nge and they'll show that the problem is going to be in the future much worse. So therefore it's believable because they're all in the same range and you might call that range the probability zone or the probability band. You know, the place that probably we're going to be within that band.

Here's another way to think of that band. That's the paycheck band. If you created a climate model that did not fall within that band that they've already decided is the narrative, you couldn't get paid. And it turns out that it's expensive to build and maintain a climate model. It's not something you could do in an afternoon. And once you build it you have to tweak it forever because the data is always changing. You're getting smarter. You found out something your model didn't hindcast anymore. Something like that. So you're always, it's like an expensive thing. So in order to get a budget to maintain your climate model you've got to make sure that your model is within that narrow band otherwise you don't get a paycheck. There is nothing scientific about that. They simply told all the scientists make sure your data is in this narrow band or you can't get paid and they all know it.

So if the only conclusions are the ones you can get paid for, how do you expect anybody to produce a model that's outside that band? That can never happen in the real world. In the real world they all have to be inside that narrow band or else they discard the model. So if somebody came up with one, if they found a way to fund one and it didn't fit the model and they produced it, what would happen? They would be mocked out of climate science because their model is not within the narrow band that everybody is sure is the true one. You just can't get out of that band.

Now you might say but Scott you're no climate scientist so why are you even weighing in on this climate stuff? To which I say I'm an economist. My background is economics. I have an MBA so I know business and economics and I know that if you describe this situation where the only way you could get paid is to make sure that your data is within this narrow band and then you also knew because you studied economics that you can make a projection fit anything you want just keep tweaking things until it fits. Oh it was just a little alarm sounded. Got a low battery somewhere I think. All right you're going to hear that again at about 15 seconds. Beep.

So anyway that's why climate models are BS.

It looks like Maine is going to be the latest to join this interstate effort. I wasn't paying much attention to that. Would say that the state would give all of its electoral votes in a presidential election, would give them all to whoever got the most votes in the whole country. So basically it would be doing away with the electoral system without doing away with it. So they'd keep it but they'd make it irrelevant by just giving all the votes to whoever won the popular vote in the country.

Now you can tell that the only purpose of this is to put Democrats in charge forever, right? Because there are more of them and the only way Republicans ever win is if they win in the key battleground places. So they're trying to take the one advantage that Republicans have to ever win. They're trying to add 10 million people to the voting rolls, mostly Democrats, the migrants, and changing the rules at the same time.

So I remind you that we don't have and we haven't lived in anything like a republic or a democratic republic or a democratic federal republic, whatever we're called, for a long, long time. It's all about the rules. So whoever changes the rules, counts the votes, decides who can run, who can be in the primary, those are the things that decide who the president. We're a long way away from the voters deciding the presidency and I think we should stop teaching it to kids really. I think we should stop lying to children and say we have this system where people vote and you know your vote matters. Your vote doesn't matter. Your vote doesn't matter at all. All that matters is which rules get implemented before the vote. If it's one-sided rules you can tell who's going to win. If the other set of rules you can tell who's going to win. It's the rules. So whoever controls the rules decides who's in power and that's not you.

All right, so there's some effort to prevent new residents from voting and obviously that's the reason for bringing in all the illegal people is to affect the election.

All right, nearly two-thirds of American voters believe the situation along the border is an invasion. 64%. Oh my God. Anyway we already knew that.

Let's see. So Rasmussen did a poll and asked would you cheat to win in the 2024 election. So voters were asked would you cheat to win. 28% said yes. 28%. Now it wasn't actually that different between the Democrats and the Republicans so don't get all cocky. It was about a quarter, roughly a quarter with cheat.

Now given that all of Democrats believe that Trump is Hitler because they've been told that, do you think that one in four being willing to cheat, so let's say they're willing, so they're able, so they have the opportunity. If one in four were willing to cheat that would be enough people willing to cheat who are running elections. Which you agree if it's true that one in four would be willing to cheat, certainly the people who handle the actual security for an election, probably one in four. There's no reason to think that the people managing the elections have a lower rate of being willing to cheat.

So if you had a system in which one in four told you they'd be willing to cheat and then you also knew they had the opportunity because we have elections that can't be fully audited so they have the willingness and the opportunity. But do they have the motivation? Well yes they do because the news has been telling them that Trump is Hitler and then on the Republican side they look at Biden and he looks like he's Hitler. So you've got two groups that both think the other one is a fascist dictator Hitler. Of course they have a reason so they get the motivation. They have said they're willing in enough numbers and they certainly have the opportunity if they're managing elections.

So do you think there's any chance that elections are fair if a quarter of the people involved would be willing to cheat and they've got the best reason ever? We're stopping Hitler. And you see them acting like this in person. You know like the CEO of NPR who's getting a lot of heat this week. If you look at her posts it does look like she'd be willing to cheat because she would believe that she was saving the country. If I thought I could save the country I'd cheat. Wouldn't you? If you thought you were literally saving the country I'd cheat because I'd rather save the country of course.

So to imagine that our elections are fair is kind of laughable in 2024. You know which is not to say that I have specific information about any cheating. I don't.

Well here's one of my themes today which is maybe some limits have been reached. Limits of patience for example. John Cougar Mellencamp was giving a show recently and he managed to say something pro-Biden and was unable to finish the show because he got booed off the stage and ended up just quitting. He just walked off. So apparently some kind of