Episode 154 - Scott Adams Talks About the Newest Reason to Love Rand Paul
Rand Paul’s reverse Russian collusion play on Brennan Play of the year by a person not President Trump Is Brennan monetizing his security clearances? Brennan loving networks HAVE to cover this story Paul survived TWO attempts on his life in one year ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that. See all of my Periscope videos here… https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL Find my WhenHub Interface app here… https://interface.whenhub.com
Boom ba-ba-boom. In case you're worried that my face looks very red, I will tell you that that's the lighting in the mirror. I don't look like I'm about to have a heart attack. I'm halfway through eating, but Rand Paul made the morning too interesting. I just gulped Doritos. Breakfast is still ongoi…
View segment →Why am I being an idiot? Let me block you. I'm blocking all the Hitlers. Goodbye, Hitlers. So have you been noticing my technique of blocking Nazis? Whoops, here I am. Have you noticed my technique of blocking Nazis on Twitter seems to be having an effect? If you go back three months ago, the numbe…
View segment →All right, so did you see the list of priorities being tweeted around? I think I talked about this before. Of the country's priorities, and climate change isn't even on the top 36. There was another poll of 18 priorities, and climate change came in 17th out of 18. What happened to climate change? W…
View segment →All right, yeah, I need an Erica. I got to get some stuff done. So let me ask you this question and then I'll go. My book publisher has asked me for another book, a follow-up to "Win Bigly." It would be my third and sort of a series that are along these lines. Yeah, the first one was "How to Fail at…
View segment →All right, I've said enough. So props to Rand Paul for his extraordinarily clever broadside on John Brennan, who may be the inspiration for almost getting Rand Paul killed twice in one year. Did that look like a gang symbol? I didn't mean that. No gang symbols here. All right, I'll talk to you late…
View segment →Boom ba-ba-boom. In case you're worried that my face looks very red, I will tell you that that's the lighting in the mirror. I don't look like I'm about to have a heart attack. I'm halfway through eating, but Rand Paul made the morning too interesting. I just gulped Doritos. Breakfast is still ongoing. Mmm.
And if somebody says you look old, this is how I look when I just wake up after a long night. I'm in Las Vegas right now, coming home today. So now that you're all here, let's pick this up where we left off.
I hope you've seen the news that Senator Rand Paul had tweeted the following. So this is Senator Rand Paul. He tweets, "Is John Brennan monetizing his security clearance? Is John Brennan making millions of dollars divulging secrets to the mainstream media with his attacks on real Donald Trump?" And then later Paul tweets, "Today I will meet with the president and ask him to revoke John Brennan's security clearance."
Now you see what's going on here, right? Rand Paul is very cleverly playing a reverse Russia collusion on Brennan. And not only is it clever and hilarious, it's probably effective, but it could not be more perfect.
And let me just talk about the parts of it. So first of all, Rand Paul does not accuse Brennan of a crime. He simply asks the question, because all of the evidence would suggest that interpretation. Now it's different. You know, saying somebody did something is very different than saying, well, all the evidence would suggest that there's a big problem here. I'm just asking the question. Is he selling secret information to the media to overthrow the country? Just asking.
What does that sound like? It sounds exactly like what everybody's been saying about Russia collusion, primarily John Brennan. I'm just asking. Why is the president asking in this bit, "Tell me one reason why the president should be nice to Putin"? Well, of course there are obvious reasons why to do that, and they're not all nefarious.
So Rand Paul is just giving back to John Brennan exactly what he's been giving to the president and the country for the last, I don't know, two years or whatever. This is the funniest, coolest thing I've seen. This is like four things that didn't come from the president himself. This is like the play of the year. This is so good.
And here's what it does. The first thing it does is it takes all the energy out of the headlines, because yeah, it flips the script, but you can't look away. He's accusing the ex-head of the CIA of — well, not an accusation exactly, but more of a question. It's just a question. He's got top-secret clearance. He is clearly against the president. He's working with the networks. He has access to these secrets. The networks would like them. The networks have money. They would certainly pay for insider information. Huh.
Now that doesn't mean that John Brennan has committed any crimes. I want to be very clear. I personally am aware of no crimes by anybody, by the president or John Brennan. But is it fair for Rand Paul to go after John Brennan in what I think anyone would call a totally unfounded semi-accusation in the form of a question? Is it appropriate? Well, it wouldn't be appropriate if it were anyone else except maybe Clapper. But with John Brennan, it is totally appropriate. And the fact that he's going after his security clearance is perfect.
Now I don't know who it was who realized that there was a perfect analogy going on here. You know, the analogy of, hey, did Trump do something with Putin? There's a perfect analogy: hey, did John Brennan start selling some secrets to sell out the country? We don't know. We don't know. But look at all the circumstantial evidence.
Now if I've taught you nothing — and I hope I've taught you something — it is that the human mind cannot tell the difference between confirmation bias, where everything looks like it supports one theory, and the truth. If you have the truth, then all the facts support the truth. Everywhere you look, the facts are consistent with it because it's the truth. Where else do you see that when it's not the truth and there's a bunch of confirmation bias?
So the Russia story has mounds of confirmation bias material. The John Brennan story has mounds of confirmation bias material. It looks the same whether it's true or it's something that's going to attract all kinds of confirmation bias. Now that Rand Paul has called this out, you can't tell the difference, folks. You know, someday we might know, but at this point you cannot tell the difference.
And if you can't tell the difference, this is the clever part about what Rand Paul is doing. There are probably five clever parts, but one of the clever parts is that if you can ask the question of Brennan and it's not laughable, he has to have his security clearance taken away. Think about it. If you can even ask the question — well, it kind of looks like it might be a situation where potentially he might be abusing that security clearance for personal gain. You know, there's no direct evidence, but the situation certainly suggests that possibility and it certainly clearly suggests the motive. And if you've got the motive and the opportunity, you've got to take away the security clearance.
