dred times more than me because what's the scientist going to say? The scientist is going to say but here's my detailed scientific study that's peer-reviewed. And they say what percentage of peer-reviewed things are true? Well you know that's our process. I know but what percentage are true? Well you know it's the best process. I know but what percentage of peer-reviewed studies turn out to be true in the long run? Just to give me a number. Well most of the time. Is it because I've got to study this says it's 50% of the time. Half. Now you tell me this. If you took a bunch of scientists and you said if you say A is true you could be happy and live a happy life. If you say B is true you will be destroyed. Is that science? Right? In other words the critic argument is just super easy to understand and strong. The argument that we're in trouble and we're all going to die might be right. I don't know. It's too complicated for me to understand. But too complicated and the only people who understand it are making money from it compared to you haven't been right for 40 years. Half of science is made up and you're all paid to say it's real. Who wins that debate?

And by the way they convince you that they could put thermometers around the Earth and tell you the average temperature of the Earth within half a degree. Right? You put me on that panel I would destroy climate change in one hour as an alarm narrative. But I might be wrong here. That's the funny thing. I'm not telling you I'm so right that my argument would win. It's not because it's right. It's because it's a common sense observable set of arguments. Common sense and observable. The other is well I can't even tell what that science is saying and aren't you paid to say it's real? Yeah. Somebody says you're right you're wrong. Henry Cruz says I might be I might be wrong. That's not what I would bet my life on.

Well credit to Bari Weiss who in sort of an independent journalist type broke some big stories. So she's got a new startup called The Free Press. And apparently especially during this Hamas-Gaza situation she seems to be getting tons of attention for not being a biased source of news I guess. So good for her. I just want to give her a shout-out that I think Bari Weiss has been one of the most useful citizens in the United States over the past few years by being aggressively dedicated to what's real and being unwilling to play along with what's not real. So all credit to her. And apparently the Free Press is being quoted by notable people and getting a lot of attention. And I'd like her to get a little bit of extra attention because when you do work that good maybe good things should come to you.

All right. Nature self-regulates. It does not go into cascade failure. So the climate alarmists have an argument that oh yeah maybe you can't see what's going wrong but when it reaches this breaking point you know that's where everything will fall apart. I have no confidence that our scientists can look at the complexity of all the systems around our globe and they can tell us that there's an upcoming fall off a cliff point. There might be but how would you predict that? That would be the hardest thing you could possibly predict in an environment where they can't predict anything. And I want to say this: Prediction is truth, right? If you predicted accurately in the past you probably have something like truth. But if you can't predict you can't. Now the history of climate is they've predicted terribly. But if you ask them they say no our models are right on. Oh yeah maybe 30 years ago we had some crazy ideas but those guys are all dead. Current batch of scientists finally got it right. We've got all these models.

If you haven't heard me explain why the models are BS allow me to do it this way. Nobody can predict the future. You can't do it with math. Nobody can predict the future. That's not a thing. It's also not what prediction models are for. Models are not for predicting the future. That's not even the point of them. Do you know what they're for? They're for to tell you what the cone of possibility is from the worst case to the best case. But where it is within that cone nobody can predict that. Yeah so that's the first thing. It is way too complicated, too many variables. Nobody can predict it. But in general that's true of a lot of things.

Now that's also why I'm suspicious of the large language model AI. If the large language model was built to predict what the next word in the sequence would be and that's how it pretends to be intelligent, how come it can't do it when I ask it to do it? Try going to your large language model and give it half a sentence and see if it can accurately complete the sentence because that's what it's built to do, right? It's built to do literally that: complete the sentence. Try it. Give it half a sentence and see if it can complete the sentence with what you had in your mind. Not that it can complete it—obviously it can complete it—but can it complete it with what you had in mind? Because if it can then it's doing what they say. It knows that you're likely to say this. Now you'd have to repeat the thing to make sure that it's repeatable. But if it can't fill in the sentence that you give it as just a test, is that how it's thinking? The only time it can't do it is when you give it the first part of the sentence but it can do it otherwise.

Here's what I think. I think the reason it can't complete your sentence is because it can't predict the future. And if it could complete your sentence it could predict the future and it's not a thing. Right now I'm not sure that's a good point. I haven't thought it through but I just don't understand why it can't complete my sentence if that's the entire basis for its intelligence is completing sentences. It's a little mystery to me. So I would say that anytime anybody tells you they have a secret process that you don't fully understand that can predict the future, they do not have a secret process that you don't understand that can predict the future because nobody's done it yet. Haven't done it with the stock market. Haven't done it with anything. It's just not a thing in complex systems.

Now somebody said but Scott NASA predicted enough to send a ship to the moon and back and that's a lot of predicting. To which I say it's a lot of predicting with very few variables in physics. You know