10-28-25 - 9am - Actual Data vs Data Models and Blocking the Sun

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael, sorry about yesterday. I was stuck in meetings
all day and didn't get to listen. Also, I can
loan you five bucks towards this letter. Hope that helps. Also,
is this package that the Republicans are trying to use
to open the government the same one that was approved
under Biden thirteen times? Is that true? Or is that

(00:20):
just smoke? I'm being filled by my Republican leaders.

Speaker 2 (00:26):
Help me out here driving, Yeah, what.

Speaker 3 (00:32):
I Maybe it's because I've been gone I lost all
reference what she was talking about.

Speaker 4 (00:37):
Well, first off, she was going to offer you five
bucks for that spam letter to sleep.

Speaker 5 (00:41):
Oh okay, to help you, oh for that letter? Right? Good?
Have your your brad the email, okay.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
Right, yeah.

Speaker 4 (00:48):
And then she was curious about the budget bill. Supposedly
that's something that the Democrats had already passed prior many
times before, and now they're not wanting to do it
this time.

Speaker 3 (01:00):
Yes, they've passed this exact same continue Continuing resolution numerous times,
and now they don't want to because because they're because
they're idiots.

Speaker 5 (01:14):
Well they're all idiots. If you don't recognize that by now.

Speaker 3 (01:18):
And you're not paying attention, I want to finish one
more thing about about climate change, because you know this
is a this is a real bugaboo of mine. The
for years that inter Governmental Panel and Climate Change has
asserted that human driven climate change Anthrobrginny climate change has

(01:38):
led to accelerate a sea level rise.

Speaker 5 (01:41):
But when you look at the real world data, it
tells you a different story. I'm Shoseiah, You're shocked, right,
It's one that challenges the foundation of those claims. But first,
what do they tell us about sea level rise? Let's
go to Eugene Robinson. He's over on MSNBC. I don't
have the exact on this.

Speaker 3 (02:00):
It doesn't make any difference whether it's ten years ago
or ten minutes ago.

Speaker 5 (02:05):
It's it's the same story.

Speaker 6 (02:07):
Maybe we put infrastructure back on the top of the
list and.

Speaker 5 (02:10):
Worry about a lot of these regions.

Speaker 7 (02:12):
Well there's an idea. I mean, where are we going
to start taking this seriously? We have a huge percentage
of the US population that lives on or near a coast,
especially the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and those coasts suffer hurricanes,
big storms, and it's it's just inevitable. Climate change makes

(02:36):
it worse because sea levels have risen back.

Speaker 3 (02:38):
Even if you don't, climate change makes it worse because
sea levels have risen.

Speaker 5 (02:44):
Is that?

Speaker 3 (02:44):
What did he mean that climate change has made the
damage worse because sea levels have risen.

Speaker 5 (02:48):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (02:49):
But the point is sea levels rise, right, Well, yeah,
actually they do. So there's really no story there. But
he seems to think that there is. But what if
I told you there there's no scientific evidence to suggest
that the rate of seed level rise has increased since
the mid nineteenth century. Now again, I don't deny climate

(03:11):
change itself. I think the climate is always changing and
it's simply beyond our control. All we can do is
mitigate against whatever Mother Nature is throwing at us. You know,
I found it, Freddy mother Oh hizam, CNN is doing
it right now. I still am putting off my discussion
about this hurricane season because I kept thinking, well, there'll

(03:33):
be a big ass hurricane. Well I guess what there is.
There's a big ass hurricane. It's not going to change
my story because the big ass hurricane, which CNN seems
to be covering wall.

Speaker 5 (03:42):
The wall, is headed out to the Atlantic.

Speaker 3 (03:46):
Yeah, Jamaica, Bermuda, they might be in the path, but
it's not going to hit the coast. You know, we
might get some bands of rain or something, but it's
not catastrophic. The data simply show that the pace of
rising seas has not expected what would be expected in

(04:06):
the absence of human induced climate change.

