Climate & Environment

everyone buy one, because even though it might be 30 minutes to charge your car and it's not really hard to plug it in, wouldn't you like to not get out of your car? So with the current technology, you have to always get out of your car, right? Even if you're just plugging it in for an electric charge, that little bit of work where you have to get out of your car and the weather might not be ideal, that's probably a big deal. I don't own one, but I imagine I would be very, very happy if it drove to the charging station on its own when it needed to and that it charged itself without me touching it and without me getting out. That would be a whole different experience. So these seem like small changes, but I'll bet it's not small. So here's something that happened to me yesterday that freaked me out a little bit. And I think this is an accurate statement of what happened. Does anybody need an extra sip? If you came in late, extra Sunday sip. So because of my advanced age and because of my health situation, I had started to write down some facts about myself just for posterity basically. So I was recording some timeline things, and it turns out that using AI to learn about my own life was the best way to do it. For example, I couldn't remember what years I worked at the phone company or what years I worked at the bank, but it's on Wikipedia and you can get that kind of stuff using AI. So I was messing around with Gemini. Gemini would be the Google version of AI. And I asked it something about my own life, and it used as a source the Google document that I was using to compile that information, which was brand new. That's right. Google's AI used as a source document a private document that I just created using Google tools. Do you know how freaky that was? And it told me that's where I got it. It said it got it from this document. That is literally the document I just created. So it was a little bit circular because I was looking for it to validate the dates that I guessed, and instead of validating it, it could find that I just written it down and it used that as a source. Now, I'm pretty sure it also knew who I was because I had interacted with it before and I think I told it who I was for some convenience. That was freaky. Well, I have some questions about the increasing use of coal power in the United States. And here's some news and some context that I'll add to it. So the Daily Caller News Foundation is reporting that there was more coal burned in 2025 than in the year before. It was up around 13 percent. Now that might not come as a surprise to you because you know that Trump has been pushing coal. He calls it clean coal. I don't know if there's anything that's clean coal, but he says that. And I wondered how much danger that created because the knock on coal is that it would

Episode 3056 CWSA 12/28/25

and we've got climate change that maybe it's not so scary. But is that a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that some of the biggest factors in the world are all starting to conform around my opinion of what they are? I don't know why. Am I good at predicting or am I living in some kind of simulation where my opinion is becoming reality? I don't know. But it's getting hard to ignore, isn't it? How often my opinion is matching what you observe, but eventually not right away. Well, according to an ex-climate alarmist, as he's being called, somebody named Tom Harris, he says that wind turbines, windmills, require fossil fuel backup plants that continuously burn 90% of the time and that basically that means that the wind turbine is just for show. So this is a guy who used to be an alarmist who now has I guess gone to something like my side of it. And he's saying that now I'm not sure exactly what he means, but what I think he means is that since the windmill is not churning all the time, it would have to be paired with something that is churning all the time just so you have energy all the time. So it's hard to believe they don't add anything, but his take is that you're getting literally nothing from a wind turbine because by the time you spend enough money to build the thing and then you put it in and they've got lots of maintenance problems and then you need some kind of backup power anyway that's a different kind of power. Once you've looked at the whole picture, Trump is right again. Trump is right. The windmills are a hoax. He got that right, too. I'll tell you the one thing that Trump does better than just about anybody is that man can spot from a thousand miles away. Now, it could be because he's good at making up his own BS, but wow, is he good at spotting. I mean literally you can see it from you can see around corners when it comes to that stuff. All right. You know the SNAP program, the SNAP provides funds for people who can't afford to buy food and it's a federal program and the feds asked the states to give them data on the people who receive the SNAP benefits apparently so that they can do an audit essentially to find out if the people getting it are the people who should be getting it because it's a lot of money involved. It turns out that 21 states, all Democrat controlled, coincidence, have decided not to give the federal government information on who gets the SNAP benefits. But I think all of the Republican governments have said yes and are cooperating. But what we know is so far, and I'm sure these numbers will grow, the states that did not comply, they found 186,000 dead people with social security numbers being used. They found half a million people that received benefits more than twice. And multiple people received benefits in six different states. So the SNAP program is just wildly fraudulent and the Democrats are protecting the frauds. Can you think of any reason that they would not provide that information to the people who are giving them money? If I can give you one piece of advice, if someone gives you money, in this case the federal government is funding the SNAP program in the states. If somebody's giving you money and then they ask for a little detail about how you're spending it to make sure it's not all being wasted, if you don't give them that information, you're a fraud. There's just no way around it. You're a fraud. Now, you might have some Democrat argument about, oh, if we give you this information, you'll find some way to discriminate against minorities or something. But it just looks like they're protecting fraud. So I'm going to assume that there might be a little bit of a kickback situation where the politicians are getting a little taste of this fraud somehow. Otherwise, they wouldn't be protecting it, but they're very clearly protecting the fraud. Democrats. Meanwhile, MSNBC is reporting that Ken Dilanian, who is an NBC guy, is reporting that Letitia James is going to be indicted again. So she was indicted before, but the indictments got dropped because there was a challenge to whether or not the prosecutor was correctly and legitimately appointed, but it didn't create any kind of double jeopardy kind of situation. So they just had to get a prosecutor who was legitimately selected according to everybody and then they can just go at it again. So Letitia James will not have a good holiday because she is now going to be indicted. In other news, the cost of apartments has gone down 1%. Which doesn't seem like a lot, but if you compare just from October to November, now that doesn't seem like a lot, but if any kind of major cost goes down at all, like ever. That's worth noting because you don't expect them to ever go down. Seems like they would just go up and up and up. And people are quite reasonably saying that the reason that apartment costs are going down is probably not because the supply has increased. As far as I know, there's no reason to think the supply of housing has gone up, right? Especially for rentals. But what has happened is that two and a half million people have been deported and they all live somewhere. They weren't living on the street. So the competition for rentals, the kind of thing that you would expect non-residents to be in, they'd be more likely to be in a rental than buying a house. So probably this is the first sign of the Trump administration's deportation creating an economic benefit for at least in terms of lowering costs. Don't know that that's why it is. It might be 1% could also be just noisy data. So it's possible that this won't hold up for another month, but I think it might. In other news, that Biden era fuel rule. So Biden had created a set of standards where you had to have your car on average you'd have to get 51 miles per gallon if you

