e claim. So you know that Larry Sinclair guy who's claiming he had some oral sex with Obama, did some coke back when Obama was pre-famous or I guess he was just starting out or something. Now I think we all agree we don't care, right? So none of us care what Obama did in his private life before he was a public figure. I don't really care. Now you could argue the hypocrisy and how did the news cover it versus how do they cover other things. So you could extend that thing you don't care about to maybe some things you do care about. But I don't know. That feels just cheap to me. To me I just can't care. But that's not where I'm going on this.

So part of the claim, and I don't know if this is true. We're coming from a source that would require some backup I would think. But the claim is that after Larry Sinclair went public with his claims about Obama first in 2008 that Beau Biden put out an arrest warrant for him from Delaware. Beau Biden. So Beau Biden tried to have him arrested immediately after he went public about Obama. But now the arrest was valid, right? He was arrested for a real crime apparently not because he didn't get convicted of any real crimes. Barely not. But what did happen is that Joe Biden became the vice president soon after. Beau Biden did a favor for Obama. That's right. So Beau Biden does a favor for Obama by taking out his critic and then the father is picked as vice president soon after. Huh.

So can you see all the gears of the machine? Were you ever wondering why Obama, who's obviously smart, obviously knows that Joe Biden is a disaster, why would he pick him? What possible reason would somebody as smart as Obama pick somebody as crooked and incapable as Biden? I can only think of one reason. Biden was his tool and he knew he could control Biden because Biden was crooked. So what he needed was the most crooked guy he could to do all this that he didn't want to do himself. Give him a level of deniability. Well I don't know, Biden did that. Yeah.

So to me it looks like the Obama administration was a criminal enterprise. Is that too strong? I think it was a criminal enterprise. Yeah. All the indications are that.

Pretty sure there was something else I was going to talk about here. Oh Microsoft is going to try to meet their climate goals by storing CO2 in rocks. Now isn't there also a story about 1,600 scientists saying climate alarm is not warranted. The climate's changing they say but don't be alarmed. The alarm part is what's in question again I say. And I think they were questioning the models.

It is amazing to me that the news convinced the public that the models that predicted the climate, that that's science. To me that's one of the greatest accomplishments of fake news. Convincing people that prediction models are part of science. It's really the opposite. Do you know what prediction models are made to do? Because I used to make them. That used to be my job when I was working in the bank and then the phone company. Is I would predict what the budget would do in a year. I'd predict how a new project would turn out. Well we'd spend some money but we'll make that back in five years or whatever. How accurate were my predictions? Foreign.

Do you know why we did these predictions that we couldn't imagine were accurate or not and we had no idea? There was just no way to know. Because we didn't use them to find out what was true. That's not what they were for. Do you know what they were for? Prediction models are for persuasion. That's it. They're just for persuasion. Now it might be persuasion in the service of getting funding. It might be persuasion because you believe something is a legitimate danger and it's hard to convince people. So you use these models.

Models are not science. They are propaganda and persuasion by their nature. I'm not saying that somebody took a good tool and they corrupted it. No the tool is corrupt by its nature. It can only be corrupt. It doesn't have a legitimate use. Well okay I'll give you this. If you have enough models and you play with it long enough you could create a cone of probability but even that would be pretty suspicious, right? The best you can do is say well we don't know but probably within this range it'll turn out. It's not going to be way up here. It's not going to be way down here. Worst case is here, best case here. So somewhere in this range. That's the best case.

Do you think models have done a good job historically of even predicting the range? No. No there's no science, no logic that would say they ever could. They're not even for that. They are for persuasion. Because if the scientists told you in words, I got some words for you. I studied some things. Humans are creating greenhouse gases. It's making things warmer. I predict it'll be way warmer and then things will fall apart. And then people say I've got a lot of things to worry about today. So they go back and they go okay nobody's persuaded by our facts. We need something visual. So then suddenly you've got a hockey stick prediction, you know the famous one, that things will be getting warmer gradually then out of control. Now you've got something to look at and you can say whoa that's a scary shape. Look at that shape. The shape scares me. Because we're visual creatures. You have to turn it visual.

So the only reason for models is that it's hard to get people worked up legitimately or illegitimately with just straight facts. You got to turn it into a picture. You got to show a dying polar bear. So it's got to be visual. So every time you see anything visual whether it's a picture or a graph or a hurricane or a dying thing, those are all in the field of persuasion. None of that is science nor does it confirm any science. Right? If they did separately a test that confirmed it you could maybe, maybe probably not. But you have to understand all of that is not science. And the fact that CNN and MSNBC and all the illegitimate entities are trying to convince you that it is and that if you don't believe the persuasion part you don't believe science.

As if. Now here's why I will never be asked by MSNBC or CNN to give my opinion on climate. Because except for Vivek I have the best opinion. Well best explained opinion. Because most people can't explain what's wrong with models. You would have to have actually that experience to know that you can tweak a variable and get anything you want. Because I did. It was my job. Tweaking variables to get what my boss wanted the answer to be. That was my job.

Do you think if I had a prediction that said that the thing that they wanted to do was uneconomical do you think I was going to bring that to my boss? Why would I? I would just have to go back and change it. That's how the real world works. The real world doesn't use projections as information. It's just propaganda, persuasion. And it's an icky part of the process. It's basically marketing for scientists. That's what it is. And people are judging