So it doesn't matter if there's any direct evidence that Brennan did something illegal or inappropriate. That doesn't matter. As long as the confirmation bias or the circumstantial evidence — whatever you want to call it in this case — as long as it all lines up in one direction, and it does, that's enough.
So do you think there's any chance that the president will let John Brennan keep his security clearance? Because that's the next story, right? The very next story should be that the president met with Rand Paul and issued an order to revoke John Brennan's security clearance. Now what's that going to do? Well, it's going to suck all the energy out of the other stories. And you know, even CNN has to cover this. So all the networks that love John Brennan, they have to cover this. This is a big story now. You know, you've got a senator and probably in a few minutes you'll have the President of the United States revoking security clearance of the guy who used to be the head of the CIA for potentially trying to monetize his security clearance.
And the way Senator Rand Paul says it — "Is John Brennan monetizing his security clearance?" — that could not be a more perfect sentence.
So I've said this enough that you're tired of hearing it, but I don't agree with all of Rand Paul's policy preferences. You know, he goes further than I do on a lot of stuff. But he does operate on principle. He is very smart. He does seem to have the country's best interest in mind. That seems clear. And he's very effective. So this is a new reason to love Rand Paul.
And I love the fact that in one year he survived two attempts on his life. The neighbor who tackled him and could have killed him, and the shooter on the baseball field who was trying to kill him. And it appears that — I don't want to read too much into this, but imagine if you will that you had survived two attempts on your life in one year. Just imagine your mindset. Do you think you'd be braver? Yeah, you would. So however brave Rand Paul was or however determined he was before, it just went up a notch.
All right, so his political power is probably — we're just speculating here — but chances are he's operating at a higher level than he was before any of this bad news came his way. I've got a feeling that he's not going to take any anymore, if you know what I mean. If you had had two attempts on your life, let me put it to you in this context. I don't know that his neighbor attacking him — this is Rand Paul I'm talking about — when the neighbor attacked him, I haven't heard that that's political. But don't you assume it is? Don't you assume the neighbor's attack is political at least a little bit? You know, even if they had a specific dispute, don't you think it reached a new level probably because of politics? I haven't heard that in evidence, but I'm guessing. And then of course the potential shooting was clearly politics.
So imagine if you will that you've had two attempts on your life. And who do you think is the most responsible person for both of those attempts on your life? John Brennan. If you're Rand Paul, you're probably thinking John Brennan almost killed me — meaning Rand Paul — twice. Do you think Rand Paul is ever going to back off of this? Not in your life. I'll tell you, Brennan better finish him off because Rand Paul's coming for him now.
And who's on Rand Paul's side? Me. Who else is on Rand Paul's side against John Brennan? Two attempts on Rand Paul's life. John Brennan arguably — and it's a good argument — is the inspiration for both of them. All right, I'm on Rand Paul's side. So whatever he needs to do, you know, I got his back. Hope you do too.
All right, I would also go so far as to say that when the president is done running for president — whether that's, you know, who knows, he might say I've done everything I've done and I don't need a second term. That's always possible. But if Rand Paul runs for president, he's got a head start. You know, it would be very hard for me to side against him after this.
Why am I being an idiot? Let me block you. I'm blocking all the Hitlers. Goodbye, Hitlers.
So have you been noticing my technique of blocking Nazis? Whoops, here I am. Have you noticed my technique of blocking Nazis on Twitter seems to be having an effect? If you go back three months ago, the number of people accusing anybody who supports Trump in any way, including me, of being Nazis, there was non-stop. It's like Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, analogy, Nazi analogy, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi.
And so I think it was a month ago or so I started non-stop labeling all of my critics Nazis. And the criteria for labeling somebody a Nazi is, in this context, the criteria is that they come after me personally. If they disagree with the politics or the ideas, that's fine. They can stay all day. But if they come after me personally in any way, in any way, if it's personal, Nazi, goodbye.
Now what happens when people call you a Nazi and they give a reason and then they act on it? All right, calling you a Nazi by itself doesn't mean much. Calling you a Nazi and then giving you a reason which you say, "Ooh, yeah, yeah, that's a reason," and then acting on it, actually penalizing them by blocking them, it's very powerful. You know, it might be more powerful when I do it because I'm famous. Yes, the chat will show in a minute.
All right, I did not see that coming. Somebody said it feels like the Nazi thing is disappearing. That was my plan. My plan was to drive it into nonexistence by labeling the other side Nazis with reasons. You know, never without a reason. I only do it if there's a specific reason. Let's drink to that.
Trademark in West Virginia? I don't know about that. Just looking at your comments right now.
All right, so did you see the list of priorities being tweeted around? I think I talked about this before. Of the country's priorities, and climate change isn't even on the top 36. There was another poll of 18 priorities, and climate change came in 17th out of 18.
What happened to climate change? Why did climate change go from the biggest issue in the world literally to not an issue? Give me your opinions. What is your opinion of why climate change went from a top priority to almost no priority at all? Russia's low in the list as well.
All right, your comments are a little bit behind. So somebody says Trump killed it. Somebody said, "Was Rand Paul on the train that wrecked?" That's a terrible thought, but it's very funny. It's called weather. The people who say climate change, it's called weather, don't seem to understand anything about the conversation. Doesn't matter which side says that. Too boring.
Some people think it just got pushed down in the headlines by other stuff. The president made us forget. It was, yeah, but why? Why did we stop caring? What did the president do to make us stop caring? It wasn't just him.
