Topics:
- Professional news people usually recognize partisan voices
- WHY/HOW were some very professional people duped?
- WHY did others clearly see partisan voices shoveling hard?
- They may have believed partisan pundits were non-partisan
- A Psychological phenomena has occurred
- “Fine People” hoax is now correctly reported on Wikipedia
- Will Snopes also support the truth? No word from them yet
- Americans come together against our common enemies
- Somebody created the hoax of Russian Collusion, fed it
- Treason, sedition, what charges will the plotters face?
- Conservatives own the high ground right now
- President Trump is playing the situation exactly correct
- Old Nads (Nadler) persists in his investigation…needs a “band name”
- What name should his band be known as?
- Nadler is now exposed as just a partisan harasser of POTUS
- Sam Harris is interesting, a legitimately FACT based person
- Have his filters on reality been revised since Mueller report?
- HUGE value in learning that you’ve been completely and totally duped
- Wise skepticism of OTHER topics where you were “certain”
- “Hindcasting” is predicting the past, climate models are good at that
- A useful climate model predicts the FUTURE
- Is it true that only the Russian model has correctly predicted the future…and it does NOT predict doom?
- Are pardons on the near horizon?
- Smart for President Trump, allowing the media to flounder
- A pardon would become todays news, distract from Mueller report
- Who might receive a pardon at some point in the future?
Please 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. below is a demonstration of the 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 467 Scott Adams: Enjoying the Full-Bodied Flavor of Coffee and Exoneration. Mmmm…Exoneration. Join Me! appeared first on Dilbert Blog.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Oh Mamma mobile phone pop pop up now my mom Papa about everybody come on in here. You know what time it is sheer it's time for coffee was got out and today's coffee will be a special blackened. No longer we rely on simple coffee beans for our coffee pleasure today. The coffee beans are mixed with these subtle and yes, sophisticated taste of something I like to call exoneration. Yes, coffee is great by itself exaggeration, pretty gray stuff to all by itself. But when you combine them, you combine the eggs examination in the coffee. You get the best simultaneous said the youth had since November
nice twenty sixteen and if you would please join me, grab your copy, a mug you're jealous yours time, your tankard
The service fill it with your favorite, like when I like coffee and join me. Now, for the simultaneous up so good, so bold and a beautiful home! Well, of course the Big NEWS is the Mahler response, but I thought you using a lot of that. Any other news.
So I'd like to interview Dale the Anti Tramper Dale. Could you come over here? I'd like to hear about Europe. I understand you went on a big elephant hunt Safari. You are trying to see if he could shoot a big elephant. Is that right as right? It was very
Successful do my elephant fund. My elephant hunt was very successful. Really so you gotta, what kind of an elephant did you you shoot? I didn't. I showed any elephants wages and your elephant home was totally successful. What does that mean?
yeah look at the details. We all piled into our utility vehicles in the hotel parking lot and when we were pulling out of our parking space, we ran over US oral. We ran over a squirrel. I thought you said you had a successful elephant hunt, but you didn't shoot any elephants. I just told you. We ran over a squirrel in the parking lot victory.
Success no deal, there's a big difference between going on an elephant hunt and getting an elephant
verses running over a squirrel in the parking lot. I don't think you can claim victory for simply killing a squirrel. I didn't say I killed it saying the squirrel survived. I think I had a limp seem so the hard work begins today with this Russia collusion stuff, because the tough part is trying to sort
out the at least three different categories of people who were on the losing side of the saga. Number one are actual literal traders, people who seem to apparently
I have been intent on overthrowing the entire the entire country, an actual coup. Those people
Probably need to go to jail for the rest of their lives at a minimum. If we can confirm if the legal system does this thing right,
I wanna nonfatal, ready no crowd justice raising with that, but it does seem at this point that the likelihood that there were genuine
Eight, who are trying to overthrow the country
Feels very close to probable.
I would say: well now it's not close the probable its probable, but there is another group who are simply fooled by their own side. The people who experience cognitive dissonance and I would say that those people need to be understood. So you don't need to talk to you, who you don't need to punish the people who were simply bamboozled by their own side. There also victims, and I would say that allowed the the tv news personalities fall into their camp, but there's another camp, the let's call them the the advocates, the partisans so there's a group there actually didn't care if it was true or not and there in some ways there the most weasel like group. Let me give you some examples.