Speaker 5 (04:11):
Now it's a.

Speaker 3 (04:11):
Crucial distinction, and it's well known among top scientists, some
of who have chosen critics say to intentionally mislead the
public for years. A comprehensive study released last month broke
new ground because it analyzed global tide gauge records. Tide

(04:33):
gauges provide the only the only extended real world measurements
that date back to the mid eighteen hundreds, and they're
the only ones that can accurately indicate whether c level
rise has accelerated, decelerated, or remain somewhat steady. So following

(04:55):
the publication of this new study, the authors of the
art started engaging in a prolonged dialogue more than fifty
emails going back and forth among the authors of the study.
One of the authors is Robert Kupp. He's a leading
sea level rise expert. That's pretty narrow, isn't it at Rutgers.

(05:18):
He also had Representatise from the IPCC, NASA and Noah.
This correspondence, which they did not expect to get out,
but which did get out, revealed a surprising truth. Guess
what that truth is. Key scientists have long been aware
that they cannot have not conclusively concluded, conclusively proven and

(05:42):
acceleration in sea level rise, Yet they keep maintaining that
they can show that.

Speaker 5 (05:49):
So this.

Speaker 3 (05:51):
This trove of emails offered for the public to see
and inside, look at how experts have misled journalists, They've
misled policy makers, and they've misled you and me. Now,
while some climate scientists previously previously have acknowledged the lack
of supporting real world data, the reason these emails are

(06:15):
important is because the revelations come as headlines about climate
fuel disasters are overshadowing the debate on sea levels. But since
the nineteen nineties predictions about catastrophic sea level rise, that's
been an integral part about climate change, and it's also
been shaping the media and narratives. What the cabal tells

(06:37):
us and that therefore informs the policy foretests for adaptation costs.

Speaker 5 (06:45):
But here's the clincher.

Speaker 3 (06:47):
The evidence not only refutes the claims of acceleration, but
it exposes the methods that these scientists employed to actually
willfully misrepresent the data. According to the email exchange with
Copp that's the professor from Rutgers, there were three main tactics. First,

(07:08):
the researchers used complex modeling. Now we know that depending
on its underlying assumptions, you can show whatever you want
to show. You can show acceleration, deceleration, or you can
show no.

Speaker 5 (07:20):
Change at all.

Speaker 3 (07:22):
So despite the fact that you have more than one
hundred and fifty years of actual tide gauge data negating
the need for such models, nonetheless they say, well, let's
model it instead. Now, which would you trust more? A
model that crap in, crap out, or let's go look
with our own eyes. Let's see what the written historical

(07:44):
record of the tide gauges show, and that'll indicate to
us from the mid eighteen hundreds through twenty twenty five,
has there really been any change? That's the first problem.
That's the first I would say, aha that these professors
have yet to address. Of course, neither is NASA, NOAH

(08:07):
or the IPCC. Second, alternative indirect measurements get presented as
substitutes for tide gage data. Why would you do that.
You've got real world data, but alternative and indirect measurements
get substituted for the actual data, selectively highlighting those that

(08:31):
suggest acceleration, and they admit that in the emails. Third,
scientists sometimes focused on short term data sets, notably satellite
records that span just a thirty year period. To us, think,
think about it this way. You're looking at a data
set from let's just say eighteen hundreds. Let's just say

(08:51):
from eighteen hundred to twenty twenty five, and you've got
a measurement. Let's say that that eighteen hundred to twenty
twenty five is one yard three feet, and you've got
a measurementod six inches half a foot. So depending on

(09:12):
where you put that half foot or if you extend
the half foots let's say from eighteen ninety three to
nineteen thirty three. Oh, that shows what we need, so
you pick that. That's what they were doing. They were
selectively focusing on short term data sets where they could

