y he said aggressively, clearly and immediately the opposite of what was reported. That's really different than oh he has said before he disavowed them so you should take that as true. That's the weakest not quite accurate defense. But at the very least, at the least Maher knows he's being gaslit on this topic. That's progress. That's a little bit of progress. Not nearly the entire story was reversed and faked but it's progress.

All right, you've heard people say that the windmills, the offshore windmills are bad for the whales and maybe some of the other sea life. And I never knew what to think about that but one of the things that I use as my BS filter is when the science matches observation. Right so we have in our own community here, we see you Erica. So we have a real life human being that I can verify as a real life human being who says they've seen their 61st dead whale on their beach. 61. This is one person with one beach. And offshore there are apparently some newish windmills.

Can you imagine any beach that ever had 61 dead whales? I don't know what the time period is but I imagine just a few years. Yeah that doesn't look like a coincidence does it? Because I don't think there were 61 dead whales where there are no windmills. So I'm going to say you know I didn't see the whales and I wouldn't understand the science if I saw it but when you've got the science and the observation matching like that and then you've got Michael Shellenberger who's on this case and he's basically untangling it for you.

If you've got those three things happening, Shellenberger has weighed in, he's done the work, he's very highly credible, very highly credible. You've got observation that's through the roof. If you saw three whales, three whales tell the story. I don't know, three seems like a lot actually. If I saw three whales you know that would get my, you tell me this 61 whales. 61. I'm not going to ignore that. And then the science seems to back it. So you've got three points of credibility here. That's unusual. That's an unusually high level of credibility.

Now I don't want to say it's 100 proven because nothing in our world ever is but wow I wouldn't worry about this one. Those signals are pretty glaring.

All right, do you think that the world has more fires or fewer fires? Bjorn Lomborg says that you're talking about the reinsurers. So some people are saying hey there must be more natural disasters caused by climate change because the reinsurers don't want to be in the insurance business so they're afraid that the climate change will be too bad. Do you see anything wrong with that argument?

So the things we know is that the insurance business, the reinsurers, the insurance business is too afraid of climate change risks from natural disasters so that must be pretty credible that climate change is real. Must be real because the insurance companies are the most realistic players anywhere because they don't get the, the insurance companies go out of business if they're trying to gaslight you. They can only use real numbers as best as they can understand them because otherwise they go out of business. They can't just make up.

So did they just make stuff up here? Let me tell you what's missing from the story. How many of you know what's missing from the story that changes it totally? What's missing from the story? Price of real estate. Price of real estate.

Let's say you're in the insurance business and somebody builds a house on the ocean and that house is worth half a million dollars. You say yeah I mean if something happens to that house we can afford to pay that half a million dollars. And then a bunch of people build on the shore and each of them is half a million dollar house let's say. And the insurance company still says well that's more than I can handle. Like that's a lot of houses. But what I do is I sell my insurance into what's called the reinsurer market. So basically you can spread your risk among other entities.

So even if all of the homes there got taken out by a hurricane, if every one of them went, you're still okay because you didn't take on all the risk yourself. You sold some of the risk to other people who shared it in the risk. So everybody's okay so far. Everything's good and everybody has insurance.

Now let's say that the risk of climate change makes the risk of your house going away, your half million dollar house goes up 30 percent. Can you still get insurance? Oh probably yeah you probably could. Now let's say that your half million dollar house turns into a 20 million dollar house because maybe a little bit of it is inflation but also houses are rebuilt by even richer people who want ocean beach. So now the insurer says I can't even insure one house there. The real estate's too expensive. I can't even. And even if I try to insure a bunch of houses and try to spread that risk with the reinsurers it's too big. It's just the numbers are too big.

So that's always left out of the story. The price of real estate should make insurance impractical at some point because they can't charge enough to be sure they'll get their money back. Now when insurance companies say they're pulling out, you haven't interpreted that to mean they don't want to sell insurance there right? Nothing like that's happening. The insurance companies that are pulling out, they totally want to sell you insurance even no matter how big your house is but they want you to pay a market rate for it and there's no way you will. It's just too expensive right?

So when you see the story is about insurers pulling out make sure that you're also seeing the context that the cost of real estate is so high that it's hard for an insurer to just even afford losses at that scale. And then some of it you have to think it might be brainwashing about climate change. So they may have convinced themselves it's really about climate when it might more be about the cost of real estate going up.

All right, but there are not more fires or catastrophes. That's mostly media.

All right, DARPA is developing a screening tool to detect risk of suicide primarily in service people because did you know this? Since 2001 more than 30,000 U.S. active duty members and veterans have died from suicide. Thirty thousand. That would be three-fifths the size of the Vietnam War which was fifty thousand. Wow. So I'm not sure I knew how big a problem this was. You know I hear in the news all the time that military suicides are higher than ever. That's alarming but I wasn't really aware of the scale. The scale is way different.

I mean now add the PTSD people, the people who are living a life maybe they wish they were dead. That's a lot of people who are dead like that we don't count as victims of a war. And maybe that's a problem. Maybe we should be able to calculate how many people are going to commit suicide after any military action and maybe we should say all right this military action is likely to take five thousand lives today and thirty thousand over the next 20 years or something like that.

But there's an interesting side element here. The tool that they're going to use to screen for early signs of suicide is actually a scan of your brain. So they're going to ask you questions that would be relevant to the topic of taking your life and then they would look at your brain and see if you're lying.

So for example if you said hey Bob you've been complaining a lot things aren't going well have you ever thought of taking your life? And then Bob says no no no. Now if Bob says yes then the screening process has already worked. Oh we found one. Bob just said yes he thought about it. But if Bob says no they can look at his brain and they can tell if he's lying. So that would be another yes. So then Bob can get some help maybe.

Now on one hand I say to myself wow this would be amazing if you could shortcut this problem and get them the help they need. Which as a patriot I'm especially interested that anybody who went to war or was any part of the war machine they should get everything that they can get.

But the scary part is they're building a lie detector. So instead of that the ones that are not allowed in court, you know the standard lie detector I think you know they're not allowed in court and the reason they're not allowed in court is that they're not reliable.

The way a lie detector works, and I probably shouldn't give away the secret, the way a lie detector works is fooling you into thinking it works. That's the active process. The active process is not the machine reading your vitals. The active process is the person who uses the machine BSing you into thinking it's going to work. Because if you think it's going to work and then they ask you did you kill the hobo and you're like I'm hooked up to this thing it's totally gonna it's gonna get me it's gonna get me it's good. Then your vitals go crazy on the machine.

And then the operator, still not a science, still not a science because you could be going crazy for an unrelated reason. You may be afraid that you would get caught right? The real problem might be that you're afraid of getting caught and that elevates your vitals. So that's just one reason they're not allowed in court because they