From some partisans who were probably not the traders and in fact I have no reason to suspect that there, the actual traders behind this whole thing, but there also not the people who were just fooled by it. There are people who apparently we're not carry their minds but based on their actions, it seems that they're, just partisans and you're going stick with the story, no matter. What here are a few?
then this from David from afar, you M famous anti jumper. Here's is tweet from this morning there for five bullet points, and this- and this is in response to the mother conclusions- a truck of tvs is hijack now. The first thing you gotta say to yourself is: what do a truck of tv
these have to do is smaller investigation. So the first thing you need to know is: if somebody has retreated to an analogy they ve already lost.
I guess you're not using the analogy to make a point there trying to win the argument with an analogy
We can't do that. You ve already lost if you try to use so never want to talk of tv uses. Hijacked number to your son meets with the hijackers three or campaign manager shares regions.
Mission with them. For your recorded on video, saying I love truck hijacking five. The tv show are, in your house, happy no collusion day.
So he had to change the situation that actually happened, the one
no collusion into an entirely unrelated, an imaginary crime in order to convict him of the imaginary crime.
That's a partisan, so this is not somebody. Who's fooled by the story is unlikely that this is.
Beyond that, he was some original trader plotter kinda guy. Is these just
down the illegitimate voice. Here is another one
from Peter DOW friend of Hillary Clinton, the eight o. You any goes thread. The ultimate gaslight series is
but you were the gas lazy him he's. As the mother saga is the ultimate gas lighting of the american people totally credible statement, we saw tromp, ask Russia the Heck Clinton's email they did.
We saw him repeatedly bowed down the burden. We saw him obstruct justice and boast about it to russian operatives at all. No bravely about that, but
What I said that was evidently transporters know how to recognize. Jokes, personal persuasion, use and dictators, and confirmation by us so petered out gives three pieces of why you thinks are evident.
The first one was a joke when the presidency, today- Russia, if you have those emails, likes him, he said that during the budget debate, second one is personally persuasion. He uses and dictators. Yes, he's nice Kim Jong, whom did it work? Yeah worked, apparently a work. The president is nice to president. She in China did that work. The work to be nice to presidency yeah totally work because he can go tough negotiating and still be respectful. They worked. Did the president try exactly the same technique that we see worked too?
I was in a row: did he try that same technique with Putin, which is to be nice to Putin personally, but to possess actions? I'm go hard into everything you need to do in the political role. Yes same method we saw work twice right in front of us is a reason to believe it's a bad strategy with Putin. It's not about strategy is actually the smart strategy. In fact, if you were to rank all the different ways, you could approach Russia, the very best one is to be respectful to their leader,
and also goes hard, as you possibly can against anything that these two go hardy. You know the military, the everything else so
when you see the partisans there there not to be taken seriously. I am loving, as I'm sure many of you watching the compilation clips of all the Pandit,
so I've been saying for years that the end is near the end of the year of the Andes Dearest the beginning of the end, the beginning of the others, bombshell, bombshell, bombshell, bombshell to find out it is for not now I watched I've been watching the news pretty much, none
stop for last day? I dont know that I've ever been more entertained because watching the actual reactions of the people who bought into it, the people who were actually I'm gonna, say brainwashed, in my opinion, most of the the famous news host who were the classic dinner, the anti Trump category of news house as far
I can tell they believes the story in the way you can tell is because how disappointed they are and how surprised they are
and how deeply damage they are. For one reason
there. So you can see it in their faces and and the reactions and those are not the faces and reactions
people who knew all along it was a hoax. Are they
when we as you watch the reactions of the people, the Anti trappers the tv to tv types in particular.
Wouldn't you say that for the most part they seemed genuinely surprised.
That does my impression, not mind reading. So I can't know for sure, but my impression,
Yes, they do seem genuinely surprised so
We say that they were actually taken and one wonders if there are going to have a response to be sought to being so totally screwed by the people they believed were on their side now. I dont believe that a professional news people are being fooled by the daily Franz.
Things are being fooled by Peter DOW, because the the professional news people know what a partisan looks like. I apart,
so there's a partisan, you don't take them to seriously. In fact, you should discuss a hundred percent of what they say and I think the news people largely noted do that and largely do that.
