It's time for coffee with Scott Adams and we're going to be joined by Doctor Shiva the moment. I'm going to, as soon as he accepts the invite She really you should be seeing right now which is that. That tells you you can be a guest. And when you do good got one person here already well. To start with just uh done, Toshiba as soon as you're on here and we're going to talk about some climate climate change stuff in a way you had not seen before, I think all right there. There's, not a lot of new news today. There's a little bit news about?

apparently, AIDS has been cured in a second patient doctors thing but they're not sure alright, so I'm not seeing. Not seeing Doctor Chevy at I know you're on there. Uh you're on so just sending a text. You should see a prompt two join as guest. So this is a brand new process, we're trying to use the brand new, and I mean brand new as a. Yesterday, I think this feature was active in I could invite a guest on at the same time that. To make sure we're not having technical difficulties here.

Search is waiting to join. Alright as I can yeah we are, should be any moment now. Ups, let me change my headset, hi Scott. I think I'm on yes, you are going to change my headset, so we better soon, okay, I was at. Can you hear me yeah? I can hear you great. Can you hear me I can hear you and I'm pretty sure they could yeah um so that it just got it just got it full form yesterday so you're the first person, I've used with this version of the release and what it does is it allows the feature which we have had before? but it also allows the twitter notification for the first time. There's two features work together, so

it's brand new and we're getting testing now right now so Doctor Shiva, I like to ask people to give their own introduction, because that would allow you to say the things that are relevant to what we're going to talk about in the quickest way. So could you for the benefit of those few people who have not already heard of you tell them your will say: academic and or profession. Background that is relevant to this discussion share Scott. So this is doctor, Shiva hey, you know, I'm a working engineer and a scientist, my I think area of training is in system science or systems biology, and we can talk more about that, but I have four degrees from MIT. My undergraduate degrees. In electrical engineering, computer science.

I have another degree which came out of a integration of engineering and believe it or not, graphics, which is called scientific visualization. How do you visualize very complex phenomenon and that's media lab masters, and I also have another master's degree in mechanical engineering in my thesis was really understanding very complex, wave propagation and my phd is in biological engineering but specifically systems biology. How do you and complex systems, so so you're, a scientist. You have four mit degrees, your gotta. Degree and The only thing we don't know is: are you qualified for the simultaneous sip but yeah? I am good 'cause we're because we're going to have that right now, hey everybody grab your mug, your cup, your glass, your Stein, your tank for your service fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee and join me for

simultaneously, ah all right now before we talk about change. Let me let me set this up. A little bit One of the reasons I love talking to you is that you have visibility through lots of different windows that average people do not use, seen science through a different different angles. You've worked different fields, so you have abroad and yet deep understanding a lot of stuff that people don't know. You're, not a climate scientist but that's not why you were asked here we want to hear your argument in a way that's accessible to? The people were watching the other, part of context is I'm neither a denier on climate, Nora Believer, I am doing a deep dive, which is I'm in a several month process. Try to find out how worried I should be and what

discovered, is that both sides are completely convincing and both sides. If I talk about all the people, not anybody in particular, but both sides seem like a lot of bullshit to Maine meaning that even if one side is absolutely right, There are certainly a lot of people on both sides trying to sell stuff they even with my limited knowledge, looks illegitimate. I'm also, So that's why I can't decide who is right both seem not quite right to me and so I thought we could get a little deeper dive and Doctor Shiva give us your position on climate change. Should we be worried? Is the science solid? Where are you on everything yeah, so Scott? Just to set this up, you know very much like you. I did not jump into this until recently,

from a science standpoint and I'll tell you just just for I know you have sort of a broad dealership ship. You have people who take a left, positioner right, position and when it comes to science, is Richard Feynman. The great physicist said you know you follow the scientific method, you see something in nature and you try and explain it. So you typically make a guess of why you think that's occuring, it's a guess and that's a scientist start and then you attempt to validate your guest by seeing if you're. We lost our connection with doctor so as soon as This connection comes back, we will connect him again so I think you just had a wi fi problem on his end. Let's see there, he is back,

