Episode 515 Scott Adams - Barr, Climate Change Totally Solved, Fine People “Truthers”

all right let's see if I've got a better signal this time I had to sign off and sign back on apparently there was something wrong with the single at least one person that says it's good okay everybody says it's better as soon as everybody piles back in here cuz I know you will come on back come on back all right so I was starting to tell the story I know you want another simultaneous up get ready lift your copy of my glass through sign break your thermos and join me second one's even better so I was talking about do I have the right last name Piers Morgan and his show his co-host was talking about the fine people hoax as if it were real and she was she was repeating the fake news that the president called neo-nazis in Charlottesville fine people now they were talking to Al Sharpton so as I was saying before we got cut off here that al Sharpton you would expect of all people in the world would would agree with the hoax in other words you would expect al Sharpton to act as though the president really had called neo-nazis fine people in Charlottesville but he didn't he didn't Al Sharpton did not agree expressly with the hoax that the president called be at neo-nazis fine people instead what he said was that the if the president was talking about people on both sides of the statute debate specifically the robert e lee and their Sharpton explained robert e lee was in Sharpton's view a bad guy because he was trying to overthrow the government which is pretty bad and he was a slave owner which is really bad they're both really bad so al Sharpton is not wrong about characterization of robert e lee you know the other people will characterize it differently i understand there's a difference of opinion but he wasn't wrong on the facts and then he said that that's even that's even the worst part that if you could support people who support that statue that's pretty darn you know racist now i'm gonna claim success here because most of you know i've been talking about this forever i to object to offensive confederate statues but i i i i also recognize that there are normal good americans who are not racists who just wouldn't destroy any historical monument no matter how offensive because it's just part of their history their culture or whatever and again good people could imagine that we understand is context so it's not you know maybe you should not be offended my view is that wall i believe people should not be offended by it people are offended by it you can't change that yeah the fact that you don't want people to be offended by it doesn't really change the fact that they are so if you live in the country where some huge percentage of your citizens are deeply offended i mean pretty deeply offended and they've got a good good argument for it just be a good citizen why would you offend 1/2 or 1/3 of your country if you don't need to you know need to anyway so I'm opposed to Confederate statues but I'm more opposed to the fine people hoax which is a complete fabrication and has been driving the narrative about this president for since 2017 I guess so even al Sharpton was unwilling to say on television that the president called the neo-nazis fine people I'm pretty sure that by now he's been exposed to the actual transcript and he would actually be embarrassed push the hoax that even the host of the show is pushing I call that success now my article that I wrote or my blog post in which I I documented all of the ways that people go down the hoax funnel from starting with the pure lie that the president called neo-nazis find people to shown the transcript it's you could see to debunk but then they go down and say well they were marching with the Nazis and then you show that they weren't well okay they weren't marching with the Nazis but you know why does the president wait so long and why doesn't he you know so you can definitely just these these random questions instead of a statement anyway he got picked up by Zero Hedge has republished it today and where else has it been republished seeing few other places it was republish why am I forgetting oh and then Ann Coulter is featured in Breitbart talking about the hoax as well now there's no reference to anything I've done in that she just does her she just does her own work and well Oh Larry elder God after Piers Morgan for for spreading the hoax who else we got going here anyway oh and here's the funny part apparently MSNBC apparently MSNBC is saying that the people who were calling the fine people hoax a hoax in other words people like me they're calling us truthers truthers now if you're gonna insult me calling me a truther this is the very best way you can do it because I'm pretty sure that I am actually telling the truth in a way that any media organization can validate they report it as the truth so the things that the things that I say are even all the news organizations report as the truth it's actually what he said he condemned the basis all right so I guess it was Nicole Wallace on MSNBC he was referring to the hoax Busters as the Charlottesville truthers I hope they stick with that oh my god are you telling me that we lost this again are you kidding me seriously can anybody hear me now all right I was frozen for a minute let me just confirm that we're back on here because it just doesn't feel like this is accidental anymore honestly let's talk about anyway let just put a put a bow on this fine fine people hoax or thing I'm a number of people anyway how many of you have tried my challenge where you guess somebody who believes the fine people hoax and you walk them through the hoax funnel by debunking each claim until the claims get smaller and smaller until people are asking just dumb questions like well why didn't except and as soon as you as soon as you get to well okay you've debunked everything I think was true but how do you explain this if you're down to how do you explain and it's all easy to explain you've kind of won how many of you have tried the challenge on someone I saw on Twitter that somebody somebody tried the challenge have any of you try to yet and I just want to see if you had the experience I predicted that the person you asked to read the quote from President Trump where he condemns totally the neo-nazis the challenge was to see if you can actually get them to read it out loud to you in the so freezing again and and the and the the challenges the challenges that I don't think people can actually speak the words I think that their brain would actually freeze and I mean that I mean that there would be an actual psychological phenomenon that you could spot where they wouldn't be able to say the words they would get mad or they'd throw it at you or they'd say it's made up or it's out of context or you're lying but they wouldn't be able to just mean it so that's that's the challenge see if it gets me how do you debunked so many proven lies I don't know what you mean I'm just looking your comments to see if we still have a connection I think we do alright let's talk about Barr who apparently all yesterday I called Bob Barr but is William bar bill bar so let's call him bill bar because that's actually his name we'll do that today I've been trying to figure out from the terrible terrible news coverage and really the the news coverage of the bar testimony was maybe the worst I've ever seen probably the worst I've ever seen and I'm not talking about anyone never it was all bad it was just all bad everywhere I mean disgustingly bad even on the same network and I won't name names but even within the same network they were reporting the news as opposites somebody would say that bar is claiming X and the next person say bar is now claiming X and I'm thinking this is the same network just just decide what the news is you know do you know what you have to be right but just report it the same on your network but here are the some of the things I've figured out and I don't know how many of you have figured this out as well there was a wonderful article which I just tweeted tweeted by - dammit Taurus I am so unorganized alright there was a wonderful article that I just retweeted by will Chamberlain at which he takes you through the fascinating story of how the lawyers for the president probably got to this good result and the the basic story I thought I knew this story but but will offers one piece of speculation I hadn't heard so you knew that bill bar before he was Attorney General wrote a long well researched piece in which he said that the obstruction thing doesn't apply and he made a very narrow interpretation of it and his argument was based on that and I thought to myself with all this reporting I don't believe I've ever seen the actual word of the law in other words the specific wording that everybody is saying the president either violated or did not violate like what exactly is the law so that's one of the failings so I'm gonna read you the obstruction law there are two parts and the two parts are what's important now bars argument apparently is that the second part is referring to the first part and Muller's interpretation is that they're just two separate parts all right now I actually agree with Muller on this because they look like just separate parts to me but one says that you could be guilty of obstruction of justice if you alter or destroy you know documents or materials now that was very clear and there's no claim that the president destroyed any documents or had anybody destroying any documents but the second part is sort of a cleanup a cleanup part where says the word otherwise or otherwise obstruction fluence rupees and the official proceedings or attempts to do so now that to me seems exactly applicable to what using the president of of otherwise obstructing influencing or repeating so that argument is the obstruction argument apparently bill Barr wrote a piece that said that that second part was really just a clean up to the first part and so the the law and obstructions so narrow that since the president I guess didn't destroy any documents that that it didn't apply now I don't think that's a good argument I'm no lawyer but it doesn't sound good to me said but that's just one of the arguments and then what will added was a speculation that the lawyers for the President may have asked bill bar to write that letter and then when it was a letter that they liked they got rid of sessions you know got the President to fire sessions after the midterms brought it in bar so that they knew they had somebody who would have the right interpretation somebody's mentioning Alan Dershowitz in the comments and that's where I'm going next so what argument is that the obstruction ruling should