So here's some speculation. I don't think it's one thing. I think it's the following things. I never trust any data that I see about climate change, whether it's from the left or the right. I assume it's all cherry-picked, taken out of context, illegitimate, fake. Doesn't matter which side is coming from. Doesn't matter what it says about the temperature. I figure it's all non-credible.
But correct me if I'm wrong. The evidence that has come out lately, it has been counterfactual to climate change, hasn't it? Am I wrong? It seems to me that the data doesn't seem to be supporting it, at least in the last year. Now one year doesn't mean anything because we're looking at the long game, but it looks like the evidence sort of waned. So that's part of it.
Another part of it is we pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords, and people figured out what that really meant. Because I think being in it, people thought, oh, we're in the Paris Climate Accords. I guess we're doing something to fix the problem. And then when people realized that the agreement had very little to do with fixing the problem, it almost wasn't even about that, I think people probably felt a little bit fooled.
So if you believed everything about climate change, you believed everything was true, and then you also believed the Paris Climate Accord was an important part of the full story, and then suddenly there's a really good and obvious case that says the Paris Climate Accord didn't make any difference. Now what do you think about the whole story when you find out that an important piece of it really wasn't exactly the way it was presented? Well, it changes the credibility of the whole story.
The other thing that changes the credibility is what we just said: if the weather doesn't cooperate. So even though today's temperature doesn't really mean much about climate change in general, these are counterfactual, anecdotal things that work against the belief. So you got that going on.
But I think there's another factor. You've watched me for two years argue that climate scientists had conflated the science, which has a lot of validity, with the prediction models that have none. Zero. And who besides me has talked so much in the last two years about how the prediction models are not credible even if the science is? I don't know if the science is. I'm not a scientist, but I'm not doubting it. If the majority of scientists say, hey, if you add this chemical to the mix you get more temperature, that part seems reasonable.
So I think the fact that people no longer feel a great trust in the models, the fact that the Paris Climate Accord was an overhyped, useless piece, and the fact that the temperature hasn't changed that much, and yeah, I think all of those things together — oh, and there's one other thing. So probably a lot of people have seen by now stories in the news about inventions that will suck the CO2 out of the air or clean it before it gets out of the smokestack, that sort of thing. And I think that people now see another way to solve it, which is technology.
Now what have I been telling all of you for years? That the one thing you can't predict — there are lots of things you can't predict, but one thing you definitely can't predict is innovation. It wouldn't be innovation if people could predict it. And people are starting to see the innovation variable kicking in. It's like, oh, people are inventing things to fix this. I did not have that in my model. My prediction model just says we're a bunch of big idiots and we don't do anything to fix anything. Now the prediction models probably are the reason that people are inventing things to fix it.
But I think you put all those things together — the Paris Climate Accord deal, the models being unreliable separate from the science (science could be solid but the models could still be unreliable), and the temperature not cooperating, and the new innovations in getting rid of CO2 from the air. You put all that together, you know, and then you make other things seem more important at the moment, and no more climate change.
Remember, the facts don't matter. Yeah, facts don't matter until you get enough of them. There's no such thing as a complete absolute. Wait, did that sentence contradict itself? There's no such thing as a complete absolute. Let me soften that a little bit. Most things are not binary. Most of them are not absolute. With climate change you could add a lot of counterfactual facts and it wouldn't change people's opinions. You could add a lot of them. But if you got to the point where all of the facts contradict climate change, well, people would change their mind. Most of them. Some of them still wouldn't. But you know, this hasn't happened. But if you got to the point where all of the temperature measurements for ten years were in the wrong direction, if you got to the point where somebody had built a machine that was already economically taking CO2 out of the air, that would change people's opinions.
So there is at least conceptually enough facts that could happen that would change what we think of things. Yeah, those Playboy models and Michael Cohen, those stories seem less now.
All right, yeah, I need an Erica. I got to get some stuff done. So let me ask you this question and then I'll go. My book publisher has asked me for another book, a follow-up to "Win Bigly." It would be my third and sort of a series that are along these lines. Yeah, the first one was "How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big." And the concept I'm working on is teaching you how to escape your mental prison. And I had to help other people escape, but mostly I had to escape my own mental prison and to find the golden age. An optimistic book with actual useful technique. Would that be of interest?
Call it "Shake the Box." That's not bad. Well, that's interesting. More than one person — was that the same person? I can't tell. I think more than one person may have suggested a book title called "Shake the Box." That is not bad as a book title. I will take that under advisement.
The working title is "The Golden Age" and "How to Think Your Way Into It." That's the working title: "Golden Age" and how to think your way into it. It's unlikely that will be the final title. Yeah, "Escape From Your Mental Prison." And throw in a chapter on how to get a Christina. That would take a whole new book.
I think the biggest surprise anybody has about Christina and me is that we've been together two years now and that it's actually a real relationship. I don't think anybody believed that for at least a year. And it's just a real, normal relationship just like every other relationship.
Yeah, "Shake the Box," that's a pretty good book title. I like that suggestion. I'll definitely think about that.
All right, I've said enough. So props to Rand Paul for his extraordinarily clever broadside on John Brennan, who may be the inspiration for almost getting Rand Paul killed twice in one year. Did that look like a gang symbol? I didn't mean that. No gang symbols here.
