If you go back far enough there were other things that were different For example the intensity of the Sun was different. So if you're going to use the past to make your argument I'd use the last 50 years, but I wouldn't use thousands of years ago. That's a bad argument Does anybody everybody agree? Because you can still be super skeptical on climate change, but don't use the historical You know middle the What do we use the dark ages and it's just ignore all that. Even 50 years ago frankly, you know Tony Heller is back on Twitter soEverybody remember Tony Heller? He's the most prolific Data skeptic about climate change now he goes after the data and he
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
- Sinclair Lab successfully reverses aging
- Climate change causing heart attacks?
- Thomas Massie on vax legal immunity
- Special Counsel Robert Hur
- Democrats taking out Biden?
- Chemical warfare drones?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast:
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support