But apparently there were, but there is a whole other class of pundits who they thought were closer to the reality based approach.
Who completely bamboozle them. They they hypnotized them.
And here is the question that I ask in the next week- here's what to look for. He hears what to look forward to find out
if the news is even a little bit legitimate,
now I am willing to accept honest mistakes. In my opinion, there are a whole bunch of people in the news industry who honestly believed a version of reality. I would say that was a mistake, but not one there
big, be career, ending in my opinion, there should not be career, ending mistakes to actually believe something by here's. How you can tell if they are legitimate players-
in the next week. If you see the news business Brain
on tv psychologists, maybe hypnotists to explain why they and others were so completely fool,
I. Thus they would be legitimate players, so the legitimate news people are going to bring on medical professionals,
they're, not gonna, bring on more pundits to explain what we have already seen? If all they do is bringing more pundits
to say why they were really right, despite being obviously wrong, then you can't give them any credit. If you see somebody who was just absolutely wrong- and they say I was completely wrong,
and I got to say I really thought there was something to this Russia thing I was just completely wrong, but what I think we ought to do is understand why I was so wrong. Why are the people were so wrong? So, unlike engine is my next guest with their? I don't have a gasp and I'm talking about what they should say in the next gas should be an expert on cognitive dissonance, an expert on confirmation bias
That's the expert that needs to be on all of these shows this week. If you don't see that you're, not
Anybody was even really trying, because it's obvious was up now. It's obvious that this was always a psychological phenomenon. If we don't see it reported as a psychological phenomenon. There's no reporting they're just won't be an expert talking about the news, because the news is no longer just.
The Mulder report. That's the factual basis right. It is news by itself, but there's a news.
Papa that that's the real news, the news on top of the Mulder report is
Why were people taken in by confirmation by us when others were not, is simply that people just reverted to their teams, and it wasn't that one
into their teams, and it wasn't that one team was smarter or could see through it, but rather there were just ruining further
You may be the whole explanation, but I want to see the psychologists explain what we just experienced. I've seen the pundits
in the same week that this hopes died embedded in a way. I can to step down the other news that I think was really
as big. The other news was it. We know now that these the Charlottesville fine people quote was always fake news.
It was always fake news and you can determine that was certainly by looking at the transcript, and you can see this president when he said, find people without any prompting, specifically excluded the racists and Charlottesville from being in the fine people category. But yet the news for years as report,
That is called the races, find people when he said in clear words, literally the opposite now Wikipedia has now corrected it. With my help and a lot of other people's help. End Joel Pollack has been reporting on this for a week or so, and so at least
computer has corrected the hooks? The mainstream news has not, and I'm not sure I would ever expected to do it, but we no longer have to doubt that it was a hoax because the year that the data is clear as public you see it. I've asked the eye ass notes to take a look at it, but
I don't know if they are resolved my message, I never got to return a return comment.
SIRI says: did I fall for the hoax? I did not ever fall for the Charlottesville, fine people hoax cuz. To me it was always obvious in contacts while you meant- and I did not fall for the russian collusion
so I personally do not fall for either. I did fall for the Covington kids hopes when I saw the first
hurry up as soon as I saw the accurate video I clarified and apologize immediately. Once you see, the actual context is obvious that the original one was a fake.
So I'm not beyond being fooled by the news far from it, but these two particular hoaxes. I did see early.
Here's an interesting thing that I did not see coming in this whole saga.
The United States is the most powerful country. Maybe of veto in the universe depends.
Sorted depends if there are other civilizations at a universe policy. Our solar system, the United States, is, was powerful country, powerful, military, powerful economy, most powerful
country in the world. There is only one thing that this country needs to weapon eyes all their power, and you know what that is its common enemy.
If the United States is fighting with itself, which we like to do, if we don't have someone else, the fight with will fight with each other, we're sort of fighting country were were were recover scrappy bunch of people right. We like to fight a little bit, maybe less
just every country, but every now, and then we get a common enemy. Do you remember when ISIS was our common enemy? Ices doesn't have territory
anymore. We just went in there and just wiped out their whole territory,
Holding and whole lot of people,
because what we have a common enemy there's not much.