All right, I'll talk to you later.
boom ba-ba-boom in case you're worried that my face looks very red I will tell you that that's the lighting in the mirror I don't look like I'm about to have a heart attack I'm halfway through eating but Rand Paul made the morning too interesting I just could Nick Dorrit's breakfast is still ongoing mmm and if somebody says you look old this is how I look when I just wake up after a long night I'm in Las Vegas right now coming home today so now that you're all here let's pick this up where we left off I hope you've seen the news that Senator Rand Paul had tweeted the following so this is Senator Rand Paul II tweets is John Brennan monetizing his security clearance is John Brennan making millions of dollars divulging secrets to the mainstream media with his attacks on real Donald Trump and then later Paul tweets today I will meet with the president now ask him to revoke a John Brennan security clearance now you see what's going on here right Rand Paul is very cleverly playing a reverse Russia collusion on on bread and not only is it clever and hilarious it's probably effective but it could not be more perfect and let me let me just talk about the the parts of it so first of all Rand Paul does not he doesn't accuse he doesn't accuse Brennan of a crime he simply asks the question because all of the evidence would suggest that interpretation now it's different you know saying somebody did something is very different than saying well all the evidence would suggest that there's a big problem here I'm just asking the question is he selling because he's selling secret information to the media to overthrow the country just asking what is that sound like it sounds exactly like what everybody's been saying about rush inclusion primarily John Brennan I'm just asking why is it the president is asking in this bit what tell me one reason why the president should be nice to Putin well of course there are obvious reasons why to do that and they're not all nefarious so Rand Paul is just giving back to John Brennan exactly why he's been giving to the President and the end the country for the last I don't know how two years or whatever this is the funniest coolest thing I've seen this is like four things that didn't come from the President himself this is like the play of the year this is so good and here's what it does the first thing it does is it takes all the energy and of the headlines because yeah it flips the script but you can't look away he's just he's accusing the ex-head of the CIA of well not an accusation exactly but more of a question it's just a question he's got top-secret clearance he is clearly against the president he's working with the networks he has access to these secrets the network's would like them the networks have money they would certainly pay for insider information huh now that doesn't mean that John Brennan has committed any crimes I want to be very clear I personally am aware of no crimes by anybody by the President or John Brennan but is it fair for Rand Paul to go after John Brennan in what I think anyone would call a totally unfounded semi accusation in the form of a question is it appropriate well it wouldn't be appropriate if it were anyone else except maybe clapper but with John Brennan it is totally appropriate and the fact that he's going after his security clearance is perfect now I don't know who it was who realized that there was a a perfect analogy going on here you know the analogy of hey did Trump do something with Putin there's a perfect analogy - hey did John Brennan start selling some secrets to sell out the country we don't know we don't know but look at all the circumstantial evidence now if I've taught you nothing and I hope I've taught you something is that the human mind cannot tell the difference between confirmation bias where everything looks like it supports one theory and the truth if you have the truth then all the facts support the truth everywhere you look the facts are consistent with it because it's the truth where else do you see that when it's not the truth and there's a bunch of confirmation bias so the the Russia story has mounds of confirmation bias material the John Brennan's story has mounds of confirmation bias material looks the same whether it's true or it's something that's going to attract all kinds of confirmation bias now that Rand Paul has called the downs you can't tell the difference folks you know someday we might know but at this point you cannot tell the difference and if you can't tell the difference this is the clever part about what Rand Paul's do whether they're probably five clever parts but one of the clever parts is that if you can ask the question of Bremen and it's not laughable he has to have his security clearance taken away think about it if you can even ask the question well kind of looks like it might be a situation where potentially he might be abusing that security clearance for personal gain week you know there's no direct evidence but the situation certainly suggests that possibility and is certainly clearly suggests the motive and if you've got the motive and the opportunity you've got to take away the security clearance so it doesn't matter if there's a if there's any direct evidence that Brendan did something illegal or inappropriate that doesn't matter as long as the confirmation bias or the circumstantial evidence whatever you want to call it in this case as long as it all lines up in one direction and it does that's enough so do you think there's any chance that the president will let John Brennan keep his security clearance because that's the next story right the the very next story should be that the president met with Rand Paul and issues in order to revoke John Brennan's security clearance now what's that gonna do well it's gonna suck all the energy n of the other stories and you know even CNN has to cover this so all the networks that love John Brennan they have to cover this no this is a big story now you know you've got a senator and probably in a few minutes you'll have the President of the United States revoking security clearance of the guy who used to be the head of the CIA for potentially trying to monetize his security clearance the the and and the way sir Rand Paul says this is John Brennan monetizing his security clearance that could not be a more perfect sentence so I I've said this enough that you're tired of hearing it but I I don't agree with all of Rand Paul's policy preferences you know he's he's a little it goes further than I do on a lot of stuff but he does operate and of principle he does he is very smart he does seem to have the country's best interest in mind that seems clear and he's he's very effective so this is a new reason to love Rand Paul and I love the fact that you know in one year he he survived two attempts on his life in one year the neighbor who tackled him and could have killed them and the shooter on the baseball field who who was trying to kill him and it appears that you know I don't want to read too much into this but imagine if you will that you had survived two attempts on your life in one year just imagine your mindset do you think you'd be braver yeah you would so however brave Rand Paul was or however determined he was before you just went up a notch alright so his you know his political power is probably is his we'll just speculating here but chances are he's operating at a higher level than he was before any of this bad news came his way I've got a feeling that he's not going to take any anymore if you know what I mean if you had had two attempts on your life let me let me put it to you in this context I don't know that his