Episode 3036 CWSA 12/04/25

scientific innovation will curb it, climate change, and it’s instead time for a strategic pivot in the global climate fight from focusing on limiting rising temperatures to fighting poverty and preventing disease. He says a doomsday outlook has led the climate community to focus too much on near-term goals blah blah blah reducing emissions. And he says the world’s primary goal should instead be to prevent suffering particularly for those in the toughest conditions in the poorest countries. What is your judgment? In 2016 or so, you know that I publicly committed myself to emphasizing nuclear power as a green technology solution that you would want to do whether there was climate change or not. You know that for 10 years I’ve been telling you that climate models couldn’t possibly be valid for all the reasons that affect any kind of complex model. Doesn’t even have to do with climate change. It just has to do with complex models. They just don’t work. You know that for 10 years I’ve been advocating very publicly with my full suite of persuasion techniques that the emphasis should change from oh no we’re all going to die from carbon to let’s fix as many problems as we can and get our technology as strong as possible and our economy as strong as possible and that will protect us the most. That’s exactly what Bill Gates is saying now. So Bill Gates’s opinion on this a little bit different from mine. A little bit, but now 95% compatible. And he’s also in the business of he’s invested in TerraPower. That’s that thorium new gen 4 nuclear power plant. If you were the guy who invested quite wisely, I don’t know, a decade ago or longer, in nuclear power and it turns out it’s working out. Yeah, you do a strategic pivot because now you have a real genuine path to just making everybody richer and safer at the same time that you can monitor climate change, see if you need to do anything there. I do think that there’s no way that Bill Gates is unaffected by the fact that sea level has not risen. Are you with me on that? You can imagine some characters like Greta blowing it off if after 20 years of saying the water will rise if it hasn’t risen at all. You could imagine the people who were just non-scientific, you know, just protester types saying oh it’ll happen. It’s gonna happen any moment now. But Bill Gates is sort of the ultimate rational guy. He’s closer to being a robot than a human, as some of our best billionaires are. There’s no way he’s going to ignore 20 years of things not going the way the models say they will. Not forever. At some point it’s just overwhelming. I think we reached the overwhelming part where you just had to back down and say all right, let’s fix these gigantic problems that we know how to fix. Let’s get our economy and our technology as sharp as possible. And that’s our best bet against climate change if it’s a problem. I add the if, he doesn’t add the if. So that’s our tiny little difference. So you give me any credit for that? I doubt that Bill Gates has heard anything I’ve said on the topic directly. But the way persuasion works is you persuade other people and if you do it well they adopt your language because they like the way you said it. So the thing I can add to a process such as this is I can help people who want to be an advocate to agree with me to give them the kind of language that would be persuasive to other people. So I’ve been trying to do this for 10 years. All right? You’ve watched it. Many of you have been with me the entire time. And it could be a total coincidence that climate change and nuclear power both ended up exactly where I was trying to put them. Exactly where I was trying to put them. That might be a coincidence. Might not be. No way to know. Anyway, Charlie Sheen was on Bill Maher’s show. What’s that one called? Not his regular show. His Club Random. And Charlie Sheen had what Bill Maher considered an amazingly good idea which is also amazingly compatible with one of my good ideas and amazingly compatible—I think you’ve heard Greg Gutfeld say the same thing but if it comes from Charlie Sheen and the way he said it was especially good let me just tell you what it is. Why am I giving you this big windup? Let me just tell you what he said. So Bill Maher was pointing out that most of the crime problem is committed by only about 600 people per city. And then Sheen, so if you’re able to build statistics from that, you clearly know who the fuck they are, meaning the criminals. So why not just take those 600 people and build a special place for them? Call it the 600 building. And Maher liked that. He goes, “That’s good. That’s very good. And this is why Republicans get elected because Democrats run cities and they don’t do that.” Now, how many of you remember me saying that at least the homeless—and that would include a lot of people who are repeat criminals as well—should be given their own place to live just away from us. I talked about in California you could almost build it outdoors. It wouldn’t need a ton of heatin