They can stop the United States and it's not going to be another country. We have a common enemy.
We now have a common enemy in and I'm not talking about the fake news. The fake news is a problem. The faint news is applied
The common enemy in this case is whoever fed the fish
is whoever used the fake news as a tool. That's our common enemy. There is somebody in the story and we don't know who yet well. We don't know
Let us face it, we sought to do no, I'm not,
name names because little early, but we can do now we're going to know who is behind it all, at least we know some of the names we might learn some more, but there are some genuinely evil people. There are some
seriously evil people in the story, yeah I'll. Let you speculate on the name. Some of them are more obvious than others, but I would say of the of the likely guilty crew. There are at least there are at least two they you can at least have a conversation about the death penalty. I would say so. I think the death penalty.
The death penalty for treason after Google that all our second is their death. Do you work
United States is a death penalty for treason. Search for death penalty is death, definition section three of the ice.
This constitution treason specifically limited to levying war against the, U S or adhering to their enemies
giving them aid and covered. So the treason seems to me a war context
so let me ask you: this does not apply to a country that has nuclear weapons aimed at us we're not technically and a state of war with Russia early, but they do have noticed
clear weapons aimed at US work. If somebody's aiming a weapon at you. Are they your friend when we all think do you think Canada has any weapons aimed at the United States, I'll think so, Sir says there under those? Can the penalty could be deaf or not less than five years imprisonment? Well, and in that I guess there are different state.
The other states have their own laws, apparently there's a federal law than restate lost, so my gases, there's somebody like Alan Dershowitz, would say treason does not apply because we're not in a state of war technically and then I became so. It might be true that there is no treason, possibility.
Last year in the context of war, and then that would be arguable. So I think probably that would not be on the tables. My best guess is that the death penalty is often tale about sedition. Somebody says: look up sedition, let's all learn about said Isham,
is the over to conduct such as speech and organization that tends towards insurrection against the established order, so basically working to overcome the established order is
penalty repels a well ok. We have different countries, have different laws answered
The United States
We have the alien or we did do. We still have the alien sedition acts for the punishment of certain crimes, false or scandalous, and wishes writing. I can't be against
It looks like the is too long for me to read. Live.
Well, it's a punishable offence, but I would have to be more of a lawyer to sort out whether that applies in this case the. So, if I had to guess, I would say that the the government in the justice system will start moving against the original plotters
and that might take years in Trump might be done with a second term when we learn anything about this, but I'm pretty sure Lindsey Graham, is not gonna. Let go others never talk about. Something
politics. So I was. You saw me praising that the president's showmanship instinct by not tweeting, for what almost two days he didn't tweet about this whole, the other wrapping up as the Mulder Report and then when he did tweet it was just sort of basic
I think he's tweet was well, let's check the president's tweets this morning. You maybe tweeting, while I'm talking so let's look up a trump and see what he is doing this morning.
So he covered it just right. You said eighteen hours ago, he goes no collusion, no obstruction complete and total exhilaration keep Amerika great. Now there is absolutely no hyperbole
there is no exaggeration. There is no no false statement, there's no provocation, but here's was cool.
There is no revenge,
There is no politics, he just gives us the facts, so we goes forty eight hours or so whenever it was a day plus without tweeting anyting, and then he just gives it to a straight. Is that
President Trump you expected, so that's the beauty of it. They want
one of the young man.
Major elements of publicity of brand, of managing people's attention,
is knowing went to violate their expectations, because that's what makes you pay attention?
You know if you are a little bit inappropriate. That's why people watch and here
chosen, obviously, to stay completely. Vanilla he's
he's intentionally being boring because the new cycle itself so good for him, the lastly, he wants to do is say something and draw attention away from it. So he couldn't go too long without saying something, so you just put on the record: no collusion, no budget, no objection complete and total exoneration
just the facts, brilliant. What would be the one thing that was scare the country the most,
Now, though, we know that the Mulder report results the high level results.
What would be the worst thing? The president could have done. The worst thing the president could have done is to say, and now we're going to try to jail the people who started this total mistake. Total mistake
don't go there. You do not want to go for revenge or even hinting at it.