neighbor attacking him this is Rand Paul I'm talking about when the neighbor attacked him I haven't heard that that's political but don't you assume it is don't you assume the neighbors attack is political at least a little bit you know even if they had a specific dispute don't you think it reached a new level probably because of politics I haven't heard that in evidence but I'm guessing and then of course the potential shooting was clearly politics so imagine imagine if you will that you've had two attempts on your life and who do you think is the most responsible person for both of those attempts on your life John Brennan if you're Rand Paul you're probably thinking John Brennan almost killed me meaning Rand Paul twice do you think Rand Paul is ever gonna back off of this not in your life I'll tell you Brennan better finish him off because Rand Paul's coming for him now and who's on Rand Paul side me who else is on Rand Paul side against John Brennan two attempts on Rand Paul's life John Brennan arguably and it's a good argument is this is the inspiration for both of them all right I'm on Rand Paul side so whatever he needs to do you know I got his back hope you do too all right I would also go so far as to say is that when the president is done running for president whether that's you know who knows he might he might say I've done everything I've done and I don't need a second term that's always possible but if Rand Paul runs for president he's got a head start you know it's gonna it would be very hard for me to side against them after this why am I being an idiot let me block you i'm blocking all the Hitler's goodbye Hitler's so have you been noticing my technique of blocking Nazis whoops Here I am have you noticed my technique of blocking Nazis on Twitter seems to be having an effect if you go back three months ago the number of people accusing anybody who supports Trump in any way including me of Nazis there was non-stop it's like Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi analogy Nazi analogy Nazi Nazi Nazi and so I think it was a month ago or so I started non-stop labeling all of my critics Nazis and the criteria for labeling somebody Nazi is in this context the criteria is that they come after me personally if they disagree with the politics or the ideas that's fine they can stay all day but if they come after me personally in any way in any way if it's personal Nazi goodbye now what happens when people call you would not see and they give a reason and then they act on it all right calling you a Nazi by itself doesn't mean much calling you a Nazi and then giving you a reason which you say ooh yeah yeah that's a reason and then acting on it actually penalizing them by blocking them it's very powerful you know it might be more powerful when I do it because I'm famous yes the the chat will show in a minute all right I did not see that coming somebody said so it feels like the Nazi thing is is disappearing that was my plan my plan was to drive at end of existence by labeling the the other side Nazis with reasons you know never without a reason I only do it if there's a specific reason let's drink to that um trademark in West Virginia I don't know about that um just looking at your your comments right now all right so did you see the list of being tweeted around I think I talked about this before of priorities of the country's priorities and and climate change isn't even on the top 36 there was another poll of 18 there was another poll of 18 priorities and climate change came in 17th out of 18 what happened to climate change why did why did climate change go from the biggest issue in the world literally - not an issue give me your opinions what is your opinion of why what is your opinion of why climate change went from a top priority to a almost no priority at all Rush's low in the list as well all right your comments are a little bit behind so somebody says Trump killed it somebody said was Rand Paul on the train that wreck that's a terrible thought but it's very funny it's called whether the people who say climate change it's called weather don't seem to understand anything about the conversation doesn't matter which side says that too boring you some people think it just got pushed down to the headlines by other stuff president made us forget it was yeah but why why did we stop caring what did the president do to make us stop caring it wasn't just him so here's here's some speculation I don't think it's one thing I think it's the following things I never trust any data that I see about climate change whether it's from the left of the right I assume it's all cherry-picked taken out of context illegitimate fake doesn't matter which side is coming from doesn't matter what it says about the temperature I figure it's all non credible but correct me if I'm wrong the evidence that has come out lately it has been counterfactual - hasn't it been counterfactual - climate change am I wrong it seems to me that yeah the that the data doesn't seem to be supporting it at least in the last year now one year doesn't mean anything because we're looking at the long game but it looks like the evidence sort of sort of waned so that's part of it another part of it is we pulled out of the Paris Peace Accords and people figured out what that really meant because I think being in it people thought oh we're in a we're in a Paris piece of Court I guess I guess we're doing something to fix the problem and then when people realize that the agreement had very little to do with fixing the problem it almost wasn't even about that I think people probably felt a little bit fooled so if you believed everything about climate change you believed everything was true and then you also believed the Paris climate Accord was an important part of the full story and then suddenly there's a really good and obvious case that says the Paris Peace Corps the Paris climate Accord didn't make any difference now what do you think about the whole story when you find out that an important piece of it really wasn't exactly the way it was presented well it changes the credibility of the whole story the other thing that changes the credibility is what we just said if the weather doesn't cooperate so even though today's temperature doesn't really mean much about climate change in general these are counterfactual counterfactual anecdotal things that work against the belief so you got that going on but I think there's another factor you've watched me for two years argue that climate scientists had conflated the science which has a lot of validity with the prediction models that have none zero and who who besides me has talked so much in the last two years about how the prediction models are not credible even if the science is I don't know if the science is I'm not a scientist but I'm not doubting it if the majority of scientists say hey if you add this chemical to the mix you get a more temperature that part seems reasonable so I think the fact that people no longer feel a great trust in the models the fact that the Paris Peace Accord was an overhyped useless piece and the fact that the temperature hasn't changed that much and yeah I think all of those things together oh and there's one other thing so probably a lot of people have seen by now stories in the news about inventions that will suck the co2 out of the air or clean it before it gets out of the smokestack that sort of thing and I think that people now see another way to solve it which is technology now what have I been telling all of you for years that the one thing you can't predict there are lots of things you can't predict but one thing one thing you definitely can't predict is