ay it is, if they find a way that we can eat our way out of climate change, they have figured out the smartest solution. Well, they're not going to drive less, but could we make them eat more? I think we could. We'll never get them to drive less. We could sure as hell get them to eat more. So maybe if this works you'll eat your way to climate happiness. And you can eat some bugs too, I hear.

Now don't worry about this, and I know what you're going to say. I know what you're going to say. But Scott, the CO2 is already plant food. It makes the plants grow. We eat the plants. We don't need this. No, I hear you. And you're also going to say, Scott, we have a solution for CO2. It's called trees. Have you heard of them? They're called trees. That's for the NPCs. I do a separate show for the NPCs who just have to say the obvious things. So that's for them.

All right, here's a little lesson on how to know what's true and what's not true. Now like most of these lessons on knowing what's true and what's not true, they're not one hundred percent. They're just directionally, statistically likely to help you out. Let me give you an example. I call this one the dog not barking. And you've heard this one before, but the more examples you hear the more you can recognize it. So the dog not barking is the thing that should be happening if your current understanding of the world is correct. There should be something happening that's not happening. And if it's not happening you should say, huh, maybe my worldview is incorrect, because if it were correct there's definitely a thing that would be happening.

I'll give you two examples. You would agree, I think, that there is a fairly widespread doubt in the United States about election security. We know that when Trump won in 2016 the Democrat leaders like Hillary Clinton said it's rigged or something's rigged. They didn't say the vote was rigged. They thought Russia rigged it somehow. But maybe they thought Russia rigged the vote. I don't know. Whatever they thought, they weren't so sure the election gave us the right result. And then of course Trump famously thought he got the wrong result when he lost. And probably, I don't know, forty percent of the public thinks that the elections are completely artificial and that somebody decides who the president is and then there's just some theater called an election. So that's pretty widespread doubt about the election.

Now would you agree with the premise that there is widespread doubt about the integrity of the election? I'll say widespread, thirty to forty percent of the public. Would that be fair? Now what would you expect if the government knew that the integrity of elections is just fundamentally important to the country, just baseline fundamental necessity that we have to trust the elections? What would you expect? What dog would be barking? Well I'll tell you the dog you would expect would be the government would say, whoa, that's a lot of people not trusting our elections. That's an existential threat. So what we'll do is we'll educate the public on how the election systems can be audited easily and how we know that they're secure. How hard would that be? It'd be one video, maybe one document, and it would just describe, oh you public, the thing you don't know is that our elections are way more secure than you think. And here's how we always know that your vote got to the final destination. And here's how we can tell if there's any irregularity. And here's how we can easily audit if anybody has that question. Therefore by the design of the system you can see that you should trust the election. Isn't that the most obvious thing?

You'd see if the government knows that thirty or forty percent of the public roughly doesn't trust the process and it wouldn't be hard to tell them why it works. You just say here's the process. You can see how perfect it is. See how well designed it is. There's no room for any error here. But we don't see that, do we? We don't see that. Wouldn't that be easy to produce? Somebody who understood the election system well enough to know it was secure. If it were me for example, let's say I were the expert, I could write that up in I don't know two hours and it would change the whole country because people would look at my document. They say, oh well you know I didn't know this. I didn't know that they could so easily audit and catch mistakes. So I guess it's secure. Where's that? Where is it? Two hours of work for one person to just describe how the election is secure. Never seen it, have you?

Don't you think that given the size of the problem that people don't trust the elections, given the size of the problem it may have caused something like a protest, insurrection according to the Democrats, the size of that problem, nobody would write a two-page document explaining why you don't have to worry about the results? That's pretty obviously missing, would you say? Did I go too far? Has anybody ever seen any describe to you why it is in fact a secure election? No, you'll never see that. You know why? Because it's obviously not secure. I don't think it could be more obvious. That's the most obvious thing in the world right now is if you could secure it and if you could know, the government would have told you how you can secure it and how you can know it's secure. And they don't. It's pretty glaringly obvious.

All right, here's another on