Leighton Smith Podcast #250 - August 7th 2024 - Andrew Hollis and Bryan Leyland

Over the last few years, three men (two New Zealanders and a South African) have researched the “science” of global warming.

They are not “climate scientists”, rather they are laymen. Unrestricted by career threats, they published “CLIMATE ACTUALLY, AND SOME TAKEAWAYS’.

They are now about to release volume two. Further details are in the interview with retired geologist Andrew Hollis.

Separately, we talk electricity supply, and the crisis we face with consulting engineer Bryan Leyland, who has experience in all aspects of the power industry.

And we visit The Mailroom with Mrs Producer.

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail]

Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.

Listen here on iHeartRadio

Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks. It be
follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time from all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of this now the Leighton
Smith Podcast powered by News Talks It be.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcast two hundred and fifty for August seven,
twenty twenty four. Before we get into the podcast, a
couple of personal notes. When I signed on for the podcast,
this is the sixth year. It was up for contract
at the beginning of last year and I signed on.
And part of the reason that I decided to keep

(00:51):
rolling was because this took me to a point that
I thought I wanted to reach. Because the beginning of August.
Can't remember the exact date, the beginning of August of
nineteen seventy four. Do a quick math fifty years ago
go and I thought, I thought, I want to get

(01:12):
to fifty years. It's just a little personal goal. But
it only came on when this current contract came up.
And I'm very pleased that I did. Question is and
we're going to sign up for another one at the
end of this year. Time will tell now Having mentioned
that I thought that I might do a little bit
on the first radio job that I had back in

(01:34):
nineteen seventy four. So I've decided at the back end
of this podcast two fifty, I'll read you a couple
of pages from the book Beyond the Microphone that covers
the initial impression of well, where I ended up in
that first ever radio job. So let's get into it

(01:54):
and let me quote you something from the back of
a book that features in the interview today. Is climate
in crisis?

Speaker 3 (02:03):
No?

Speaker 2 (02:04):
What nonsense? Planet Earth is currently in a CO two famine,
according to Professor Wilhapper, Atomic Physics, Princeton University and the
United States. Inevitably that truth will become apparent to everyone.
Is climate change about man made activities?

Speaker 1 (02:21):
No?

Speaker 2 (02:22):
Is the future of life on Earth? The reduction of emissions?

Speaker 4 (02:26):
No?

Speaker 2 (02:27):
Is climate change a hoax? Yes? The explanation for those
and the backing for those statements will become apparent in
the during the interview. But I decided what I wanted
to do this podcast when Air New Zealand made the
announcements too hard, too costly. Air New Zealand throttles back

(02:49):
pledged to cut emissions by twenty thirty and it was
only after that that I, spooling through this book, came
across this carbon farming and sequestration under climate tax regimes.
Being product of the Paris Accord. As in New Zealand,
corporations like in New Zealand and many others are buying

(03:11):
farmland to grow particularly Pinus radiata pine trees. In the
Gisbane area of New Zealand alone, it is estimated that
already in excess of twenty eight thousand hectares have been
so far purchased to date, with a lot more to
be purchased in the immediate future. Now you take that,

(03:31):
of course, is for sacking up CO two. Go back
to the comment by Professor Will Happer planet Earth is
currently in the CO two famine. Flies in the face
of everything you hear from politicians and the media. But
let's just pass on that as well. Within New Zealand.
Making that announcement and then coming across this commentary about

(03:53):
them buying loads of land in the Gisbane area, one
can only think what a foolish thing it was to
do at the time, rushing into a massive investment for
some peculiar reason that really is non applicable Now that
of course depends on your beliefs. If you've been suckered
in and you think that CO two is a pollutant,

(04:18):
that I hope that you'll listen to the interview today
and come out with a different perspective. And what I
really hope is that there will be many a parent
who will as a result of this interview and a
result of the book, because I think many of you
will want to get it and the sharing of it
with your school age kids, particularly high school kids, will

(04:40):
benefit them, if for no other reason, because it will
encourage some critical thinking and just as a ps This
particular interview is something that I had been planning to
do for quite some time and coincided with the release
of volume two of the book by Amazon Australia. But

(05:01):
there was another interview that I also wanted to do
but decided to delay because I wanted to talk to
somebody locally. And Andrew Hollis is a retired he's not
that old, but he is a retired geologist, and he
is one of the three. And he is one of
the three, and he is one of the three authors

(05:24):
of this book. Climate actually and some takeaways. Now, if
that sounds familiar. It is because it got a sort
of a release back around Christmas time, but some issues
in the bend and was put on hold. But now
it's in full flight, a full explanation when we get
to the interview with Andrew Hollis. It's a bit frustrating

(05:46):
at the moment because there is so much that deserves attention,
the release of the New Zealand Pandemic plan as an example,
and the WHI no longer being fit for purpose according
to Ramesh, the curb the New Zealand economy, and the
infrastructure that's in dire straits in this country, as has
been much discussed on radio and the last week or so,

(06:10):
the Reserve Bank announcement on cbdc's lookout, and the blight
of left wing politicians, particularly Greens in this country. The
blight then is Kamala Harris's running mate. Oh boy, what
a case. And the dire straits that Britain finds itself
in some parts at least. But these matters will have

(06:31):
to wait for another occasion. But there's plenty coming. Now
there is a second interview. Now there is a second interview,
and that is with electrical engineer Brian Leyland. With whom
we have spoken on numerous occasions over the years, and
you'll be very intrigued with his commentary on the power

(06:52):
situation in this country, which is not in dire straits,
sort of balanced on the edge. But in just a moment,
Andrew hollis, there are essential fat nutrients that we need
in our diets as the body can't manufacture them. These

(07:15):
are Omega three and Omega six fatty acids. Equisine is
a combination of fish oil and virgin evening primrose oil,
a formula that provides an excellent source of Omega three
and Omega six fatty acids in their naturally existing ratios.
The Omega six from evening primrose oil assists the Omega
three fish oil to be more effective. Equisine is a

(07:36):
high quality fish oil supplement enriched with evening primrose oil
that works synergistically for comprehensive health support. Source from the
deep sea sardines Anchovisa magrol provide essential Amiga three fatty
acids in their purest form without any internal organs or toxins.
Every batch is tested for its purity before it's allowed
to be sold. Equisine supports cells to be flexible, so

(08:00):
important to support healthy blood flow and overall cardiovascular health.
Equisine can support mood balance and mental claricy and focus
in children all the way to supporting stiff joints, mental focus,
brain health and healthy eyes as we get older. ECAs
in as a premium high grade fish and evening primrose
oil to be taken in addition to a healthy diet

(08:22):
and is only available from pharmacies and health stores. Always
read the label and users directed, and if symptoms persist,
seeing your healthcare professional. Farmer broker Auckland Layton Smith Andrew

(08:44):
Hollis has a degree in Earth Sciences. It's an MSc
with Hoddors. I might add a retired geologist who saw
the conflations, exaggerations and outright falsehoods from nineteen ninety when
he first became interested in the climate. His degree included volcanology,
astronomy and oceanography and allowed him to understand the complex

(09:08):
interactions between infrared radiation and the natural environment. As the
retoric has massively increased in New Zealand, the data has
not changed. A lack of catastrophe has inconveniently not matched
the hysteria. He continues to plot graphs and investigate the
claims of the increasingly shrill climate doomsday profits and supported

(09:33):
by a compliant, seemingly non investigative media. I'd add lazy
to that creating this summary for the layperson is important.
This book is to make a permanent record of the
main points as a foil to the ludicrous claims of
the climate alarmists. And it seems that the more the

(09:54):
climate system refuses to collapse, the loud of these people become,
and the more government change policy in an endless procession
of the Emperor's new clothes. Andrew hollis very good to
welcome to the Lat and Smith podcast, and I thank you.

