Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive August 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

right. You should all be following Michael Shellenberger on Twitter because he's the only person putting any of this in context. Bjorn Lomborg is doing a good job. He focuses a little more on the economic part of it. But Shellenberger does the best job of putting all this stuff in context. So really for the first time you can sort of understand what's going on. So if you read Shellenberger you're…

← Previous segment →

y shouldn't be. But I'll tell you, from the beginning I've always thought that this would fall into the Adams law of slow-moving disasters. If you've got a disaster that's coming but it's moving slowly and you've got lots of time to adjust and come up with remediation, we're really good at that as a species. Human beings, as long as we have a warning, we're really good at it.

Oh, goodbye Scott's finally waking up. Scott's finally waking up, you idiot. I am not waking up. Jesus Christ. I use the "Scott's finally waking up" to the opinion he's always had. I don't know. I think the problem is the binaries. I call them the binaries. The binaries are the people who believe that there are only two opinions and that that's it. So if I don't agree with you completely with your opinion I've got to be in that other one opinion.

So my opinion is yeah, the people are probably making the planet warmer but it's hard to know if that'll be good or bad. That's always been my opinion. Always has. Never changed once. And yet the binaries are like, well I don't recognize his opinion to be exactly mine so therefore it must be somebody else's opinion. She's so boring to deal with the NPCs every day.

All right. So if you were worried about the golden age coming, we've got fusion is being funded at the highest levels. Our fusion energy because it has been reduced to an engineering problem, meaning that the odds of us maybe in 20 years but having unlimited cheap energy, really good. The odds of us being destroyed by climate change, really small. Really small. Climate change I think looks fixed.

I would even argue that our great division in this country may be well on the way to fixing itself now. As soon as Trump gets back in things might change, but so all bets are off. But at the moment I think the left has — you can tell by the polls they realized that Trump wasn't the problem, it was their own news sources. Now not all of them. And this happened. Scott is pretty woke up. All right. You're goodbye. Where is that? Oh, you got away from me before I could block you. Damn you.

All right. So we got that it could be that the mRNA technology and along with a number of other breakthroughs are making cancer look like it's completely defeatable. I mean these are things happening right now. My only concern is that World War III has already started depending on who you talk to. World War III, China versus the United States and maybe others, meaning that it's already a cyber war and it's already happening in space mostly in the cyber sense on satellites. And once we get to space it'll be full-on war because it has to be because humans always fight over territory and space has a lot of territory.

So gonna fix AIDS too. I mean I just saw there's a pill that you can buy, a pill for AIDS now that will reduce your virus to undetectable. Did you know that? Now I don't know if it works for everybody but you can buy a pill that reduces your AIDS to non-detectable. It's just a pill. I just saw an advertisement for it. What the hell?

So I'm also wondering about Fauci's technique. So I used to praise the gay activists because they made everybody worried about AIDS when really maybe just gay people should have been worried about it. Because I still don't know, I still have never met a heterosexual person with AIDS. And when you hear about famous people, I won't name names, but if you hear about a famous heterosexual who got AIDS I'm just going to hypothesize that maybe they weren't always with women every time. Just put that out there.

So I think the strategy wise — and was Fauci part of this? Do a fact check on me — but strategy wise they were very smart because if they said there's a gay problem in those days, could they have got funding if it was only a gay problem? You know, remember these were darker days in the United States. I don't think they could have gotten funding. I think they had to make it everybody's problem.

Now you come to the coronavirus. Do kids have a risk? Not much. Do healthy younger people with no comorbidities have a problem? Not much. But you have to make it everybody's problem to fix it for the people whose problem it is: older people, comorbidities, etc. It looks like the same play, doesn't it? To make it look like everybody's problem so that everybody will get on board with funding the solution or whatever you need to do for the solution for something less than the majority. It looks like the same play. I'm not even going to put a moral judgment on it. I'm just going to say it looks the same to me and it looks like it worked in both cases.

And when I say worked I mean got the attention that would maybe solve the problem. So there's a real ethical question involved in all of this stuff because they may have done what worked but maybe not ethically. And then you've got a dilemma. It's like well I like that it worked. I like that the gay community of the world is not being wiped out while we stand on the sidelines and ignore it because that could have happened, right? I mean that could happen pretty easily. But instead maybe we were the victims of hyperbole and maybe scared more than some of us needed to be. And that created the action that got the solution for the gay community. And I'm happy about that. I'm happy about the outcome. But it feels a little unethical the way we got there, right? So there's that.

Jesse Kelly asked this question. I know this is going to get me in trouble. He said, "Why do the vaccinated need to be protected from the unvaccinated?" Now the cleverness of that is that that was never the question exactly. It's more about why do the unvaccinated get their rights suppressed under our current situation. And is anybody who doesn't know what the logic of keeping the vaccinated from the unvaccinated is — is there anybody who doesn't know the official reason? You know this is not my opinion per se, but do you actually not know why that is?

A number of you say that you don't know. The answer is that if you put a bunch of unvaccinated people anywhere it increases hospitalizations. That's the whole story. It wouldn't matter if you put the unvaccin

Context —

ated people with vaccinated people or anybody else. You put unvaccinated people together, you get more virus. Now I'm not saying that that's a reason for restricting them because I'm an anti-mandate. Let me say that clearly. At this point in time with the current situation, risks and benefits, I don't see the mandate being right for America. But I don't doubt math. If you put people without vacci…

Next segment → →