ke a mental note. Who was calling this out years ago? And obviously I was as well. And who was telling you it was there's no problem? That's not fixable. You can't fix that. If somebody lied to you about something so obvious for four years you should never believe anything they say again. Never. That's not like being wrong. Being wrong is forgivable. We all do it. But that wasn't being wrong. That was lying to you about something you could see with your own eyes for four years. So just make a mental note of who got it right.

All right. So now you watch 98% of journalists tell you that Biden was fine even though obviously wasn't true. Will that have any impact on the people who say, "But 98% of scientists say climate change is real. It's a big problem." Do you think it'll have any impact? Do you think people will begin to doubt at all what everybody tells them? I think they're going to say, "Oh but you're talking about journalists." Yeah, of course journalists can be wrong but not scientists. Not scientists.

No. One of the things we've learned is that you can't trust anybody who gets a paycheck that depends on their opinion. That's the one thing we've learned. The journalists couldn't get paid if they said Biden was declining because they were part of an entity that wanted a Democrat spin on their news. So the reporters were not dumb and stupid. They knew exactly what they were doing and they lied to the country while we could see the truth right in front of us. And they never stopped until they had to, you know, when he fell apart on the debate.

Now like I say, scientists are not journalists. Very different people. But the journalists knew the truth. So in that way it would be more like scientists. They weren't wrong. They knew the truth and they decided that their paycheck depended and maybe their personal politics depended on them not telling you the truth. So they lied. Almost all of them on the left. Almost all of them. What do you think is different about scientists? If a scientist depends on agreeing with the narrative in order to get a grant, in order to get a job, in order to please their boss, what would you predict would happen? It's exactly the same as what happened with journalists. The science doesn't help them.

Are you going to say, "But Scott, they're scientists and they care about the truth"? That's exactly what your journalist would say. "We're journalists. Our job is to tell you the truth with no spin." Just like the scientists. Unless our paycheck and our lifestyle depends on it and then we're going to say what the narrative tells us.

Well it turns out that there are three papers recently. Wide Awake Media is reporting on this on X. And there are three new papers that are peer-reviewed that collectively they say that 40% of what we observe as a heat increase is really the heat island effect from thermometers being too near cities that are building out in the direction of where the thermometers were in the first place. 60% seems to match perfectly solar activity. Ouch. Ouch. Yikes.

Now you're going to say to yourself, "But it's just three studies. There's still tons of studies that would say climate change is real." And so I wonder if the people who believe the journalists whose job it is to tell you the truth without the spin will maybe come to doubt the scientists whose job it is to tell you the truth without the spin. Do you see the pattern yet? All that matters is who gives them the paycheck. That's the truth they will tell you. Doesn't matter what their job is. Doesn't matter if you're a journalist. Doesn't matter if you're a scientist. Doesn't matter if you're a politician. You're going to tell the truth that your paycheck tells you to tell. And we see it.

How about the pandemic? The pandemic was the clearest case you've ever seen. The experts just caved. They just caved. What's the narrative? How do I get a paycheck? Okay, that's the truth.

I think climate change is getting ready to crumble. And that would be the ultimate third act for Trump. The ultimate third act. Climate change is a hoax. Yeah, that's the ultimate. And it's coming. Apparently it's coming.

Now again I would like to remind you I'm not a climate expert and I don't know if the climate is getting warmer or not and if humans make a difference. I'm just telling you what the science is saying. And there's some modern recent papers that debunk the whole thing. Are they right? Why would I say that the new ones are right when I'm saying all the old ones are wrong? Because it agrees with me, right? Do your bias check on me. You know, do use the tools I tell you to use on me. Is it credible that there are three new papers who agree with me so I talk about them? No, you shouldn't take them as true because I'm talking about them or because they agree with me or because they agree with you. If you didn't believe the 10,000 papers that said climate change was real, are you just going to automatically believe the three that say they're not? It's a little too early to celebrate if that's the way it's going. But I do observe that we didn't see three papers debunking climate change that were peer-reviewed and there's no major pushback. In other words what you're not seeing, the dog not barking, is people saying, "Look at the terrible quality of these three papers. How could you believe this? Look at the mistakes they made. Look at the bad data." It might happen and if you see that pushback you should take it seriously.

All right, you got to see both sides. Don't do the documentary effect where you see a documentary and then you think you know everything. You got to see the documentary that says that one's wrong and then maybe you can triangulate on the truth. But don't get too cocky just because some papers agreed with you.

All right. Peter Hannan has a good take on what Kamala is going to have to answer. She's going to, if she becomes the top of the ticket, which I believe she is already essentially, s