Episode 3002 CWSA 10/28/25

in the world and the government said they were bunk. What would you do? Well, if you were CNN or MSNBC or any of the news people, you would immediately put together a panel of the top model making experts and you would have them argue how their models are actually good and not. Anybody see that show? Anybody remember seeing that on MSNBC? I don't recall seeing it. Anybody see it on CNN? I don't have any memory of seeing it. So the single most important thing in the whole world. And as soon as there's a dissenting government opinion, all the experts go away. They just go silent. No, they know they got caught. Otherwise you wouldn't see anything else. If they could have used this to bury Trump as the anti-science idiot that they've been trying to paint him for 10 years, if this worked in their narrative, they would be all over it. Instead, it's very quiet. It's very quiet. If you wanted to see a climate expert defending these climate models, you'd probably have to invite somebody who didn't work on the models but thinks they know about them. I'll tell you what you won't get is the person who actually is putting the variables into the model. Because you know what that person knows? That person knows models are not just his or her own model, but all the other ones do. They all know it. If you don't think they know it, oh, they know it. The reason I know it is because I worked in my corporate life collecting data for various projects. You know, I would collect data to say, should we do this? Would this be more expensive than that? Should we lease or buy? And what I learned immediately is that none of my data and none of my analyses were anything but what my boss wanted to see. There's no science to it. So once you're actually in the work, you can see that it's fake. But then you're too invested because that's your job. So you do what I did, which is, well, I guess if my boss or the person funding me wants me to do more of this, I guess that's my job. Anyway, the dogs not barking. There's not enough push back on the climate models being good for me to have any belief that they're good. Sam Altman is telling us that the Turing test probably wasn't that important in the arc of AI. The Turing test, if you didn't know, most of you know, for many years, it was thought that a computer could not be considered intelligent unless you could put it on the other side of a curtain and have a human being converse with it, not knowing if it's talking to a computer or a human on the other side of the curtain. If the computer could fool the person on the other side of the curtain consistently, that would be considered passing the Alan Turing test. Well, that happened. It happened a while ago, and it didn't make much news. Here's why I think it didn't make much news. Because AI can only fool stupid people. Do you think AI could have fooled me? No, I would just ask it to use some banned words and then that would be the end of it. There's no way the AI could fool me into thinking it was a human being. Even the current best models, no matter how smoothly they talked, no matter whether it was text or voice, there isn't the slightest chance that they could have fooled me that they were human. Not I mean, I've used the chat bots. I've tried out the Grok chat. There's no it's not even close to human. You're not even in the neighborhood of fooling me that you're human. Not even anywhere close. But it did fool some stupid people enough to say we passed the Turing test. And when I see the AI memes, they're clearly AI created and I see how many people repost them and I look at them, I go, "Well, that's obviously AI. That's obviously fake." But some large percentage of the public looks at it and goes, "Oh, that looks pretty good to me. That looks real to me." So the Turing test was never super useful because you could always fool dumb people, but maybe there's no way you'll ever fool smart people. So I don't know if the Turing test allows for that. But Sam A