(09:36):
get the conclusion that they wanted. And then they wonder,
why we you know, we're told to trust the science.
I've become very skeptical of science. I want to know
your methodology. I want to I want to see it
peer reviewed. I want to see your correspondence. I want
to see the whole kitten kaboodle. I want to see

(09:56):
everything that you've done, because like here, publisher report, oh
we've got serious sea level rise problems, and then we
find their emails and we find out, oh, they've cherry
picked everything. I think this is a This is indicative
of a broader pattern wherein rhetorical strategies, institutional pressures, the

(10:19):
flow of the money for the grants and the studies
leads to misleading scientific claims. Now, CoP's the professor at Rutger,
his expertise in the field. It's undisputed. But as the
email exchange demonstrates, expertise alone does not create scientific evidence

(10:40):
where no scientific evidence exists. This guy's credibility ought to
be shot, but it won't be because nobody will talk
about the disclosure of the emails. So in the course
of three days, over two dozen emails were exchanged between
Cop and these other people, and those conversations they public

(11:00):
unedited actually reveal the nuances of the debate. Early in
the discussion, Cop cited a at least decade old study.
I'm not quite sure it was at least ten years old,
which shows that model results can vary widely based on input,
method and assumptions. The peer reviewed scientific literature acknowledges those variances,

(11:25):
contrasting sharply with the IPCC's quote very high confidence, and
there is acceleration in sea level rise.

Speaker 5 (11:39):
They're just lying to you.

Speaker 3 (11:41):
Imagine that a church, the church of the climate activists,
actually lying to you. How can that church continue to exist? Oh,
because it's really about control. It's not about what's really
going on with the climate. It's not truly understanding that.
Oh yeah, you know what. Sometimes the climate warms, sometimes
it changes, sometimes the sea level rises, sometimes it decreases.

(12:05):
And so what we ought to do is learn to
mitigate against those changes over which we have.

Speaker 2 (12:10):
No control.

Speaker 5 (12:13):
It.

Speaker 3 (12:14):
And I know there's there's a cost benefit analysis to
be made, but I always think about it, and I
remember specifically seeing this. There was a horrible tornado when
I was the undersecretary that hit in I forget whether
it was more or Midwest City, but it was somewhere
in the Oblhoma City area, and neighborhoods were just destroyed.

(12:35):
But Some people survived that because they had built when
they had tornado shelter. Some had tornado shelters below ground,
and some had safe rooms built in their house where
they didn't have a basement, and the house would be
just be demolished, but there would be this you know,
ten by ten safe room or you know, sixth bus sake,
whatever they needed for their family that was still standing.

(12:56):
We stood a direct hit by a tornado. People say,
lives that's mitigation, that's mitigating against the disaster. Now, if
you live in Tornado Alley, the expense of that might
be worth it. You might even get a little reduction
on your insurance policy because they know they're going to
have to pay out on a life policy because you
got wiped away as a human in that tornado. So

(13:20):
it might help in terms of insurance. But again you've
got to make a cost benefit analysis. Is it worth
it or not worth it? Some people have pressed this.
Professor from Rutgers Copp argues that other studies quote stand
in contrast with the findings of the tide gauge analysis. Well,

(13:40):
the critics are stressing that such phrasing falls short of
directly disproving the tide gauge results and instead quote reflects
a tendency to privilege model based or indirect results.

Speaker 5 (14:00):
Two data sets. A data set that comes from modeling.

Speaker 3 (14:04):
A data set that comes from real, live human observation,
written recordings of what we observed, what the gauges show.
You know, a typical like a thermometer. It's got markings
on it and you can see where it is, and
you go check it, you know, once a day or
twice a day, whatever they do to check, get the gauges,
and then you make a notation of that in a

(14:26):
notebook or in a d in a database somewhere. So
which would you trust? Well, I want, I want the
real world observation. I don't want the modeling because again,
crap in, crap out. So then this controversy starts to escalate,
and it escalates five days after the email exchange when
the professor and fifteen colleagues called for the retract. So

(14:48):
you got to give the Rutger's professor at least some credit,
some credit here because he and fifteen colleagues called for
the retraction.

