« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 460 Scott Adams: False Memories, Russian Collusion, 2020 Forecast, Climate Change Strategy

2019-03-22 | 🔗

Topics: 

  • My dispute with Taleb that I’m not aware of, something about data
  • Update: “Fine People” HOAX and high concept word salads
    • False memories are the basic texture of our reality
  • Noted economist Russell Roberts, saw truth, changed his opinion
  • Anti-Trumpers preparing us for a “disappointing” Mueller report
  • Half of all published, peer reviewed studies are eventually proven wrong
  • War Strategy (whiteboard 1) as a guide to climate change strategy
  • 2 top skeptical climate change arguments, (whiteboard 2)
    • Russian climate change prediction model
    • ONLY Russian model correctly predicted recent years
    • ONLY the Russian model fits dip that occurred in the 40s
  • Wikipedia NOT allowing the truth about “fine people” hoax, so far
    • @Unstumpable2016 posted truth with documentation
    • Within minutes, truth is taken down, hoax replaces it
    • Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia co-founder) personally monitoring
    • Currently, discussion over correct info is happening

Donate to support my Periscopes and Podcasts:

I also fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer these methods 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.

This is a demonstration of a personal DONATE button you can add to any blog or web page. All you need is a free account on the Interface by WhenHub app.

The post Episode 460 Scott Adams: False Memories, Russian Collusion, 2020 Forecast, Climate Change Strategy appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Pom, pom, pom, pom, pom, pom pom what a morning what a morning one of my favorite mornings ever. Why? Because I get to spend it with you And I'm not even kidding I love doing these periscope I really do it's actually by late in the day at least the work, the work portion of my day, I have other highlights so look at a couple of my tweets here's this morning, so that I can track along with what I've been talking about, all right, so Let me start with a little thing that I like to call the simultaneous up.
You who are already listening to Maine are on time, and if you have some kind of a vessel for liquid's, it could be a copper mug. It could be a jealous or Stein, possibly thermostat. If you have filled it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. You can join me now for the simultaneous Sept, now, I'd like to start with a little bit of fake news and this one's kind of fun most of you are probably familiar with a They very well known author and probably he Have other titles such as maybe statistician, I don't know,
they're- probably other titles for him, but not seen that Nicholas Talib. So here's the interesting story that might differ from whatever you're seeing on the internet right now. So I almost don't know how to describe this story because it's So weird that I don't know if you'll believe it you know. Sometimes things are so weird that, even if you just described them accurately, people will psych. Well, I don't know about that. That doesn't sound like something is really happening. So tell you ahead of time, I'm going to tell you a tale that you probably won't believe. Right. So I noticed on the internet. The people were talking about some kind of an argument that I was having with is not seem that necklace talent and I didn't know what it was about, because I had I had blocked
them for being on pleasant? But I don't remember why in other words sometime ago wasn't too long ago, maybe you couple weeks, I don't remember there was something you said and I was in a blocking mood and I blocked him now. Here's important part of the story. I don't remember why I don't remember what the topic was. I don't remember what he said. I do remember. Why bother bothered me? I was just in a blocking mood and I have a vague memory that he was being on. And I happen to be in the kind of mood where I thought you know what, if I just removed unpleasantness from my twitter experience, So there are a lot of people that I block lately, not exactly because of what they've said. Not exactly
those maybe their attitude or their knowledge, or really any of that I'm starting to block people for my happiness. In other words, if somebody, if somebody makes main less happy than I could be for whatever reason. their attitude, their the topics they care about, it doesn't really matter. It's not really a statement about them. Personally, it's just that. My exposure to their opinions is not making me happy so so, whatever the reason was, I blocked him that started the started. The assumption that there was something specific that he and I were disagree with,
and as best I could tell without looking at his his feet. There seems to be some kind of idea and I'm not making this up. I swear I'm not making this up, but there's a conversation happening about me and about some kind of alleged problem that I have with Nassim Nicholas Taleb that I'm not aware of really not even aware of it, but apparently it's it's a topic of conversation, and so I've been seeing how long I could go without knowing why I'm in a conversation or disagreement with Elop. I really don't know, but other people have been joining in and taking sides and stuff, and the only thing that I could pick out of the context is that I had once made the claim.
