going to testify that donald trump he uses hairspray hi why what does this mean for impeachment panel anybody this is the big one this is what we've been waiting for this something we never knew before this is new bombshell bob shelf and seen is it my imagination or everything that has already been revealed about what cohen's going to say all stuff we already knew let me an example of some of the bombshells shells
i'm not even making this up if you came into this without actually knowing that this is real you not believe that i'm gay you the straight story the bombshells is that michael cohen once don junior say to his father that a meeting had been set that's it that's the around the same time frame as done news meeting with the russian lawyer but i don't think i don't think that's much connecting material there because do you know what campaigns do more than any other thing what's the one thing presidential campaign does in terms of the way a spends its time more than any other thing all meeting
what is the most common thing that donald trump does during his day a meeting do so who else had a meeting with donald trump i had a meeting with the president meetings our core that kind of what you do that would be the opposite of a bombshell i personally witnessed don junior breathing oxygen oxygen i say a related to the climate disaster or something i don't know like a bombshell i don't know why but he was breathing software bio lies my only bob dole see let's see what other bombshells all the rest of the stuff we already knew but then then cnn likes to throw in that cohen has a quote racist allocation
there will be some new thing we here now i watched on lemon read the statement the cohen is going to present and it was curious mostly missing eh show allegation or eleven decided not to mention an allegation of racism from michael cohen oh i don't think that happened i don't believe that don lemon would have skipped part of the story and yes cnn is still reporting that there's some kind of racist bombshell coming bob why don't we know what that is already maybe it's still ahead of us will see but here's the funniest thing of all
did you see the the gates tweets of about going you think things are going to the greatest extreme you'll ever see on twitter once in awhile you'll see a tweet you'll say well nobody go further than that like i don't i think everybody will do a tweet there's more out interesting that one and then you up in the morning and let's see what's on twitter oh somebody topped it somebody topped so in case you didn't see it at kates i haven't mentioned on twitter i say mentioned cnn is reporting it as threats and intimidating witness that maybe maybe it was time for michael cohen according to maggie to talk to his wife and his father in law about his quote girlfriend
i don't have any personal information about michael cohen's girlfriends but let's just say somebody does i'm sure some somewhere somebody has it i doubt he would have tweeted otherwise now is it over the line four hours and then he also wondered if cohen's wife would uh stay with him while he's in prison so i've never are you seeing anybody to wait the somebody's wife is going to be banging another guy when he's in that's as extreme as i think i've ever seen on twitter i mean that's really taking it to the edge and as soon as i saw that i thought to myself all my god gates is going to get he's going to get just destroyed by
press because they're going to say that's way over the line you know it's threatening it's everything else and then i watched him defending it defending his tweet eh but it doesn't matter because he already got the press and so when he asked them to defend it he said well michael cones already lied to congress he's already lied to muller buddies lied to the police he's lied to i don't know who else and then he said shouldn't we also know if slide to his family as part of the context of knowing whether we can trust what he says about the president and i thought to myself that is simultaneously the dirtiest trick i've ever seen at the same time it's kind of valid meaning that if we're trying to judge is incredible it does
you don't want to count you would like to live in a world where none of that stuff ever comes up and it doesn't matter and it's not directly related to the questions so let's just forget about it but it does come count it does get and to me it will like a case of mutually assured destruction meaning that michael cohen is so destroyed at this point i'm not happy about that by the fact that kim i can't be happy about anybody's life being destroyed but uh that gates just snuffed out whatever was left of any hope this guy had of getting an occult out of college getting out of jail in a few years and returning to his happy life it doesn't look like that's going to happen which is horrible but it can fairly be said that michael cohen brought all of it upon himself so
mac from a perspective of persuasion and now we will depart from the moral and ethical framework and i'll trust you put your own moral and ethical no filter on this but that's not my expertise within less or more in my po pat so just talk about the persuasion element of it so not gates got the entire country including the anti choppers to focus on how many times cohen has lied and in how many different fields of endeavour as he's lied we all just talked about how much
