I guess he went to England and a place called Oxfordshire. He took the family and that's sort of an upscale place in England. And James Carville says that the Democrats should have hammered him because there are vacation spots in the United States that are not doing as well as they could be doing. And what's he doing taking his American money wasting it overseas? And he says that they should have just been all over him on that and made a big deal about it.

Is that some of the worst advice you've ever heard? How many people care where the vice president is taking his family on vacation? How many people care about that? Most Americans would be perfectly happy to take an overseas vacation. You know, different countries they might prefer, but is there any American who doesn't think that they would like to take an overseas vacation someday? And do we really think that we're all going to be taking the same kind of vacation as the president and the vice president of the United States? That is ridiculous. It's just the worst advice.

Can you imagine some Democrat voter? It's like, well you know I was going to vote for Trump but then I found out that JD Vance and his family went on a vacation in Oxfordshire, England. That changes everything. Are the Democrats this lost? That seemed like good advice. Oh my god. Oh my god.

In other news, apparently the Arctic sea ice, the Guardian was reporting on this, there's a new study that says that the Arctic sea ice has not reduced in 20 years. Now if you believed in climate change and you believe the planet's getting warmer and it might be getting warmer, but wouldn't you also predict that that warming would increase the ice loss? Well, apparently it didn't happen.

However, instead of saying, "Uh-oh, it looks like our prediction models are wrong because you can't go 20 years without losing some sea ice if the planet's getting warmer." No. Instead the climate people say that they have at least two climate models that would allow for such long pauses, including another 10 years. So they say that there are two existing credible climate models which would allow the planet to get warmer for 30 years but the ice in the Arctic not to change for those same 30 years.

Does that sound even a little bit like they know what they're doing and they've got a handle on this thing? It sounds like a Dilbert response, right? Well yeah. My prediction model is no matter how warm it gets or for how long, the ice won't melt. All right. Okay. Got it.

Well, I don't know what to believe there, but you know what I always say? Wait until you find out about climate models. It's so funny. I think people are slowly starting to get the idea when they see that every other thing in our environment is fake. The news is fake. Our employment data is fake. Certainly all of our casualty numbers from war all fake. The reasons we get in war all fake. The Russia hoax all fake. Most of our political stuff all fake. But people still believe that the most ridiculous of all those things, the climate models, that we could somehow monitor, we could somehow model climate into the future, that we still believe that one's real when all the other things from flu deaths to everything else are all fake. And we know they're fake. But there's one thing, oh that one's true.

You know what I'd love to see since the best argument for the non-scientist is that there are so many scientists who say it's true. How many other topics has science had 98% in agreement? We'll just randomly, I know it's not 98%. But let's just say 90%. How many items in science have had 90% agreement and then later turned out not to be true? I feel like ther