Do not want to go LAO because your ears,
on the high ground right now. You dont want to change that. Anything you could do could be a mistake that could hurry
but there's nothing. You can do to make this better. There's nothing. The president could say to make them
better than it already is its as good as it could infringe gap. So the way he's playing it is just brilliant
now when he gave his life comments. I guess who's adding to the helicopter, something again he put his personality on it
but he didn't go hard. He did not know me did not go crazy. He did not go
revenge. He did not go emotional. He he saw displayed a straight
give the people a little news. Bites, keep the keep the existing story going without changing it didn't want to change it. Cuz he's smart! All right so now is still going to be going after the president, but what do you feel
you being the public. What are you the public feel about an and his what will be continued,
pestering losses. How do you feel about that? Now that you know the whole Russia collusion thing was a fraud? Does it feel the same? Because if you thought the Russia thing,
was real than anything. The matter was gonna do fell also legitimate didn't because, because they felt like they were sort of part of the same universe of complaints.
So as long as you are still allowed to imagine that the smaller thing was good and come up with some real dirt. It was also reasonable to think well, Needler will come up with some more.
Real dirt, so with Mueller was legitimate.
Maybe never is do they're both sort just investigating the president for similar things. Why, when they both be
legitimate, but now that we know that the Mulder Report- and I will say that Mahler and his team are were legitimate as far as we can tell
what is that, due to demands or old man's as I like to call it, doesn't make you look good? Does it, and so I am going to start referring to never, and anybody who is sort of August,
team gazelle, be a small team of people swirling around Adler and and being his supporters. So I've decided to give them a a ban.
The name, you know when you name a band can't gives them an identity, definitely
to give your band the name. I'm gonna name, Nobblers Band NAD, learn the Dingle berries.
So his new musical name will be meddler end the Dingle berries, the Dingle varies, will be the they little lawsuits and the people's whirling around him
Yeah, so Nazism Dingle berries and they shall become the the free. They should become the free advertisements for trumps. Twenty twenty campaign, because nebular when from something that may be, could help the Democrats to something that's gonna, be a gigantic
image problem for the Democrats. Here's wise an image problem now that Mahler has shown that there was nothing there. Meddler is exposed as just a partisan
before you could say, well, maybe he was trying to do the work of the country
Maybe you, of course, he's partisan, but maybe is also good work. You don't know, but now now you're free to say it's it's now.
This is just partisan. Whatever he's going to come up with is just going to BBS is going to be pestering, the president is going to be presidential harassment, and so he must be mocked for his work. We, the people, should be part of the solution.
And we can t by simply putting him in his proper place in history nets.
The Dingle berries are now the greatest threat to the presidency, and there are also ridiculous and are also not much
threat. So, let's treat them the way they are needs in the Dingle berries. I think it's catchy do do any of you remember. When I went on these same Harris Podcast, I don't remember what it was was it was. I am not sure what the couple years ago and SAM Heiress
notable and I'd rubber and we talked about things including Russia, collusion and including member. If Charlottesville came up you might have,
but how does that conversation look now through the filter of current events, because if you look at it now, I'm pretty sure that SAM was on the side of their something here with this Russia's stuff, I remember all the details, but I would love to catch up with them and see if
If his thinking is changed about what we've been watching for the last couple years- and the reason is SAM is interesting, and I know you know that everybody has their
Their fans and operators he's
I? As do I.
But I would say: SAM Harris Harris's is different from other people in the conversation, because he's he's legitimately fact based meaning that that's his brand write. His brand is facts and reason, and I would love to see how effective, however, at all he has, a reassessed is filters based on current events is possibly hasn't
but I would say that he more than anybody else in the universe has a solid, solid say. I would give him a high expectations that he is revised. How he's looking
The entire situation is the only thing we revise is how you look at the specific case.
Then you have learned the lesson
the lesson is not hey. We were wrong about that. One thing does not lessen. The lesson is not. We were wrong about this. One thing this Russia thing. The lesson is how easily
We can be fooled once you understand the bigger lesson you can start asking yourself seriously waiting
could I also be fooled about this other thing. Let me give you an example: climate change. What is the most common opinion about climate change from it
People think it's a problem. The most common opinion is settled. The scientists
Sir soundly, on one side, there is plenty of science,
plenty of measurements. It's done now. You ve seen this Russia thing.