Speaker 4 (10:11):
Thanks, Layton, Yeah, you're good to be here.

Speaker 2 (10:13):
Going back to where you were nineteen ninety and where
you started to get interested in the climate, Just just
give me a better description, a more extensive description of
why you opted out.

Speaker 5 (10:27):
Well, I guess the main thing for me was I've
been interested in science my whole life, as a kid
and all the way through. And I understood clearly what
was going on when I first went to university with
the interactions between the atmosphere and the other parts of

(10:48):
the world. Realizing that that certain things like volcanoes while
not driving, climate certainly affected it, and that the little
volcanoes that we'd seen, like Mount Saint Helen's, even Pinatubo
in a few years after I started, would affect the
global climate for a year or two. But his historically

(11:09):
there have been volcanoes that make Mount Saint Helen's look absolutely,
absolutely minuscule, and on a global sense, it absolutely is.
And so what I realized that there are things that
happen inside the Earth's system that created far bigger effects
than humans can ever create. And back in nineteen ninety,

(11:33):
like a lot of geologists in and around and before then,
we sort of felt that this climate science, this global
warming thing was a passing fad that would just just
fade away as nothing happened. And imagine my surprise some
thirty odd years later that not only did it not

(11:55):
become a passing fad, but became an extraordinarily expensive and
dangerous almost religion.

Speaker 2 (12:02):
That might be because it became a captured con.

Speaker 5 (12:06):
Well, yeah, the schedule lie, the noble lie where we
have to protect the environment and we're we're we're bad
creatures because we change the environment by by driving SUVs
and and and eating cattle and in the world.

Speaker 4 (12:25):
Will the world will push back against us because of that?

Speaker 5 (12:28):
And and it just seems like there's a word I'm
trying to think of that talks about our hubris. Is
it hubris that we can affect the atmosphere in such
a way as to cause a catastrophe? And the answer is,
we haven't got the technology or the ability to alter
the planets overall chemistry. We just we just we just

(12:50):
don't and lead alone with an innocuous gas like carbon dioxide,
which in my in my opinion, and what the evidence
suggests is it's entirely innocuous. It's it's there's nothing bad
happening because of an increase in CO two.

Speaker 2 (13:07):
What would you put behind and the success of the
campaign that has taken over the world.

Speaker 4 (13:15):
The success, I think is really simple.

Speaker 5 (13:17):
There's a conflation where all of the ills that the
world suffers are put at the feat of carbon dioxide,
that the one gas is bad, and then instead of
explaining why it's bad, it's just we're just told over
and over that it's a bad, bad thing. It's been

(13:38):
changed from carbon dioxide into carbon obviously, and then instead
of justifying that assertion, it goes into all of the
bad things that happen, and if you don't agree, then
you're a bad person. And it really touches on people's
tribal instincts that if you disagree with that, you're removed

(14:00):
from society. You're canceled, so to speak. And so people
don't want to be canceled. You don't want to be
called a denier for its and so there's this big
negative connotation to going against the narrative, as a lot
of scientists have found out you mentioned in Climber but
due to Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen and will happen supply,

(14:26):
any any scientist that pokes the head up above the
parapet and go, wait, the emperor is not wearing any
clothes is absolutely knocked down and vilified. There is there
is no escape from it. The the cancel culture is
alive and well in science. And it's even to the
point that if I was to write a paper that
described the lack of catastrophe and the entirely benign effect

(14:51):
of a slight increase in carbon dioxide, because I wouldn't
be able to get it published.

Speaker 2 (14:56):
No, you'd struggle. Although although there are now numerous ways
of having things in public frame.

Speaker 5 (15:04):
Yes, in recent years there have been, and it was
part of the reason where we decided to write the
book is to get something out in public that pulled
the mystery apart for people that were on the fence
or weren't certain.

Speaker 2 (15:20):
Now you would have been aware when you set out,
and we'll get to your fellow contributors in a moment,
there would have been an awareness on your part that
there have been any number of books that have been
published along these lines. And I start, I'm not saying
it was the first, because it wasn't. But but I
go back to Tim Ball, who I interviewed twice, and

(15:41):
the effect that he had before his unfortunate demise. But
the number of books that exist, both from overseas, and
I'm surprised at the number in New Zealand because I've
got them, was not a Was that not a hindrance
to you? At least? Did that not appear to be
a hindrance to what you wanted to achieve?

Speaker 4 (16:03):
No, I don't think so, Pauly on a book of file.

Speaker 5 (16:07):
I've got lots of books, and sometimes the way a
book has written suits somebody better than another. Perhaps there's
points that are made that aren't made in other books
as well, and it didn't. It didn't phase us. We
felt that we needed to write a book. None of
us really care about making an extraordinary fortune and in authorship,

(16:34):
otherwise I'd have written more books. It was about getting
our view out and locked into the public domain, so
that sometime in the future, certainly when my grandkids and
hopefully older generations past that look back that at least
someone in the family didn't buy into the nonsense.

Speaker 4 (16:52):
Once once the smoke clears.

Speaker 2 (16:55):
It's intriguing your fellow your fellow travelers. Mike Sanki being
one who started work as a policeman in Rhodesia, the
BSA Police and saw the transition through to Zimba that
he fought in a couple of oars and what have you.
But getting to the more relevant part. In twenty twenty
he completed a diploma in environmental management and this led

(17:19):
to further diplomas in geology, paleoantology and earth science, all
of which were passed with the distinction now that's and
there's more, but that gives him some sort of qualification.
I'm working up to something here and you'll get the
question in a moment. And then there was Alan Trotter,
who's a New Zealand lawyer has retired in has retired

(17:41):
in the Bay of Plenty. And I've never met Allan,
but I have corresponded with him and written and spoken
with him over a few years because he used to
contact me when I was still on radio, and I
was very surprised when I got the initial letter from

(18:02):
him to discuss the project that he and you were
working on. Now, the question I've got for you is this.
This is as much statement as questioned. You're the one
with the main Earth sciences qualifications.