innovation that what's you know it wouldn't be innovation if people could predict it and people are starting to see the innovation variable kicking in it's like oh people are inventing things to fix this I did not have that in my model my prediction model just says we're a bunch of big idiots and we don't do anything to fix anything now the prediction models probably are the reason that people are inventing things to fix it but I think you put all those things together the you know Paris Peace Accord deal the the models being unreliable separate from the science science could be solid but the models could still be unreliable and the temperature not cooperating and the the new innovations and getting rid of co2 from the air you put all that together you know and then you make other things seem more important at the moment and no more climate change remember the facts the facts don't matter yeah facts don't matter until you get enough of them they're there you know there's no such thing as a complete absolute wait did that sentence contradict itself there's no such thing as a complete absolute let me let me soften that a little bit most things are not you know binary most of them are not absolute with climate change you could add a lot of counterfactual facts and it wouldn't change people's opinions you could add a lot of them but if you got to the point where all of the facts contradict climate change well people would change their mind most of them what some of them still wouldn't but you know this this hasn't happened but if you got to the point where all of the temperature measurements for ten years were in the wrong direction if you got to the point where somebody would built a machine that was already economically taking co2 out of the air that would change people's opinions so there there is at least conceptually enough facts that could happen that would change that we think of things yeah those Playboy models and and Michael Cohen those stories seem less now all right yeah I need an Erica I got to get some stuff done so let me ask you this question and then I'll go after this my book publisher has asked me for another book a follow-up to win big Lea it would be my third and sort of a series that are along these lines yeah the first one was had a fail that almost everything and still win big and the concept I'm working on is teaching you how to escape your mental prism and I had to help other people escape but mostly I had to escape your own mental prison and to find the golden age a an optimistic book with actual useful technique would that would that be of interest call it shake the box that's not bad well that's interesting more than one person is was that the same person I can't tell I think more than one person may have suggested a book title called shake the box that is not bad as a book title I will take that under advisement the working title is the golden age and had to think your way into it that's the working title golden age and add a how to think your way into it it's unlikely that will be the final title yeah escape from your mental prison and throw in a chapter on how to get a Christina that would take a whole new book I think the biggest surprise anybody has about Christina and being is that we've been together two years now and that it's actually a real relationship I don't think anybody believed that for at least a year and there's just a real normal normal relationship just like every other relationship yeah shake the box that's a pretty good book title I like that suggestion I'll definitely think about that all right I've said enough so props to Rand Paul for his extraordinarily clever broadside on John Brennan who may be the inspiration for almost getting Rand Paul killed twice in one year did that look like a gang symbol I didn't mean that no gang sing symbols here all right I'll talk to you later
boom ba-ba-boom in case you're worried
that my face looks very red I will tell
you that that's the lighting in the
mirror I don't look like I'm about to
have a heart attack I'm halfway through
eating but Rand Paul made the morning
too interesting
I just could Nick Dorrit's breakfast is
still ongoing
mmm and if somebody says you look old
this is how I look when I just wake up
after a long night I'm in Las Vegas
right now coming home today so now that
you're all here let's pick this up where
we left off
I hope you've seen the news that Senator
Rand Paul had tweeted the following so
this is Senator Rand Paul II tweets
is John Brennan monetizing his security
clearance is John Brennan making
millions of dollars divulging secrets to
the mainstream media with his attacks on
real Donald Trump and then later Paul
tweets today I will meet with the
president now ask him to revoke a John
Brennan security clearance now you see
what's going on here right Rand Paul is
very cleverly playing a reverse Russia
collusion on on bread and not only is it
clever and hilarious it's probably
effective but it could not be more
perfect and let me let me just talk
about the the parts of it so first of
all Rand Paul does not he doesn't accuse
he doesn't accuse Brennan of a crime he
simply asks the question because all of
the evidence would suggest that
interpretation now it's different you
know saying somebody did something is
very different than saying well all the
evidence would suggest that there's a
big problem here I'm just asking the
question is he selling because he's
selling secret information to the media
to overthrow the country just asking
what is that sound like it sounds
exactly like what everybody's been
saying about rush inclusion primarily
John Brennan I'm just asking why is it
the president is asking in this bit what
tell me one reason why the president
should be nice to Putin well of course
there are obvious reasons why to do that
and they're not all nefarious so Rand
Paul is just giving back to John Brennan
exactly why he's been giving to the
President and the end the country for
the last I don't know how two years or
whatever this is the funniest coolest
thing I've seen this is like four things
that didn't come from the President
himself this is like the play of the
year this is so good and here's what it
does the first thing it does is it takes
all the energy and of the headlines
because yeah it flips the script but you
can't look away he's just he's accusing
the ex-head of the CIA of well not an
accusation exactly but more of a
question it's just a question he's got
top-secret clearance he is clearly
against the president he's working with
the networks he has access to these
secrets the network's would like them
the networks have money they would
certainly pay for insider information
huh now that doesn't mean that John
Brennan has committed any crimes I want
to be very clear
I personally am aware of no crimes by
anybody by the President or John Brennan
but is it fair for Rand Paul to go after
John Brennan in what I think anyone
would call a totally unfounded semi
accusation in the form of a question is
it appropriate well it wouldn't be
appropriate if it were anyone else
except maybe clapper but with John
Brennan it is totally appropriate and
the fact that he's going after his
security clearance is perfect now I
don't know who it was who realized that
there was a a perfect analogy going on
here you know the analogy of hey did
Trump do something with Putin there's a
perfect analogy - hey did John Brennan
start selling some secrets to sell out
the country we don't know we don't know
but look at all the circumstantial
evidence now if I've taught you nothing
and I hope I've taught you something is
that the human mind cannot tell the
difference between confirmation bias
where everything looks like it supports