Episode 2983 CWSA 10/09/25

and wounding five. Wow. Wow. And believe it or not that man was also an ex-military guy. Yep. Two ex-military guys decided to shoot up a populated place. They were both white, in case you're wondering. But we don't know about their political leaning or anything like that. We'll find that out. Anyway, the one who shot up the restaurant is known to local police, so that could mean almost anything. There's a lot of chatter on social media about whether Bill Clinton was basically a MAGA-compatible leader in his day. And the argument for that is that he liked strong borders. I think he cut welfare at one point, right? Or made people work to get it. But the counterargument is that he expanded health care and etc. So some say he was basically Trump. But not quite. Hillary was for strong borders and shipping people back as soon as possible. So she was basically Trump not that many years ago. And Elon Musk was noting the similarities but other people say no, there are too many differences, you can't call them that. According to the No Tricks Zone publication, P. Gosselin is writing that in 2025 the Arctic sea ice minimum neared blah blah blah, but essentially it's been rising steadily for almost two decades. So climate change models would tell you that that ice would melt almost every year. So it should be a lot less after two decades but in fact it went up. So there's one of your climate change predictions. Nope. Opposite. But at the same time also on climate change they found some overestimate they were making. This is from Mandy Carr at The Cool Down. So they did a new study in Greenland and they learned more about melting ice sheets and realized that the climate models were totally wrong on that one variable, the melting ice sheets, and that it was a kind of a big deal and could change the results and what you think of it. Now that's just two stories that were in the news just today. How many stories have I read you in the past year or two that were, uh oh, we just found out something in our climate model was terribly wrong. At this point the only way you could believe that climate change is the threat that people say, the only way you could believe that is if you believe that climate change is the only science that's valid because almost everything else is complete, you know what. Why would climate change be the only exception? Oh yeah. Everything else is fake data from our job numbers. Job numbers are fake. Everything basically everything's fake. Everything except climate change. So in order to believe it you would have to believe everything's fake except climate change. The UK prime minister Keir Starmer says that climate change is one of the main reasons he believes why the millions of third world military age Muslim men are coming to the UK according to Wall Street Mav on X. So apparently Wall Street Mav is pointing out apparently they weren't safe from climate change in any of the other 50 plus countries. No, the only place they would be safe is in the UK. So that's why they came. No, Keir Starmer. Apparently you don't know anything about anything. Nobody came because of climate change. Nobody. Not one person said, "You know what? Given this climate change I better get myself to the UK right away." Not one person. And he's trying to sell that. Now I wonder why Starmer has the lowest approval that we've ever seen from a UK prime minister. Well it could be because he says dumb stuff like that. I saw a video by Peter St. Onge. He's got a strong resume and he says that up to 90% of published academic studies are false, meaning they can't be replicated. 90% of published academic studies are false. And that would include, he points out, things about cancer drugs, global warming, gender mutilation, and even vaccines. So the NIH wants to figure out how to make science real again because at the moment science isn't even real. It's just not real. If 90% of it is just made up and you can't tell what's in the 90 and what's in the 10, science is not real and maybe hasn't been real for a long time. So Professor John Ioannidis years ago determined that 97% of studies of pharma drugs are fake. So if you see any study of any pharma test where they're comparing one new drug to the existing drug 97% of the time it's fake and that's the only thing we do to approve drugs is the thing that's 97% fake. Not just wrong. Not just wrong but intentionally fake. So there's your peer review right there. Useless. So I'll say it again. Given that 90 or 97% of all studies are fake, in order to believe that climate change is just what they said you would have to believe that that was a wild exception. And I'm not saying climate change real or not real. I'm saying that all of the subsets of that so-called science, there'd be so many elements of that, so many parts that they think they needed to put into the model that if 90% of the subsets are wrong, well you're probably not going to be right with your climate models. The Georgia State Election Board has voted to subpoena 2020 election physical ballots. So the Gateway Pundit is writing about this. Now all this election stuff gets really complicated but I believe the allegation is that in 2020 if they had access, which they might get now, to the ballots but also the envelopes that they arrived in and that the main thing they want to check, the easiest thing is does the number of ballots match the number of envelopes because nobody should be taking any ballots in like just holding them in their hand. So if you found that there were a whole bunch of ballots but they did not equal the number of envelopes that would be not proof but it would definitely be leading toward looks like there's a whole bunch of fake ballots because they don't have an envelope. So I don't know. We'll see. There's 20,000 votes that are in question for 2020. I don't want to get excited about any of these possibilities because every time we got excited it's like, whoa, looks like they got the goods on them this time. It never really wo