Speaker 4 (18:21):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (18:22):
Mike has some now, but Alan doesn't. He has an.

Speaker 4 (18:27):
Interest, He has an interest.

Speaker 2 (18:29):
Although he did geography geology. Rather he did geology in
his law degree, which impressed me. But nevertheless, my proposal
to you is that you do not have to be
a qualified scientist in any particular area as far as
this is concerned. What you have to be is have

(18:50):
the initiative and power of critical thinking. Some experience with
dealing with statistics and opinions and evaluating figures and things
is of fairly important relevance you. But you don't have
to be someone with a p HD in climate science,

(19:11):
if there is such a thing, exactly right, and for
that matter, just to add to it, geologists, as far
as I'm concerned and have gathered, have probably the greater
ability to analyze the history of world climate than anybody else.
Am I wrong?

Speaker 6 (19:33):
You know?

Speaker 5 (19:33):
You're one hundred percent spot on? I even I've got
taken a one step further. I worked for quite a
number of years, something like twelve years or something, in
and around mining, and I've met hundreds and perhaps even
thousands of geologists from around the world, from all walks
of life, in different commodities, in different areas, and there

(19:54):
is a distinct split now between geologists who work for
a living and geologists who are academic. Academic geologists invariably
fall into the alarmist camp, and geologists who are out
in the field and working for corporates or for themselves

(20:16):
invariably can't believe.

Speaker 4 (20:18):
That this is even happening.

Speaker 5 (20:19):
And it was mind boggling for me to discover that
in the late nineties, when I first started actually working
as a geologist, that every single geologist I met felt
that this was a total nonsense. Until you met geologists
at conference who were academic geologists who all felt that the.

Speaker 4 (20:40):
World is ending and catastrophe is looming.

Speaker 5 (20:43):
But back to your main point of the area is
that you don't need to be a climate scientist. In fact,
I suggests that becoming a climate scientist now is detrimental
to critical thinking. That the ability to critically think if
you're studying climate science openly is diymed it at the

(21:04):
university level that you are not able to think that
way anymore or you won't pass.

Speaker 2 (21:09):
It's extraordinary, but again is extraordinary, but it does go
hand in glove with numerous other aspects to academia and
where we find ourselves in a very woke world, which
hopefully is in some form of retreat.

Speaker 5 (21:23):
Have you have you.

Speaker 2 (21:26):
Noticed at all anything across the area that I just
mentioned everything woke, that there is now growing pushback and
retreat in some areas.

Speaker 4 (21:39):
I'm noticing it with my kids.

Speaker 5 (21:41):
I've got four children, and they are starting to push
back themselves. I see them rolling your eyes when they
see woke nonsense turn up. They are starting to openly
joke about things that a few years ago were quite taboo,
and they've stopped caring about cancel culture in the way

(22:02):
that there was about a decade of cancel culture that
was very, very tough for young folk. But I've noticed
now they are starting to go back to just being
normal kids, joking about normal things and testing boundaries properly
again and without having to worry about what other people
think so much. I don't know whether it's just my kids,
but it seems to be that their friends and friends

(22:25):
or friends are starting to think in similar ways. That
they're starting to become a little more critical. They're becoming
a little bit more you know, I'm just going to
stay what I think and if it's funny, then great,
and if you don't like it, tough. And there's a
bit more of that attitude seems to be creeping through.
So with any luck the generation past, whatever we're up
to might come right.

Speaker 2 (22:47):
We'll see encouraging. I want to read you some headlines
that have led me more recently to accept what I
was promoting. And the reason that I wanted to talk
with you was because of an announcement by in New
Zealand a week or so back. Too Hard, Too Costly

(23:08):
Zealand Throttle's backpledge to cut emissions by twenty thirty so
that was the anchor. And I've collected some similar types
of headlines, and I want to quote them The Washington
Times editorial board, not the Washington Post. The Washington Times
declaring independence from hoaxes. Quote, let's put the climate change

(23:31):
fantasy to rest. What's being sold as science isn't science
at all. Beyond Longborg on why polar Bear by the
polar bear has been dropped as a climate mascot quote,
it finally became impossible to ignore the mountain of evidence
showing that the global polar bear population has increased substantially

(23:52):
from climate depot analysis. How no double a climate catastrophists mislead,
how a very small change in temperature appears much larger
and more significant. The energy transition ain't happening. Green economy
in retreat.

Speaker 6 (24:09):
Now.

Speaker 2 (24:09):
That's from and this gives credibility to what I was saying,
to what we were discussing a few moments ago. The
energy transition ain't happening. Green economy in retreat.

Speaker 4 (24:21):
Now.

Speaker 2 (24:21):
That's written by a man who writes under the title
of Manhattan Contrarian. He is a retired lawyer by allan,
but he lives in Manhattan in New York and he's
been writing columns for a number of years, because I
latched onto him from the very beginning, because of his

(24:41):
because of his legal expertise. But he's transitioned and he's
a prime example of exactly what you and I were
just discussing. Then there is global greening becomes so obvious
that climate of armists start arguing, we need to save
the deserts, and finally the UN's Green Agenda will spark famine.

(25:04):
Now that's a twelve page article from the Brownstone Institute
of Well, it's actually the second part of a series
looking at the plans of the United Nations and its
agencies designing and implementing the Agenda of the Summit of
the Future in New York twenty second twenty third of
September next month, at its implications for global health, economic development,

(25:28):
human rights. Previously, the impact on health policy of the
Climate Agenda was analyzed. That was in the first one.
The second one was published just a few days just
a few days ago. So there is a growing number
of headlines and articles that lead me to believe, and

(25:50):
obviously you that things might be correcting self correcting.

Speaker 4 (25:56):
Well, I certainly hope.

Speaker 5 (25:58):
So it's the amount of money spent on things like
renewable energy and putting solar panels in places that they
never going to work, and such things as eyewatering. It's
in the order of certainly the early trillions of dollars
a year that gets squandered on things that don't really help.

(26:21):
And if we talk about the environment, there are so
many environmental issues that could be resolved. If you gave
me two trillion dollars a year, I'm pretty sure I
could fix some things, and it wouldn't just be whacking
up some solar panels and in creating all manner of
environmental issues by focusing in the wrong areas. And that

(26:43):
this is what this is what I think frustrates me
the most is we've created a climate science.

Speaker 4 (26:51):
The opposite of a drought glut.

Speaker 5 (26:52):
Will do universities who are to become published, to become
a scientist, heading into climate science makes total sense if
and only if you agree with the narrative. If you don't,
then then in your you're worse than worse than a
physicist trying to eke out a living. And this is

(27:13):
a strange place to be where we've got people telling
effectively giant lies and believing the lies just to get
funding so that they can be a scientist of some sort,
ironically by doing it not being a scientist.

Speaker 4 (27:30):
It's a very strange place that we're in.