We're clicking him we're adding a guest we're inviting him And achieve a back? It is on the Iphone. When someone calls you, I had a call it's so so sorry, so so, anyway, what I was saying was fine men basically said you follow the scientific method, which is you You see something in nature. You think something is going on. You make a guess. You then take your guests and you validated by experiments and if the experiments match, then you say yes, this is matching, and I have something here if it doesn't doesn't matter whether you look great whether you have or you don't look great, whether you say weird,

Things like you, know, CO, two and demonization. It doesn't matter what the issue is. If, if the data matches, then you actually have something, that's true and evidence to be even more specific Izzy on ambiguous repetition, predictions. Okay, all so this was that the climate change have the claim. Scientists made their case under those standards they haven't, they haven't and the other thing is. There is no thing called climate,

this is a made up field. Let us come up, it really is. We need to talk about this because uh and there's two phenomenon here that we need to understand before we dive into this is there's climate and then there's weather and the media has been very, very clever at conflating weather to be climate and confusing both climate and weather, or very different things. In the best thing, I can the analogy I can give Scott. Is you take your body? Your body has an equilibrium. It's a natural system. Your temperatures around ninety eight point, two on any particular day. Your temperature may vary right up and down based on you may have a fever, he may have a cold, etc. But overall you have this equilibrium. Call your butt

temperatures so that equilibrium mode, which is a much larger scale of time is called, let's say, quote unquote climate the changes that occur from time to time or whether now would you agree, would you agree with me that ball, the skeptics as a group and the climate so I as a group make exam with the same weasel move, which is they look outside What's the weather happens to agree with their large? the theory is that day, they'll make It was like, oh it's extra cold today or it's extra warm, but don't both sides do that

Well, yeah I mean I saw one of your video Scott, where you talked about Heller. Doing that thing with the ninety eight degree, I think the ninety degrees- and he said he was going down so here's the problem with this field right either. So you really have four types of people in this field right now or five one is you have serious scientists like a happer like a dick lens and in my opinion, who are physicists, who has spent their lives understanding, for example, of c two emits and absorbs radiation at? These are not simple equations, so you have serious scientists, the other extreme. You have the news media who loves news who loves to conflict things because they sell advertising, and then you have two other very interesting group. You have celebrities, politicians and nonprofit organizations on one hand, and then you have what I call I'll. Looks it looks like you got another call coming in so as soon as he clears that

Will be back with us, there is. Then ducked Sheila back to use this word, but it's almost academics versus scientists. Academics have been brought into the frame, including at places like MIT. If you say anything against the narrative about climate change, your grass will get thought your your grandson it cut and there's two billion dollars now open for impacts on climate change. So what you have is you? You have serious, physicists, Sirius, chemist, serious Astro physicist guys on one hand and then the last group to call the fifth group is a common man which cannot rationalize things, so they actually look at the facts based on non rationalization. So what's happened in

What I call among the educated idiot group of the fake sight does not it is. This is what's going on the snow as limbs and talks about it talked about this. If you go to a group of people today and ask him, can you expect educated people, people with degrees? Can you tell me the second law of thermodynamics? Most of them can't? Can you tell me the difference between mass and acceleration? Most of them can't, but those two questions are similar to have you read Shakespeare in the humanities, or do you know how to read so what we are creating now is a whole strata of people who are essentially taught in the college. Atmosphere to please professors and accept to be told in the earth is flat. They probably accepted because they get it a fort. So I want to give this back and milieu on what's actually going on there, these five groups of people, so when it when a guy like Will Happer William Hopper Sirius scientist at Princeton, in fact one of the slides I sent you in fact, in the eighties when he was getting into this field. He

actually did his own climate models and he predicted also warming, and then he later said you know these models are too complicated. My models were way off and I think that one of the grass I sent you has that by the way I didn't get those graphs, it's it's a power point I sent you I emailed it to, but so you have Sirius is like William Happer who spent their lives understanding how this process works, and I've also admitted that is too difficult. Now, let's go to that from a systems perspective, Scott, that's what I really wanted to share with your audience. You today, let's step back because you say I think you're rightfully saying there's sort of a two