not be interpreted that way Muller says it is written I feel feels like a weak argument to me and I'm not the Supreme Court so don't think my word for it the other is that you that we heard was that obstruction only applied to a pending case and there was no pending case against the president I won't get too technical but apparently that are given got thrown away because the the obstruction rule has been interpreted or there's some precedent to say that potential cases are also included and certainly there was a potential case so the argument that you know there's no ongoing criminal case was not relict okay so it's two arguments that I've heard that don't make sense to me again not a lawyer just the person watching the news then there's one that says that everything the President did was within his within his job description I think this is closer to the alan dershowitz argument there you can't say somebody had intention to obstruct justice if what if what we've observed are the normal actions of a president doing the job of a president that even if that did have the effect of impeding the investigation you couldn't say that was the intent because it was also just doing regular president stuff now I think that's the argument that bill Barr settled on essentially abandoning or at least not mentioning his own original argument so when he did his summary of the Moller report and God knows I might be getting some of this wrong when he did a summary he didn't use his original argument the document he wrote before he was a J which is interesting he didn't use his own argument he used what sounded like more like the Dershowitz argument that there's no evidence that the President had intent because everything was just an example of him doing his job now here's where and then there was the argument that you can't indict a sitting president and apparently that was never anybody's argument so Muller never made the argument Barr never made that argument so that was just sort of a pundit argument I guess so that one really never became important in the case for those one of the arguments and then I was watching Judge Napolitano on Fox News saying that I hope I just heard this wrong so I'm gonna say just so I don't get sued for some kind of libel or slander that I may have heard this wrong so don't take it from me as fact I'll put it out there as I don't know what I'm seeing and I don't understand it it looked to be like Napolitano we're saying that bar was basing his legal opinion and the fact that there was no underlying crime I didn't see that does that even sound like a reality that you were watching did you see did you see Napolitano anyway did anybody see Barre say that the reason there was no obstruction is because there was no underlying crime I don't think he said anything like that indeed I'm pretty sure he believes the opposite although I don't know he said it specifically but why wouldn't he believe the opposite when every lawyer in the world believes it I mean it sounded like Judge Napolitano was saying that bar is the only lawyer in the world in the whole world he would be the only one who believes that obstruction of justice can only be applied if there's an underlying crime I don't believe that anybody believes that was a lawyer so I didn't know what I was seeing how could Judge Napolitano who presumably is a very smart guy how can he be saying that and how could it be on the news yeah I he said the opposite right so I didn't know if I was hearing it wrong but this is my larger point when I was watching the news yesterday did anybody and if you have the same reaction that the news didn't seem to be news it looked like complete BS on all the channels all the time it looked like nobody really understood what they were watching nobody understood who said what nobody could remember what anybody's opinion was it just looked like a mess that's what I saw now maybe maybe the the news will start to you know focus bore oh we're getting out of this fog of war situation but I come down I come down to this there's no way you could get 12 jurors to convict a president you know forget about a sitting president even an ex-president you can't get 12 citizens of this country to say that the president trying to impede something that he alone knew wasn't valid because remember everyone in the world didn't know what was true and what except one person only only the president knew he didn't he didn't to collude he was sure nobody else was sure but he was sure so if you could tell me you can get a jury to convict on that good luck you're never gonna convince me of that even if the facts say it should be a conviction here I'd like to introduce a new conspiracy theory or maybe a couple it starts with a general concept you can't trust anything in the news all right I think you agree with me so far right just because it's in the news and even if it's on all the network news that doesn't mean it's true and that's triple true if the news is coming from let's say the government only and especially let's say any military intelligence CIA organization and the organization that does not traffic in the truth and that's a lot of organizations right any intelligence organization they like to know the truth for themselves but they're not really in the in the business of telling the public the truth in fact they're in the business of telling the bit of telling the public untruths if it's good for the country that's the business whether it's our public or some other country's public they're in the business of lying that's they're professionals they're trained to do it that's it's practically the job description so there are two stories that make me scratch my head and say well I don't know if that's true here's the first one the first story we heard is that Maduro the horrible leader of Venezuela the other day was planning to get on the plane and leave and leave the country to the to the named president who would take over and the story that we were given by our government not by the press but the story that were given by our government is that Russia stopped Medora from getting on the plane and leave it now there are two possibilities one that's completely true right you can't rule that out I mean one possibility that's exactly what happened Maduro was gonna lose right and Bolden said it so our government has said it very clearly that he was going to get on the plane but Russia stopped him do you think that's true really do you think that's true because it might be it makes perfect sense right there's nothing about that story that on the surface rules about right so I'm not gonna say it's not true I'm just gonna put out this speculation if it were not true it would be an excellent thing for our government to say to get the result we walked has our government ever said anything that wasn't true to get a result that we wanted well yeah pretty much all the time so if you were a Venezuelan person and you supported Maduro and you heard that the only thing keeping him in the country is the Russians would you support him as much if you were one of the protesters or you were not on the side of Maduro but you were not really active you know you're sort of watching it you weren't in the streets and you heard them Maduro would have left except for Russia would that cause you to get off the couch and get in the streets so here's my question I'm not saying it's not true I'm just saying that if it's not true it would have been an excellent rumor to start because it's very productive it's an excellent rumor and in fact starting to you know reframe Venezuela as a Russian puppet or worse I'd like to know which sounds worse to the ears of a typical that is well and resident which sounds worse you've been conquered by Cuba which effectively is true because Cuba is protecting Medora the ubin forces and I don't think Medora can do anything that Cuba doesn't want him to do because they protect him so in effect Maduro already doesn't run the country the the small group of people who were keeping him alive we are the de facto rulers of the country now if Russia has direct control over those Cubans who are keeping Medora alive well then you could say Russia is really already in charge of that as well and that would that would be really supportable if you knew that link was as strong as I said but which one of those two sounds worse it's probably been tested our government probably tested and said all right what sounds worse you Venezuelans maybe focus group or somehow they talk to people who are were close to the people on the street so that they can know what sounds worse does it sound worse that Cuba took over your country or does a sound worse that Putin took over your country which one would get you back in the streets so when bolton says that the Russians stopped Maduro and Maduro says that that's just not true it's laughable I say to myself I don't think I'm going to uncritically assume that that the official story from our own government is true it might be true ish there might have been a conversation the Medora had with the Russians that you could spin that way but don't accept uncritically that that ever happened it might have happened I'm not saying it didn't but don't accept it uncritically secondly and this is the fun one the first one who was just sort of to prime you for the second one did you see the video of the al-baghdadi I guess the the leader and founder of Isis apparently we only had one video of him he announced Isis five years ago and then there's this complete lack of any video or photographs of him to the point where we weren't sure he was alive you know there was rumor he might have been killed or seriously injured and then suddenly there's this very clear video of him hanging around and talking to his buddies and talking about how Isis has been badly defeated on the battlefield now he still says his Isis stuff but he admits that on the battlefield they've just been basically crushed and now I ask you this is that really el Baghdady how hard would it be for the CIA or somebody who does that kind of work to create a video of a fake Baghdady and how good does it need to be now it doesn't have to be CGI although that's an option it could just be somebody with a you know grew a beard and sort of looks like Baghdadi because suppose Isis said no that's that's not the real Baghdady we know who he is and it's not that guy who would know does does Isis let me let me use the concept when we watch the fake news in our own country you've all had you've all seen this said that the fake news will go viral and you'll get a you know ten million views so the fake news gets ten million views and then following up is the no no no that was fake news and even if the the fact that