There. If you know you have bad data, it's a good idea to correct it with the good data you know, assuming you can be sure that you're good data is really good and you're sure that the bad- and it was really bad now, I'm hearing from third parties, but not from tell us because I blocked him. So I don't know what he's saying is blocked me too. So he doesn't know what I'm saying. So but I keep hearing from people. They he's taking the side that there are situations in which bad data is better than good data. Now I take it on faith that he didn't say anything like that, but that's that that's has been presented to me so because I think it's fun, I keep saying I'm taking the side. The says the good Data is better than bad day and
and I'm watching people and watching people argue with me, and I think it's funny, because I don't really think that there is an intellectual argument in favor of inaccurate. And people keep telling me. No, no Scott you're, just not listening, there's an actually really good argument in favor of bad data. now some of you have already caught on right. Obviously, this conversation is not really happening. It in the real world, there is no such thing as Talib taking the side of bad data while I'm taking the side of good data, but I keep pushing it to see how long people will believe. That's actually what's happening, and I honestly I don't know, what's happening
I really don't know what happened. I don't know, I don't know what the hell up in Eunice. I don't know what topic we were talking about. I don't know what he says about data. I don't know what he said about me.
But I'm just saying the same thing over again. Well, I'm I'm just taking the side that, if you could replace bad daily with good Danny should do that. There's probably no exception to that and I'm home watching the the appearance that he and I are disagreeing on something when in fact, I don't even know what he's talking about all right. So the funny thing is that there's a general opinion that he and I are having a disagreement, but I'm allegedly in the disagreement. I don't know what the topic is. I honestly don't even know the topic, something that data all right. That's fun! If you are watching the ongoing saga of my attempts in now, other people have brought in to have have been very active in it as well, primarily jewel.
Writing. Number of articles talking about the you, fine people hopes if your nude is my periscopes. You probably have heard the fake news that the President of the United States allegedly called the racist in Charlottesville. Fine people that actually never happened. It's the most widespread fake news That is generally believed, but you can look at the transcripts and you can see the he says in direct language? I'm not talking about the NEO Nazis in the racist, he says it in direct language- I'm not talking about them but is widely reported as oh, that's exactly who he's talking about? Even though he said it directly now what
interesting about this, when we we have a world full of fake news, a lots of topics? Why did I pick this? One thing to really do yeah die on this hill is because this one thing this one piece of fake news is not like the rest. It has a very difference is a different nature and once I've heard about it is the first of all, it's the it's, the mother of all fake news, everything that the anti Trump or, as believe about Trump, is built on this little fake news foundation that he once said directly that racist worth buying people which of course didn't happen, but if you believe he did say that the
everything that you build on top of that starts making sense, but it wouldn't make sense if you knew they had said the opposite, which is what actually happened. So that's the first thing. The first thing is that not all fake news is equal. This fake news, it's sort of like the the alpha news, it's the fake news that informs all the other fake news. It's the it's, the central spine of the fake news about President Trump. If this one spying could be removed, the rest of the body is likely to fall apart, like a boneless chicken. Now that's the optimistic view. People do stick to their fake news, pretty pretty diligently, but my hypothesis was this. If I could take one super prevalent piece of fake news that people believe about the President and I could show them
in with evidence that just can't be doubted, because it's right there on the page, it says it in clear language and yet it's being reported as the opposite, I thought well, this is unique. 'cause, usually you can't prove something this easily me normally, if people are saying the president is bad for the economy, it's like this big complicated argument and can see, arguments on full size, and maybe it was all Obama, and maybe it was the fad. There are very few situations where the complexity of the disagreement is so simple: either did or did not say the Nazis. All this will work. Fine people can we prove what he said. Yes, we have a video and we have the transcript and they match and the same clear words that he did not call them find people. He said the opposite in clear words
Now, that's what makes the unique you almost can never so simply and so directly and so conclusively prove, but the news is fake. News is very rare. Normally it's a big complicated hard to hard to dissect situation. So I thought, if I can make people understand how badly they've been duped on just this one thing. it has two things going for one: it can be proven beyond any doubt any doubt not even reasonable, but any doubt that's, that's very rare and This is the most important figures. So if I could do that, it would really change how people understood their world. 'cause: here's where you learned as a hypnotist here's, what you learn as someone who has studied persuasion and describing myself now If you were to look at a situation such as the widespread reporting misreporting the president called races fighting people. What do
if you believe explains that. Most of you are going to say. Well, obviously, the bad guys are lying mostly. I think that right well, if it's not true, and yet they continue to say it's not true. How can you explain that, obviously they're just lying, because they're on the other side of the political spectrum, if you're a hypnotist as I am if You studied false memories: cognitive dissonance confirmation bias the whole psychology side of the world. You probably don't see it that way. On top of that, I've had private conversations with enough people who believed the fine people fake that I've determined by far