groups here: the skeptics and the quote: unquote deniers right and I want to double- quotes around deniers because it has a lot of subtext there and grab a almost related to Holocaust. Deniers in these terms are very, very specifically chosen, but if you step back- and you just look at it very simply- and I and I think we can do what's called basic bookkeeping- yeah, the the son Scott- is a big radiation machine, it's about six thousand degrees and it puts out radiation that hits the earth about three nine forty and by the way, what I'm sharing right. Now, there's no controversy on this. Everyone agrees both sides so to just simply level set. The sun puts out around three hundred and forty watts per meter squared of Nrg. So just think about the number three hundred and forty had see earth well, let's

for the benefit of the general audience, who will be able to follow at that level, can you mostly the idiots version, the idiot, the Idiot version is this. All natural

sims in the world. Your body and the earth have a have a principle called equilibrium. They do things to maintain their equilibrium, which means changes take place, but they know how to adjust themselves to maintain equilibrium. This is a process, so in this case the the sun is putting out a certain amount of sunlight and the earth wants to maintain its temperature at fifteen degrees centigrade. Okay, fifteen degrees, which is the average global, mean temperature very different than the temperature what's occurring today or in the winter. That's whether we're talking about the global mean temperature is fifteen degrees. So the earth, if you believe in natural systems, which is what we live in it tries to maintain that Equilibrium Scott. So the the sun hits that certain amount of energy comes in certain amount of energy to reflect.

Around two hundred watts per meter is always maintained in order to do that, the earth I mean emitted back. The earth has to maintain two hundred and eighty eight degrees, Kelvin or fifteen degrees, so just think about that uh! No! Doesn't that balance require that there are certain variables that always stay the same and if if any of those variables changed, you would no longer have equilibrium right. Well, it's a good question. So this is where it gets into it. It say it's! I'm a systems. Guy and systems have multiple input: multiple output, okay and it's a complex interaction of multiple inputs working in a very dynamic system. Again, if you look at the earth and this at, if you really want, if we got going to there's the atmosphere and then the oceans to what are called in fluid mechanics, if you take a complex in a graduate course, it's called for two turbulent fluid, but the bottom line, there's more.

Double variable Scott and what the intelligence of natural systems are. Is they know how to feed back now? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! I think you lost. You lost everybody on that Why should we assume that natural. Very does have intelligence. What what? What? What? What would make us believe that, even if things got out of whack the, the trend back to being in balance. Yeah. What's one Roger is there for that great question so nature has you know this is a this is a very deep. Quite right. Thermodynamics has to do a lot with this, the second law of thermodynamics, but when you take very complex system, smaller

arch the reason they exist. They have to have feedback and they they try to maintain equilibrium. So, for example, your body, if you said that it has to only maintain ninety point, two degrees at every point. If it went to ninety point, three you're gonna blow up or if you, if your your trees, so natural systems have a property called resilience. That's why evolution? If you believe in that, that's why we exist right now, you and I are talking and we we exist because natural says There are able to handle variations and maintain an equilibrium over time scale. This is a are you so is so is the bottom line is that we could add lots of co two at It would create greenhouse effect. It would create warming in the short run, but there would be some kind of balancing thing that naturally and

actively happens it right. So so so this is what's so when they do these climate models, the climate models are based on the assumption is co two increases the average temperature of the Earth is going to increase when they do those models sky. They did not the way they calculated. The feedback left out a very important factor called clouds. Ok, so I co two increases Kalau. Are you telling me that climate scientists, the people who study climate free,

to consider clouds what specifically they be asked to the they did a very, very crude, highly crude approximation of clouds highly crude, so their models were fundamentally based on a positive feedback system, which means you add, more Co. Two, the delta team temperature keeps increasing dick lands in in two thousand. He published a very very important paper called the Iris effect, which said that as co, two as greenhouse gases increase that the earth has a very interesting modulating factor where Sirius Clouds will get shorter, smaller or larger, or thinner, thinner, thinker, to release infrared radiation growing out a

case in point of this. Was this and when Dick published that in a very eminent journal subsequently the editor was fired. Okay! Well, let let me let me make sure I understand yeah so so the idea is that climate scientists. Did they did model clouds, but they did it incorrectly because they imagined that the clouds would continue doing what the clouds always do, but in fact the this will change their shape with the heat. And no longer do what clouds used to do 'cause. They will be a different kind of cloud as well