it was fake news can be demonstrated the media will report that because they do report Corrections well how much will the correction be seen by a thousand people so the the fake news goes to ten million the correction goes to a thousand because it's just not interesting or whatever so fewer the CIA and peg daddy had not been in public for five years and even Isis fighters weren't quite sure if he was still around wouldn't you try to create a video of fake news that would certainly be detected in other words there are people at Isis who would know for sure it's not real because they would know Baghdady or they know he's dead or they they saw him yesterday or something so there would be some people but those people could not tell their story without revealing that they've seen Baghdady laced lately so let's say several people came out and said it's not him I was just with him yesterday suddenly we have a much better idea where Baghdad he is so it's sort of awkward for Isis to deny it because they would have to tell you a little bit too much about where he is and what he's up to in order to deny it credibly just saying it's not him would just cause confusion and probably wouldn't get nearly as much nearly as much play as the original fake so I'm not saying that wasn't I'm not saying that was a fake al-baghdadi I'm not saying that I'm saying if it wasn't a fake one our CIA are incompetent because they should have created a fake one by now if they have not if this is not affect Baghdad II who the hell is in charge of the people who are trying to fix this Isis problem that would have been on the top of my list of smart things to do you know if that's what if that wasn't on the top of their freakin list of smarter things to do let's serve fire in people because that was the obvious play it doesn't matter how how easily it's debunked irrelevant it's gonna have the same effect as all of our fake news does that once it gets out there you just can't you can't take it back so I asked myself am I the only person who thought of this fake Baghdady idea well I don't think so I mean in terms of the CIA and you know homeland security and people who are bad at battling Isis do you think I'm the first person who had this idea no it would be the most obvious play you could ever do you could create an audio or in this case a video is really compelling because it's visual so I would think and and and here's the second part you would want that version of Baghdady to paint a negative picture of Isis but not so negative it's obvious it's a fake so what's the what would that look like well it would look like Baghdad II saying you know kill the West you know the the the heathens are bad so just just to be you know a normal al-baghdadi Isis guy but then he says the kill shot they're our army which we thought was supported by God he didn't say that part but it's implied has been just completely crushed on the battlefield if you're listening for this and you are a potential Isis recruit do you say yeah let's do Bora this I don't think so the best thing that we could have ever done we meaning intelligence services is to produce a fake Baghdady saying that they're losing badly and apparently he doesn't have another you know I don't remember that he had a better plan he was just saying the plan we have the only plan we have is totally losing and it's losing like badly that would be the best thing our CIA could do alright enough on that what else when we going to talk about today I'm gonna check my excuse me long log back in all right have you noticed that the news let me let me start this point by reading a tweet that I sent out so here's a tweet that I sign now has around a thousand retweets so people liked it listen to this point I said that in 2016 if everything that them Democrats believed was true so let's imagine that it's 2016 and the Democrats have a number of ideas about who president Trump is if any of that had been true their belief in 2016 what would it look like today it would look like we'd be in a depression we'd be in a nuclear war there would be prison camps for I guess anybody who wasn't white and we'd have an insane Russian puppet our Tsar president how many of those things happened zero not only not even close right nothing even suggestive of that direction happened instead what do we have in 2019 so in 2019 if Democrats are right about everything they believe let's say the Democrats starting today have a certain set of beliefs let's say they're all true in 2016 that would have meant you know nuclear war depressions and all that today if everything the Democrats think about this president is true it would mean that the president is guilty of almost impeding a witch-hunt on a crime that didn't exist but he didn't he almost but didn't impede an investigation into a witch hunt that is literally the worst case scenario now have they noticed that their worst case scenario went from the zombie apocalypse you know nuclear war and starvation and prison camps have they noticed that that has gone down the hoax funnel have you know this hoax funnel idea you give your it's a little sticky because you keep seeing it the big lie nuclear war you know the big lies depression he's a Russian puppet and they've all they've all been reduced to well what about his personality well what about the moral fiber of the country hey he's told ten thousand lies that for some reason have made no difference whatsoever but he's got that funny haircut and the funnel just gets smaller and smaller until they just are asking questions so no longer are we talking about the twenty-fifth amendment no longer are we talking about Russia collusion unless we're crazy no longer are we talking about a weak economy unless we're blind and stupid no longer are we talking about prison camps because it was frickin stupid from day one and that was just extra extra stupid we're talking about his personality maybe he says mean tweets that's that that's it so that's pretty good news but here are some of the things that people are seriously arguing in the political realm as if these are the important points of the day all right and maybe you can add some more so think about some more and put them in the comments here are some things that people are arguing about who was he referring to when he said fine people compared to nuclear war depression prison camps wait a minute what did he mean by those words different right another thing is he keeps the president keeps saying he's exonerated but Muller says there's just not enough him there's no not in there's not evidence to say he colluded well you're sort of arguing about the definition of words and yes yes present the president is over claiming what it means to have no evidence you know lack of evidence is not proof of no right but we do live in a country in which the the presumption of guilty should be the guiding principle so for the president to say he's exonerated when somebody's looked at it thirty five million dollars several years I can't find a freaking thing I don't think that's too far wrong it's wrong like it's it's technically absolutely untrue that the president was exonerated but is it really wrong is it is it really I mean all we're arguing about is that the biggest arguments we have my my contribution to the argument would be really is that what those words mean it's not nuclear war it's not a Holocaust it's just a word he's using a word wrong my god his semantics how how will the Republic survive his different use of words here's another one is it obstruction or not and then there was the argument with I guess Kamala Harris was a grilling bar at the testimony and Baro was wondering about the question of suggests and she said did the president suggest that you do whatever and the bar is like well I don't know I have problem with the word suggest and I'm thinking that's our biggest problem we're literally talking about words now got a couple of other updates on climate all good news sort of if you want to believe it it's all good news number one we're seeing the term green nuclear deal more places Michael Medved use use the term in an article so this is another success for Mark Snyder who's been an advocate for people understanding that nuclear is the really the only solution that we know to any kind of climate risk and wouldn't even matter if you have climate risk it's still the only thing you should be doing energy wise not the only thing you should be you should be doing it hard no matter what you think about the climate because we need the energy it's good for the world it helps poor people emerge electricity basically takes people out of poverty so that's good and also I believe China's doing some stuff with some plants and I saw it I asked mark an estimate for how many of the generation 3 nuclear sites these are the kinds of understand France is mostly or all generation 3 we have a few of those I think planned in in this country and the total number of generations 3 nuclear sites who have been around for 20 years or so the total number of them that have had a meltdown event what do you think the number is because there are a lot of them all right there are a lot of them around the world how many do you think have had a meltdown event the generation 3 yeah zero exactly zero and that's that's what Michael Shellenberger was saying that you don't need to wait for the exotics you know that the generation for which if you did everything right would be even safer because they would be designed so meltdown wasn't even an option you know as opposed to designed to prevent it that it's a slight difference one provide one is designed to prevent something which is technically possible generation for if it ever became practical and economical would make it not even something that could happen even if everything went wrong but still apparently we've we've gone a far enough on the learning curve that nuclear generation 3 is being built in this country there are a few being planned already in the process and on top of that apparently AOC and others were there was some congressional testimony I don't know all the details in which there were experts who came in and talked about climate change and one of the experts was a statistician who essentially blew holes in the climate change I guess alarmist view now he can't remember his name but I tweeted it so if you look at my tweets let's see let me see if I can find his name I want to give him credit he were bone bare with me talk among yourselves yeah he's a skeptical science scientist and now I don't want to say that I'm promoting the point of view of the people I'm talking about because I'm not I'm just gonna tell you what they talked about and then you can make your own judgments alright it's dr.

