e. If you thought that climate change was going to destroy the world and you really thought that the climate models were telling you something useful, and you knew that a huge portion of the world, more conservatives than that, don't believe climate change is even real, what would you do if you were the government and you are absolutely sure that it's the biggest problem in the country, in the world really, and people didn't believe it so they weren't maybe acting right? Well I think your news sources would be encouraged to have experts with both views on. And then the critic would say I'm not so sure about this climate change. Then the expert would say well here's why you should be. And then the critic would say well I'm not so sure you can measure accurately. And then the expert would say oh you know I can see why you'd say that but here's the evidence that we can measure accurately. Wouldn't you expect that if the argument in favor of climate change is so rock solid and thirty percent of the country doesn't believe it, would you deal with it by saying well you guys are idiots, ninety-seven percent of the scientists are on the same side? Is that the best you could do?

If the whole world is going to be destroyed and all it would require to fix it, in other words getting all the people on the same page, would be just showing both sides, because if you showed both sides and one side is just overwhelmingly obviously true, wouldn't that be enough? Just show both arguments. You can see that one of them is so much better. But where is it? The most obvious thing you'd expect if it's true that climate change is an existential risk, you would see that all over the place. Every single time you turned on the news they'd say look, you're not getting it yet. We really got to educate you. Here's the expert. Ask them anything you want, right? The most obvious thing you'd have.

And let's go even more obvious. Since the crisis is really predicated on the reliability of the models, don't you think that given the models, climate models have now been running for decades, wouldn't they tell you how accurate the predictions were? Wouldn't they show you, look this predicted that New York City would be underwater by, okay that one didn't work out, but the one thing we can tell you is that by now according to all of our models and predictions, you have predictions on top of models, but the prediction on top of the model is the polar bears are completely, go okay they're coming back, okay that's that one didn't work out. But one thing I can tell you is that the coral reefs, the Great Barrier Reef is, um, okay it's really coming back in the last three years. Wouldn't you see the argument that the predictions have been right so far, thus giving you confidence that their next prediction would be right? You don't see that.

When was the last time you saw a news show that said there have been eight predictions about you know everything from sea level to hurricanes to whatever. How we doing? You don't see it because it won't check out, obviously. So just learn that dog not barking. If they're not making the argument you know they would make if they believe their own argument, you know they would be making the argument. Everybody likes to be right. Everybody who has a strong argument wants to crush the people with their dumb little stupid argument. So why aren't the people with the good arguments crushing the people with the bad ones? Kind of missing, isn't it?

All right, speaking of ridiculousness, some executives from the AI company Humane, which I think that company is not doing so well with their new device, but two of them are leaving and they're going to found their own fact-checking startup. Really? I feel so bad for them. They're going to waste their time. So there's two people who think that they can start a fact-checking startup, which suggests that those two people have some way to figure out what's true. Do you think they do? If they did they'd be the first people in the world. No. Do they really think it's going to be like an objective fact check or are they just working for one side and it's going to be another totally fake fact-check thing? What do you think? But it's ridiculous to imagine that they know what's true. We know that's not the case. It's going to be more like, okay assume climate change is real and then anybody who fact-checks against it must be lying.

It's going to be, now there's some indication they're going to use AI as some part of it, but I think they're not using AI as the final word. It'll just be a tool within their system. But how in the world are they going to decide what's true? I don't know how they're going to do it that nobody else could do it. So it's a bit of ridiculousness. Every time you think you can fix it by telling people the truth you don't really understand what's going on. Telling people what's real, they wouldn't recognize it and wouldn't believe it if they saw it. And neither would you. So how are you the source of what's r