Richard goes up. It's a very this Sirius clouds, the Cirrus clouds, are literally like an Irish. So if co, two levels or some phenomenon takes place to increase the infrared radiation, to admit it or to store it, the Cirrus clouds change their shape. To put it simply like the Iris in Iraq, this was something that lives in published in two thousand and two people attacked him. The editor was fired, Lainson wrote back a rebuttal rebuttal and it's since been verified. The iris effect So what that shows is that the earth has a way to modulate through negative feedback. I limit it gets a bit all right, well, not allowed, so it so how as we already seen the module modulation or is it

victor that if he gets a little bit warmer, that will kick in well it you know the the Sirius clout. What what I'm saying is. This feedback system is constantly taking place. In fact, if you look at that that you could argue that the climate scientists to your in in one of the grass I sent, you said that the earth's temperature was was going to continue increasing right this. This is in their own thing, and this is by the way from from the I p c c, but they had predicted that the temperature would keep increasing, in fact, starting around two it would continue to grow from nineteen. Eighty all the way up, but if you see around two thousand and three, it's gotten flat: ok hold on hold on yeah, but every time you have a fact, I might need to jump in just so. We don't go too far. Past past effect. My understanding is that the climate scientists say that,

anything less than maybe a seventeen year period is meaningless, in terms of that could just be noise, but that, any seventeen year period that violated the trend. Would not be meaningful, is that at these kids. This is the scientific, if you well the scientific it with. The view is that these models can't predict over long range. I think, there's a general consent. It's on that and somebody saying thirty five years, so I've seen two things: I've seen that any small change within a thirty year. Period may not be long enough to even know anything Do you have a sense of well? Well, that's meaningful or not yeah! I I can just go by the current data. That's out there, Scott these models are highly variable because of the dynamics, but if this is the data, so if you look from nineteen in in the sixties, starting in fifties to nineteen seventy five, the temperature is actually going down, okay,

for predicting a global cooling was going to take place, starting from nine thousand book well hold on well done, the the climate scientists would say: that's just not true. They would say that the that the the warming has happened consistently the entire period. That their claim no no. This is this is from my pc state. So if, if you look from- and this is actual data, if you look from nineteen fifties to nineteen seventy five, If you remember, when I was in the 70s people saying the earth could be going into a cooling phase, then starting around one thousand nine hundred and seventy five, the temperature of the earth started rising and all throughout this period. By the way c, two levels are increasing, but starting around two thousand and two it's been flat. The point is climate change. The earth is consistent.

In a constantly varying. There are positive things that I so it is a well known doctor. So I'm looking at a slight cold skeptical science, which I have not, which I I have no reason to believe that anything on this site is accurate, but what it does is it lists Skeptical arguments and then gives the scientific counterpoint. Well, looking at the graph right here. That goes for, uh. Let's see, or the 70s through to the 2000s, and it shows that every every type of measurement is steadily up, from ocean heat tool to plus ice to atmosphere so the scientific claim that I'm looking at is it temperature has consistently going up. I mean

discussing jags, so their little periods where it goes down, but it's pretty much up since ninety one right, but look at started around two thousand and two did today: Scott, it's flat to the temperature. The global mean temperature. You see, people are well hold on hold on, so we have to have a standard matter of fact. I'm looking at what is reportedly the scientific opinion, which is that it's going up.