Speaker 5 (14:58):
But guess what they called for the retract.

Speaker 3 (15:02):
Not the modeling study, but the tide gauge focused study,
They allege methodological flaws in the human observations. They trust
the models more than they trust what somebody looked at
with their own eyes and made a record of. Now,

(15:23):
if you go back to the eighteen hundreds, do you
think they were anticipating that a century later that climate
change might be a big deal? So let's let's fabricate
the numbers. No, I don't think so. I don't think
so at all. So, ultimately, where are we? Ultimately, the

(15:44):
tide gauge record remains clear. There's no acceleration in the
sea level rise. Now, other studies using alternative methods shorter timeframes,
even those funded by major agencies, do not change the
conclusion drawn from the generations of direct human observation data.
Manipulation is not limited sea level studies. Media outlets have

(16:07):
been accused of cherry picking time periods for hurricane or
heat wave records, or you know, gauge placement, the urban
heat index effect. They they're distorting all of this stuff. So,
despite the claims that rising seas are going to decimate
a toolls in coastal cities, I wouldn't make a footnote here.

(16:30):
Why do the people have put money at risk? To
build condos, office buildings, anything else along Miami Dade County,
along the eastern seaboard, or for that matter, in Galveston
or Houston or anywhere along the Pacific coast. Why do
they continue to do that? Why do they continue to
put money at risk if they think the sea level

(16:52):
rise is going to increase more rapidly than their ROI
before they get their money back on the investment they make.
It makes no economic sense whatsoever. It shows stupidity on
the part of the investors, on the part of the
people who have made billions by carefully investing their money.

(17:13):
The recent research shows that most atoll islands have grown
or remained stable since twenty eighteen. And despite Congressman what's
his name from the Yahoo from Georgia who thought that
Guam was going to tip over, Glam still hasn't tipped
over and Guam. I don't know that Gwam specifically, but

(17:34):
these atoll islands, like Guam have actually grown or remained stable.
But despite all that evidence, experts predict that continued reliance
on rhetorical distractions and appeals to authority will maintain public
belief and acceleration. In other words, we've got your fooled,
will keep using this data, and despite the emails getting disclosed,

(17:58):
we'll just say, well, you know what, better to trust
the models and not trust human observation. Really, Line Sacks
and Poopanie.

Speaker 1 (18:12):
What we need to do is just give these climatologists
a swift kick and the earballs.

Speaker 5 (18:23):
Can I just say.

Speaker 3 (18:27):
That, even though I had a fairly rough weekend, just
tense and you know, lots of things to get done.

Speaker 5 (18:35):
I'm busy and stuff with my.

Speaker 3 (18:37):
Mom, I really despise this audience.

Speaker 5 (18:42):
You know.

Speaker 3 (18:43):
I thought i'd come back and you know, they'd be
welcoming and you know how you doing. I'd have you
back all of that. But no, they're just a big
glob of smart asses out there that, unfortunately, I think
are just a reflection of you and me.

Speaker 2 (18:56):
Earballs are going to become a thing.

Speaker 3 (18:57):
Yeah they are. And tonight when you're you know, playing around,
you'll now you'll think.

Speaker 4 (19:04):
I'm gonna be yelling upstairs or downstairs to missus Redbeard
and a useer ear balls.

Speaker 3 (19:14):
I hate all of you. I just hate all of you. Oh,
Fetterman's up on the news and we know what he's doing.
Oh damn, start breaking ranks over shutdown showdown. We got oh,
we got a little alliteration going the shutdown showdown.

Speaker 2 (19:30):
The Schumer shutdown showdown.

Speaker 3 (19:32):
There you go, see bingo, you should go right for
Fox News. Let's see CNN. Family sues gaming platform roadblocks
over teen sons death. What's roadblocks? Am I culturally illiterate
on this one?

