apitalizing on his connections he made during office I get that. But what is better than doing it transparently? And are we better off or worse off if Saudi Arabia and Jared Kushner have a close relationship? Are we better off or worse off? He was the architect of the Abraham Accords. We're a hundred percent better off. It's not even close.

You want the Saudis to have a good working relationship with some prominent Americans so that we work better with them. There's a reason that Saudi has played well with the Trump administration and now Jared because they played well with them. That's how it works. And we'll need them in the future. So I don't mind that we have connections with them as long as it's all public.

Did I talk about this? Vivek dismantling Harvey Levin on TMZ and his co-host whose name I can't remember. Charles. Charles. Now I'm not going to replay it for you or describe it. I'll just tell you how he did it here.

Here's how most Republicans have argued about climate change and what happens. Right here. Here's most Republicans. Climate change isn't even real. Well are you denying all of science because you're an idiot? Well yesterday it was cold. Okay you know that temperature and climate are really not the same and anecdotally that doesn't really prove anything. It snowed yesterday. Okay well I don't even feel like we're talking about the same thing.

It's cold and then the Democrats declare that the Republican whoever it is is a big old dope who doesn't believe in science. Right? That's the way it goes every time.

Now enter Vivek. It took him about one minute to demonstrate that everything those two knew, Harvey and Charles, knew about climate change was way less than Vivek knew. Okay that's that was his starting point. You know he very clearly told them that he was better. He was more well-read and understood the topic at a more detailed level.

Next thing he did right is he debunked their you know climate hoax thing and said no the agenda, that what we're doing about it part is the hoax. In other words we're not doing the right stuff. I'm not arguing whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I am instead arguing that you have not included all of the costs and the benefits of your analysis.

And that's when he was done right. That's when he started to tell them you've simply not included enough in your analysis. You know you have to look at the number of people dying. You have to look at how well we remediate. You have to look at how many people die from cold which is way more than the ones who die from warmth. And you know once you've included all of those things your best analysis for keeping people alive would be to go hard with fossil fuels today because that's what keeps people alive today but also work hard to get your nuclear and your all forms of energy up so that you can transition because you don't want to pollute.

Now Vivek doesn't want to pollute so you don't have to ask him this question because it's obvious. Would you rather have a new nuclear power plant or burn coal? You don't have to ask him that. Of course he wants a nuclear power plant. He says it directly right.

So once Vivek showed that the difference between their analyses was that he had included the value of human life in his, I'm not making this up, Vivek showed that he was including the value of human life literally keeping people alive and that you know as bad as the pollution is from fossil fuels it is how you keep them alive and it's not even close. If you take people's energy away things don't work out at all.

So the funny thing about it if you get a chance to look at it you can just Google it. Look for Vivek and TMZ it'll pop right up. You have to watch the reactions, the physical reactions of the two hosts Harvey and Charles and they start getting animated and they're triggered into cognitive dissonance because I'll tell you what nobody expects to lose if you're Harvey and Charles. These are you know well-informed public hosts. Yeah these are high functioning people who pay attention to the news. It's their business right.

So when they get into a conversation about climate change they expect to be on top of the mountain and just pissing on the ants that are running below because that's how it's supposed to work because the only people they've ever talked to who disagreed with them were idiots. If I'm being honest they've only talked to idiots because the idiot view is oh it snowed today so no climate change. You're not going to win with that.

Came in and said you know what are you counting keeping people alive you know how about that is your best metric keeping people alive and that just shut them down. That just made them look like idiots because what was their argument for well I guess I would rather kill 10 times as many people but you know I really like solar. There's nothing there. Once you've made the case that more people will clearly die with the current set of policies then all they have to do is they don't even know how to respond to that.

So they were both in deep cognitive dissonance and it was wonderful. So if you'd like to see what cognitive dissonance looks like that's a real good example. You have to watch them flip out. They start just spewing things and trying to talk over each other and they fell apart. So it was wonderful.

All right. I saw this joke from Wokosaurus Rex on X. He says new game. All you have to do is add the quote I've never seen anything like it to any statement about anything to prove your point and how bad climate change is affecting the world. You don't need any evidence. The phrase itself. So for he gives an example it rained today I've never seen anything like it. And I laughed for 10 minutes because that's exactly what the news coverage is. It's like the wind was very strong we've never seen anything like it. The five Late Show hosts minus the good one Greg Gutfeld if you saw the podcast with the five of them they're like raining so hard I've never seen anything like it. Anyway to me that was funny.

RFK Jr. has these stats which if these are true I don't know what to