caleb Rossiter and his is money quote is that we're trying to save the people of the planet from the people saving the planet so his his basic thesis is that carbon and warming have only been good net and very good for the world so far and that statistically speaking there is not there's not evidence that the co2 increases that we've seen already are going to create any kind of calamity and in fact it might all be positive now you might you might say to yourself well that's opposite of what I've been hearing and so I don't say that roster is correct how would I know but I want to make a distinction with the different kinds of sceptics so there's the Tony Heller kind of skeptic who believes that there was intentional bad faith changes to the data to create a false impression that there's a big problem now I'm not saying that's true or false I'm just saying that that's one flavour of skeptic who say the data has been fudged intentionally there are other skeptics who say that there's no such thing as co2 causing warming that the basic physics is just wrong and that maybe it's something about sunspots I would say they are not the most credible of the skeptics again I don't know if they're right or wrong but they talk about arguments that the diet that the climate scientists seem to have been seemed to have debunked pretty thoroughly but I'm not the judge I can't tell if the debunking Israel or not just there's a lot of it and then there's what I would call the judith curry flavor of skeptic i'm not sure she call herself a skeptic so i don't want to label her and maybe this dr.

caleb roster who are I would say statistically skeptical meaning that they're looking at the the same data that the climate scientists are but they're saying I think you've over interpreted the data or you haven't done it as rigorously as science would require or it's not as cleanly obvious that the your interpretations are obvious just based on the statistics and so this particular skeptic said to Congress and he was of course I guess he's associated with happer who the president has chosen as his lead scientist and hampers a skeptic so it shouldn't surprise us that there is one and apparently aoc did not like talking to somebody who knew a lot more than she did on the topic who didn't agree with her assumptions about what was true now I have no way of evaluating dr.

Khaled Rossiter's opinions but neither do you and I don't know who does how in the world are we citizens supposed to look at you know the scientists says X and then this statistics person with you know great resume nobody says he's nobody says he's incompetent I mean I haven't read that I'm sure somebody says that have been everybody but it looks like he has the right qualifications and he's looked into it and he's the right person and he's looked into it and says I'm I'm not seeing not seeing the danger but here's here's where this statistician if I can call him that that may be the wrong description for his job type but here's where he's interesting he totally accepts the basic science the co2 causes warming and that it's almost certainly already present so he's starting with an agreement with the the most basic part of climate science yeah co2 is here it's increased adds the temperature and we can measure it and it does look like it's part of the answer maybe but maybe not all of it and then he makes a better argument that it doesn't matter because it's all good the warming is better than the cooling and all things being equal even if the warming killed a million people is better than the cold that are replaced because the cold were to kill 10 million people I don't know if that's true and by the way I made up those numbers those are not his numbers but it's the sense of the argument all right so we're seeing tremendously positive things happen in the climate world one is that I think the argument and the debate is getting a little bit more robust you know when we're down to that statistical level it seems that there's a lot of agreement up to the statistical level and that seems like something we could kind of dig into and maybe maybe come to some kind of a better understanding that way and then there's the nuclear progress which is there's all kinds of nuclear progress all over the world nuclear energy progress and that's all good because that is the solution to climate change all right let's see if I oh I said yesterday that when people were accusing bar of creating a narrative by coming out first with his summary and then apparently Muller has some disagreement and the news again was completely incompetent on this topic and the the news was reporting that maybe the disagreement with Muller and Barr was over just how the news was treating it or maybe it was that bar shaded the narrative in a way that to change it after that so any any kind of details are gonna get lost because the main spin that bar put on it fara put on it seriously the audio is going again seriously I'm gonna wait until somebody tells me the audio is back yeah I know you can't hear it I'm just waiting hold on hold on interestingly I'm back okay interestingly this is exactly the same point where my periscope broke up yesterday probably total coincidence so I'm going to say at the point again and see if it breaks up again bar put a spin on the molar report by being the first one to talk about it and summarizing it all summarized all summaries are a narrative there isn't and they're also all inaccurate you can't create a summary that is also accurate there's those two things are opposites the summary gets rid of the accuracy in order to you know make sure that you understand that least the central point so saying that bars summary was inaccurate or misleading is probably not understanding how the world works because somebody was going to spin this thing and it was whoever went first if mulher summary apparently Mulder had his own summary if that had one first it would have been one of the members of his team would decide how we interpreted it is that fair well don't know because we don't know whether we should trust we don't know much about this member of the team that member of the team was not an elected person and we can't you know it's sort of not transparent but when bar does it he's doing it in public he's showing his work he's fully qualified for this kind of decision he went to Congress he answered questions he showed the entire Muller report all the data but he did at his own narrative somebody was gonna add a narrative so if you're complaining that bar added a narrative you're not really complaining about anything cuz somebody was gonna do that who's better do you want the fake news to put their narrative on it because they would have and you know that so you don't have a choice of somebody here's what you don't have you didn't you never had the choice of nobody going first that's not a choice somebody was gonna build a narrative and sell it to the country and it was going to be the main one that other people complained about but it was going to be the main one I think bar being recently appointed or recently confirmed by Congress did we lose the signal again anyway I think that bar having recently been in his job through a public process is the most credible person to do it even though we accept that he's spitting the narrative in a positive way for the president I think we'd all agree they spun it in a positive way for the president but remember there was no underlying crime there's going to be a narrative there's no such thing as a neutral narrative in in our world it doesn't happen can't happen you couldn't do it if you tried he had to spin it either anti-trump or Pro job there wasn't anything like a neutral way to do it you couldn't write a summary that was neutral so the fact that he leaned pro Trump says to me he's doing the job the way you'd want him to do it and I would say the same whether it was Hillary Clinton or somebody else in the office it doesn't matter if the underlying crime has been found to be you know just favor us I don't mind at all that the Attorney General said all right this whole thing was sort of a witch hunt and even if you can make some technical case on obstruction do we want to do that as a country is that who we want to be do we want to be that country they would make a technical argument on this BS which on stuff that maybe if you read the law just right and interpret it just a certain way well maybe you could put this president in jail you don't want that you wouldn't want that you wouldn't want that if we were before Hillary Clinton if you're honest you know if you really want what's good for the country you wouldn't want that for anybody doesn't matter who's president you wouldn't want a First Citizen wouldn't want her a congress member you wouldn't want anybody to be treated any differently than the way Attorney General bar treated the President of the United States right in front of us and showed all of his work and showed all of Muller's work all right that's as good as you can do even if you don't think it's perfect even if you don't like it it's still as good as you can do it's the it's the best system we have and in an imperfect world where somebody had to go first all right that's all I got to say for today the leaf blower is outside my window it's getting noisy I'll talk to you later