so it was a big old liar across all kinds of different fields and including cheating on his wife allegedly according to matt gaetz and it was probably one of the most successful persuasion plays you're going to see all year now have somebody said that maggie is deleted his tweet well i don't know that's true i kinda hope it is but we did everything it was supposed to do it made the entire country focus on mac gates so what did cnn most of the to say about him they said they call the a close confidant of the president now if in congress and you're a young guy or a young woman and
the news all over the country is reporting that you're a close confidant to the president of the united states does that work for you yes it does it works for you really well because it shows that you're not just one of the congress people but you're connected to power in a in a way that they are not so and then and then also i have to say then again we're talking about persuasion only you can put your own ethical and moral filters on what i'm talking about and i'll trust you to do that but just in terms of the effectiveness of the persuasion it turns out that matt gaetz is really good on television and so when they tried to sort of corner him to make him i don't know walk back his tweet or his comments not only did he not walk them back but he just he had a base clearing home run incompetently explaining his point
and making it actually relevant to the news and defending it now you could argue that he still shouldn't have done that and moral and ethical concerns are bigger and i'm not even going to get into that hit home run both for his career and for his objective i guess which was to cohen's credibility what little he had now let's give you an update on the charlottesville hoax for anybody knew the charlottesville hoaxes cnn and other anti trumpers still reporting the fake news that president trump called white supremacist fine people now of course that didn't happen it's widely reported as fact and just didn't happen what did happen is that the president referring to people in
size of the confederate statue issue said there are good people hold both of we are fine people on all sides meaning that there are people who can hold both opinions and still be fine people not referring to the racist who he specifically disavowed but cnn still reports it as if he said they were fine people fake news so catching you up i have made a number of public statements that it's fake news and then joel pollak in bright bart writing for breitbart made a big article calling call me a liar a damned liar those were his actual words in a tweet that i re tweeted it's got over two thousand retweets talking about cnn calling them out and and and shoals quote actually you know tags cuomo so i would say there is zero chance
that they are not aware of this criticism don't know for sure but i would say that the odds of them being unaware of it or close to zero and so we waited and i gave you a challenge i said watch how we will be word and can you imagine that it would be any other situation in which someone is prominent as main and again you know i'm not super proud i'm sort of low level prominent but prominent enough that if i say something outrageous it makes news yeah i am a source of news if i say anything provocative outrageous and you've seen it a million times you know well yeah but a few times a week off see an article about me something i said this in the mainstream media center and i i predicted that it would be a completely ignored even though it's amazingly provocative i'm
pulling a major story a major story i'm calling it a fake news read in public and i'm not being challenged on it because nobody can challenge it to challenge it would be to dismantle entire anti trump machinery it would lay bare how nakedly partisan they are even more so than people already understand i think people understand the cnn's partisan they understand the fox news as part isn't but they don't quite understand the degree of it the degree of it is still shocking and not the able to everyone and in when the charlottesville hoax falls and i think it will i think that will
someday be called one of the biggest hoax is of all time it's going to change people's mind about how big the problem is so it will size it but it won't change people's general idea of it so it's now day too day two no reaction was ever no pushback no no sending us a link to show why were wrong no telling us that were crazy no saying that were illegitimate commentors no no argument whatsoever on something incredibly provocative that's the dog that doesn't bark ladies and gentlemen that is the white space in your eyes the blank space in your composition of your portrait it's the part you need to pay attention to buy it
non existence alright let's talk about n korea i looked at the initial photos i think they're probably the first photos of trump and kim and i thought that kim looked did anybody else have that impression so german kim and the first the initial photos that were skews the the initial photos where they were shaking hands with the camera he looked he looked like he was struggling a little bit like yeah he was sweaty but i don't think that was a problem it looked like he was a little on or something they said scared or nervous maybe i'm in maybe he was nervous it's possible but he looked ill now when i saw the pictures of the the dinner he looked now he looked
like he was feeling better yeah i was a long train ride you probably you probably is probably didn't sleep much etc now is that i was also looking at the chemistry between trump and kim as they were just sort of having some minor interactions and unlike most of you although like some of you i suppose i got to spend sometimes just a little bit with president trump in the white house and i got two experience his his sort of focused charisma mostly when you see the president he's he's broadcasting his charisma in other words it's it's one person the president talking to millions of people and so that's one mode you haven't seen his focused charisma