Speaker 5 (19:47):
Anest?

Speaker 2 (19:47):
I really don't know for sure, but you don't either.
Think it's something similar to Minecraft where you can build
your own world.

Speaker 3 (19:54):
Oh okay, all right, I think okay, I'm so, I'm
sorry for the death of a sun for whatever reason.
I'm sorry about that. But I'm ecstatic to know that
you don't know any more than I do. That makes
me feel good.

Speaker 4 (20:09):
It's not one that I got into, and it's not
when my kids got into.

Speaker 5 (20:11):
So I just just something fairly new then.

Speaker 4 (20:13):
Now I don't think I think it's been around as
long as like Minecraft, but it's just just breezed by
my family.

Speaker 3 (20:19):
Okay, Well, well, considering your family, that's not surprising. So
you know a lot of things passed yourby. Then you
get then you get stuck. Then you get stuck here
with me and your earballs, and we know that you
use the sheets to cover your earballs. That's that's the

(20:40):
sad part.

Speaker 2 (20:40):
They get cold, and they get cold. They just kind of.

Speaker 3 (20:45):
So continuing on the same theme, not earballs, but the
same thing about we're being lied to think about this.
Now the sun's rising, it's now, you know, it's now
moved over to the broken blind so it's not quite
in my eyes again. The sun today will warm the
earth up. It's the sign that, you know, God has

(21:09):
decided that he's not gonna send Christ back. We survived,
at least as of right now, we've survived another day,
and it'll help the plants grow. It'll you know, photosynthesis,
everything that goes on with the sun.

Speaker 5 (21:24):
Isn't that great.

Speaker 3 (21:26):
Let me tell you about Stardust Solutions And no it's
not the old casino in Vegas. It's a geoengineering startup.
They've raised sixty million dollars fools, I.

Speaker 5 (21:40):
Don't know who did it, sixty.

Speaker 3 (21:42):
Million dollars to develop technology that aims to dim the
sun by spraying aero aerosol particles into the atmosphere. It's
this particular funding rent. This is their first round of funding,
is the largest ever for a cup in that sector.
It includes investments from Silicon Valley figures and an Italian

(22:06):
industrial dynasty. The CEO of the company, Yanni Ydvob, a
former Israeli government physicist, explains that their approach involves quote,
solar radiation management. Now, the Sun is this gigantic burning
ball of gas that you know, we send, We send

(22:29):
little probes that will be destroyed even before they hit
the Sun from the intense heat. And we're going to
somehow engage in solar radiation management in order to redirect
the Sun's rays. Now, I'm not sure really want that.

(22:54):
Just call me stupid, Just call me. I'm thinking with
my earballs right now. Just think about this.

Speaker 5 (22:59):
He ack knowledge.

Speaker 3 (23:00):
This would be that it would not entirely eliminate climate risks,
you think, So how about we rephrase it Instead of
saying it will not entirely eliminate climate risks, how about
we say that it's going to create climate risks. In
a recent interview, he said, there will still be extreme

(23:22):
weather events, you think, because maybe the Sun's disappeared, or
we're now manipulating where the sun rays, you know, where
that those rays actually hit the Earth. Now, this is
not like previous geo engineering efforts, you know that universities
and nonprofits do. This is a private company. The company

(23:42):
claims that it's working on a proprietary particle. We're going
to send particles into the air that's scalable, cost effective,
And of course they tell us it's safe. Yes, And
I'm a brilliant radio talk show host too, Yeah, safe, brilliant.

(24:02):
He says that they aim to develop a particle as
safe as say flower, and they're seeking a patent for it.
Is flower always safe? What if I pour flower into
your gas?

Speaker 5 (24:17):
Nank?

Speaker 3 (24:19):
What if I smash your head into a bag of
flower and hold it there? No, you can be dangerous.