all right let's see if I've got a better

signal this time I had to sign off and

sign back on apparently there was

something wrong with the single at least

one person that says it's good okay

everybody says it's better as soon as

everybody piles back in here cuz I know

you will come on back come on back all

right so I was starting to tell the

story I know you want another

simultaneous up get ready lift your copy

of my glass through sign break your

thermos and join me second one's even

better so I was talking about do I have

the right last name Piers Morgan and his

show his co-host was talking about the

fine people hoax as if it were real and

she was she was repeating the fake news

that the president called neo-nazis in

Charlottesville fine people now they

were talking to Al Sharpton so as I was

saying before we got cut off here that

al Sharpton you would expect of all

people in the world would would agree

with the hoax in other words you would

expect al Sharpton to act as though the

president really had called neo-nazis

fine people in Charlottesville but he

didn't he didn't Al Sharpton

did not agree expressly with the hoax

that the president called be at

neo-nazis fine people instead what he

said was that the if the president was

talking about people on both sides of

the statute debate specifically the

robert e lee and their Sharpton

explained robert e lee was in Sharpton's

view a bad guy because he was trying to

overthrow the government which is pretty

bad and he was a slave owner which is

really bad they're both really bad so al

Sharpton is not wrong about

characterization of robert e lee you

know the other people will characterize

it differently i understand there's a

difference of opinion but he wasn't

wrong on the facts and then he said that

that's even that's even the worst part

that if you could support people who

support that statue that's pretty darn

you know racist now i'm gonna claim

success here because most of you know

i've been talking about this forever i

to object to offensive confederate

statues but i i i i also recognize that

there are normal

good americans who are not racists who

just wouldn't destroy any historical

monument no matter how offensive because

it's just part of their history their

culture or whatever and again good

people could imagine that we understand

is context so it's not you know maybe

you should not be offended my view is

that wall i believe people should not be

offended by it people are offended by it

you can't change that yeah the fact that

you don't want people to be offended by

it doesn't really change the fact that

they are so if you live in the country

where some huge percentage of your

citizens are deeply offended i mean

pretty deeply offended and they've got a

good good argument for it

just be a good citizen why would you

offend 1/2 or 1/3 of your country if you

don't need to you know need to anyway so

I'm opposed to Confederate statues but

I'm more opposed to the fine people hoax

which is a complete fabrication and has

been driving the narrative about this

president for since 2017 I guess so even

al Sharpton was unwilling to say on

television that the president called the

neo-nazis fine people I'm pretty sure

that by now he's been exposed to the

actual transcript and he would actually

be embarrassed

push the hoax that even the host of the

show is pushing I call that success now

my article that I wrote or my blog post

in which I I documented all of the ways

that people go down the hoax funnel from

starting with the pure lie that the

president called neo-nazis find people

to shown the transcript it's you could

see to debunk but then they go down and

say well they were marching with the

Nazis and then you show that they

weren't well okay they weren't marching

with the Nazis but you know why does the

president wait so long and why doesn't

he you know so you can definitely just

these these random questions instead of

a statement anyway he got picked up by

Zero Hedge has republished it today and

where else has it been republished

seeing few other places

it was republish why am I forgetting

oh and then Ann Coulter is featured in

Breitbart talking about the hoax as well

now there's no reference to anything

I've done in that she just does her she

just does her own work and well

Oh Larry elder God after Piers Morgan

for for spreading the hoax

who else we got going here anyway oh and

here's the funny part

apparently MSNBC apparently MSNBC is

saying that the people who were calling

the fine people hoax a hoax in other

words people like me they're calling us

truthers truthers now if you're gonna

insult me calling me a truther this is

the very best way you can do it because

I'm pretty sure that I am actually

telling the truth in a way that any

media organization can validate they

report it as

the truth so the things that the things

that I say are even all the news

organizations report as the truth it's

actually what he said he condemned the

basis all right so I guess it was Nicole

Wallace on MSNBC he was referring to the

hoax Busters as the Charlottesville

truthers

I hope they stick with that oh my

god are you telling me that we

lost this again are you kidding

me seriously

can anybody hear me now

all right I was frozen for a minute let

me just confirm that we're back on here

because it just doesn't feel like this

is accidental anymore

honestly let's talk about anyway let

just put a put a bow on this fine fine

people hoax or thing I'm a number of

people anyway how many of you have tried

my challenge where you guess somebody

who believes the fine people hoax and

you walk them through the hoax funnel by

debunking each claim until the claims

get smaller and smaller until people are

asking just dumb questions like well why

didn't except and as soon as you as soon

as you get to well okay you've debunked

everything I think was true but how do

you explain this if you're down to how

do you explain and it's all easy to

explain you've kind of won how many of

you have tried the challenge on someone

I saw on Twitter that somebody somebody

tried the challenge have any of you try

to yet and I just want to see if you had

the experience I predicted that the

person you asked to read the quote from

President Trump where he condemns

totally the neo-nazis the challenge was

to see if you can actually get them to

read it out loud to you in the

so freezing again and and the and the

the challenges the challenges that I

don't think people can actually speak

the words I think that their brain would

actually freeze and I mean that I mean

that there would be an actual

psychological phenomenon that you could

spot where they wouldn't be able to say

the words they would get mad or they'd

throw it at you or they'd say it's made

up or it's out of context or you're

lying but they wouldn't be able to just

mean it so that's that's the challenge

see if it gets me how do you debunked so

many proven lies I don't know what you

mean

I'm just looking your comments to see if

we still have a connection I think we do

alright let's talk about Barr who

apparently all yesterday I called Bob

Barr but is William bar bill bar so

let's call him bill bar because that's

actually his name

we'll do that today I've been trying to

figure out from the terrible terrible

news coverage and really the the news

coverage of the bar testimony was maybe

the worst I've ever seen probably the

worst I've ever seen and I'm not talking

about anyone never it was all bad it was

just all bad everywhere I mean

disgustingly bad even on the same

network and I won't name names but even

within the same network they were

reporting the news as opposites somebody

would say that bar is claiming X and the

next person say bar is now claiming X

and I'm thinking this is the same

network just just decide what the news

is you know do you know what you have to

be right but just report it the same on

your network but here are the some of

the things I've figured out and I don't

know how many of you have figured this

out as well there was a wonderful

article which I just tweeted tweeted by

- dammit Taurus

I am so unorganized alright there was a

wonderful article that I just retweeted

by will Chamberlain at which he takes

you through the fascinating story of how

the lawyers for the president probably

got to this good result and the the

basic story I thought I knew this story

but but will offers one piece of

speculation I hadn't heard so you knew

that bill bar before he was Attorney

General wrote a long well researched

piece in which he said that the

obstruction thing doesn't apply and he

made a very narrow interpretation of it

and his argument was based on that and I

thought to myself with all this

reporting I don't believe I've ever seen

the actual word of the law in other

words the specific wording that

everybody is saying the president either

violated or did not violate like what

exactly is the law so that's one of the

failings so I'm gonna read you the

obstruction law there are two parts and

the two parts are what's important now

bars argument apparently is that the

second part is referring to the first

part and Muller's interpretation is that

they're just two separate parts all

right now I actually agree with Muller

on this because they look like just

separate parts to me but one says that

you could be guilty of obstruction of

justice if you alter or destroy you know

documents or materials now that was very

clear and there's no claim that the

president destroyed any documents or had

anybody destroying any documents but the

second part is sort of a cleanup a

cleanup part where says the word

otherwise or otherwise obstruction

fluence rupees and the official

proceedings or attempts to do so now

that to me seems exactly applicable to

what

using the president of of otherwise

obstructing influencing or repeating so

that argument is the obstruction

argument

apparently bill Barr wrote a piece that

said that that second part was really

just a clean up to the first part and so

the the law and obstructions so narrow

that since the president I guess didn't

destroy any documents that that it

didn't apply now

I don't think that's a good argument I'm

no lawyer but it doesn't sound good to

me said but that's just one of the

arguments and then what will added was a

speculation that the lawyers for the

President may have asked bill bar to

write that letter and then when it was a

letter that they liked they got rid of