one theory and the truth if you have the
truth then all the facts support the
truth everywhere you look the facts are
consistent with it because it's the
truth where else do you see that when
it's not the truth and there's a bunch
of confirmation bias so the the Russia
story has mounds of confirmation bias
material the John Brennan's story has
mounds of confirmation bias material
looks the same whether it's true or it's
something that's going to attract all
kinds of confirmation bias now that
Rand Paul has called the downs you can't
tell the difference folks you know
someday we might know but at this point
you cannot tell the difference and if
you can't tell the difference this is
the clever part about what Rand Paul's
do whether they're probably five clever
parts but one of the clever parts is
that if you can ask the question of
Bremen and it's not laughable he has to
have his security clearance taken away
think about it if you can even ask the
question well kind of looks like it
might be a situation where potentially
he might be abusing that security
clearance for personal gain week you
know there's no direct evidence but the
situation certainly suggests that
possibility and is certainly clearly
suggests the motive and if you've got
the motive and the opportunity you've
got to take away the security clearance
so it doesn't matter if there's a if
there's any direct evidence that Brendan
did something illegal or inappropriate
that doesn't matter as long as the
confirmation bias or the circumstantial
evidence whatever you want to call it in
this case as long as it all lines up in
one direction and it does that's enough
so do you think there's any chance that
the president will let John Brennan keep
his security clearance because that's
the next story right the the very next
story should be that the president met
with Rand Paul and issues in order to
revoke John Brennan's security clearance
now what's that gonna do well it's gonna
suck all the energy n of the other
stories
and you know even CNN has to cover this
so all the networks that love John
Brennan they have to cover this no this
is a big story now you know you've got a
senator and probably in a few minutes
you'll have the President of the United
States revoking security clearance of
the guy who used to be the head of the
CIA for potentially trying to monetize
his security clearance the the and and
the way sir Rand Paul says this is John
Brennan monetizing his security
clearance that could not be a more
perfect sentence so I I've said this
enough that you're tired of hearing it
but I I don't agree with all of Rand
Paul's policy preferences you know he's
he's a little it goes further than I do
on a lot of stuff but he does operate
and of principle he does he is very
smart he does seem to have the country's
best interest in mind that seems clear
and he's he's very effective so this is
a new reason to love Rand Paul and I
love the fact that you know in one year
he he survived two attempts on his life
in one year the neighbor who tackled him
and could have killed them and the
shooter on the baseball field who who
was trying to kill him and it appears
that you know I don't want to read too
much into this but imagine if you will
that you had survived two attempts on
your life in one year just imagine your
mindset do you think you'd be braver
yeah you would
so however brave Rand Paul was or
however determined he was before you
just went up a notch alright so his you
know his political power is probably is
his we'll just speculating here but
chances are he's operating at a higher
level than he was before any of this bad
news came his way I've got a feeling
that he's not going to take any
anymore if you know what I mean if you
had had two attempts on your life let me
let me put it to you in this context I
don't know that his neighbor attacking
him this is Rand Paul I'm talking about
when the neighbor attacked him I haven't
heard that that's political but don't
you assume it is don't you assume the
neighbors attack is political at least a
little bit you know even if they had a
specific dispute don't you think it
reached a new level probably because of
politics I haven't heard that in
evidence but I'm guessing and then of
course the potential shooting was
clearly politics so imagine imagine if
you will that you've had two attempts on
your life and who do you think is the
most responsible person for both of
those attempts on your life
John Brennan if you're Rand Paul
you're probably thinking John Brennan
almost killed me
meaning Rand Paul twice do you think
Rand Paul is ever gonna back off of this
not in your life I'll tell you
Brennan better finish him off because
Rand Paul's coming for him now and who's
on Rand Paul side me who else is on Rand
Paul side against John Brennan two
attempts on Rand Paul's life John
Brennan arguably and it's a good
argument is this is the inspiration for
both of them all right I'm on Rand Paul
side so whatever he needs to do you know
I got his back hope you do too all right
I would also go so far as to say is that
when the president is done running for
president whether that's you know who
knows he might he might say I've done
everything I've done and I don't need a
second term that's always possible but
if Rand Paul runs for president he's got
a head start you know it's gonna it
would be very hard for me to side
against them after this why am I being
an idiot
let me block you i'm blocking all the
Hitler's goodbye Hitler's so have you
been noticing my technique of blocking
Nazis whoops
Here I am have you noticed my technique
of blocking Nazis on Twitter seems to be
having an effect if you go back three
months ago the number of people accusing
anybody who supports Trump in any way
including me of Nazis there was non-stop
it's like Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi analogy
Nazi analogy Nazi Nazi Nazi and so I
think it was a month ago or so I started
non-stop labeling all of my critics
Nazis and the criteria for labeling
somebody Nazi is in this context the
criteria is that they come after me
personally if they disagree with the
politics or the ideas that's fine they
can stay all day but if they come after
me personally in any way in any way if
it's personal
Nazi goodbye now what happens when
people call you would not see and they
give a reason and then they act on it
all right
calling you a Nazi by itself doesn't
mean much calling you a Nazi and then
giving you a reason which you say ooh
yeah yeah that's a reason and then
acting on it actually penalizing them by
blocking them it's very powerful you
know it might be more powerful when I do
it because I'm famous yes
the the chat will show in a minute all
right I did not see that coming somebody
said
so it feels like the Nazi thing is is
disappearing that was my plan my plan
was to drive at end of existence by
labeling the the other side Nazis with
reasons you know never without a reason
I only do it if there's a specific
reason let's drink to that
um trademark in West Virginia I don't
know about that
um just looking at your your comments
right now all right so did you see the
list of being tweeted around I think I
talked about this before of priorities
of the country's priorities and and
climate change isn't even on the top 36
there was another poll of 18 there was
another poll of 18 priorities and
climate change came in 17th out of 18
what happened to climate change why did
why did climate change go from the
biggest issue in the world literally -
not an issue give me your opinions what
is your opinion of why what is your
opinion of why climate change went from
a top priority to a almost no priority
at all
Rush's low in the list as well