The most likely explanation is that they believe it now. You say to yourself, you know Scott says Scott. You can't believe something that this so clearly fake, It would be one thing to believe the president wasn't good for the economy work to believe that ISIS isn't one hundred percent salt or to believe that things will or will not go well with trade with China. Those are big, complicated things. But if you're lying about this simple, objectively false statement, the fine people, if you're lying about that, there's no explanation. then you're a liar. That's what most people think that is completely
That is actually the least likely explanation, the the thought that they are intentionally looking at the news and that their jobs are to report the news, their news professionals, and you think that that you think that they know what's falls. They know is easily proven false and they still say it on tv. That's actually the least likely explanation. By far the most likely explanation, the one, the one that that is the most common is that they actually believe it's true. Memories and here's the thing that most of you don't know, but people who have studied the mind? And psychology do know so you might have. You might have learned the feels of let's say economics. Business and you might have learned about you might have learned about science, but if
learn about psychology. You'd be missing, really the key element. People who know psychology would say false memories are the texture of your entire experience. Most of what you understand, as your memories are false memories. Let me say that again, the vast majority of your memories are not real their approximates there. There they're cobbled together from things you're thinking at the moment. They are not photographic. Reproductions of the past, most of your memories are assembled from. the fake news in your own head, basically how many of you have had the experience. Let's say even in the last two weeks where you had a disagreement with somebody about it,
at and then somebody with out an email or a text and showed that you remembered it exactly backwards happened to be twice this week. I think you know once when my way once didn't is the most common experience in the world that two people remember the same thing differently: fake memories. False memories are the texture of our entire existence, once you understand that you can start to understand why things are the way they are. In other words, the news will start making sense the way people act makes sense as soon as you realize, the basic texture of reality is false memory. That's norm. So when you say to say to me Well, there are two possibilities why people keep saying this fine people wrong? One is that they all have coordinated and they've all either they've had a meeting, or maybe they
install no, it's a good thing to do that, they're all going to lie on wait for it all. The smartest news professionals in the World have decided to lie about the one thing: that's easily proven us ally. You think they would prove pick that do you think that, even if they wanted to remove this president, they would pick the one thing that so easily falsifiable you would never do that intentionally. All right. You know I can imagine that in the big world there's somebody who might have done it intentionally, but you can't tell me that thousands of news professionals all decided to lie on the one thing that that is the easiest to do book. By far the easiest is right there on the page. They reported that they reported it themselves. Cnn reported it right before they started reporting. That role
right, it's possible. I don't like to speak in absolutes right because that's how dumb people talk dumb people say this definitely happen. This does definitely didn't happen. I like to talk and in percentages right, the the odds of them lying about that are very long all right. So enough on that, I see people complaining of going on too much now. Here's why I'm coming out in October, called loser. Think and one of the main themes of the book is this. That your ability to understand your world is very much informed by what experience you've had now, that's obvious right. The experience you've had
life gives you better or worse ability to understand the world, but I've taken it to the next level, and I've suggested that the things you studied give you superpowers or they deny you superpowers, for example, Britt Hume recently, but we did the art in article by Dan. Cortez in which he was talking about the find the people hoax and Brit Hume was saying base play he was realizing that the news had been ported wrong for all this time
If you don't know Brit Hume, the thing you need to know is that he's a he's, a Fox news guy, but he's not he's not really the opinion. Guy he's he's a credible. Let's say I probably in the top tier of the most credible people in the news business, whether you're talking Fox news rentals. He is willing to to take the side that the evidence suggests and if you've watched them for awhile yeah he's a straight shooter which it which feels rare, doesn't buy, used you probably about a month on the more credible news people working today and he said whoops. Basically, this I'm paraphrasing here, but his is quote. His tweets suggested that He now understands the fine people thing was fake news. So then that got retweeted today, bye, uh, let's see by.
Russell Roberts, no at econ talker, that's his twitter handle, now he's a apparently a respected, noted economist and what he says about this is he says I try to stay away from most things trump, but this story Crazy talk about the fine people hoax. Evidently I was misled as to what Trump said after Charlottesville Truth is loose I so here's the point I'm going to make. Russell Roberts is a noted and capable economist So he's learned. Sort of you know the the the ways of economics so he's educated and fax, and the economists also get educated a little bit in psychology, because you can't really understand economics and let
to understand how people act, so his level of understanding led him to look at the data as Dan Cortez lated out and, as you can see it in the transcripts, he looked at the data and the data caused him to change. Opinion now. Does that sound like a nothing? How rare is it
How often have you ever seen in the realm of politics? How often you have you ever seen? Someone say the data has changed. So therefore I change my opinion and guess what I'll do it in public? I'll? Do it in public? Have you yeah? I don't even know if I've ever seen it. I don't know if I've ever seen it happen, but here's here's what the point and then I then I think, my God, my God, what are people going to say to that? I, what would be the response to watching this highly rational person, who's no fan of the President say that the facts were MIS reported. I change my opinion. What will that do to other people? Well it I go into the comments and here's one from Jj for hind end so Jj talking about this fine people.