Episode 2973 CWSA 09/29/25

But for a while, I think almost everybody I knew thought it was happening. I doubted it from the beginning. Under the theory that if that were happening, these sports teams would not be able to stop talking about it. I mean, they would know, but they weren't. They were acting like nothing was happening. So I thought, hmm, how could all these healthy athletes be dropping dead and yet the people who own the sports teams, they're acting like nothing's happening. So that's when I suspected that that was maybe not true. And so far, no evidence that that was ever true. What about the stories about the autopsies that showed that people had all this coagulated blood that's totally unnatural? How many of you thought that was true? Probably still do, right? How many think that the morticians, when they're preparing the body, how many of you think they're seeing unnatural blood? That's not true. That's not happening. Yeah. Apparently the reality beyond that is that it's normal and well understood that sometimes dead people have that coagulated blood and there's nothing really that changed. Now that's what I believe to be true. So it's always useful to look at how many things you once thought were true that now there's no evidence they were ever true. Now could I be wrong about one of those things? Absolutely. Could I be wrong about everything in terms of the risks? Absolutely. Because there's no data that I would trust to set me straight or to confirm that I was right. There's no data I trust about the pandemic. But it is fascinating that such obvious questions we don't really know. Don't really know even now. All right. There was a New Jersey nurse that got suspended for calling out a doctor who had been cheering after Charlie Kirk's death. Fox News was reporting on that. So instead of the doctor being released for bad behavior of cheering the death of a human being, seems very ungodly. Seems like the worst thing a doctor could do in his spare time. They're apparently going to suspend the nurse without pay. Terrific. Terrific there. Great job, guys. Well, I think somebody besides me has probably mentioned this. Maybe you haven't heard it yet, but do you really believe that only the left cheers about bad things happening to people? Because I don't live in that world. Do you remember Paul Pelosi and the hammer attack? Did anybody on the right make fun of that? What was really a terrible thing. I mean, just terrible. Imagine Paul Pelosi now he's got to live with probably some permanent parts of the injury. I believe he has to think about that. He has to be in a house where that happened. So he'll think about it every day. That was terrible. But did any people on the right laugh about it? Yeah, even Trump did. Trump did a joke about Pelosi. She called that guy the homeless hammer guy. Homeless hammer guy. Yeah, even Trump did. So I'm going to say two things that sound like they're contradictory, but I'll tell you they're not. One is I don't think either side has the monopoly on cheering for people that they think are monsters having a bad day, even if they're not a monster. I mean, I don't have a particular problem with Paul Pelosi. So I don't think there's any moral superiority going on, but what there is is a lot of payback and a lot of what I call mutually assured destruction. So the right is having a good old time cancelling as many of the Charlie Kirk haters who made the mistake of going public with their cheering. And I'm all for that. I'm all for it. Not because the right is morally superior, but because, you know, once cancelling becomes a thing, you've got to cancel back. I just don't think there's anything else you could do. Could it make things worse? Might it escalate the cancelling? Maybe. But I'll tell you what you can't do is nothing. What you can't do is nothing. And if it changes the balance of power, I'd like to see people getting cancelled for calling the right Nazis or fascists. You know, if we could take it to the next level, that'd really be fun. So I'm 100% in favor of the cancelling as cruel and tough as they are because it needs to work both ways. You can't have the cancelling work in one direction. Absolutely not. Bad analogy. Well, let me explain analogies since 75% of the public doesn't know how an analogy works. An analogy does not try to make every element of the analogy the same as the subject you're talking about. Because if it were the same in all the ways, it wouldn't be an analogy. It would just be the same thing. And that wouldn't tell you anything. So if you can find the part about the Paul Pelosi that's the same, then you'll know what I'm saying. But if you say, "But Scott, you fool. There was no hammer involved in the Charlie Kirk thing, so your stupid analogy is terrible." No, an analogy is only focusing on one part. In both cases, something had happened to somebody on one side of the political aisle and other people had fun with it. That is a valid point. Don't give me "but he was married to a politician that's different." No, no, you don't understand how analogies work. Stop focusing on the parts that are not the point. All right, enough of that. So Washington DC the mayor says that the police will no longer cooperate with ICE to get rid of illegal people in the city. Illegal migrants. And I believe I saw the mayor of Memphis acting a little bit like he wasn't so into having help. He seems like he's playing it both ways. It's like he's against it because he's on the left, but he's sort of in favor of it a little b

Episode 2959 CWSA 09/15/25