Speaker 5 (27:32):
And with any more headlines like what in New Zealand's done,
putting the nonsense out and getting on with doing business,
you know, and as an efficient environment in friendly way
as they can, as critical the more businesses that follow
that lead the better in my opinion. Just get on
with your knitting and stop trying to save the world

(27:54):
from a non existent bogie man.

Speaker 2 (27:56):
Let me transfer attention to book number two, which I
understand is going to be published by Amazon Australia. And
actually before we go on, I want to cover off
of the book itself because I made mention of it
back at the end of last year and things didn't

(28:17):
go quite the way that they should have or that
you would have liked them. And I'll give you my summary,
and that was for a variety of reasons. One is
because you decided in the end you'd self published because
you couldn't get it published because they wouldn't touch it.
Then you had bookshops that wouldn't take it, and so

(28:39):
as time went on, you developed the book further. Then
you decided more recently that you would split the book
into two. And so there is book one, which is
climate actually and some takeaways, and book two. What's the
title of book two.

Speaker 5 (28:56):
I just called volume two volume two, so it's the
same title, but volume two.

Speaker 2 (29:01):
And I know that you've just submitted the final version
to Amazon Australia and you told me that they're very quick,
very fast in getting it into print.

Speaker 5 (29:12):
Well it's yes. It takes a couple of days. They
take all the author's details and the information given and
make sure that it's suitable for the audience, it's not
explicit or anything that goes against community standards or things
like that, and then it turns up as ready to
ready to go quite quickly.

Speaker 2 (29:33):
Days and it's published out of Australia. And then this
is one of the great things of amazons spread around
the world because Australia is Australia and Amazon is a
far better place to get your books if you can,
than Americas. It is for a variety of reasons. Now,
just give me an outline then of how you how

(29:56):
you've approached the second book and what it covers.

Speaker 5 (30:01):
So when we put the first version together. We found
that we would write her to about a specific piece
of the puzzle piece of science, for example, how statistics
and graphs are used to confuse people that don't understand
statistics and graphs, and then we would talk about some

(30:23):
of the political aspects of why that was done and
where it was done and how it was being used
to confound people. But what we found is that we
were repeating ourselves throughout the book talking about very similar points,
and it started to make less sense to put it
as a linear journey through one book, and it made

(30:45):
more sense to create a book better suited for the
science and turning what can be quite a complicated science
into something easier for people without a science background to understand,
which is the main premise of the book anyway, and
then reference that through the second book, talking about how

(31:09):
various government policy and other things are affecting our lives
based off.

Speaker 4 (31:19):
Bad science.

Speaker 5 (31:20):
And so the second book becomes a little bit more
related to what happens when bad science is used to
confound people, rather than being about the science itself. So
the second book is our takeaway of what's happening with
each aspect of the whole picture, including things like why

(31:45):
the emissions trading scheme in New Zealand is a colossal
waste of money and time and hasn't worked. How vilifying
farmers is an extraordinary decision to make by governments and
by people. Frequently we find people that drive their TVs
around town are very happy to blame farmers for the

(32:06):
woes of the environment rather than taking responsibility themselves. But
it's that kind of thing inside the second book, which
ties in where the duplicity and the deceit is occurring.

Speaker 2 (32:20):
Is it specifically a New Zealand book.

Speaker 5 (32:23):
Parts of it are because we were quite close to
what the recent labor government was doing and prior to that,
the signing of the Paris Accord by the national government
prior to twenty nineteen, and so there's various aspects of
what happened locally that we've used because that was very

(32:44):
familiar to us.

Speaker 4 (32:45):
But those same.

Speaker 5 (32:49):
Governmental policy decisions have been made in virtually every wes
in virtually every Western government in exactly the same manner.

Speaker 4 (32:56):
So it might be New Zealand.

Speaker 5 (32:58):
Focused on a couple of issues, but it will translate
well into Canada and Australia. In the US, and certainly
in Europe there will be very very similar examples that
people will be able to pick up on.

Speaker 4 (33:12):
I think quite quickly.

Speaker 2 (33:13):
I'm just going back to the two volume one and
under the heading the science. I won't read it all,
but I'll pick it up in the second paragraph. Even
when scientists agree what they can agree on, they could
also be wrong, and scientists are frequently wrong. That is

(33:37):
the point of trying to prove theories. Now, if I
go back to earlier in the book under a different headline,
New Zealand's ex Prime Minister Descenda A. Dern on two
December twenty twenty use the same retric talking about the

(33:58):
science involved, and she declared in the New Zealand Parliament
a need for certain conditions to prevail under the authority
of a declaration of Climate Emoon Agency. Parliamentary Hansard records
faithfully her opening first sentence remark as being I think
the first and most important point is to make is
that this is a declaration based on science close quote.

(34:24):
And thereafter in that parliamentary introductory speech not once did
she use or refer to the word science again. She
is now left to the New Zealand government and thereby
requiring others to stew in the duces not scientific substances
that she had already created. No, I want to go

(34:46):
to one other person on the next page. Similarly, James Shaw,
New Zealand Government's Minister for Climate Change, has admitted that
the EDS Climate Change and Business Conference in Auckland, New
Zealand reported reported November twenty second, twenty twenty the New
Zealand Herald that he has limited understanding of the science involved.

(35:13):
Yet New Zealand government policy on climate change promotes a
highly problematical climate declaration which attributes climate calamity primarily to
the continuation of emissions of man made greenhouse gases into
the Earth's atmosphere. This is the science claim to be
calamitous and which is not supported not supported by appropriately

(35:38):
appropriately qualified scientists. Now that really summarizes that whole scenario,
does it not?

Speaker 5 (35:45):
It absolutely does, And it's probably my pet peeve with
things like the IPCC, where they do a fantastic job
of pulling it all together and then give the whole
lot away to a bunch of policy writers who ignore
the science and come out with a lot of stuff
that completely ignores the other working groups that have spent

(36:07):
time talking about things that makes sense. It's people like
James Shaw who have got a fundamental view on climate
science and how it should be operating, have got no
place talking about science at all.

Speaker 4 (36:27):
They've that just doesn't have the bandwidth to cover it.

Speaker 5 (36:31):
And for him to sit there and change policy and
be the head of something that is changing the way
that certainly kiwis operate and take tax money off people
to spend on something should at least have a passing
understanding of what's actually going on and be honest. I
guess that's an interesting term too for politicians, but it

(36:54):
would be refreshing to see a politician that had an
understanding of something in the real world and could handle
on stand there and just be honest about it.

Speaker 4 (37:05):
It's on here being sure it was awful.

Speaker 2 (37:09):
Well, there's a word I'd like to use with regards
to James Shaw, but I probably shouldn't. But if you
if you're looking for a politician who who has the capacity,
then you've missed the boat because I'm referring to Rodney Hyde,
the only, if you like, individual in Parliament who had

(37:35):
the ability to analyze and discuss and decide on this matter.