He says to accept quote: find people on both sides is to deny the reason for the gathering. Okay, I don't really know what that means. Right, this flyer was created by the organizers of provocation which culminated in the murder in entries of those protests in the flyer notice. The blood were you misled, or are you a victim of revisionism? Right, so this is a commenter who looked at the same facts as the established economist and was not was not moved by it. So changing the fax did not change this person's opinion, and so what's the first thing I did when I saw this this dissenter, Yeah somebody saying a word salad correct. So when you see somebody devolve into high concept, word salad, where they're trying to draw together concepts- and
You know in form something out of nothing and the words sort of fit together, but you don't know what they mean: yeah, that's word salad and it's a telephone, cognitive dissonance. So, anyway, here's the punchline, so he disagrees with the economist. They both looked at the same facts. The facts are just as plain as they could be, but he's come to a different opinion. In other words, when I say a different opinion, I mean he didn't change his opinion, so different facts did not change his opinion. So I said to myself: I wonder what this guy does for a living is an art director is an art director now summarizing the person who's.
The economics see is that the facts were wrong. Looks at the correct, fax revises his opinion in public. How often does that happen? How many people revise their opinion in public doesn't have a lot? The art director who obviously had some Devin art background? look at the same information and maintained his original opinion and wrapped it around and wrapped it with word salad. Now my book loser thank talks about this specific phenomenon in it talks about the
we'll stack, you've, you've developed and whether or not it gives you proper vision into reality. So that's that's the macro theme of my book that the people from our school probably see everything as little bit more connected. So here's here's my hypothesis, if you're an artist the thing that makes you are an artist is that you don't see clean categories, you see, for example, you know this thing in this thing are normally not related, but the artist imagines that they can be the artist takes things and puts them together and artist combines things an artist says to all take a little less in a little that an artist is a conflate, are an artist, is a combine, are an artist says everything
connected. This thing over here is going to move this thing over here. It's all one big ball of stuff, the economist says now, let's look at this little. Ask it! Alright, I'm going to analyze this basket by itself. This basket probably doesn't affect this basket. They're just different things. Completely different disciplines, and I think that matters all right um. I don't know if you've been enjoying I'm changing topics. Now I don't know if you've enjoyed this as much as I have, but I'm watching the Anti Trump tried to prepare themselves and us for a Muller report that is anti climatic after two years. So he says Scott you're, an artist. I actually am trained economist with a masters in business, and I do AR
as well so, but I'm a bad artist in terms of our time, going pretty badly. So So I'm watching the people talk about how the molar report might underperform and my favorite one boy I thought it was funny and I don't remember who is interviewing them, but, oh, I chucked out. So I was watching Chuck Todd Interview, Preet Bharara now, if you're new to this Chuck Todd is a major anti trumper, it was an ant. This was on MSNBC, which is a major anti trump network. Pretty Barrera was fired by, and is another major anti trumper who has been saying for. I don't know how long that he's a lawyer
So he's been saying for how long the trump is in big trouble. For probably collusion. I don't know if you talk about collusion, but for obstruction of justice and so so Bara and I'm I'm gonna, try to paraphrase. As best I can. The situation borough was indicating that we might be. You know, disappointed you didn't use that word, but there might not be that much in the Muller report. Chuck Todd is pushing back on that saying yeah, but maybe not the collusion, but certainly the obstruction and then Chuck Todd went through the laundry list of well. He fired call me he did this into that, does those all prove obstruction and then, in one of the funniest things I've ever said he's seen on television, this Anti Trump prosecutor. Guy who's been saying trumps in trouble for ever says, looks a Chuck Todd. He says
Well, I don't think I ever said there was enough to indict him on obstruction. You can see the you can see the the life drained out of Chuck Todd when he realized that the Prebor are a was was saying. I never said there was enough to indict so this is after Todd had I've gone through the laundry list and his own guy, pretty bra rose like well, not much there, because Parara is no doubt getting getting prepared to be totally humiliated. In terms of this, mother thing now, let's make some guesses about whether Trump knows what the Mullah report will be. Do you
I think Trump already knows that the molar report will be a dud. Well, let's look at the evidence, I don't know the answer, but let's look at the evidence. Number one trump has surprisingly to many of you, but less surprising to Maine has said that he would like the entire. Report released, but it's up to the attorney general. Now. What do you make of that Trump says? The whole report should be released. Fooling everybody like people weren't expecting that right. I was expecting it a little bit, but generally it wasn't expected. Trump is a good strategist. There are two possibilities, one their stuff in there. That's really bad, in which case it's going to come out right if their stuff in it that's bad. It's going to come out and it's going to be public if there's stuff in there,
It's not bad. Well, then it doesn't matter if it comes it comes out or not in fact would be better if it's comes out so Trump has taken the only smart approach which I have to admit. was a little non obvious until recently. I honestly until he did it. I didn't realize how smart it was. He takes the position, but of course everybody wants to see it because, first of all it makes him look innocent. I think the report itself is going to make and listen as well, but even if there's a little bit in there, that's negative you maybe in the margins, there's a little bit of something that he would like he's still way better off, releasing it all and just take. head on whatever the little stuff is now do we think that he has a preview of the reports? Well, I think it's unlikely that anybody in an official capacity has met with the president and said I'm going to.