sessions you know got the President to

fire sessions after the midterms brought

it in bar so that they knew they had

somebody who would have the right

interpretation somebody's mentioning

Alan Dershowitz in the comments and

that's where I'm going next

so what argument is that the obstruction

ruling should not be interpreted that

way Muller says it is written I feel

feels like a weak argument to me and I'm

not the Supreme Court so don't think my

word for it the other is that you that

we heard was that obstruction only

applied to a pending case and there was

no pending case against the president I

won't get too technical but apparently

that are given got thrown away because

the the obstruction rule has been

interpreted or there's some precedent to

say that potential cases are also

included and certainly there was a

potential case so the argument that you

know there's no ongoing criminal case

was not relict okay so it's two

arguments that I've heard that don't

make sense to me again not a lawyer just

the person watching the news then

there's one that says that everything

the President did was within his

within his job description I think this

is closer to the alan dershowitz

argument there you can't say somebody

had intention to obstruct justice if

what if what we've observed are the

normal actions of a president doing the

job of a president that even if that did

have the effect of impeding the

investigation you couldn't say that was

the intent because it was also just

doing regular president stuff now I

think that's the argument that bill Barr

settled on essentially abandoning or at

least not mentioning his own original

argument so when he did his summary of

the Moller report and God knows I might

be getting some of this wrong when he

did a summary he didn't use his original

argument the document he wrote before he

was a J which is interesting he didn't

use his own argument he used what

sounded like more like the Dershowitz

argument that there's no evidence that

the President had intent because

everything was just an example of him

doing his job now here's where and then

there was the argument that you can't

indict a sitting president and

apparently that was never anybody's

argument so Muller never made the

argument Barr never made that argument

so that was just sort of a pundit

argument I guess so that one really

never became important in the case for

those one of the arguments and then I

was watching Judge Napolitano on Fox

News saying that I hope I just heard

this wrong so I'm gonna say just so I

don't get sued for some kind of libel or

slander that I may have heard this wrong

so don't take it from me as fact I'll

put it out there as I don't know what

I'm seeing and I don't understand it it

looked to be like Napolitano we're

saying that bar was basing his legal

opinion and the fact that there was no

underlying crime I didn't see that does

that even sound like a reality that you

were watching did you see did you see

Napolitano

anyway did anybody see Barre say that

the reason there was no obstruction is

because there was no underlying crime I

don't think he said anything like that

indeed I'm pretty sure he believes the

opposite although I don't know he said

it specifically but why wouldn't he

believe the opposite when every lawyer

in the world believes it I mean it

sounded like Judge Napolitano was saying

that bar is the only lawyer in the world

in the whole world he would be the only

one who believes that obstruction of

justice can only be applied if there's

an underlying crime I don't believe that

anybody believes that was a lawyer so I

didn't know what I was seeing

how could Judge Napolitano who

presumably is a very smart guy how can

he be saying that and how could it be on

the news yeah I he said the opposite

right so I didn't know if I was hearing

it wrong but this is my larger point

when I was watching the news yesterday

did anybody and if you have the same

reaction that the news didn't seem to be

news it looked like complete BS on all

the channels all the time it looked like

nobody really understood what they were

watching nobody understood who said what

nobody could remember what anybody's

opinion was it just looked like a mess

that's what I saw now maybe maybe the

the news will start to you know focus

bore oh we're getting out of this fog of

war situation but I come down I come

down to this there's no way you could

get 12 jurors to convict a president you

know forget about a sitting president

even an ex-president

you can't get 12 citizens of this

country to say that the president trying

to impede something that he alone knew

wasn't valid because remember everyone

in the world didn't know what was true

and what

except one person only only the

president knew he didn't he didn't to

collude he was sure nobody else was sure

but he was sure so if you could tell me

you can get a jury to convict on that

good luck you're never gonna convince me

of that even if the facts say it should

be a conviction here I'd like to

introduce a new conspiracy theory or

maybe a couple it starts with a general

concept you can't trust anything in the

news all right I think you agree with me

so far right just because it's in the

news and even if it's on all the network

news that doesn't mean it's true

and that's triple true if the news is

coming from let's say the government

only and especially let's say any

military intelligence CIA organization

and the organization that does not

traffic in the truth and that's a lot of

organizations right any intelligence

organization they like to know the truth

for themselves but they're not really in

the in the business of telling the

public the truth in fact they're in the

business of telling the bit of telling

the public untruths if it's good for the

country that's the business whether it's

our public or some other country's

public they're in the business of lying

that's they're professionals they're

trained to do it that's it's practically

the job description so there are two

stories that make me scratch my head and

say well I don't know if that's true

here's the first one the first story we

heard is that Maduro the horrible leader

of Venezuela the other day was planning

to get on the plane and leave and leave

the country to the to the named

president who would take over and the

story that we were given by our

government not by the press

but the story that were given by our

government is that Russia stopped Medora

from getting on the plane and leave it

now there are two possibilities one

that's completely true right you can't

rule that out I mean one possibility

that's exactly what happened

Maduro was gonna lose right and Bolden

said it so our government has said it

very clearly that he was going to get on

the plane but Russia stopped him do you

think that's true really do you think

that's true because it might be it makes

perfect sense right there's nothing

about that story that on the surface

rules about right so I'm not gonna say

it's not true I'm just gonna put out

this speculation if it were not true it

would be an excellent thing for our

government to say to get the result we

walked has our government ever said

anything that wasn't true to get a

result that we wanted well yeah pretty

much all the time so if you were a

Venezuelan person and you supported

Maduro and you heard that the only thing

keeping him in the country is the

Russians would you support him as much

if you were one of the protesters or you

were not on the side of Maduro but you

were not really active you know you're

sort of watching it you weren't in the

streets and you heard them Maduro would

have left except for Russia would that

cause you to get off the couch and get

in the streets so here's my question I'm

not saying it's not true I'm just saying

that if it's not true it would have been

an excellent rumor to start because it's

very productive it's an excellent rumor

and in fact starting to you know reframe

Venezuela as a Russian puppet or worse

I'd like to know which sounds worse to

the ears of a typical

that is well and resident which sounds

worse you've been conquered by Cuba

which effectively is true because Cuba

is protecting Medora the ubin forces and

I don't think Medora can do anything

that Cuba doesn't want him to do because

they protect him

so in effect Maduro already doesn't run

the country the the small group of

people who were keeping him alive

we are the de facto rulers of the

country now if Russia has direct control

over those Cubans who are keeping Medora

alive well then you could say Russia is

really already in charge of that as well

and that would that would be really

supportable if you knew that link was as

strong as I said but which one of those

two sounds worse it's probably been

tested our government probably tested

and said all right what sounds worse you

Venezuelans maybe focus group or somehow

they talk to people who are were close

to the people on the street so that they

can know what sounds worse does it sound

worse that Cuba took over your country

or does a sound worse that Putin took

over your country

which one would get you back in the

streets so when bolton says that the

Russians stopped Maduro and Maduro says

that that's just not true it's laughable

I say to myself I don't think I'm going

to uncritically assume that that the

official story from our own government

is true it might be true ish there might

have been a conversation the Medora had

with the Russians that you could spin

that way but don't accept uncritically

that that ever happened it might have

happened I'm not saying it didn't but

don't accept it uncritically secondly

and this is the fun one the first one

who was just sort of to prime you for

the second one did you see the video of

the al-baghdadi I guess the the leader

and founder of Isis

apparently we only had one video of him

he announced Isis five years ago and

then there's this complete lack of any

video or photographs of him to the point

where we weren't sure he was alive you

know there was rumor he might have been

killed or seriously injured and then

suddenly there's this very clear video

of him hanging around and talking to his

buddies and talking about how Isis has

been badly defeated on the battlefield

now he still says his Isis stuff but he

admits that on the battlefield they've

just been basically crushed and now I

ask you this is that really el Baghdady

how hard would it be for the CIA or

somebody who does that kind of work to