Speaker 4 (37:42):
I think you.

Speaker 5 (37:42):
I think you're right, but for various captain's calls, just
a cinder dune's captain call on the oil and gas
industry in New Zealand just about wrecked us as far
as as far as the energy requirements that we need
as a nation, almost wrecked us. The long term effects

(38:06):
of that decision will prevent us developing our oil fields
for decades. And it was an absolutely appalling, an appalling
decision based on zero understanding of the.

Speaker 2 (38:18):
Science, zero understanding of much else as much. I think that,
noting the discussion that was around on Monday morning of
this week, so that would be the fifth of August.
With regard to infrastructure in the situation that New Zealand

(38:38):
finds itself in, I think you can shoot much of
the present situation back to that statement, and not entirely,
but enough of it to be worthy of mention.

Speaker 4 (38:49):
I agree.

Speaker 5 (38:50):
It's the fact that we can't make our own bitumen
in New Zealand anymore, that we have to pull it
in from overseas in extraordinary cost just to keep the
stuff from silifying on the water.

Speaker 4 (39:03):
There's nuts.

Speaker 2 (39:05):
And it's just then there was the air fuel supply
line from from up north down to the airport that
that has made it made a very rapid exit from
from this world and this life. It was just it
was insanity, to be honest.

Speaker 5 (39:25):
It is it's it's the it's the madness of crowds
all over, and it's it's the number of people that
supported removal of that pipeline because of the dangers of
aviation fuel and forgetting about the necessity of as well,
and there's no balance between those two things. It's it
might be that fossil fuel is the most disgusting, horrible

(39:49):
thing we've ever created, but as far as energy self
sufficiency goes, it's the best we've got. And to to
try and just remove it from our world it just
makes no sense.

Speaker 4 (40:02):
There is no there is no sense.

Speaker 5 (40:04):
We should get more and more efficienty using it and
in workout ways of doing it cleaner and cleaner, which
we have been doing for generations, and gradually gradually wean
ourselves offered over over hundreds of years and not decades
or lease. And in the pain that we're going to

(40:25):
feel if this continues is going to be very dramatic
for our kids.

Speaker 2 (40:30):
Good of course, CO two is only one is only one.
Aspect of greenhouse gases methane. There has been a lot
of discussion about methane, and there have been some extremely
qualified scientists who have said, giving, giving, giving all the
reasons why methane is not a threat, what does a geologist.

Speaker 5 (40:54):
Say, Well, there's a there's a few things to break
down around methane, but the primary one is that methane's
life cycle is extraordinarily short, and it turns into vapor
and carbon dioxide very very quickly. So any methane that's
in our environment breaks down extraordinary, extraordinary fast and has

(41:17):
almost zero effect on any kind of warming potential at all.
But the main thing about methane that is always forgotten,
and this is something that if we were being honest,
New Zealand would already be absorbing more carbon dioxide than
it produces if we would just include grassland in the

(41:39):
accounting for where the carbon dioxide goes. We ignore grassland,
so we don't take into account the amount of carbon
dioxide that gets trapped in New Zealand soils every year.
We ignore the fact that almost all of our cattle
and the methane produced is from grass that has already

(42:00):
absorbed carbon dioxide. From the atmosphere almost on a one
to one molecule basis. But every piece of methane that
comes from a cow is one tenth of the amount
that it's ingested. So the most of the carbon dioxide
that a cow absorbs is turned into meat or wool
or milk or all of the other parts of a cow,

(42:22):
and only something close to eight or nine percent of
it is emitted is methane. And it's a negative. It's
a reduction in carbon dioxide, not an increase. But because
the carbon accounting is done in such a way that
any methane is considered bad our herds looking to be

(42:43):
cold over the next decades, which is.

Speaker 4 (42:47):
Absolute nonsense.

Speaker 2 (42:49):
Garbage.

Speaker 4 (42:50):
It is total garbage.

Speaker 5 (42:51):
Even if you look at the science behind methane, carbon
dioxide and water vapor being greenhouse gases, the amount of
warming that methane can do is so so trivial that
even if we increase methane a thousandfold, it can't do anything.
It literally, it literally can't cause any extra warming beyond

(43:15):
a fraction of a degree. If if that it's it's
the idea, the notion of it is is so middle
heated that it's it's almost laughable, And it would be
laughable if we weren't spending so much money trying to
prevent it.

Speaker 2 (43:31):
Now, the second book is let's run run through that again.
The second book is basically about your what I would
I be unfair because I don't have a copy? I
haven't seen one because there isn't one. But would it
be unfair to say that this is your the three
of you and your interpretation of where things are going?

Speaker 5 (43:55):
Yes, that would be a fear. That would be a fear. Summary.
We we reference parts of the different sciences.

Speaker 4 (44:04):
We reference things like the I P. C. C. And
where it's good and where it's not good.

Speaker 6 (44:09):
And we book a.

Speaker 5 (44:09):
Lot about the different policies that various countries have made
and the cost of those policies and how it's keeping
people as ignorant as possible of climate and just to
believe whatever assertion comes out of whoever's trying to increase
some sort of tax or some sort of spend on.

Speaker 4 (44:33):
Some kind of green related industry or.

Speaker 5 (44:38):
Environmental concern, that that isn't really an environmental concern. So
we spend a bit of time opining about that, but
basing it on the first book, which is pulling the
science apart, so we show how those things are all linked.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
So there was a there was a definitive connection between
the two books. Yes, right, So staying with the political
side of things, what's your well, you've give us some
indic what's your current opinion of the current government and
where it's at.

Speaker 4 (45:17):
I'm ever hopeful that.

Speaker 5 (45:21):
They will they will shift away from this position, but
I feel that they're going to rearrange the deck chairs
on the Titanic. That we won't pull out of the
Paris Accords, for example, completely, that we won't we will
or as a country we will continue to vilify carbon
dioxide and talk about the ets and and health. Farmers

(45:45):
have got more of a burden to shoulder than other
folk for the use of fuels that generate carbon dioxide.
I don't think anything's really changed. Some of the languaging
has softened and isn't so dramatic, But I don't see
any policy changes coming of any substance.

Speaker 2 (46:05):
I look to Holland as an example, and Germany, but
in Europe in general, if you like, But Holland, Holland
has led the way and continues to with farmers who
will not tolerate what they're being dealt, and they won't
go they won't lie down and die without protesting as

(46:26):
much as they possibly can. And there is a there
is a sort of I suppose you could say, an
economic war going on in Holland at the moment, has
been for a while. Is there the strength of shall
I say, character, in enough New Zealand farmers to take
them on the powers that be more than they have?

Speaker 5 (46:50):
I think there is. I think some of the issue
in New Zealand is that even though farmers are being hit,
there's still enough money to survive, and so they're holding.

Speaker 4 (47:02):
Off rocking the boat.