Now the Russia thing obviously has no connecting tissue to climate change. Just complete.
The different topics, but once you learn that you can be that certain about something on the Russia collusion stuff every wrong completely wrong. You have to take their thinking if Europe, if you're a functional thinker
You have to take what you learn from that moving over to other cases, and at least ask yourself, should I be on guard that this has happened more than once it here's? What I would ask you to consider- and I just discovered this.
This week. At the very least, I believed that the small
this claim that I believed was absolutely true is that the climate scientists have a good understanding of the last hundred years.
Do you could argue that they may have less of an understanding about you, you're the ancient history.
But for the last hundred years wicked measure things better.
You know we have a much better grip on the variables, so I thought that the that the climate scientists could explain at least the last hundred years, but it turns out that there's a gigantic part of it, like the first half in which they just say. Well, we think it was aerosols, and maybe there was something about industrial pollution.
Because the first half of the half of the century doesn't really love ass, but the first half of the hundred years or so doesn't match the co2 prediction, meaning that the co2 is the the only lever you need to look at, because the argument is that earlier seo, too was not
only lever and that aerosols inclusion and maybe while the aerosol from the pollution.
Maybe volcanoes were skewing what the models would have told you if Co2 and then the only variable
Now I believe what I'm just that I'm saying is true and of course, in the climate change era, he have to assume
yeah you're you're, always on shaky ground, no matter what you claim it seems, but if that's true then, is certainly not true that the scientists are darn, sure that they know what's going on, because if they don't
no, why the model didn't work, meaning that are not all in the same page. So some people think they now by science is not agreed. There's not a definite idea of why
The temperature is even done when it's done even in the last hundred years. So I would say that that the limited claim of climate science that we know what's going on with greater certainty for the last hundred years is disproved by their own their own statements, because
I will tell you clearly that we think it was. The pollution in the volcano is earlier.
Another fifty years ago, whatever we think it was the volcanoes and we're pretty sure it's likely, it was the pollution. Does that sound like they know? What's going on this, the opposite? If they said it's definitely these things, then I say: ok, you got it. You gonna handle on us if they say
likely these things. That's not everybody, be it on the same page likely doesn't get it done, because I don't think anybody who told you that their models are justly likely. They pretty much tell you that were in deep, deep trouble and its guaranteed. So while I get rid of this guy troll goodbye trial, so my claim just to be very clear. I am not making a clean one way or another on climate change, I don't,
no, if it's a gigantic problem and should be our biggest issue, I dont know if it's not a giant problem. I just know that the one individual claim is debunked, which is that the scientists,
or on the same side, and they
understand what's been happening for last hundred years ago, because they look now for sure. So it's only the it's only the certainly part. That's that's in question to have any thoughts on apples screaming service. Well, as as old new topic, I'm sure it will be. A very good example doesn't make bad problem.
Do you think Trump should re examine. Annoy you mean. Did the russian model get debunked? What model yes met? Tabbies blog burst about how badly we got taken
and on this Russia collusion stuff is is a must read, is just brilliant writing and its also factually illuminating and our aim. As I see a lot of questions Gabrielle
they're all over the border, climate change Mahl. Why does somebody keep saying climate change model to me, so he I e the climate models are, I think, you're prompted me to give you an update on this. I made it.
I'm a change challenge and it was this. There are thirty one or so major models, usually there's one model that per country sweet country as their preferred climate change.
Prediction model, but there's one of them. That's different from the rest is way different. It is the russian bottle. The russian model that way different from the rest is the only one this banana
lately, so all of the models Heine Cast, meaning that they all accurately they all accurately described the past. But that's the easy part is easy to make your model of described the past. The hard part is getting to predict only one of the thirty one or so models has done both its three
model now. The awkward part is that the russian model is nowhere near all the other thirty one. So the
the thirty one like we're all doomed. It's the end of the world it somewhere in this range and the russian model.
Now here in the russian models as making a warmer, but no big deal
So I simply ask the question: do I have the facts right? Is it a fact?
there are thirty. One is models. Is the fact that the russian One is different from the rest? Is that a fact
russian One says there will be warming, but not that much after think, it's the end of the world, and is it true that the russian model is the only one that has been right
in in recent several years. That's all I want to know. If that's true, then the climate change.
