f your entire argument about climate change is CO2 is plant food, CO2 is plant food, you're not part of the conversation. You're saying something that other people, smart people, are looking at and saying, oh my god, oh my god. Nobody's arguing that CO2 isn't plant food. You're simply stating a fact of no importance to the argument.

Somebody's saying warming is better. So right, some warming may in fact be better, but that's not the debate. So if you're saying CO2 is plant food or warming has been good in the past, you're saying things that smart people think are stupid because you're not even on the right topic.

But you could certainly argue that the science has issues. You could certainly argue that we'll figure a way to take care of it. There are lots of arguments to be had. But please never say to me again on Twitter that warming is good forever at any level and that CO2 is good no matter how much you have. Because those are like not having a concept of zero or not having a concept of too much. There are people signing off because they're so mad that they realize their thinking doesn't work.

Here's the other one that you should stop saying because it's just the worst argument. Stop saying there used to be more CO2 in the past. The reason you should stop saying that is because the argument is, well there was way more CO2 in the past than there is even now so clearly CO2 can't hurt you. That is just an uninformed argument. There was more CO2 in the past but scientists have a very good understanding of why the other variables were different in the past, such as the sun was not as bright or there was a different amount of ozone, there was a different amount of other chemicals in the atmosphere which we know, or there was more volcanic activity depending on what you're looking at.

So it is true that you could have lots of CO2 in the past without it getting too warm because the other variables were different. So stop saying there was more CO2 in the past if you're trying to argue climate change. Because everybody who understands a little bit about climate change labels you as a denier when you say that because that is the most debunked skeptical argument.

Another one you shouldn't say — yeah now I'll just say I disagree with this one. If you believe that you saw in the Climategate emails a smoking gun, you have to explain why I've looked at the same emails and it's obvious there is no smoking gun. So if you can't explain that. And by the way I'm not — I'm right on the fence on climate change because I can't really evaluate science, especially a science I'm not involved with. So I'm not trying to sell you my side because I don't have a side. Just keep that in mind.

So why is it that the guy who doesn't have a side and is a professional writer and literally an expert at knowing what words mean in context, why is it that when I look at those Climategate emails I see absolutely nothing? Because the words to me are just casual talk among people who know what they mean. They're saying now obviously intended to be consistent with the thing they think is true, which is the climate is warming. There is intent to explain away things that they can't explain, but there's no intent to a great conspiracy to hide the facts. That's just not there.

Let's change the topic. The Daily Beast is reporting that some 12,000 Boy Scouts were victims of sexual abuse. 12,000. 12,000 Boy Scouts victims of sexual abuse. That's the ones we know of. What is the multiplier for the ones we don't know of? Four? Is it 50,000? 50,000 people, kids who have been sexually abused.

Let me tell you my experience. When I was a kid I was a scout for a little while. There was a guy in my town who always volunteered to work with young boys on sports teams, you know Little League and stuff. And I always thought to myself that's weird. He's not a parent. He's just a guy who volunteers to work with kids all the time. He loves kids. He also was a Boy Scout leader. Again didn't have a kid in Boy Scouts. He just liked to join all these organizations to help out wherever there were young boys.

Now I'm not gonna make any accusation about this particular guy, but I will make the following claim. Any time you've got a situation where you have collections of young people and the people leading them are volunteers or at