Speaker 5 (47:04):
And if I was to give permission for farmers to
rock the boat as hard as they could, I think
I think that they should. I think they should make
a point, very very strongly that farming is still the
backbone of our nation and it's unreasonable for them to

(47:25):
be bearing the brunt of what is a fallacious a
fallacious argument. And seeing the policy changes from all manner
of things like changing the fertilizers that can be used
to prevent nitrates in things I'm getting into the atmosphere
and the waterways, the waterways I agree with. I think

(47:45):
that that should be a light touch. But farmers and
in methane is a non argument, and I think I
would love to see them rise up and actually spend
a week protesting and stopping milk production and or dumping milk.
I maybe remember in the eighties where farmers were dumping

(48:05):
milk and protesting properly on hoping that we haven't turned
into a weak world nation around this type of thing,
that farmers should stand up and take their place with pride,
that they should be able to do what's right for
the country without being penalized and punished.

Speaker 4 (48:28):
And vilified themselves.

Speaker 5 (48:29):
It strikes me that we may have lost the will
to fight back, and I certainly hope it's not true.

Speaker 2 (48:37):
Just remind us what the cause was back in the eighties.

Speaker 5 (48:41):
Look back in the eighties, I was ten or twelve
or something, and I just remember mountains of milking being
dumped into rivers regularly, and I remember wondering exactly what
that was all about.

Speaker 4 (48:55):
But I literally don't remember why.

Speaker 2 (48:57):
I'll find out and added form both of us.

Speaker 5 (49:02):
Yeah, I just remember little things like that happening. I
don't remember if it was if it was the government
dumping milk, or whether it was arms protesting. But I
do remember somebody dumping a load of manure on the
steps of Parliament at some point with the tractor, and
I thought that was kind of cool. That's a that's
a statement that gets some good headlines, and I can
see people getting behind that. But what the French farmers

(49:22):
and the Dutch farmers did where they took to the
streets and absolutely protested, was.

Speaker 4 (49:30):
Was I think what is required to wake this nation up?

Speaker 2 (49:34):
Well, maybe your two books will contribute to that, stony hope.

Speaker 5 (49:40):
So if nothing else, if it gets a few people
to understand that that that strange feeling that they've got,
that there's something not quite right, that there was reasons
for it, and then they can look at the graphs
that have popped up on TV and see why the
graph doesn't quite say what.

Speaker 4 (49:57):
The commentator says. That says that would be a useful win.

Speaker 2 (50:02):
What would be the for both books? What would be
the age the lower age limit that you would suggest.

Speaker 4 (50:11):
It'd have to be at high school.

Speaker 5 (50:12):
I would suggest that anything younger than younger than maybe
I was going to say fifth form, but year eleven
might start getting a little tough.

Speaker 4 (50:22):
But it's not that tough.

Speaker 5 (50:26):
So I would say anything from fifteen and up, and
you'll get some kids that you know from eight to
ten will probably get something out of it as well
that it might.

Speaker 4 (50:37):
Help them question.

Speaker 5 (50:39):
Ideally, it'll be parents that will will get the understanding
so that when their kids come home from school with
some weird ideas, that they've been trained and they can
counter it. And it's encounter it with some authority, which
would probably help a lot. You know, our kids are

(51:00):
wonderful little sponges that get to believe and get told
or manner of things at school, and they're expected just
to believe what they're told with our questioning is both
both you and I probably remember from school. Questioning doesn't
It doesn't necessarily get you for And so if we
can have our parents trained to to re educate kids

(51:23):
at home, that would be a useful thing.

Speaker 2 (51:25):
Something just entered my mind. I wonder whether supplying a
few schools, and they'd have to be they'd be good
schools obviously, with copies of the books for teaching purposes
might be an advantageous thing. Now I'm not suggesting, I'm
not suggesting you should give them away, but maybe there's

(51:49):
maybe there's somebody listening who at their stage of life
has a few a few coins lying around that they
they're looking for something something positive to do with. Would
would contribute to purchasing some and we could set up
it would be we could set up a system whereby

(52:11):
those schools could be notified and respond accordingly.

Speaker 4 (52:16):
That would be.

Speaker 5 (52:16):
That would be amazing, It would it would literally be amazing.
I've gone into a lot of schools to speak about
various aspics of geology and science, many many, many times.

Speaker 4 (52:29):
In love doing it.

Speaker 5 (52:30):
I'd happily go and and talk to schools about trbon
dioxide and how it really how it really operates.

Speaker 2 (52:38):
Just to conclude, I've opened I've opened your books, just randomly,
and I'm on page two hundred and sixty eight. Awarded
in twenty ten the Wolf Prize in Physics, the second
most prestigious physics award. Doctor Klauser by Doctor Klauser argues

(52:58):
that climate pseudoscience has been promoted and extended by misguided
business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In
my opinion, he said, there is no real climate crisis.
There is, however, a very real problem with providing a

(53:19):
decent standard of living to the world's largest population, and
an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated
by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science. Keeping
in mind he's not a climate scientist, but he is
a physicist, and he won the Nobel Prize about to
three years ago. Isn't it strange that the physicist and

(53:42):
chemists of this world seemed to have a very good
understanding of what's going on, understand equilibrium and therbal dynamics,
which are the core forces in gas behavior. The World
Climate Declaration has been signed by around three hundred climate
professors and states the following there is no climate emergency

(54:03):
close quote. The lead signatory is the Nobel Laureate professor
Iver gave her Climate models are said to be not
remotely plausible as global policy tools. They exaggerate the effect
of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, but ignore any
beneficial effect. The declaration states, and finally, climate science has

(54:27):
degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not a sound,
self critical science. And that was the award winning professor.

Speaker 4 (54:39):
And not a thing wrong with that statement either.

Speaker 2 (54:42):
No, I want to congratulate you and you and your
fellow contributors. Thank you both, Allen Trotter and Mike Senk.
I think you've done a superb job and I can't
wait to get my hands on the second volume, and
you will advise me when it's available.

Speaker 5 (54:59):
I will as as soon as I've got the going
huge from Amazon, I'll let you know exactly what it is.
It'll be on our website as well. We've got a
site called climate actually dot com and all the links
to the books and things like that will be beyond
me and Mike's going to be doing a newsleader which
we'll post through that and so that that that website

(55:20):
will be will be a starting point for a lot
of people.

Speaker 2 (55:23):
Will power to your books, to your website, to your him.

Speaker 4 (55:28):
Thank you so much. It was it was an absolute pleasure.
Thank you very much.

Speaker 2 (55:31):
Andrew.

Speaker 7 (55:31):
Great to talk to you. Thanks God, pleasure.