create a video of a fake Baghdady and

how good does it need to be now it

doesn't have to be CGI although that's

an option it could just be somebody with

a you know grew a beard and sort of

looks like Baghdadi because suppose Isis

said no that's that's not the real

Baghdady we know who he is and it's not

that guy who would know

does does Isis let me let me use the

concept when we watch the fake news in

our own country you've all had you've

all seen this said that the fake news

will go viral and you'll get a you know

ten million views so the fake news gets

ten million views and then following up

is the no no no that was fake news and

even if the the fact that it was fake

news can be demonstrated the media will

report that because they do report

Corrections well how much will the

correction be seen by a thousand people

so the the fake news goes to ten million

the correction goes to a thousand

because it's just not interesting or

whatever so

fewer the CIA and peg daddy had not been

in public for five years and even Isis

fighters weren't quite sure if he was

still around wouldn't you try to create

a video of fake news that would

certainly be detected in other words

there are people at Isis who would know

for sure it's not real because they

would know Baghdady or they know he's

dead or they they saw him yesterday or

something

so there would be some people but those

people could not tell their story

without revealing that they've seen

Baghdady laced lately so let's say

several people came out and said it's

not him I was just with him yesterday

suddenly we have a much better idea

where Baghdad he is so it's sort of

awkward for Isis to deny it because they

would have to tell you a little bit too

much about where he is and what he's up

to

in order to deny it credibly just saying

it's not him would just cause confusion

and probably wouldn't get nearly as much

nearly as much play as the original fake

so I'm not saying that wasn't I'm not

saying that was a fake al-baghdadi

I'm not saying that I'm saying if it

wasn't a fake one our CIA are

incompetent because they should have

created a fake one by now if they have

not if this is not affect Baghdad II who

the hell is in charge of the people who

are trying to fix this Isis problem that

would have been on the top of my list of

smart things to do you know if that's

what if that wasn't on the top of their

freakin list of smarter things to do

let's serve fire in people because that

was the obvious play it doesn't matter

how how easily it's debunked irrelevant

it's gonna have the same effect as all

of our fake news does that once it gets

out there you just can't you can't take

it back

so I asked myself am I the only person

who thought of this fake Baghdady idea

well I don't think so

I mean in terms of the CIA and you know

homeland security and people who are bad

at battling Isis do you think I'm the

first person who had this idea no it

would be the most obvious play you could

ever do you could create an audio or in

this case a video is really compelling

because it's visual so I would think and

and and here's the second part you would

want that version of Baghdady

to paint a negative picture of Isis but

not so negative it's obvious it's a fake

so what's the what would that look like

well it would look like Baghdad II

saying you know kill the West you know

the the the heathens are bad so just

just to be you know a normal al-baghdadi

Isis guy but then he says the kill shot

they're our army which we thought was

supported by God he didn't say that part

but it's implied has been just

completely crushed on the battlefield if

you're listening for this and you are a

potential Isis recruit do you say yeah

let's do Bora this I don't think so

the best thing that we could have ever

done we meaning intelligence services is

to produce a fake Baghdady

saying that they're losing badly and

apparently he doesn't have another you

know I don't remember that he had a

better plan he was just saying the plan

we have the only plan we have is totally

losing and it's losing like badly that

would be the best thing our CIA could do

alright enough on that what else when we

going to talk about today I'm gonna

check my excuse me long log back in

all right have you noticed that the news

let me let me start this point by

reading a tweet that I sent out so

here's a tweet that I sign now has

around a thousand retweets so people

liked it

listen to this point I said that in 2016

if everything that them Democrats

believed was true so let's imagine that

it's 2016 and the Democrats have a

number of ideas about who president

Trump is if any of that had been true

their belief in 2016 what would it look

like today

it would look like we'd be in a

depression we'd be in a nuclear war

there would be prison camps for I guess

anybody who wasn't white and we'd have

an insane Russian puppet our Tsar

president how many of those things

happened zero not only not even close

right nothing even suggestive of that

direction happened instead what do we

have in 2019 so in 2019 if Democrats are

right about everything they believe

let's say the Democrats starting today

have a certain set of beliefs let's say

they're all true in 2016 that would have

meant you know nuclear war depressions

and all that today if everything the

Democrats think about this president is

true it would mean that the president is

guilty of almost impeding a witch-hunt

on a crime that didn't exist but he

didn't he almost but didn't impede an

investigation into a witch hunt that is

literally the worst case scenario now

have they noticed that their worst case

scenario went from the zombie apocalypse

you know nuclear war and starvation and

prison camps have they noticed that that

has gone down the hoax funnel have you

know this hoax funnel idea you give your

it's a little sticky because you keep

seeing it the big lie nuclear war you

know the big lies depression he's a

Russian puppet and they've all they've

all been reduced to well what about his

personality well what about the moral

fiber of the country

hey he's told ten thousand lies that for

some reason have made no difference

whatsoever but he's got that funny

haircut and the funnel just gets smaller

and smaller until they just are asking

questions so no longer are we talking

about the twenty-fifth amendment no

longer are we talking about Russia

collusion unless we're crazy no longer

are we talking about a weak economy

unless we're blind and stupid no longer

are we talking about prison camps

because it was frickin stupid from day

one and that was just extra extra stupid

we're talking about his personality

maybe he says mean tweets that's that

that's it so that's pretty good news but

here are some of the things that people

are seriously arguing in the political

realm as if these are the important

points of the day all right and maybe

you can add some more so think about

some more and put them in the comments

here are some things that people are

arguing about who was he referring to

when he said fine people compared to

nuclear war depression prison camps wait

a minute what did he mean by those words

different right another thing is he

keeps the president keeps saying he's

exonerated but Muller says there's just

not enough him there's no not in there's

not evidence to say he colluded well

you're sort of arguing about the

definition of words and yes yes present

the president is over claiming what it

means to have no evidence you know lack

of evidence is not proof of no

right but we do live in a country in

which the the presumption of guilty

should be the guiding principle so for

the president to say he's exonerated

when somebody's looked at it thirty five

million dollars several years I can't

find a freaking thing I don't think

that's too far wrong it's wrong like

it's it's technically absolutely untrue

that the president was exonerated but is

it really wrong is it is it really I

mean all we're arguing about is that the

biggest arguments we have my my

contribution to the argument would be

really is that what those words mean

it's not nuclear war it's not a

Holocaust it's just a word he's using a

word wrong my god his semantics how how

will the Republic survive his different

use of words here's another one

is it obstruction or not and then there

was the argument with I guess Kamala

Harris was a grilling bar at the

testimony and Baro was wondering about

the question of suggests and she said

did the president suggest that you do

whatever and the bar is like well I

don't know I have problem with the word

suggest and I'm thinking that's our

biggest problem we're literally talking

about words now got a couple of other

updates on climate all good news sort of

if you want to believe it it's all good

news number one we're seeing the term

green nuclear deal more places Michael

Medved use use the term in an article so

this is another success for Mark Snyder

who's been an advocate for people

understanding that nuclear is the really

the only solution that we know to any

kind of climate risk and

wouldn't even matter if you have climate

risk it's still the only thing you

should be doing energy wise not the only

thing you should be you should be doing

it hard no matter what you think about

the climate because we need the energy

it's good for the world it helps poor

people emerge electricity basically

takes people out of poverty so that's

good and also I believe China's doing

some stuff with some plants and I saw it

I asked mark an estimate for how many of

the generation 3 nuclear sites these are

the kinds of understand France is mostly

or all generation 3 we have a few of

those I think planned in in this country

and the total number of generations 3

nuclear sites who have been around for

20 years or so the total number of them

that have had a meltdown event what do

you think the number is because there

are a lot of them all right there are a

lot of them around the world how many do

you think have had a meltdown event the

generation 3 yeah zero exactly zero and

that's that's what Michael Shellenberger

was saying that you don't need to wait

for the exotics you know that the

generation for which if you did

everything right would be even safer

because they would be designed so

meltdown wasn't even an option you know

as opposed to designed to prevent it

that it's a slight difference one

provide one is designed to prevent

something which is technically possible

generation for if it ever became