meaning is just you you and him one on one and is focused charisma is pretty franken strong all right latest it would be hard to be in his presence alone and not enough feel like you're with somebody who's got some extra the gear you know he's got that charisma thing that you just you i don't know if you're born with it or you develop that but he definitely has a lot of it if somebody says he healed him by touching that's pretty funny but anyway my reaction was it looks like the two of them have a genuine personal connection and some day there's so many things go over well with north korea and i and i think that they clearly are that's my opinion sunday sunday i think people are going to say that his genius was understanding that this was a personal problem
disguised as a military problem disguised as a political problem and maybe it just never was maybe it was just a personal problem and if he was the first one to to understand it directly i think that's how history will write this story alright so will wait to see about all that now let's talk about climate change uhm i told you i'm doing a deep dive extended deep dive on climate change and uh so i'll give you periodic updates and i'll do them at the end of my my presentations now keep in mind that when i talk about climate change i'm telling and coming out of in a different window than most i'm coming at it from an ignorant but but smart
person who has a great incentive to understand the topic an i have found so far the preliminary conclusions the preliminary conclusion is that both the climate scientists majority and text our line a lot which is why play both sides find it easy not to change sides cuz both sides can look at the other and say well you're clearly lying about that so why i trust anything else but it's both ways
there are enough skeptics who are simply ridiculous that the climate scientists couldn't look at them and say look you guys are ridiculous here if i reasons bum bum bum would move these are all ridiculous and there right right alot of what the skeptics say is just flat out ridiculous my favorite ridiculous sceptical argument somebody said name and i will uh is that the climate scientists have forgotten to include the effects of the sun on warming now i don't have to be too deeply into the the details of climate science to now without even looking into it that the scientists who study climate and warmth did not forget to include all aspects of the sun from the solar flares to the tipping of the earth to the distances of stuff i guarantee you
if there's one thing i will i will bet my life on is that climate scientist did not forget no son okay so that's one of the things that the scientists point out as and mock them correctly but there are things that the skeptics say about the the the other argument that i have equal problems with alright so i wanted to ask you this question so we've all been watching the news if you're still on this periscope you have at least a little bit of interest in climate science and understanding it let me ask you this the most basic question about climate science climate change right here is the most basic question and i want to see answer have we already seen evidence of climate change in extreme weather
now extreme weather would be everything from hurricanes to droughts to rainfall to flooding i might be forgetting some but extreme weather i so let me ask you most basic question have we seen evidence of climate change already in extreme weather now now most of you are climate skeptics and i'm saying that almost all of you are saying now alright so let me read to you cnn article from today so this is brand new this is today's article on cnn and i'll just redo the first sentence from the art it says the extreme weather that comes with climate change is the new normal
so normal that people aren't talking about it as much and that could be a problem so the article goes on to say that people are getting complacent against about all these weather extremes so here's the sentence again and what i'm going to talk about is the exact wording of these things so so pay attention to the exact wording first sentence on cnn on this article the extreme weather that comes with climate change does that indicate to you that climate scientists the consensus of climate science have detected extreme weather that is directly because of climate change a sort of indicates they have right if you were to read this and you never read anything else you'd say oh the extreme weather that comes with
change therefore we know climate change causes extreme weather but you know what's missing human induced it doesn't say the weather that comes with man made or man inspired climate change or your and feels that it doesn't so if you read this you think to yourself my god humans are causing climate change climate change is causing extreme weather and we've already seen that that's the that's the feeling i would get from reading this how much of that is close to the truth well so i did a google search to find out the answer just this morning all right i thought well this will be easy to check or just do a quick google search a look for the most credible sources and i'll see what the most credible sources say
