Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive July 10, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas
Episodes Episode #2380 Segments
NewsReaction General Commentary

Back to episode — Episode 2380 CWSA 02/10/24

Context —

alled the simultaneous sip, and it happens now. Go. Oh God, that's good. So, so good. Well, if you're not subscribed to the Dilbert comic either on X, you can subscribe to it there or on Locals.com, where you can see lots of other stuff, my other comics like Robots Read News, etc. But you missed yesterday's Dilbert comic. Wally was trying to expense his expenses when he traveled to Elbonia for t…

← Previous segment →

g a lot. So much. Just so much.

Let's talk about the news. Apparently around Chernobyl, which I guess was 38 years ago, was a disaster at Chernobyl. Some of the wolves have evolved into mutant wolves who are resistant to cancer, at least cancer that comes from radiation. So you didn't see that coming, did you? That's right. Super radioactive wolves could be our future. Might be the only thing that survives a nuclear war. But it does raise the question, what other powers do these wolves have? For example, can they fly in a way that defies physics? Because if they can, that would explain a lot about the UFOs. It could be just flying Chernobyl wolves, mutant wolves. I mean, you can't rule it out, is what I'm saying. Or possibly if they start building pyramids, that could be another hint about our history. But keep an eye on the mutant Chernobyl wolves. Could be a lot more interesting things. Possibly a superhero.

Now here's the question. We know now from the totally reliable press in this country that Joe Biden's age is not a defect. Have you heard? It is, to quote them, a superpower. It's a superpower. So it makes you wonder, if Joe Biden were to have a fight with a Chernobyl mutant wolf that could survive radioactivity, who would win? Would Joe win with his superpower of being super old, or would the wolf win with his mutant powers? I don't know. I'd like to see it. Anyway, you can't say you wouldn't like to see it. All right, pay-per-view.

Here's some science for you. Do you believe science, everybody? Science is reliable. So let me tell you some science. Over in China they did a study, a single-blind study with 342 participants, and it found that doing Tai Chi, the traditional Chinese practice that goes something like this. If you're only listening on a podcast, you're missing all the good visual humor. But apparently Tai Chi can definitely help your hypertension. So they compared it to regular exercise and they found out that the traditional Tai Chi will lower your blood pressure.

Now let us examine the credibility of the science. Number one, the science comes out of China. Number two, it involves a traditional Chinese practice. So it comes from China and they're trying to find out if a traditional Chinese practice is good for you. Oh, surprise, surprise. The Chinese study that's a single blind, which is not a double blind, single blind, so it's not as good as a double blind, and only had 342 participants, surprisingly supported the national interests of China. Huh. Yeah, not single, single blind, not blind. So is this credible science? No. Now it doesn't mean Tai Chi doesn't lower your blood pressure. Maybe it does. But should you believe it if it's a study of 342 people in China about a traditional Chinese practice? I don't know. I've got a feeling if they studied traditional Chinese acupuncture they might have gotten a similar result, if you know what I mean.

All right. You know, it's a really good idea to do your own research. Let me show you what happens when you do your own research here. Dr. Eli David is showing us on the X platform. He's posting about a graphic showing that China is emitting more carbon than the entire developed world combined. So if you did your own research and you tried to find out who's the worst polluter, you'd find out it was China. So that tells you something useful, right? Because you did your own research. Yeah. Now let's do it on a per capita basis. China's got 1.43 billion people. United States has 342 million. That means the US is roughly 24% of their popula

Context —

tion. And yet the US is emitting something like 40% of their CO2. When you look at it that way, it's the reverse. If you look at it on a per person basis, the US is much worse. So what's the point? Is China worse than the US or is the US worse than China? Which way is the fair way to say it? Well, some say China is a country and the US is a country, so you just compare them. They're doing worse t…

Next segment → →