if you look at one argument and you see a lot on that one argument you will be convinced beyond any doubt. You will be 100% convinced. And that has nothing to do with whether the thing you're looking at is true or not. Completely unrelated to the underlying truth is a guarantee that if you see one argument and it's really well developed and you spend hours on it you'll believe it every time. And you can see that it's the same no matter whether you believe the skeptics or you believe the claims. Still completely believable, still absolutely no evidentiary value. No evidentiary value because documentaries are always convincing even when they're not true. So the only thing you would know when you're done with this process is that you're convinced. That's nothing. You're going to be convinced even if you saw the other side. You'd be convinced and that's nothing too. These are both nothings.

Let's go up a level. Let's say you get to the point where you did a deep dive on both sides, which I find relatively rare. I'm not sure I've seen anybody who's done it. I've tried to do it. So I spent a lot of time. I've looked at the claims, I've looked at the debunk to the claims, and then I've looked at the debunk to the debunk of the claims. If you haven't done all three you haven't done anything. You've done nothing. Because if you look at the claim you can say well that looks pretty true and then you look at the debunk to the claim you're like whoa I didn't see that. Oh I didn't know about how they measure that. Whoa yeah the debunk looks totally convincing. If you're done you're not done because you've got to circle back and see what happens to the people who made the original claim when they were faced with the debunk. And then they come back and say but the debunk is debunked and here's why. And you read that you go yeah that's a pretty good argument. So the problem is that if you do a deep dive on both sides you're going to find they're both convincing and both not convincing and you won't know.

At the highest level are people who understand that all data that matters is fake and that all projection models are fake and that it has nothing to do with climate change. These are universal truths. If I were talking about let's say the data for jobs in America, you think that's real? No. How about the history? Do you think our history books are based on what's real or what was allowed to be written? It's not real. Do you think there's anything that's important and scale like big and it matters that's real? No, because our systems don't allow that. Whoever's in charge of the data is going to have so much power that somebody's going to distort them with a bribe or you know. So when you get to the point where it really, really matters it's 100% fake or it's 100% sure that you won't tell the difference because the fakes will be so good that you think they're real.

And the reason I know the prediction models are fake is that everybody who's worked in this field, including me, now I didn't work in climate but I did projection models for a living, financial ones, they all know that the projection model is based on the assumptions you put into it. It's not the data. So if you're way down here at the lowest level you think that the projection models are raisable because 99% of the scientists said yeah these are real. But you'll never learn that they can make those models anything they want just by changing the assumptions without even changing the data. And then they can say well this data is bad so we're going to put in a little adjustment to it. What's that? It's not science. It's just adjusting it so it comes into the same range that people expect it to come into.

So in our current world 99% of the people being on one side has no evidentiary value. How many of you would agree with that statement? 99% of scientists agree doesn't have any evidentiary value. Now that's not true if you're talking about something simple like does gravity apply everywhere on earth, right? 100% of scientists would say yes. They'd be right. So I'm not talking about like one variable things. I'm talking about this big, complicated, hard to understand things where there are people on both sides and the variables are changing and every day we have a new variable that should have been in models but wasn't. It's like oh we just found out the ocean can absorb way more than we thought. Well was that in the model? We just found a new technology that can allow us to produce things without the pollution. What was that in the model? Did you know they were going to invent something?

So the models are 100% unreliable. And if you believe that because the scientist told you they are reliable, you don't understand how money works. If you understand how money works you'll be with me up here that all the models are fake and the data is either unreliable or fake. And that has to be true because the design of our economic system, our economic system and you could add the fake news and the interest groups etc., they kind of guarantee that people will say it's true while it isn't true. It's guaranteed that our system would be there.

Now here's a good test for you. If you're talking to somebody and you're having some debates down here in the documentary effect level where you've both seen some stuff but you saw different stuff and you were convinced, ask the person who thinks that the climate models are real to list three reasons that the terrestrial thermom