about whether or not extreme weather is already evidence of climate change and i want to break this down for you so i looked at the ipcc report on climate change and i'm taking that as my most authoritative let's say government approved source if you will so here the difference between what the climate science majority let's say the climate it is whether it's a consensus or majority versus skeptics so the climate science majority would say that co2 is the main driver of our our increase
it's the main driver of the rate of increase in warming whereas skeptics would say it's a minor driver so that's the main difference the skeptics don't say c two has no impact they say it has a minor impact and then the climate science majority seems to say that extreme weather is evidence of the theory it's predicted and then if you see it that would be evidence and the climate skeptics would say there's no evidence of that there's no evidence so see with the i p p c rip i p c c report says and the i'm taking
from carbon brief a website who is just quoting the ipcc report right so this is the official word and now we can see if the if the skeptics or i'll put this up so you can see it while i'm reading it let's see if the skeptics or the climate science majority is closer to the ipcc the official climate most the most kredible report so here it is the quote from the ipc states that is quote very likely at least ninety percent certain humans can emitted to the increase in hot days and decrease in cold days for heat waves is likely at least sixty percent sixty six percent certain the human activities were contributing factor alright so it says that
there's a ninety percent chance that humans contributed to the increase in hot days does that match the climate majority or does it match the skeptics it's a trick question because it matches both it doesn't say that that's the only reason the temperatures going up it does say that humans contributed to the increase contributed is the position of both the skeptics most of them are some skeptics who wouldn't say this but the majority skeptics would say yeah contributed just not that much so this isn't so so far the ipcc is compatible with both
the skeptics and the climate majority but let's go on with other types of extreme events changes in past trends at any human contribution are harder to spot harder to spot so if you're not just talking about heat waves the other extremes are harder to spot let's go on says take hurricanes for example there's no clear pattern suggesting how they've changed the world so hurricanes apparently do not have a clear pattern of changing because of client who is that closer to well that's closer to the climate skeptics who say that we can't see the signal in extreme weather at least we can see the signal of man made climate change in extreme weather and so far the ipcc is a great alright
but there are certain but scientists have identified certain parts of the ocean like in the north atlantic where number of intense hurricanes has increased but keep in mind that the sentence before that said there's not a there's not a pattern yet there is one place that they're increasing but they don't say that's evidence of of man made climate change or even climate change is just something that's happening and it says droughts drought trends also differ from region to region where the global picture unclear so droughts don't seem to fit a pattern which they can identify as a fingerprint of man made climate change one extreme missing from this picture is flooding right so that's another indicator at the
and scientists don't have enough data to make conclusive statements about changes in the last few decades or to make predictions about the future so the i p c c their conclusion if if it's been presented correctly on this website and if it's not i hope somebody will fact check me but the i p c c report is compatible with climate skeptics because climbing set skeptics agree the co two has some impact on warming in the ipcc says that too and the skeptics say we can't see the evidence in the extreme in the extreme weather conditions the closest the i pc
she gets to that is to say that warming that there is global warming but they don't say what you know anyway you get my point so my point is that even the most basic question of have we seen the global warming sort of up in the air so let's return to tony heller so you might remember that famous skeptic i gotta sign on this computer tony heller famous climate skip i asked him for his top five arguments against the climate science consensus and i'm gonna do them in order of no particular in no particular schedule but today let's talk about his second point second of his five points so this is i think this is doubling poll
also writer named delingpole who summarized tony's five points and here's the second one if the case global warming were as strong as these experts say the debate would be over by now so i don't buy that part so tony heller is saying if the evidence were as strong as experts say the debate would be over my observation is that debates are never over no matter how much evidence you have so i would disagree with that part but let's read the second part uh all of their talking about the climate alarmists this is tony heller saying that all of their apocalyptic predictions have failed miserably what reason do we have to believe them so tony's point is that predictions from the past have failed miserably now he gives less
examples of but my problem with tony's analysis is that there is a lot of them are from you know individual anecdotal things such as news reports and in which the news reported some in