So that is so as a point of fact, there's a disagreement. There there's a disagreement, so we're talking about the temperature variation to be very specific. What people are talking about? Is it the Delta T, which is the temperature variation from the ME delta team? This is the measurement that is used in all of the models. So if you look at the map that that there's a big model, that's calculating that change in temperature from the global mean, and they have a big formula that they used to calculate it. We can get into it. But it's a the delta T that Delta T temperature did the change from the global mean it has been flat for the last over a decade. Well, the light- and I don't understand where out why I can't just made measure the temperature itself and if it's going up sharply. That's that confirm the theory. Doesn't and they would say we measured it shift different ways:

Every single way we measure it. We get the same result that would be the scientific view right, they measured the temperature, the delta change from that has been flat for the last fifteen years. But what? But I don't understand that point. Would it can you address my point, which is if the temp the just the regular temperature is going up. Accord to add a sharper curves than ever before and it matches two. Why do I To be measured right so dealt well, there is a meeting by Scott. What is the units of that temperature change? The unit, so I assume would be degree is no no no number and magnitude since the end of the last ice age, the little ice age, the temperature's gone up by one degree, that was when thawing

took place well, but is it true? Is it true that the rate of increase for let's say in the last fifty years that there is a definite beat sharp increase in the rate. That is unprecedented bring unprecedented rate of increase. That's not true! That's the big lie. It's false! let me let me jump in before, you say that so I'm on this sceptical site, which I just mentioned- and I looking for some arguments that maybe would come up. So I would now what the scientists say an the the primary the central argument of climate scientists is that the not if the temperature is getting higher, which would not mean that much as temperatures change over, but that the rate is is great increasing, and so when I look at their argument that says somebody will say well, the temperature is not really increasing and then I look at these

optical sights answer to that it'll say? Yes, we've measured, it a whole bunch of different ways, with measured at from satellites we've measured the ocean with measured the land and we've looked proxies and no matter what we look at it's always getting warmer, and I hold on hold on you just change. The argument I was asking you about the rate of increase the theory right right. So why is it why it? Let me finish the point: why is it that your best argument, The scientific side ignores your central argument. You just said it's the rate. Show me how the rate is going up, and then you look at the argument and ignores rate and says: look is going up so to Maine That's a perfect example of how, even if it's true even if it's true that the climate scientists are completely right, let's see two is driving. Temperature is going up that

is presented as a lie, in other words, is presented in a form of communication, that a reasonable person would have to say well, it looks like you're trying to fool me, because just change the argument. Your central argument is rate of increase and when defend the temperature. You leave out rate of increase that like just a fraud number one. Yes, it certainly with the graph. I sent you Scott, that's precisely what it has basic calculus. The rate. What you just said is the derivative is a change in temperature over time. So if it's, if you have a slope which is a angled line, then you have a rate of increase or if it's going down the other way have a rate of decrease when it's flat, it's zero. So the rate of increase of temperature since two thousand and two has been flat. And now hold on hold on, but

You agree that the climate scientists would say that is not meaningful, because that's the time well think of what this this this. This is what this is, where we're we're moving into a space where all of this is governed by models. Everything that they're talking about is governed by models and models. Climate occurs on a large time. Scale weather occurs on much shorter time scales. So this is a very malicious scientific thing that these guys are doing. They are absolutely confusing climate with weather. Let me give you an example of this two point. Five billion years ago, we had what was called the faint scent Carl Sagan. You know the astronomer. There is a very interesting paradox of the sun. Was a new sign so two point: five billion years ago,

the amount of heat the sun was putting out with with thirty percent less Scott. So if it's thirty percent less, what would you think the arts temperature would be two point? Five billion years ago, two point: five billion years: thirty percent less and I'm going to say. I have no idea. This probably about thirty percent, less to be less or more for the same, I would say that there are more variables than the sun So depend on the composition of the atmosphere at the time. Exactly so so what happened was when this phenomenon came out that two point, five billion years ago, the sun was putting up thirty percent, less heat people,

found something fascinating. The temperature of their worth earth was around the same around fifteen degrees centigrade, two point five billion years ago. So how is that possible? How could it be we're getting thirty percent less? It was called a faint sun. Paradox pointed out by Carl Sagan that two point five billion years ago. The sun is putting up thirty percent less energy, but we have the same temperature as we have today, fifteen degrees. So a cottage industry's Dick Linsen points out was created by a bunch of scientists. Saying, oh, must be the greenhouse gases right, because the greenhouse gases must be the things that are keeping that enerji here to maintain that umbrella around us to keep it at fifteen degrees, and I propose all sorts of things. Lots of papers came out. In fact, Carl Sagan said it must be more ammonia. All of this was disproven.

