Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive May 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas
Episodes Episode #2769 Segments
NewsReaction Media & Fake News

Back to episode — Episode 2769 CWSA 03/05/25

Context —

Fetterman. And I think that they're completely on the wrong page. In the end they're going to come up with whoever they think does the best job of pretending to be authentic. I think that's the extent of their visibility of what's going on. Huh let's get an outsider who can pretend to be authentic. Okay okay. Now I don't know if Democrats can ever win with a Mark Cuban or a Fetterman because if t…

← Previous segment →

ome family issues some addicts in the family and the thinking was that his family needed him more than the country maybe. But it's interesting to watch Chuck Todd talk that way about Biden. And I think what you're going to find is that every day that goes by will be another Democrat saying okay Biden was just the worst train wreck in the history. He was never good behind closed doors. He was a monster. You're just going to hear the worst things and it's just beginning. It's going to get worse.

Meanwhile and I believe this Bloomberg's reporting that the Pentagon denied a report that there was a halt in cyber operations versus Russia. Now remember I talked about this maybe yesterday and I was thinking that maybe if it were true that it was just offensive operations and that it might have been a mutual thing and maybe it was a trust building thing with Russia to see if we can get to a bigger deal. But it's more likely since Secretary Hegseth didn't do it so he I think Hegseth denied that there was any change in cyber versus Russia. So if Hegseth denies it I'm going to believe him. And it didn't really I guess the report didn't have the kind of backing that you think so I'm going to agree with Bloomberg on this. I think that was fake news.

So anyway in other news RFK Jr. he's been trying to he wants to eliminate a whole bunch of harmful additives in food. The big reason that you might not want to at the moment and this is going to be a tough balance is that removing food additives for food might make them more expensive which seems counterintuitive right? You'd think well if we don't have to add all these chemicals we can save money on all these chemicals but they must have something to do with preserving food longer something like that. Maybe taste better I don't know.

But the thing that is the major driver of all these chemicals in your food this is based on the story in the LA Times is that it's the way we keep the food cost down. So if your administration the Trump administration has promised that food prices will be going down at the same time you've got the Make America Healthy Again efforts and RFK Jr. looking to get rid of these additives which would make food prices potentially go up although I'm not 100% sure that's true but that's what's being reported at the moment. So I wonder if there's any middle ground there because there are people like me who would certainly pay more to have fewer chemicals. And maybe you could let the market decide.

So instead of making everybody get rid of everything what if you said we want to encourage people who are in the same market to at least have an option where you don't have the chemicals and then the people can choose. And if enough people choose the ones that's a little bit more expensive but doesn't have the health problems well then the market corrects and then that becomes the less expensive thing over time. But I wonder if there's a way to solve that because it seems like there's a direct conflict between making the food safer and making it less expensive.

Here's a little update on a story that interests me more than maybe most of you but do you remember the hockey stick temperature calculations for climate change and Michael Mann was the person who came up with that. And the idea was that temperatures would increase over time but that would be a point where the increase would become multiplied so it would go slow slow slow and then wham and it would go straight up like a hockey stic

Context —

k. Well Mark Steyn writing for the publication National Review ended up in the lawsuit because I guess Steyn was criticizing the hockey stick data and Michael Mann wanted to establish it as legitimate and push back against critics. So there was a lawsuit. So Michael Mann sued. And I may be getting some of the facts wrong here because there are a couple it looks like maybe whatever Mark Steyn did…

Next segment → →