visual or some small group said that there was going to be this or that and it didn't happen i don't know that you could demonstrate that there was ever a claim it consensus prediction and that it made a specific that that that the entire consensus made a prediction that the did or did not happen i don't know that that's true i do know that there are lots of individuals al gore would be one different groups so there have been lots of predictions made in the past they have not come true so tony heller i believe is correct in saying that many people have made climate predictions since the seventies since you know even before that and that they have been incorrect and al gore has made predictions that are incorrect but did all of their predictions match the climate
consensus in other words was there such a thing as a climate consensus prediction squirrel just came up to my door squirrel i feel like a dog i literally just got distracted by a squirrel squirrel and and so i don't know that you could say that the climate predictions were all bad because there must have been a lot of them so if there were a lot of them and some of them were this high and some of them were this high some of them are going to be true so i would say that you cannot you cannot say that the predictions of the past have been correct and that you probably can't say there incorrect because you're serve apples and oranges and squirrels right it's you're sort of all over the board so i will accept
tony heller's argument that there have not been predictions in the extremes that have come true there have been predictions about temperatures there been questions about the poles and the ice and those are separate questions but on the question specifically of apocalyptic predictions we have seen nothing about look we've seen things edging up yeah the temperatures edged up we've seen ice melting according to the scientists but my life's about the same and your life's about the same so even if right about the direction tony heller is correct nobody has been right yet about the apocalyptic part that doesn't mean they will never be right about that but
now if we give tony heller the win on the your predictions of the past have more wrong than right and i think that that's a fair statement does that disprove the risk of climate change no it does not it does not so tony's point i take as valid but it's not as stake in the heart it just means in the past we've made bad predictions it doesn't mean that there's no problem it doesn't mean that those that those disasters are not ahead of us it just means they haven't been right yet so i take so tony heller gets the victory on point to for correctly pointing out that we are bad at predicting and sciences in the bay by the many other bad predictions and therefore their credibility when it comes to any future predictions should be seen in the context of all the failed predictions
and i should inform your sense of how how likely that is so i'll give him the win on that but it's far from proving the climate change is not a problem those are different he can get the win on the individual point but he's far from in the win on the big picture okay you can sort this out this way not gonna work trying to balance this well you look you left in the race hello a lot of people have criticize me for the way you entering the versation my lack of understanding my giving credibility to any of the doubters etc and uh i would say this
you don't know where this is going so don't judge this process in the second inning so my my deep dive on this claim at issue is beginning it's not ending and so if you think you can judge how it went based on the first few innings if thank you be wrong so my current view for those who don't know is that i don't know if we should be worried about this climate stuff or not i do know all sides are lying and they're both lying a lot not i'm not talking about any person but the team on both sides are just full of bs and so if somebody is trying to make us decide on one of those sides they need to pick their best champion an and fight it out from there
now the funniest thing about climate change is that the i guess the house can be in some kind of a climate change panel did you see that story and the democrats didn't show up to their own climate change panel the most important issue in the entire world and the democrats were just busy so they didn't show up but it gets better because because so few democrats showed up to their own meeting the republicans who are not big on climate change the republicans outnumbered them and so one of the republicans what are the republicans made a motion to cancel the meeting and there were enough republicans of the room to vote it so they just canceled the meeting and walked away that it became like this amazingly amazingly embarrassing thing for the democrats that are pushing this green new deal
approving at the same time well they don't really mean it they are now more serious about this than anybody else now you are there no more serious than the public at large which apparently is not that not that concerned about it because climate change ends up pretty low on the list of our priorities according to recent polls uh was a see there i don't think she was all right now five i talked to yesterday to doctor shiva you know you're one of my favorite guests on my periscopes and he's agreed to come on and give us some climate change information in a way that you probably haven't seen before