Certainly, the climate change settled science is not true.
And I asked that question of the most effective skeptics that interact with on twitter and there a lot of them. I interact with a lot of climate. Not I'm sorry, not skeptics. I interact with them too, but I interact with a lot of climate. Science is a hobbyist.
Experts as well as some that were actually scientists and the ones were really good at debunking. The skeptics are really good at it, so there are two of them in particular, we were always in my feed and they are just shooting down. The skeptics
crazy? The sceptics will come in, but one about this, and then they say, while the study debunks, so there there is great the bunkers de bunkers of the sceptics, not de bunkers, others,
and yet Steve Guttered, his part of who they they d book. So
and I don't mean they debunk Everything- Steve Gutter says Tony Heller- they don't, I dont know they debunk every clay makes. But alas,
They have debunked now what I said, but I mean that they have an argument that look strong, who knows whose right it's hard for me to judge these things, but they have strong arguments to counter the sceptics, and I simply ask is therefore a strong argument to counter this.
On claim this with this one small claim that the russian model is the only one that seems to work and that it doesn't predictable and things got really quiet. Now it's
possible there. One of those DE bunkers actually did produce the argument to debunk that point, and I haven't seen it so somebody has seen it. Let me now, because Twitter is sort of a tough place to make sure you ve seen everything and in those those conversations or so,
detail that long. You just wouldn't know if something scroll by. So if anybody has seen an argument against that point-
that the russian model is the accurate one? I'd like to see it, so I dont have a conclusion, but I will tell you that I have been asking a lot of skeptical questions about climate change for months and months and months, and that's the only one that didn't have a quick response.
So it makes me wonder if there is a response. Somebody said how to contact me. Twitter is best just send, send a tweet and include bearded and if you ve got an army,
and I like to see it because it is better if you do it in public, unlike other people, to see your argument to cause, they might have a counterpoint to. I think somebody says so the climate is not changing. I believe all the models, including the russian model, who say that the climate is changing in the co2 is, is a key variable. I believe
all of them, including the russian model, say that, but they have different sensitivities. I believe also that the russian model is the only one that uses inaccurate input for one of the key very lives. Now that's enough
the claims made by you don't need to know about that claim so much as just whether or not as the one the span pardons somebody S. Somebody says what about pardons. Well, some are saying this would be the perfect time to issue parts, because
The president is in such a winning place. He's got the he's, got the good will at the moment, and he could just your slide him through the new cycle, because the new cycle would ignore them relative to the bigger story. I believe that's not
case. I believe he might want to wait a little bit now
don't know. A little bit looks like a little bit could be two weeks. A little back could be a year
So I dont know what wait a little bit looks like, but somewhere between two weeks in the
as the new cycle right now, is so unambiguously positive that you don't want to do anything to disrupt that.
Yet you need. You need the news to just flounder for a while in a way this was so good for free. You once is done, and the news has moved on to other two other fake news.
As you know, it well so once other fake news is in the news in the president is being attacked. That's the point where he might have an opportunity to change the new cycle. Does the moment he gives a pardon. That becomes the news, so he has a positive new cycle. With the Mulder report,
giving him full exoneration. The worst thing he could do is pardon people who committed real crimes the same week, because then suddenly people say
Okay, you were exonerated, but I don't want to talk about that anymore. Let's just talk about this sketchy thing you did with your pardon, so yes, I believe he has a a clear glide path, so he could. He has a glide path, definitely for pardoning the all the the minor players
so you can definitely pardon Roger Stone. I think that was easy, so the Roger Stone, pardon, I would say, is something close to guaranteed if, if stone doesn't take care of it as soon as possible, that the stone thing will just go away and so on, but I think that's the easy part manifold is a tough one. I'm not already been recommended, because men effort was flattered, crook. He and you only got
because of this dragnet, but uneasy picky, there's nothing. You can say about being attacks to. Let that happen to drone course he would be in the easy part Flynn, as far as I know, would be an easy
so. I think he has a total glide pass for Flynn course. He and stone manifolds little little trickier pop adopt this. I don't love, is a pardon necessary for Papa, doubtless he's already out. Does that help? Maybe a clears record or something that's enough now, and I will talk to you later,
Transcript generated on 2020-03-31.