But what they did find out, it was the Cirrus clouds, the iris effect. At that time, two point: five billion years ago, we had a thicker cirrus cloud cover. We will help you you have to. You have to tell me how certain are we that the serious clouds. One point: five billion years ago, I had an iris effect that feels like something we couldn't possibly know well. Well, there's a set of calculations that were performed and those calculations. You know science goes like this. You start with a guess. You do your hypothesis in you iterate, when Dick limbs and put out that paper it was refuted, but people can look it up at the iris effect consistently now that effect has been shown repeatedly and experiments to exist. In fact, exist today and it likely existed at that point, but so this is another words. Experiments today show was the

that's probably what was happening in the past, but we we don't have direct evidence. What what iris attack we don't have. We do know that the level of greenhouse gases that would have had to exist to maintain that temperature or nearly impossible, okay, okay, so so the point is greenhouse gases are always being pointed out in the climate change argument. As the fundamental demand as Happer said. Co, two is a demonic say in here or one of the that they are the modulator of the earth's surface temperature when it turns out water vapor in clouds have far more a fact and in the body of research that research and the findings of that have been managed, and that is a very, very important piece, because that is the feedback system that the earth offers to modulate the surface temperature of the earth. Now there there's a question coming in that we should. We should

address is somebody asked? Are you associated with any oil companies? The answer is no right. No, In fact, just to point that person remember when you know when, when I published a series of six papers using systems, biology methods- and I expose that that there are no essentially safety standards for gm- owes all the people on the left loved me. Ok and they said, are you working with all the green companies, so I have no interest in oil companies. In fact the oil company Scott love this, because right has changed their logo. It makes them look like they're, green. So there's a bigger picture. You know, I don't have any interest in oil companies. I don't have that now. You do you do my connection with Richard Lindzen, though they famous skeptical climate scientists? Well, I think there are three terms

Don't take this the wrong way, Scott that are wrong. Skeptical climate scientists he's Dick does not claim to be a climate scientist it, is a serious, applied mathematician and physicist term. Climate science has been created because once the Gores in the Clinton created this talk about this in detail? Well done, Donald limit. I don't get too far from that. Not I think you have personal relationship with one of the most famous noises well on this topic. So what happened was when I started? I was saying: well, climate change does take place, but do we have extreme to have the Arctic? I I smell, so I actually reached out to Dick wins and is a professor at MIT. I wrote him and Dick got back to me and Dick Amy, a body of work, a lot of science, a lot of math that I to go through to come to my own conclusions, that there's climate there's weather climate does change, but the co two. In fact, on the increase in temperature,

Um is there's no scientific evidence for it at all period. So in fact, one of the charts that I sent you scott- this is probably one of the most important ones, Dick shared with main. There are twenty different models, because one of the big things we've been told is that the polar bears are going to die off that the Arctic ice caps are going to melt. I'm sure you've seen this right. Yes, what the IPCC, there working group of two hundred and fifty scientists across the world has nearly twenty one different models for predicting the Arctic ICE sheet decay. And if you look at that, one diagram that I sent you, I think it's a slide. Six there are, there are literally twenty different models. Some predicting there will be. No, I slept and others predicting there will be all the I left there? So one of these models

I've got your slides but they're trying to find what I need. Oh yeah, it's the one. That's a colorful one! It's not the this one! Yes, I know know the next one. The next one is got bunch of graphs on it, a bunch of graphs on it Nope, not that one, the one that has a bunch of color graphs on it, you'll see it from here two thousand to two thousand one hundred, and it has NIH ice extent. That must be the one that fell on the floor hold on ok, so what well Scotts coming. So what you see is these are mathematical models that are done to predict climate. Multiple variables are involved and predicting so remember the three things that the