The whole preview- here's what's in the report, you know you don't have to worry about it, so you might as well say you can you might as well release it? I don't think so I don't think that's happened, but here's what I think might have happened, and this is spec they should only speculation is based on just being alive and living in the real world and not only being alive and living in the world world, but being in many situations in which I was trying to deuce. What some group who had the secret was really thinking I so I've sort of been in the situation. Here's how I think it went and I'm going to tell you this is an example story. I'm not saying this happened, I'm saying probably happened, so I will open a probably on this some version of what I'm going to do. scribe probably happened, and it would have gone like this.
So it started with let's say: Rudy Giuliani, contacting somebody in Miller's office and saying: can you give us a preview of what's in that report and, of course the person who Muller's office would say? No, I cannot give you a preview, so I'm going to take as a given that there's nobody in Muller's office who has leaked it in any kind of detail. I think that's probably a good bet because they haven't leaked up till now leaking would be deadly. It would be bad for them. They'd go to jail, there's no reason to do it, so I would say it's unlikely that they've leak in a direct way, but here's the fun part, let's say you're, Giuliani and or you're one of the other lawyers for the President and you're pretty smart.
that you're smart you've lived in the real world. You know things that new. You know how things work if I were them, if I were Giuliani, this is what I do. I go to my contact on the Miller investigation by now. They know each other pretty well, because they've had to have lots of contacts yeah, I would say I know you can't tell me what the Muller Investigation detail. Those are but wait for it. I've been asked to put together a legal budget for the White House for the coming year and, of course, the legal budget would be far higher. If there's something negative in that report, then if there isn't so for just budgeting purposes, you don't have to tell me anything this in the report, but for budgeting purposes should I budget
big number, or should I budget a small number and then the mall person looks at him any thanks. I can't tell him that exactly because that would be very close to it wouldn't be the same. I would be very close to saying what the report says, which is nothing so the molar guy pushes back it goes. I you know. I can't do that, then Rudy or one of the other lawyers, because they're, smart and they've lived in the real world, they say the following. This isn't a normal situation, we're talking about the effectiveness. of the President of the United States were talking about a president who is trying to keep the
N Korea's nuclear weapons at Bay were taught him talking about a president who is trying to deal with China and get a deal we're talking about a China, a president who is dealing with the most critical issues in the world in the world, and he is much less effective if he has to worry about this stuff. All I'm asking is for the benefit of the country that you just tell me if I should Is it a lot for legal defense, or I should budget low now you're that contact in the molar department? You I understand the argument: you're, not an idiot, you don't want bad things for the country. You don't want that. You could hate this president, but you don't want bad things for the country and you do understand the point that this president is highly degraded. By dealing with this thing, which
you know is nothing. What do you answer to Rudy Giuliani, then you say Rudy. I can't tell you anything: it would be a breach of ethics, of breach of everything. If I, if I gave you any information about this. But if you budgeted low, you should not expect to feel bad about it, see what I'm talking about almost certainly the president's lawyers could get somebody in molars group who has he knows what's happening could get them to say you should be worried about it enough to budget for it or maybe don't put a budget today
you just you know- maybe minimize that anyway. So I'm not going to say that that exact scenario played out. What I'm going to say is that there are lots of ways to deduce the severity of it without actual, the information being given and the lawyers for the President are absolutely smart enough to do that, and the molar people are absolutely smart enough not to tell them details. I believe that you know I've pretty I have a pretty high opinion of their professionalism um, so I think the president knows he's not in trouble, and so he can say yeah I'd love to have all that information come out. It makes it
less, you know it makes it look innocent, but they can also rely on Bob Barr to stop anything from coming out, if maybe as bad. So he still has. He still has the open that dodge if needed, if needed, the bond market always say. I can't release this part because it's confidential or something all right. Let's change the let's change the conversation to climate change and I've got two editions that I don't think you've seen before. So starting with us. I have for background if anybody's new to this, I I I started a many months, long, deep dive into climate change and to try to figure out what's going on, so I'm I'm legitimately on plants in terms of knowing whether it's a huge disaster coming or no big deal. I can't tell because the people
indicating it are not reliable for and a number of different reasons. Another words both the skeptics and the climate scientists are presenting their information. Collectively, I'm not talking about any one person. I assume that there are credible people on both sides, but if you look at collectively their arguments, most of it is garbage on both sides, so I've concluded for sure that there is a massive, miss representation. Then lying on both the climb inside inside, but also the skeptics, which doesn't mean that we don't have to worry about climate change, it doesn't mean that at all, because seventy five percent of everything you hear about climate change could be false, let's say the models are not that accurate. Let's say some of the measurements or not that accurate cetera, but as long as twenty five percent of it that it gets to the heart event is true. While you still have a big problem, even if seventy five percent of it is
bs in lying. Typically, many of you don't know this. I think half of all published peer, reviewed scientific studies eventually get debunked half. So if that, if that ratio held for climate science, even if it were all true half studies about it would be false, which would be completely normal and then overtime. They get replaced with better studies. That's how science works. So the fact that I'm saying there's massive deceit on both the climate scientist side and the skeptics of those same people Doesn't mean anything, it doesn't tell you anything about how likely the truth is on the other side, all we know is that there's massive liable size that that mark, that part is a preliminary conclusion, but here's a question: what would what would your strategy what's the best strategy,
if you knew climate science was a big problem, and here I want to make a war analogy right, so you can imagine imagine a hypothetical situation in which you had four countries. Let's say it's a world with only four just hypothetically and let's say that they all decided to go to war with each other until only one was left. So all everybody is fighting everybody. So that's the imaginary scenario, but you have the best. Terry and, let's say an before- has the worst as the worst military. What is the strategy at each of these entities should use well the obvious stress.