Speaker 4 (24:26):
I'm just concerned that they're getting these ideas from the
Simpsons episode that aired in nineteen ninety five where mister
Burns decides to block out the sun.

Speaker 3 (24:35):
You know, I don't think i've ever seen Yeah, I've
heard you mentioned that one before, and I've never taken
the time to go look it up and watch it.

Speaker 4 (24:41):
Yeah, there's a whole thing because mister Burns, you know,
nuclear power plant owner new Killer new Eler, just to
try and piss that the other guy, right, So he
wanted to stop the solar power generation so he put
up a big giant shield to block out the sun
so everybody would rely.

Speaker 2 (24:57):
On new culer energy.

Speaker 5 (25:00):
Wonderful. How did that work out in that episode?

Speaker 2 (25:03):
Oh, Maggie shot mister Burns.

Speaker 3 (25:04):
Oh okay, okay, all right, Maybe we should send an
email to this guy and just warn him that, you know,
hey listen. Or maybe this is a maybe he got
the idea from the Simpsons, I don't.

Speaker 2 (25:15):
Know, thirty years old episode Come.

Speaker 3 (25:17):
On, hey, listen. What goes around comes around? It plans
to begin controlled outdoor experiments, is the way that they
describe it. Come this spring, releasing particles from a modified
plane at an altitude of eleven miles now shockingly and

(25:38):
I find it's hard to believe. But this concept has
drawn some criticism, concerns over governance and unknown risks, you.

Speaker 5 (25:50):
Mean, like the idea that.

Speaker 3 (25:53):
Now I don't know whether I don't remember. I don't
think this guy actually is a US citizen. I think
he's still Israeli. That maybe it's the dual citizens. I
don't know, But think about the international implications. So we're
gonna throw or he's gonna go throw some stuff up
in the air, block the sun and China's not gonna

(26:13):
be worried about that. South America's not gonna be worried
about that.

Speaker 5 (26:16):
Yeah, I think. I think when they say.

Speaker 3 (26:19):
Creates concerns over governance, I would say masters are the
obvious and of course unknown risks.

Speaker 4 (26:26):
We're already concerned about putting aerosols into the air during
the eighties.

Speaker 5 (26:31):
Well, I'm just thinking that the kid.

Speaker 3 (26:33):
I think the way to to really get this project
off the ground is to get a hold of the
Kim Trail people, those that you know, all the all
the Kim Trails, you know, like when they're landing at there,
they're they're they're flying over They're not they're not landing
at d i A. They're just going from you know,
they're they're going from Phoenix to Chicago, and they fly
over us, and.

Speaker 2 (26:52):
Those guys are busy getting their tinfoil hats resized.

Speaker 5 (26:55):
Exactly.

Speaker 3 (26:56):
Uh, let's see uh a versus Chicago Professor David Keith
has expressed doubts about the feasibility of creating a particle
superior to sulfates, which is what's currently the common option
used in geoengineering research. Oh so, now we're just upset
because maybe this guy's coming over with a new particle

(27:17):
that's better than the old particle, and then they question
the startups, long term viability, and the role of private
entities addressing global climate challenges. I found that statement particularly
hilarious because now I understand that climate is obviously is

(27:37):
not bound by any sort of geographical boundaries that we
just artificially create. I get that, and it's not even
bound by actual geographical differences like you know, oceans and
land masses. I get all of that. But they're really
upset because they're addressing something that really ought to be left.

Speaker 5 (27:58):
To Oh entities that.

Speaker 3 (28:02):
Address it climate change, that address it, they get funded
by governments. We don't want no private sector people doing this.

Speaker 5 (28:10):
No quote.

Speaker 3 (28:12):
They have convinced Silicon Valley venture capitalists to give them
a lot of money, and I would say that they
shouldn't have according to climate economists Garnaud Wagner. Now, yet
VAB emphasize the developmould only occur under the clear governance
led by governments. I think he's full of particles. Yeah,

(28:34):
I think he's just full of particles.

