st say oh that's a hoax let me explain very clearly you can even check it yourself I was not involved in writing it and you can look at my policies in public and you can see that not once have they ever been overlapped with them on some of these things. On some they do overlap. And you'd think that the facts would be enough to make that story go away right but because the media is a propaganda machine he doesn't have the option of debunking a hoax because they won't let him. The propaganda machine won't do it. If they were news they would but since they're only propaganda he has no way to debunk the hoax.

So what did he do instead? He created his own hoax that's a direct counter to it. He created a Kamala's Project 2025. So he says that Kamala has a Project 2025 and that she wants to quote abolish ICE, open the border, defund the police, release violent offenders, eliminate middle class tax cuts, ban fracking and fossil fuel usage, confiscate guns from legal gun owners, take away health care plans for people, taxpayer funded transgender surgery for illegal aliens.

Do you know what's interesting about that list? I think it's almost all fake. I don't think there's anything that's true on the list which is just what they were doing to him. Now what are you going to do about that? So now you're the news. So let's say you're MSNBC. What you want to report is that Trump's allegations of Kamala Harris's Project 2025 is based on things that you sort of suspect she might do but they're opposite of what she says her policy is. So her policy is that she's not going to ban fracking so Trump puts on her Project 2025 hoax list you're going to ban fracking. Now it's based on a similar idea that even though she says I'm not going to ban it in the past she said she would. So you think well her real personality is that she would so you know it's not that much of a reach to say that she's lying about what she would do.

But if you're going to take the standard that Trump says these are my policies and they're different from Project 2025 and nobody's going to pay attention to that then I think it's actually brilliant and hilarious that he took all of the things that they're doing to him which are opposite of what she says she's going to do but you could imagine maybe she's not quite honest about it and they're just throwing it back at her.

So instead of trying to make her hoaxes go away which can't happen in the propaganda press environment he simply matched her hoaxes. He just matched her hoax. I don't know if this will work but I love the fact that they can't debunk his hoaxes without kind of accidentally showing that it's similar to what she's doing to him. Kind of brilliant. Kind of brilliant. I like everything about this.

So again I'd like to say that this is the first time I've seen where both of the campaigns are A+. The candidates you know are the candidates but wow if I'm just looking at the skill level of the Harris campaign even if you don't like the candidate the skill level of the campaign is just so good even when they lie they lie really really well. And then Trump's campaign again you know they everybody has a stumble now and then but I think that they're A+. This is just kind of brilliant.

Well we have to talk about Bill Maher again because I forgot to mention he had Bjorn Lomborg on his show on Friday. Now Bjorn has been on his show before for years actually but here's what I feel I'm sensing that's different. The Washington Post just did a big story in which they were going to show the temperatures of the climate across the eons you know going back way back into the past and they were surprised to learn that despite our high levels of CO2 from man-made sources that the temperature is actually kind of lowish historically. They were not anywhere close to any kind of like historical Earth high.

Now because the Washington Post are mostly idiots I don't think they presented the counterargument against the CO2 is a hoax. The counterargument is that you can't compare the current to the past and the reason is that there were lots of other things that were different for example the intensity of the Sun and other atmospheric things were different. So the argument would be that although there might have been different CO2 and different temperature you can't really compare it to the present and make any kind of reasonable conclusion. I actually agree with that. So I think the Washington Post is wrong about climate change being a problem but just to show how dumb they are when they sort of indicated that maybe it was a little bit debunked with their own work their own new work of debunking it was also moronically incomplete. So I think they got it wrong on both sides. I think they got it wrong about the level of the risk and then when they looked at the temperature over time they were idiots and they couldn't figure out how to do a good job on that so they acted like CO2 is the only thing that changed or temperature is the only thing that changed and the two things that changed and that's just not the case. There were a bunch of other things that were different.

So I'm a little speculating here because I didn't read the whole article but I do think that they're not qualified to tell you what the temperature is. So here's what I think. I think maybe Bill Maher has seen some of these stories about the climate risk being overdone and he had Bjorn Lomborg on whose story is not that the temperature isn't rising and not that humans don't have something to do with it but rather that we've completely miscalculated how bad it would be. And you would add to that that there's more greening and apparently our corn and rice yields worldwide are way better than they've ever been because of CO2 so we would actually be starving now without much more CO2 than we had. It's the CO2 that's the only reason we can eat. I mean imagine if we didn't have corn and rice. I mean we're talking about huge huge increases in crop yields that seem directly related to the CO2. We would be starving if we didn't fertilize the air I guess.

Now of course there may be downsides as well and the argument with climate is not that it's instantly going to kill you but that it might even be good and good for the farmers until it reaches some turning point where you can't get back. That would be the argument. Now I don't think that's likely neither does Lomborg but I think it's notable that Bill Maher a big green new deal guy I guess would have him on just so you can see the alternate argument and I think he listened to it and I think he's sort of on the path to figuring out that climate change might have been l