done by the Nazis. Then those were the two sides for that context. But in the same conversation about the same event he changed the meaning of both sides. He told you he was changing it. He said it specifically. He said now I'm not talking about the Nazis in this context but there were fine people there. The context meaning protesting the statues.

So I think that's where the false memory comes from, is that they're conflating the two conversations as if they're one. That's probably where it came from. I doubt there would be, it would surprise me if there's any major personality or producer at CNN who is literally thinking to themselves well I know this isn't true but I'm gonna put it out like it is because I don't like President Trump. Could be possible. You can't say that doesn't exist. But in all of my experience of false memories, persuasion, hypnosis, and then my personal contacts as well as all of my observations and interactions online, it very clearly appears that people have a false memory. And I've yet to see solid evidence that somebody was just lying for effect. I haven't seen it yet but it could exist. There could be people doing that.

All right, let's talk about the president slamming on John McCain. We live in this weird world where we can't have nuance about anything. It's like it's not allowed. So we're not allowed to think that Senator McCain was a war hero and generally effective senator at the same time he was a completely destructive, I would say bordering on traitorous, actor in his final years of life. So I would say that all the scorn that the president is sending at McCain, completely valid as long as you're allowed to think that he could be a war hero in his youth and a total douchebag in his final year of life. Those are not mutually exclusive. You could do something that's just the worst thing ever a year before you died and that doesn't change the fact you were a war hero. We can keep that part. Why not?

So what's the funniest part about this is of course the president was once deeply criticized for criticizing McCain because he was thought to be above criticism. So even though the president told the same joke that Chris Rock would tell in his stand-up comedy about preferring people who didn't get caught, literally it's a Chris Rock joke, but people kind of thought okay he's McCain, he's too holy, he's too much of a hero, you can't really criticize the hero. Do you know that's just wrong? But now it's clear that he was not so much a hero in his later life. And that if the reporting is true, and you never know, do you never know what's true these days, but if the current reporting is true and he was behind passing the Steele dossier along to the media, well then he was just a bad actor.

And I think the president is having fun. Well let me put it this way. When I was reading the president's tweets about McCain I immediately got this cartoonish image of the president using McCain's dead body to flog his living opponents. It's like he's using McCain as a club. It's like let's dig him up and use him as a, I'll just beat you guys with McCain's dead body. I told you I was right in the first place. Not so much a hero now I guess the facts came out. I'm gonna beat you with McCain's dead body.

And of course people will say how could you say that? How could you say that? How can you be so disrespectful? And the answer is he did not earn my respect. McCain earned my respect as a war hero and I'm glad to give it. As a politician in his later years, despicable, despicable.

All right, let's talk about, so what will be interesting about our current time, this is someday in the future, people will have a false memory that President Trump colluded with Russia. Now what's the primary evidence that Trump colluded with Russia? Obviously Mueller doesn't have anything or we would know by now. But people will still say well okay maybe Mueller didn't have anything but just look at this Papadopoulos guy talking to a Russian and that Russian was connected to the Kremlin. Look at Don Junior and Jared going to that meeting and there was that Russian lawyer there and well she was connected to the Kremlin.

Have you noticed the pattern that if anybody who has any connection with Trump talks to any Russian, that that Russian is described as having connections to the Kremlin? Okay, now let's take that as a given. Well hold that in your mind. Every contact with any kind of Russian that had anything to do with the Trump universe, those Russians are described as connected to the Kremlin.

Now separately there's the Steele dossier in which British ex-spy, there's no such thing as an ex-spy you should know that, he went to Russia and got Russians to give him false information about Trump. Now the only Russians that we've heard of that don't have a connection to the Kremlin are Christopher Steele's Russians. Do you believe that the only Russians in all of these stories that coincidentally are not connected directly to the Kremlin are the ones that Christopher Steele talked to? What are the odds? Seems to me that every Russian who can afford a suit is connected to the Kremlin according to the news. Oh but not the ones that Christopher Steele talked to. What were they, were they bellhops at the hotel? I don't think so.

Have you ever heard who Christopher Steele talked to? I've never heard it reported. Do any of you know this? Who exactly did Christopher Steele talk to? They gave him Russian information because he must have talked to somebody who was attached to the Kremlin. Steele had been to, I'm getting the story from the CNN blog post, some of the story but not all of it. There was something about that he talked to Hillary. All right but ask you that. Why is there no obvious reporting that Christopher Steele talked to a Russian who had a connection to the Kremlin when they all seemed to be connected to the Kremlin but that one's missing?

All right, here's another false memory test. Now climate change. If I said to you which of these statements do you have a memory of? Okay I'm going to give you two versions of reality, current reality, and you tell me which one you remember to be true.

Version number one of reality is that climate change models have predicted accurately. That's version one. Version two: no climate change model has ever predicted accurately. They can't both be true, right? Those are opposites. Climate change models have predicted accurately to our current situation or no climate change model has ever predicted accurately.

Now you can say what are you predicting? Is it sea level rise? Is it melting of the ice? Is it the heat on the land? Is it the heat in the ocean? Is it the storms? What exactly are you predicting? And I'll say anything. Let's say anything. It doesn't matter what exactly they're predicting. There are two versions of reality. One that it has predicted accurately already and two it has never predicted accurately already.

Guess which one is true. I've been studying climate change for months. Do you know which one is true? I'm gonna tell you which one is true. Which of those two versions is true? You're gonna hear for the first time: neither. Neither. I don't think either one of them is true. I don't think anybody's compared predictions to reality. I just don't even know if anybody's done it.

Now I could easily be wrong about this and probably am. I would say I'm probably wrong about this, more likely wrong than not. But here's the larger point. I've been studying this for months. That's the one question that matters. Have their predictions ever been right? The only question that matters. All of the other stuff is good to know, right? It'd be great to know if they did this right or how did they measure this. Was there a mistake with this? That'd be great to know. But really there's just one thing I want to know and I don't know it. I don't know it.

Have you ever seen it reported on the news? I haven't seen it. When was the last time you saw the news report here was the prediction, here's exactly how they got it right, damn they're good at predicting. Or the opposite: here are all the predictions, here are all the outcomes and you can see that none of their models worked. You haven't seen either of those stories.

So could you as a citizen have a meaningful opinion on climate change? No you can't. You can only imagine you do. You can only imagine you have a rational opinion on climate change because you've never even seen the only fact that matters. Have their predictions worked or not?

Now some of you have mentioned Tony Heller. Tony Heller often talks about historical predictions that have not worked and there are a lot of them. There are a lot of climate predictions from the past. If you go back to say the 70s and 80s, lots of predictions that didn't work. But it doesn't matter how many didn't work. If you had a thousand models that didn't work but you had one that did, that one that did is the