three: if you have the worst of military and everybody is fighting, everybody is to try to find a partner. You know try to partner up, let's say I'll, just make this little more interesting. Let's say there is no partner, it's an artificial situation when which nobody can partner. Somebody said the game of thrones, that's exactly where this is coming from. So My situation is, everybody is going to fight everybody and nobody can partner. So somebody is just going to be the last country standing if you are the strongest military. What's your best strategy, anybody you're the strongest military, but everybody is going to fight everybody until it's all over. What's your best strategy stay out of it.
stay out of it because the less you can engage the weaker, your enemies will get fighting each other right, absolutely and and- and I would argue the no one would argue with this point- I mean there might be situations where you could do some limited, attack, and you know it would be such a mismatch that you should do it but generally, you want these people to all, fight with each other. Until there's nothing left and then you come in. Does that sound familiar it's world war? so do you know why the United States was so effective entering world war? Two this because the size that were already there were decimated decimated is the wrong word
because that means only taken down by ten percent, but Germany had, you know, take a lot of hits from that. The european forces the resistance. So now, let's take this to climate now I will. I will caution you that I'm not saying that I'm not telling you that war theory translates directly to climate. This is just a let's say just to get your mind thinking a certain way, so this is not supposed to persuade you about climate. Make your climate decision Sept so situation with climate is that if the climate scientist majority use correct in this is a big problem coming
They also say that that problem will primarily come from China and from India and from some of the less developed countries. What is our best strategy? If it's true, let's say that climate science is a disaster coming let's say that China and India and other countries and never develops next are going to be the prime drivers of that problem. What's your best play well in a purse, world, you would join hands with China and India and you would sing Coom by ya, Lord and then because you're such good friends and you get along. So well, you would coordinate a global effort, which all of you would act in unison as friends do
Coom by Ya Blower Cumbia and you would solve climate change problems. Wouldn't that be great, that's not going to happen so, let's say you're living in the real world, not the unicorns and rainbows and kumbaya world, where China is going to pursue its best, India is going to pursue its national best interest and everybody else is going to pursue their own best interest and there not gonna grab hands with you and sing Coom by ya no frickin way. That's kind of the world we live in, isn't is it in a world in which everybody is just going to do their own thing. Should we stay out of it because to get into it, you know the battle of world wide
climate change would weaken our economy. An almost certainly not work, that's what they, let's say because of China and India don't do their thing. It doesn't really matter what we do, but if we stay out of it we can keep our economy strong and because we're a very capable technological, high economy, country We have a good government, I see now it seems hard to believe that, but compared to other countries we have a relatively functional government. What would be the impact of climate change on the United States could be bad right could be bad, but guess what the United States could we can handle disasters, we we can get, out of the way in time. 'cause we see him coming, We can build better buildings, we can fortify against floods,
I can roll relocate entire populations. If we need to we can grow indoors. We could replace outdoor growing in five years. Well, maybe not, but if we made it a national priority, you could create indoor farm is that crazy, mods get you almost all the way there, so the United States as a strategy, if you, if you borrow from the concept of you, know war strategy, it seems like keeping ourselves strong. Well, the other countries are there, economies are being destroyed, is actually our best friend. Now I would love to your use in people talk more about this, because I'm obviously simplifying to the point of baby baby, simplifying beyond the point where it's even rational.
but it does seem to Maine that we can protect ourselves in this war against the climate better than all the other countries. Some This is what about the moral aspects, the moral way to approach it is to keep working on the technology that you could make available to the other countries. Should they want to use it, but you can't make the other countries use it. That's that's the trick. You can't make other countries do it and that's not going to change. You can make it possible for them to do it, and that would be the moral thing to do, but you can't make him do it. If you could, then we could talk about that. So my current thinking is that from a war strategy perspective, even if climate change is all of the risk that the scientists are saying it would still make sense for the United States to not get involved in anything, that's risky to our economy in the short term,.