all right your comments are a little bit
behind so somebody says Trump killed it
somebody said was Rand Paul on the train
that wreck
that's a terrible thought but it's very
funny
it's called whether the people who say
climate change it's called weather don't
seem to understand anything about the
conversation doesn't matter which side
says that too boring you some people
think it just got pushed down to the
headlines by other stuff president made
us forget it was yeah but why why did we
stop caring what did the president do to
make us stop caring it wasn't just him
so here's here's some speculation I
don't think it's one thing I think it's
the following things I never trust any
data that I see about climate change
whether it's from the left of the right
I assume it's all cherry-picked taken
out of context illegitimate fake doesn't
matter which side is coming from doesn't
matter what it says about the
temperature I figure it's all non
credible but correct me if I'm wrong the
evidence that has come out lately it has
been counterfactual - hasn't it been
counterfactual - climate change
am I wrong it seems to me that yeah the
that the data doesn't seem to be
supporting it at least in the last year
now one year doesn't mean anything
because we're looking at the long game
but it looks like the evidence sort of
sort of waned so that's part of it
another part of it is we pulled out of
the Paris Peace Accords and people
figured out what that really meant
because I think being in it people
thought oh we're in a we're in a Paris
piece of Court I guess I guess we're
doing something to fix the problem and
then when people realize that the
agreement had very little to do with
fixing the problem it almost wasn't even
about that
I think people probably felt a little
bit fooled so if you believed everything
about climate change you believed
everything was true and then you also
believed the Paris climate Accord was an
important part of the full story and
then suddenly there's a really good and
obvious case that says the Paris Peace
Corps the Paris climate Accord didn't
make any difference now what do you
think about the whole story when you
find out that an important piece of it
really wasn't exactly the way it was
presented
well it changes the credibility of the
whole story the other thing that changes
the credibility is what we just said if
the weather doesn't cooperate so even
though today's temperature doesn't
really mean much about climate change in
general these are counterfactual
counterfactual anecdotal things that
work against the belief so you got that
going on but I think there's another
factor you've watched me for two years
argue that climate scientists had
conflated the science which has a lot of
validity with the prediction models that
have none zero and who who besides me
has talked so much in the last two years
about how the prediction models are not
credible even if the science is I don't
know if the science is I'm not a
scientist but I'm not doubting it if the
majority of scientists say hey if you
add this chemical to the mix you get a
more temperature that part seems
reasonable so I think the fact that
people no longer feel a great trust in
the models the fact that the Paris Peace
Accord was an overhyped useless piece
and the fact that the temperature hasn't
changed that much and
yeah I think all of those things
together oh and there's one other thing
so probably a lot of people have seen by
now stories in the news about inventions
that will suck the co2 out of the air or
clean it before it gets out of the
smokestack that sort of thing and I
think that people now see another way to
solve it which is technology now what
have I been telling all of you for years
that the one thing you can't predict
there are lots of things you can't
predict but one thing one thing you
definitely can't predict is innovation
that what's you know it wouldn't be
innovation if people could predict it
and people are starting to see the
innovation variable kicking in it's like
oh people are inventing things to fix
this I did not have that in my model my
prediction model just says we're a bunch
of big idiots and we don't do anything
to fix anything
now the prediction models probably are
the reason that people are inventing
things to fix it but I think you put all
those things together the you know Paris
Peace Accord deal the the models being
unreliable separate from the science
science could be solid but the models
could still be unreliable and the
temperature not cooperating and the the
new innovations and getting rid of co2
from the air you put all that together
you know and then you make other things
seem more important at the moment and no
more climate change
remember the facts the facts don't
matter yeah facts don't matter until you
get enough of them
they're there you know there's no such
thing as a complete absolute wait did
that sentence contradict itself there's
no such thing as a complete absolute let
me let me soften that a little bit
most things are not you know binary most
of them are not absolute with climate
change you could add a lot of
counterfactual facts and it wouldn't
change people's opinions
you could add a lot of them but if you
got to the point where all of the facts
contradict climate change well people
would change their mind most of them
what some of them still wouldn't but you
know this this hasn't happened but if
you got to the point where all of the
temperature measurements for ten years
were in the wrong direction if you got
to the point where somebody would built
a machine that was already economically
taking co2 out of the air that would
change people's opinions so there there
is at least conceptually enough facts
that could happen that would change that
we think of things
yeah those Playboy models and and
Michael Cohen those stories seem less
now
all right yeah I need an Erica I got to
get some stuff done so let me ask you
this question and then I'll go after
this my book publisher has asked me for
another book a follow-up to win big Lea
it would be my third and sort of a
series that are along these lines yeah
the first one was had a fail that almost
everything and still win big and the
concept I'm working on is teaching you
how to escape your mental prism and I
had to help other people escape but
mostly I had to escape your own mental
prison and to find the golden age a an
optimistic book with actual useful
technique would that would that be of
interest
call it shake the box that's not bad
well that's interesting more than one
person is was that the same person I
can't tell I think more than one person
may have suggested a book title called
shake the box that is not bad as a book
title I will take that under advisement
the working title is the golden age and
had to think your way into it that's the
working title golden age and add a how
to think your way into it it's unlikely
that will be the final title yeah escape
from your mental prison and throw in a
chapter on how to get a Christina that
would take a whole new book
I think the biggest surprise anybody has
about Christina and being is that we've
been together two years now and that
it's actually a real relationship I
don't think anybody believed that for at
least a year and there's just a real
normal normal relationship just like
every other relationship
yeah shake the box that's a pretty good
book title I like that suggestion I'll
definitely think about that all right
I've said enough so props to Rand Paul
for his extraordinarily clever broadside
on John Brennan who may be the
inspiration for almost getting Rand Paul
killed twice in one year did that look
like a gang symbol I didn't mean that no
gang sing symbols here all right I'll
talk to you later