it's very unusual to have somebody who can understand the topic at the death that the doctor she began because he is a multi disciplinary and sort of a genius in about five different fields of technology inside and so i'm going to invite him on here will connect today and pick a time and i just want to get his insight 'cause it won't be like anything you've seen before almost everybody else almost everybody else it has a different take on this so it'll be interesting to get his in all i'll invite him on soon alright somebody says i predict you will climate research where you started it as undecided i would say that's a definite maybe
somebody says all who oppose nuclear power do not believe in climate change that's not exactly true they could be that there are a lot of people who don't know enough about climate about new nuclear designs so i i think the people who are worried about the climate but don't want nuclear or probably maybe under informed about nuclear's you know current safety potential uh how much of your research at the climate change is a long term inside joke with yourself let me say that i am certainly not above running a long term prank on the public
it is not outside of my comfort zone and it's not this is certainly not something i wouldn't do but in this case i'm not i don't i'm not even sure what that prank would look like and and if there's one thing i can promise you if you ask me if i'm running a pro bank and i give you a direct answer no i am not running a prank this is not an inside joke if i tell you directly you can always count on that to be true 'cause if i'm running a prank in somebody calls it out probably going to admit it i'm not going to directly i would never directly deny a prank once somebody found out in sprankle less you know unless i was just running it for another five minutes or something exactly what a prankster would say i like this some of you are not so sure about that
i like that uncertainty in you my prediction is you will go left if bernie's c twelve belief i don't know what that means yes somebody says inventing the prank when it's called is the rules hi i accept that as a rule if you're running a prank and people and people catch you mission you should come clean air if not you know if not that minute phillies fairly soon and because the fun is over one shape and avenue scott man is difficult to earn people's trust when you have lost it that's true and i would never i would never suggest that you should have trust in other peoples fins if any of you still have this experience of something called trust you should lose that
if somebody can't convince you with their argument and their evidence do not depend on their trust as the tiebreaker that that is uh bad strategy so i would ask none of you to trust me on anything you you should listen also almost i won't use the should word i would ask you to listen to my arguments i would ask you to fact check me as aggressively as you like because unlike maybe other people would do this in public i don't mind being wrong i know it doesn't seem like that because i aggressively defend my opinions and you watch so if you see me aggressively defend my opinions you would get the impression that i don't like being wrong but i kinda like it because every time you find out that you thought something was sure you know certain and you fine
now you were wrong your your understanding of the world just goes wrong and you can uh how easily you can be fooled so understanding how easily you can be duped is one of the most valuable things you'll ever experience so if you told maine scott you've been saying x forever and now you know science is proving you wrong i'd say cool that's like the best leg somebody saying here's another skeptical thing that somebody saying the comments that's one of the terrible terrible skeptical arguments somebody is saying you tell me what is the ideal temperature scott if he can't tell me what the ideal temperature of the earth
is then why are we worried that it's changing we don't know if it's going to a better temperature that's one of the worst sceptical arguments and the reason is that the sceptical argument is that it will keep getting hotter until the system breaks down saying that you don't know what the ideal temperature is is not even on the right question right if you're in your is so far from even understanding what the issue is that you're talking about you should never say that i used show again let me put it in non should words the reason i complain about the word should visit the people use it as a substitute for giving a re
well you just should do that why if you can give the why you know you should skip the should yeah and i will say that if your argument yes we don't know what the ideal temperature as you make yourself look stupid two people who understand the topic so i won't say you shouldn't do it all say that when you do it you look stupid the people understand the topic because it's so among the worst of the arguments and now you've been informed that the the question is not finding the ideal temperature but rather the general statement that no matter what the ideal temperature is there certainly is something that's too warm and they can break down the you know we don't know what that level is
but there's some level the things break down there's no doubt about that code is talking about all so i think we all need to watch the cohen stuff i'm going to do a little drawing while i'm watching that if anything interesting comes out of that i might jump back on periscope but i don't know maybe yes maybe no and i will talk to you later
Transcript generated on 2019-11-10.