Alarm is says that the ice sheets are going to melt. We're going to have temperature extremes in the oceans are rising. These are the three big things, so I want to take each one Scott in to share with you some facts on them. Let's, let's so we're going talk about ocean rising. First, no, no! Let's talk about the ice sheet, which is that graduate I my printer. Di okay, less paper, I'm just I'm just gonna grab a piece of paper and throw it in there. Yeah sh. So take your time got so this is so, if you look from to and that when Scott gets, if you go

in the year two thousand to two thousand one hundred Brighton back, these models were created to say what percentage of the Arctic ICE sheet would be left. Scott, that's what these are looking at! Ok, ok! This is like six by the way slide five and six, and this was done by Eisenmann. That comes out. I up. I don't have anything like that in what you sent me, but let's, let's try to okay, it's a one before the earth the earth coming and and rats coming of the sun hitting and then read stuff going back, but

It is it's got gotta, but but the bottom line. If, if we look at that paper, it literally has twenty lines on. It's got. Twenty different predictions evidence from the scientific perspective is on and big US predictions unambiguous. Here you have twenty different predictions of ice melting from zero to one hundred. So how can you say? That's evidence? It's not! There's no error

And set the arctic ice sheets are gonna melt and be gone by twenty one hundred, which is what the alarms are saying, but there is evidence there is evidence that the ice has been consistently melting and current years. Is that not true? Well well, okay, so so here's the ice melts and it also grows. And now we can talk about science. You know there's been some very interesting signs down all the way from the twenties and thirties, showing that the orbit of the earth a fax, the ice growth in some cyclical form, which creates insulation in the Arctic and that price.

Ss creates a temperature differential from the Arctic to the tropics, which grows we we wear ice grows in it receipts. This is a natural phenomenon. That's been going on, for you know Melania, but what I'm trying to say is: let's focus in on the climate change alarm S. They have no model that consistently shows because evidence is unambiguous predictions. That is science. I want to do so on and biggest predictions of twenty different models, which are all predicting varying amounts of ice from zero to one hundred percent yeah. Let me uh, I think that point, but. Other things that they measure so they're measuring land temperatures, ocean temperatures, ocean measuring sea level and the measuring ice of all of those things, I've always thought measuring the ice. It might be the sketchiest 'cause.

Just, not sure that they can do that. Even though they can see it from space, how deep is it you know, etc, but What would you consider the gold standard? things that we do have a good way to measure that If that one thing changed, you say: okay, there is climate change, another words would bank, everything on sea level. Would you be think everything on ocean temperature. Or tropospheric temperature, because we can. Maybe we can measure that with greater precision with our satellites could be your most. Reliable one thing that you would bet it all on if you could put it model on that and say: ok, if your model can predict this, whether it's sea level or ice, I will

in my mind, well one day? Okay, first of all, you know the climate alarmist have have have created a platform which is not even based on science. By taking a multi. Dimensional since problem and saying that you measure by one variable, cost co two. It is basically not even science, but if you were to ask me it would be the you know: surface temperature of the earth, the global mean to picture of the earth. Ok, but Oklahoma on, but but the global mean temperature of the earth. My understanding is that ninety percent of the warming goes into the the polls an into the, into the water, so would you really get what you need if you're only measuring land temperatures and, Do we have enough? Understanding is the only place we have

long term measurements is the United States and there's some thinking that the United States may not have been in a place where there was a lot of warming in the first place. It's going to be in the polls and then the ocean so I'm convinced that measuring land temperatures would be the gold standard, but do you think it is well so what I'm saying Scott? Is you can't measure one thinks you're asking me a question to reduce uh a multidimensional problem to one variable, but what I can tell you is that we are starting to with satellite data were starting to be able to measure the radiator the rate the radiation that's being emitted across different parts of the globe? The emission of radiation is, is a value. We should be measuring the radiative, forcing it's it's a it's a it's a term. That is a little bit difficult to explain,

But what I'm trying to say is that reducing this entire problem to co, two and reducing this entire problem to sing co two and this delta t is everything is, is- is how the climate a sign, climate change industries started book. Let me ask you this: do If it's true that the temperature is rising and the only thing that we can measure that's changing at the same rate, is the two. Does that tell. Everything you need because Nothing else is changing. Is changing at a rate that would make a difference to our current temperatures. Is that what was wrong that larger? That's what that's! What I'm saying this is. This is untrue, not true. Well, for example, I'll give you an effect. What is this year's cloud thickness as the

things change overtime. Ok, how are we measuring that? For example, there's a modulation taking place constantly the big