practical and economical would make it

not even something that could happen

even if everything went wrong but still

apparently we've we've gone a far enough

on the learning curve that nuclear

generation 3 is being built in this

country there are a few being planned

already in the process and on top of

that

apparently AOC and others were there was

some congressional testimony

I don't know all the details in which

there were experts who came in and

talked about climate change and one of

the experts was a statistician who

essentially blew holes in the climate

change I guess

alarmist view now he can't remember his

name but I tweeted it so if you look at

my tweets let's see let me see if I can

find his name I want to give him credit

he were bone bare with me talk among

yourselves yeah he's a skeptical science

scientist and now I don't want to say

that I'm promoting the point of view of

the people I'm talking about because I'm

not I'm just gonna tell you what they

talked about and then you can make your

own judgments alright it's dr. caleb

Rossiter and his is money quote is that

we're trying to save the people of the

planet from the people saving the planet

so his his basic thesis is that carbon

and warming have only been good net and

very good for the world so far and that

statistically speaking there is not

there's not evidence that the co2

increases that we've seen already are

going to create any kind of calamity and

in fact it might all be positive now you

might you might say to yourself well

that's opposite of what I've been

hearing and so I don't say that roster

is correct how would I know but I want

to make a distinction with the different

kinds of sceptics so there's the Tony

Heller kind of skeptic who believes that

there was intentional bad faith changes

to the data to create a false impression

that there's a big problem now I'm not

saying that's true or false I'm just

saying that that's one flavour of

skeptic

who say the data has been fudged

intentionally there are other skeptics

who say that there's no such thing as

co2 causing warming that the basic

physics is just wrong and that maybe

it's something about sunspots I would

say they are not the most credible of

the skeptics again I don't know if

they're right or wrong but they talk

about arguments that the diet that the

climate scientists seem to have been

seemed to have debunked pretty

thoroughly but I'm not the judge I can't

tell if the debunking Israel or not just

there's a lot of it and then there's

what I would call the judith curry

flavor of skeptic i'm not sure she call

herself a skeptic so i don't want to

label her and maybe this dr. caleb

roster who are I would say statistically

skeptical meaning that they're looking

at the the same data that the climate

scientists are but they're saying I

think you've over interpreted the data

or you haven't done it as rigorously as

science would require or it's not as

cleanly obvious that the your

interpretations are obvious just based

on the statistics and so this particular

skeptic said to Congress and he was of

course I guess he's associated with

happer who the president has chosen as

his lead scientist and hampers a skeptic

so it shouldn't surprise us that there

is one and apparently aoc did not like

talking to somebody who knew a lot more

than she did on the topic who didn't

agree with her assumptions about what

was true now I have no way of evaluating

dr. Khaled Rossiter's opinions but

neither do you and I don't know who does

how in the world are we citizens

supposed to look at you know the

scientists says X and then this

statistics person with you know great

resume

nobody says he's nobody says he's

incompetent I mean I haven't read that

I'm sure somebody says that have been

everybody but it looks like he has the

right qualifications and he's looked

into it and he's the right person and

he's looked into it and says I'm I'm not

seeing not seeing the danger but here's

here's where this statistician if I can

call him that that may be the wrong

description for his job type but here's

where he's interesting he totally

accepts the basic science the co2 causes

warming and that it's almost certainly

already present so he's starting with an

agreement with the the most basic part

of climate science yeah co2 is here it's

increased adds the temperature and we

can measure it and it does look like

it's part of the answer maybe but maybe

not all of it and then he makes a better

argument that it doesn't matter because

it's all good the warming is better than

the cooling and all things being equal

even if the warming killed a million

people is better than the cold that are

replaced because the cold were to kill

10 million people I don't know if that's

true and by the way I made up those

numbers those are not his numbers but

it's the sense of the argument all right

so we're seeing tremendously positive

things happen in the climate world one

is that I think the argument and the

debate is getting a little bit more

robust you know when we're down to that

statistical level it seems that there's

a lot of agreement up to the statistical

level and that seems like something we

could kind of dig into and maybe maybe

come to some kind of a better

understanding that way and then there's

the nuclear progress which is there's

all kinds of nuclear progress all over

the world

nuclear energy progress and that's all

good because that is the solution to

climate change all right let's see if I

oh I said yesterday that when people

were accusing bar of creating a

narrative by coming out first with his

summary and then apparently Muller has

some disagreement and the news again was

completely incompetent on this topic and

the the news was reporting that maybe

the disagreement with Muller and Barr

was over just how the news was treating

it or maybe it was that bar shaded the

narrative in a way that

[Laughter]

to change it after that so any any kind

of details are gonna get lost because

the main spin that bar put on it fara

put on it seriously the audio is going

again seriously I'm gonna wait until

somebody tells me the audio is back yeah

I know you can't hear it I'm just

waiting hold on hold on

interestingly I'm back okay

interestingly this is exactly the same

point where my periscope broke up

yesterday probably total coincidence so

I'm going to say at the point again and

see if it breaks up again bar put a spin

on the molar report by being the first

one to talk about it and summarizing it

all summarized all summaries are a

narrative there isn't and they're also

all inaccurate you can't create a

summary that is also accurate there's

those two things are opposites

the summary gets rid of the accuracy in

order to you know make sure that you

understand that least the central point

so saying that bars summary was

inaccurate or misleading is probably not

understanding how the world works

because somebody was going to spin this

thing and it was whoever went first

if mulher summary apparently Mulder had

his own summary if that had one first it

would have been one of the members of

his team would decide how we interpreted

it is that fair well don't know because

we don't know whether we should trust we

don't know much about this member of the

team that member of the team was not an

elected person and we can't you know

it's sort of not transparent but when

bar does it he's doing it in public he's

showing his work he's fully qualified

for this kind of decision

he went to Congress he answered

questions

he showed the entire Muller report all

the data but he did at his own narrative

somebody was gonna add a narrative so if

you're complaining that bar added a

narrative you're not really complaining

about anything cuz somebody was gonna do

that

who's better do you want the fake news

to put their narrative on it because

they would have and you know that so you

don't have a choice of somebody here's

what you don't have you didn't you never

had the choice of nobody going first

that's not a choice somebody was gonna

build a narrative and sell it to the

country and it was going to be the main

one that other people complained about

but it was going to be the main one I

think bar being recently appointed or

recently confirmed by Congress did we

lose the signal again anyway I think

that bar having recently been in his job

through a public process is the most

credible person to do it even though we

accept that he's spitting the narrative

in a positive way for the president I

think we'd all agree they spun it in a

positive way for the president but

remember there was no underlying crime

there's going to be a narrative there's

no such thing as a neutral narrative in

in our world it doesn't happen can't

happen you couldn't do it if you tried

he had to spin it either anti-trump or

Pro job there wasn't anything like a

neutral way to do it

you couldn't write a summary that was

neutral so the fact that he leaned pro

Trump says to me he's doing the job the

way you'd want him to do it and I would

say the same whether it was Hillary

Clinton or somebody else in the office

it doesn't matter if the underlying

crime has been found to be you know just

favor us I don't mind at all

that the Attorney General said all right

this whole thing was sort of a witch

hunt and even if you can make some

technical case on obstruction do we want

to do that as a country is that who we

want to be do we want to be that country

they would make a technical argument on

this BS which on stuff that maybe if you

read the law just right and interpret it

just a certain way well maybe you could

put this president in jail you don't

want that you wouldn't want that you

wouldn't want that if we were before

Hillary Clinton if you're honest you

know if you really want what's good for

the country you wouldn't want that for

anybody doesn't matter who's president

you wouldn't want a First Citizen

wouldn't want her a congress member you

wouldn't want anybody to be treated any

differently than the way Attorney

General bar treated the President of the

United States right in front of us and

showed all of his work and showed all of

Muller's work all right that's as good

as you can do even if you don't think

it's perfect even if you don't like it

it's still as good as you can do it's

the it's the best system we have and in

an imperfect world where somebody had to

go first all right that's all I got to

say for today the leaf blower is outside

my window it's getting noisy I'll talk

to you later