Speaker 5 (28:37):
I Mike.

Speaker 6 (28:40):
Those trails coming out of jet airplanes high in the
sky are called con trails short for condensation trails, because
that's all they are, this condensation from the exhaust.

Speaker 3 (28:58):
By see, you're not a KIM trailer.

Speaker 2 (29:03):
I'm not sure if he's trying to be funny or not.

Speaker 3 (29:05):
I know, I'm thinking he's really trying to be seriously,
I'm talking about kim trails, because what's really going on
is United twelve forty seven flying overhead right now, and
you see that contrail behind it. That's not really a contrail,
that's a KIM trail, and they only spray it over
Colorado because there's too many conservative people left in Colorado

(29:29):
and the chemicals eat our brains up.

Speaker 2 (29:32):
I need to sharpen the point to my tinfoil hat.

Speaker 3 (29:35):
You do, I mean, and clearly he does too. I
mean contrails. I mean, who thinks that those are contrails?
Come on, they're kim trails. Kim trails, by the way,
kim trails. It's c h E M T r AI
L S one word, no hype and nothing's kim trails.

(29:59):
So they're are we even now? Uh? Cream out cream
aldul jabbar cream. Jean Pierre is that with her book
called Independent, Well, there's a joke right there. Independent, A
look inside a broken white House outside the party lines?

Speaker 5 (30:17):
Wow, is it? Jake Tapper Jr.

Speaker 3 (30:20):
Let's let's observe how the White House is broken, but
not say anything. And then when we leave, or instead
of leaving because it is broken, let's just stick around
so we can write a book. Well, guess what the
Washington Post. Yeah, the Washington Post. Now, not like some
little twon idahol name Washington. I'm talking about Washington, DC. Yeah,

(30:42):
that Washington, the Amazon Post, the Jeff Bezos Post.

Speaker 5 (30:48):
Uh scathing review.

Speaker 3 (30:51):
Becker Rothfield suggests the Jean Pierre quote may represent the
future of the Democrat Party despite her notional disavowal of it,
but that's not necessarily a good thing for the party,
as despite quote loudly declaring herself an independent and a
futile effort to cleanse herself of the taint of her

(31:12):
own party, the former Press secretary says, the post is
still quote espousing the same old worldview in the same old,
tired tone. Wow, let me double check this, Yeah, Washington Post.
Now in the book, she you know, this is a
book that I might actually find funny, because you know,

(31:34):
I still read the comics in the newspaper, well, the
online newspaper. I still read the comics. This might be
like reading the comics. It might be like having my
old Dilbert day by day calendar or the Far Side calendar.
John Pierre criticized the Democrats for their betrayal of President
Biden and questions their decisions, their decision not to automatically

(31:56):
support Kamala Harris as his successor, But the Post notes
that Jean Pierre never answers the quote the rather central
question of whether she was actually electable, and even confesses
that she quote never really believed Harris could win. They
then blast the former Press secretary as an artifact of

(32:19):
an age that looks recent on paper that feels prehistoric
in practice.

Speaker 5 (32:25):
The age of pantsuits, the word.

Speaker 3 (32:27):
Empowerment, the music Hamilton, the cheap therapeutic entreaties to work
on yourself and to lean into various corporate abysses. With
her book written in an outmoded register that has been
failing since twenty sixteen, they write, it is incredible, an
emblematic of the democrats total esthetic and intellectual driftlessness, that

(32:52):
someone who writes in such feel good, thought repelling cliches
was hired to communicate with the nation from its highest podium.
Noting how revelingly blinkered she comes across. Like her colleagues
in the Hall of Congress, the Post says, she appears
to have little authentic understanding of why her erstwhile parties

(33:12):
approval rating his crater. Wow, when I tell you the
Democrat Party is imploding. Another piece of evidence. Will mark
this as Exhibit number forty seven B