Any any major dislocation to our economy in the short term is probably, and in very highly probable the worst strategy decision you could make. So that's the first thing here is the second part, and by the way, is anybody disagree with that? I'm saying I'm saying literally no disagreement in the comments, but I don't know if that means in now. Here's the fun part, let's decide if climate change is even a problem, so I told you I was doing a deep dive to try to figure out why it is that the skeptics and scientists who say that there's a big problem can't find middle ground, and there are two claims that I've I've folk because they seem to be the the simplest skeptical arguments and if the wrong they're the easiest to disprove and weirdly as
easy, as these would be to disprove, is very much like the fine people problem. So I believe that the same false memory, cognitive dissonance, that applied to the Find people hoax is probably very much applying to the climate situation meaning that neither side would be capable of changing their opinion. Even if facts were presented. I don't think I think people are too locked into their mental models at this point. So I've tried to see how. How can I find the one lever? The one fact the one claim that if you could
You would have your answer and if you can disprove it, it would just kill the skeptics. The skeptics would be the bunk. There are two charts I've seen that I do not claim to be accurate, they're too skeptical arguments that I've seen a number of times which save the strongest. I would like to see them debunked all right, so I've asked on Twitter. Can anybody debunk these and I got real quiet, so this is the ones that I'm watching one of them and and these just my own versions of them. One of them is this claim, and I think it's a you'll remind me in the comments who made this claim. But if you look at so apparently the top thirty one countries in the world have their own climate models, and you say yourself well, if they're all these different climate models made. Nobody knows anything, but the claim is that.
thirty or so of the models are in this same range, they're different, but they all say that we're in big trouble, because C two is he had to warm slightly different rates, but they're they're all heading to our doom. So if these are correct or even any one of them is correct, where do and I think what they do is they pick an average of these and they say all right since this one in the middle is the average and it shows were doomed. That's the store But you notice this one little outlier here and of all the models there's only one of them that's different than the rest. Apparently, this is the russian model now what's different about the russian model. As I understand it, this is very approximate understanding? Is that there's one key variable that they include
that the other ones treated differently and it's easy to measure which one of them is the accurate way to go, it turns out to be the russian model. So if you believe the sceptical argument- and I'm not taking that argument- I'm just presenting it if you believe it, the russian model, matches observation and also predicts that we don't have a problem uh all of the models, including the russian model, match to the past. In other words, if you run it against past data, they all seem to predict, or at least follow the temperature line. It's only when you get to the present and then predict the future where they diverge. So if this model, if this is true. I would say the russian model has disproved climate change as a gigantic risk, but it still says the temperature is going up. Just not in an end of the world Way, so
if this model is true, I would say we should be looking at the russian model 'cause, it's the only one that did the past. It's the only one also that has predicted the last several years and that's important. I should have put that on there. So if you look at I label this inaccurately future. Well, let's say this: the reason past the russian model has correctly predicted and it's the only one. So my graph is inaccurate here, but I understand the rush.
Well the only one that got the last ten years or whatever correct it is the only one that uses the correct input, and I think those are two known facts. That's the part. You need to fact check. So if this is true, climate change has largely been debunked, not a hundred percent, but you have to stop caring about it as much. If that were true, now here's another one and again, this is my version of the graph. This is not not intended to be exact, but the skeptical claim is made that if you start of the nineteen hundreds and go to now, if you look at the temperatures that it it looks roughly like the house there, temperatures were going on There was a period where they flat and or maybe fell a little bit and then there's now and the skeptics say. If the c two has been raising rising this entire time.
It was low here, but it's higher here. Why do we have the same rate here as we have with much higher co two, when nothing much has changed, and so they say the primary claim that were in an unusual unusual warming is debunked by your own data. Moreover, you really have to add this to this. Both of these to say, the co two did not predict either one right so it, but is that, is that graph, accurate? I saw Richard Lindzen refer to something similar to that set and he's he knows what he's talking about. So it's not it's, not a crazy grass there's at least one per.
this is working in the field who says yes, this is the actual data here. It is now did the russian model did the russian model predict this? Here's the fun part? Yes, it did about these models about the other. Thirty models. Did they predict this? Not so much not so much. Now I just claims that I do not know are true. I know that these are the sceptical claims and I'm presenting you presenting them to you, as as the claims of other people do not have a way to put a relief. ability on them or any kind of assessment of likelihood,
I'm just telling you these the arguments now, if these arguments are wrong, how easy would it be to debunk them see? That's that's where I'm getting, I'm I'm trying to pick things that would be definitive that were true or close to definitive, but also easy to debunk if they are to be debunked. So wouldn't it be easy to say no here the official numbers it doesn't even look like that. Would that be easy all it would take is somebody who is a clue, the scientists say I don't know where you got these numbers. That's those are not even the official numbers. It's really more like this or something else. That's all it would take. I've made this so easy that you could debunk it just by showing me the temperature. I don't need to be a scion.