Speaker 2 (55:52):
Brian Leyland is a power systems engineer. He's got sixty
years experience around the world and in New Zealand, and
he and I have been talking on and off for
any number of years. I can't remember, but there's been
a while. Brian. It's it's good to have you on
a podcast. I was going to say the crisis, but

(56:12):
we're not really in a crisis. We're on the edge
of a crisis, aren't we. There was a big spike
in the wholesale electricity price yesterday and you've just told
me that it's on again today.

Speaker 6 (56:23):
Yep, that's right. For the last week pretty well, prices
have been over this wholesale market have been over a
dollar a killer what hour, which is three times a
domestic price, And yesterday and again today they've gone up
to a dollar sixty per killer what hour. This is
not something that can continue without a disaster of some sort.

Speaker 2 (56:45):
How did this come about?

Speaker 6 (56:46):
Two reasons. Basically, the electricity market model that was chosen
in nineteen ninety six was against the advice for consultants
who advised on an alternative model called a single buyer model,
which they were sure would work anyway. They also offered
this particular model and warned that it was more risky,

(57:08):
and the wholesale Market Development Group chosen and we're now
seeing the predictable consequences. The market is behaving is exactly
as you would expect from its design. When you get
a shortage, the prices go up.

Speaker 2 (57:22):
Why did they choose this one.

Speaker 6 (57:23):
Do you think market forces were all in the rage
and they thought it was a genuine market when it's not.
And so they would into thinking that if you call
something a market, it really is a market. If they'd
look at a bit closer, they would realize that electricity
is not a market commodity as Adam Smith would know it.

Speaker 2 (57:46):
And that is because there is no alternative.

Speaker 6 (57:49):
There's no alternative, and there's no pricey lstedity. And we
see that right now the price is sky high, and
yet the demand hasn't gone down. The demand's actually quite
high at the moment. All right.

Speaker 2 (58:00):
So I'm as simpleton when it comes to this, and
i'd suggest I'm in a very large group. So at
the moment you said we're paying, I'm paying thirty cents
a killer what hour, which sounds quite reasonable.

Speaker 6 (58:17):
It's higher than it should be, but it's not too unreasonable.

Speaker 2 (58:22):
Okay, And what are they paying in the wholesome mode?
Who's suffering from this right at this moment?

Speaker 6 (58:30):
The people that are suffering are generators hydrogenerators who are
short of water and can't generator as much as they've
contracted to sell, and they're having to buy on the
spot market. I don't know if for how many of
them that exist. But also the small retailers who are
relying on contracts with generators at a certain price, and

(58:54):
again the generator can't deliver or something goes wrong and suddenly,
or they haven't bought enough power and suddenly they are
forced to buy on the spot market and sell at
their contracted price. Sotil. In that situation, we'll go to
the war quite quickly. Belly up, belly up, No comeback,

(59:14):
not as far as I know.

Speaker 2 (59:16):
Okay, So all this is all This is dependent really
on how much rain we might or might not get.

Speaker 6 (59:26):
Yeah, if we get heavy rain within a month, it
will go away for this year, but it'll come back
again next year if it's even moderately dry.

Speaker 2 (59:37):
Right you opened You've sent me some comments last night
which kept me awake. I my dad, But you opened
up with saying the present situation is serious in the
short term and in the long term. In the long term,
it doesn't. If it doesn't rain soon, the lakes will
bottom out and will be short of roughly ten percent
of demand. Ten percent of demand would affect who the

(59:59):
most well.

Speaker 6 (01:00:02):
If if this happens, the only option the industry is
got is the institute rotating but rotating blackouts, and they'll
have to be very carefully selected. So we don't shut
down people with dial alsus machines. We mustn't shut down
dairy companies because I'll have to dumb milk. And there

(01:00:23):
are a lot of vital supplies that we've got to
keep going, so that to a large extent, they will
be forced to shut down rural feeders, domestic feeders. That's
the blackout houses rather than industries.

Speaker 2 (01:00:37):
All right, so what period of time have we got?
What period of time do we have between now and
possible blackouts without rain? Four to six weeks normally at
this time of the year, would we not expect plenty
of rain?

Speaker 6 (01:00:52):
No, it comes, Yeah, it's beginning to rain in this
time of the year, but sometimes it doesn't rain n
till September.

Speaker 2 (01:01:01):
If that were the case, would there be a let's
just say that in September, say the end of Septem timber,
we got plenty of rain and the lakes started to fill.
Would that then rectify the situation in time?

Speaker 6 (01:01:16):
It would rectrofide for this year. But we've got a
problem in that as a moment, at least, there's not
much snow on the mountains, so the spring runoff will
normally get from the melting snow will be less normal,
and the big problem will be getting the legs full
again before next autumn when the rain normally backs off.

(01:01:38):
And that's going to be very difficult, okay, especially as
we will probably lose more thermal generation and we'll be
even shorter of gas than we are now.

Speaker 2 (01:01:50):
But surely we'll be saved by green power.

Speaker 6 (01:01:54):
What's going to happen with as we get more and
more green power, We're going to get periods where the
wind's blowing and the sunshining and we have a surplace
of electricity and the price crashes to zero, which is
happened in the recent post. And when the wind's not
blowing and the sun's not shining, we'll get blackouts because

(01:02:15):
there's nothing nothing there to keep the lights.

Speaker 2 (01:02:18):
On, nothing to store, no where to store it.

Speaker 6 (01:02:21):
But what that means is that the solar and wind
farms will not get too much revenue because much of
the time when they're generating well, the price will be zero,
so they will turn out to be less and less
economic the more we make so the generators, they will
pick up on this pretty quick and stop building them,
so it won't have anything.

Speaker 2 (01:02:42):
Is there the money just thought of this? Is there
any chance that along this path, at some stage the
country would be so desperate the government would utilize unusual powers.

Speaker 6 (01:03:00):
In the worst scenario, It's inevitable because along with the shortage,
you get high prices, and if they start going even higher,
it's going to be chaotic. More and more industries will
shut down, more and more poor people will not have
enough electricity, and I think the government will just have
to take over the management of the system and say

(01:03:22):
we're going to pay the generators the actual cost of
generation rather than in fated prices, and we're going to
regulate the rotating blackouts until this is all over.

Speaker 2 (01:03:34):
There's a couple of things that I want to pick
out of what you what you wrote The Taranaki Combined
cycle station. The situation with that.

Speaker 6 (01:03:46):
It's a three hundred and eighty a Mega what combined
cycle station. It's been running for maybe thirty years, and
it's in need of a major overhaul, which contact are
not prepared to do because they've got no assurance of
a continued supply of gas. But from the country's point
of view, we desperately need it to stay generating using

(01:04:08):
up as to a guess.

Speaker 2 (01:04:09):
And what would be the cost of the overhaul?

Speaker 6 (01:04:11):
I believe it's in a region of one hundred and
fifty million.

Speaker 2 (01:04:15):
I understand why they why they're not not.

Speaker 6 (01:04:17):
Interested a pretty cheap way of getting three hundred and
eighty megawes online.