This I don't need to be involved in climate scientist. I just need a climate scientist to say now that they didn't use the right numbers. The real temperature isn't that at all that, that's that would put me to bed haven't seen it still waiting. Likewise, I need somebody to say that russian model that's wrong because they do x or y. That's all I mean I could probably easily be convinced that the russian model is.
Just you know Russian B s how hard? How hard would it be to convince me? The Russians do not have a reliable model when their primary business is selling oil right. Keep in mind, it's kind of a coincidence that this that this big oil state doesn't say, climate change is a big problem. I mean. Is that a coincidence I mean you have to you have to factor that in so I'd make no claim that these arguments are valid. I simply present them, as the Simplest understand and the simplest to debunk I put both of them into the wilds of twitter, and I wait and I have not seen anything like a double but maybe I'll see that by today all right
I want to give what one other update on the fine people hoax, some some very industrious people who have been following this one, in particular, as going to Wikipedia to try to edit the Wikipedia page. That indicated that the fine people quote was talking about the racist, too edited to be more accurate to say that he excluded them with specific language excluded the races so the first several times that the correct information was put into a Wikipedia. It was re edited down back to the false version within seven minutes each time so and keep in mind that these other two were they were accompanied.
The actual transcript and the actual video so links to them. So there isn't any question on the facts: they're very objective, and yet Wikipedia's editors change the correct fact of the wrong fact several times within minutes, and let me give you the exact twitter handle of the person who is making this happen right now. The purple and I'll give you an update, 'cause, there's more happening on that uh,
as I'm talking bout, unstoppable, two thousand and sixteen so unstoppable. Two thousand and sixteen is driving this and then other people have come in on both sides and then I guess with Wikipedia when there's a disagreement. The disagreement gets elevated to what's called a talk page and that's where everybody puts their comments outside of the page itself, where they can talk it out, the editors can argue and then they can come to some agreement on the talk page and then it then, ideally it becomes a fine, let it so. It's been elevated to the talk page, and Meantime, the page was frozen, which makes sense you want to freeze the page while everybody's arguing about it. So that part is fine I'm in the meantime I contacted Jimmy Wales who is founder of Wikipedia this is one of the great things about twitter, yeah,
it's hard to even think back in the old days, but in two thousand and nineteen I can have a question about wicked. India, and within thirty seconds I can send a message via twitter 'cause. We follow each other, Jimmy Wales and I and uh. And he got he got back to me and he said he would look into it. So the head of Wikipedia the founder of the boss of it all said he would look into it. So we looked into it today and since I first contacted him, one of the one of the Accurate edits had been sticking, so there was an accurate edit in there saying that he excluded the races from find people and gave the actual quote, but
through some more context. That was a little bit ambiguous, so there are still some more conversation, so Jimmy Wales looked into it. I would just think about this. Just for a moment think about this, the founder of Wikipedia responded to me directly and fairly quickly, given all the things he has to do looked into it. Personally, I saw that he came into it at a point when the conversation had been elevated to the talk page. He checked the talk and he got back to me. He said it looks like it's heading in the right direction. In other words, it looks like it's sorting,
self found in the way you'd want it to so he said. Maybe maybe I won't put my foot on you know I want to. I forget what do use, but he didn't want to weigh in because he's sort of the big gorilla you know if, if Jimmy Wales weighs in on a topic on Wikipedia everybody's, going to stop them, it's going to be about him, and so he he quite wisely, in my opinion, decided to just stand back and just monitor for awhile, because it looks like it's moving in the right directions. I'll check back on that today, but it looks like the Acted at it is sticking now that creates an interesting situation, because Wikipedia will have a different reality with You know it'll have links to the actual sources. You can check that reality, which will be different from the reported reality on tv this
if I'm nothing- I'm not- I sometimes I I would hate to be on the other side for me on anything, because I'm just too damn stubborn to give up on stuff. So the interesting thing about this story is- the false memory part of it. I promise you that I know more than you do about why the why the media is treating The way they are, and as far as I can tell is because they really believe that
like. Many of you are still believing that they're they're just liars supporting a side. Well on this one topic, I'm I'm personally quite convinced that they actually believed it was true the way they were reporting it all right. So there you have it, and I think I've talked enough- and I will talk to you later.