Speaker 2 (01:04:22):
What would three hundred and eighty megawatts be percentage wise
for the country's requirements or presence?

Speaker 6 (01:04:30):
It would go if it could run continuously in the
quick abundant supply of guess it would go, you know,
quite a long way towards making up the difficit. Who
owns it? Contact Energy?

Speaker 2 (01:04:44):
All right, they own it, but they won't pay for
upgrading it.

Speaker 6 (01:04:48):
They can't justify no, well they.

Speaker 2 (01:04:50):
Hang on, hang on, hang on. They can't justify it
on their on their books. So what you're saying, yeah,
so is so? Is there any is there any escape
as far as as this is concerned, justifying doing it
in another way as in the government pays for it? Oh, sorry,
the taxpayer.

Speaker 6 (01:05:11):
Made government intervention. But you can say that for New
Zealand Inc. It's probably a worthwhile investment. The other thing
they could do is it's at the time. It's at
the time, it has to be overhauled, and the insurance
companies won't insured beyond that because of us breakdown. So
the government could say run it and we'll cover the insurance, right,

(01:05:36):
And that's a short term thing, and it's probably reasonably
safe to accept the risk of breaking down rather than
having it shut down anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:05:46):
Okay, so let me just throw in some thoughts. The
demand for power is increasing, and we'll go on increasing.
How do we handle things like or how are they
going to handle things like electric cars?

Speaker 6 (01:06:07):
All over the world. Well, the electric car market is
dying because people don't want to buy them. Forty six
percent of people who own electric cars in the USA
wouldn't buy another one, And all over the world people
are discovering that the advantages are very small and the
disadvantages are quite high. I mean, it's no more than

(01:06:30):
a conventional card with a tiny fuel tank that takes
half an hour of film. Who would want one of those?

Speaker 2 (01:06:36):
I'm stuffed if I know.

Speaker 6 (01:06:39):
And the other thing is that the cost of reducing
carbon dioxide using electric cars is very high. It's a
bit hard to find out, but it's at least three
hundred dollars per ton of carbon dioxide saved. There's better
and cheaper ways of saving carbon dioxide.

Speaker 2 (01:06:55):
Do you want to Why do we want to save
carbon dioxide?

Speaker 6 (01:07:00):
Because everybody believes that it changes the climate, never mind
that it doesn't.

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
Not everybody, not as we as as we discovered in
the previous interview in this podcast, and hopefully hopefully there
will be more awakenings. So is there anything else that
you what are at?

Speaker 4 (01:07:23):
No?

Speaker 6 (01:07:24):
I think that comes it. We've just got to cross
our thinkers and hope and range and the government should
be making sure that it's got plans in hand to
move if if it really tends to custom.

Speaker 2 (01:07:38):
Have you any knowledge or information on what they might
be thinking?

Speaker 6 (01:07:45):
All I know is that the Finance Minister is seriously worried.
But the Energy Minister didn't get a mention on the
news lights note. Why do you think I'm puzzled? There's
a lot to be There's a lot to be puzzled about.
The Other thing is that the Electricity Authority is supposed
to be the guardian of the electricity system, isn't saying

(01:08:08):
a word. There hasn't been anything out of them that
mentions the high prices of the problems of the low
leg levels.

Speaker 2 (01:08:15):
The energy of the electricity authority. Yeah, just outline it
for us. How many people and how many people involved.

Speaker 6 (01:08:25):
Probably fifty or one hundred people. But they're all due
also do with the regulation of the of the market
and things like that. So they believe that the market's work.
You know, all they're going to do is put sticking
past or over it to patch up the bits that
aren't working. They're not standing back and saying this has

(01:08:45):
got us in the big problems. What are we going
to do?

Speaker 2 (01:08:49):
Well? Maybe that's because they haven't got any idea. Yeah,
which is consistent, by the way, with so many other
aspects of and issues in this in this country. There
was one other thing that I that I did want
to raise with you, and that is nuclear power. I'm
in favor of nuclear power. How many others might there

(01:09:10):
be in my group?

Speaker 6 (01:09:11):
I think there's many more of than the public belief.
I think most people and you see them, believe that
it's outlawed when it's not. The Anti Nuclear Ship's Law
was carefully written to allow nuclear power generation. But if
you believe in dangerous men made global warming. Nuclear power

(01:09:32):
is the obvious answer, and I cannot understand why the
environmentalists and others who are pushing catastrophe of global warming
aren't also supporting nuclear power.

Speaker 2 (01:09:44):
I know the answer, what is it? They're not very bright?
End of story.

Speaker 6 (01:09:51):
But I do public talks on net zero quite often,
and half and ask the audience if they think we
should be considering nuclear power, and usually more than half
the hands go up. A lot of people think it
should be considered. Well, that's the government should be doing
right now.

Speaker 2 (01:10:07):
Okay. Well, when I say they're not very bright, I'm limiting,
limiting it to what you just said that ruling it
out is not very bright.

Speaker 6 (01:10:19):
It's stupid in the extreme.

Speaker 2 (01:10:21):
You got it, Brian, appreciate it. Thank you, and I
hope we don't need to talk again soon, but if
we do, we.

Speaker 6 (01:10:26):
Will, Okay, I mean, no talking to you.

Speaker 2 (01:10:29):
Thanks, thanks so much. Welcome to the mail room for
podcast two hundred and fifty, missus producer.

Speaker 3 (01:10:47):
And talking of fifty late in two hundred and fifty.
Congratulations eighty years, and I mean fifty years in broadcasts.
Little down sometimes it feels like it. Not that I've
been there all that time, but congratulations. It's a wonderful achievement.

Speaker 2 (01:11:03):
Years. You're right, fifty years in broadcasting. The two hundred
and fifty is podcas past. And I just see a
quick calculation in my head when you said that, and
that means you've been you and I have been working
together there for thirty six years. Good grief, really, and
you look very well for it. Thanks very much. Now,

(01:11:25):
why don't you go for your life?

Speaker 4 (01:11:28):
It's a good.

Speaker 3 (01:11:29):
Lating, Phil says, just back from three weeks in the USA,
and I'm in the process of catching up on the
podcasts I missed. Thought you might be interested in what
the locals are thinking about the forthcoming election. I landed
there barely an hour after the assassination attempt on Trump,
and whilst it was obvious all over the media, there

(01:11:50):
was very little discussion about it among the population in general. Likewise,
with Biden stepping down, a similar lack of interest was shown.
I traveled from Ohio in the north all the way
down to Texas, with a few days in Hawaii to
finish off, and during that time spent many a convivial
hour in bar and such chatting with the locals Whilst

(01:12:11):
the TV was saturated with the Republican v. Democrat battle.
Absolutely no mention by the way of Kennedy at all.
I only met one local who was open to a
chat about the forthcoming election. She was rather knowledgeable, correctly
picking who Trump's running mate would be, and gave me
a potted history of every dodgy US election going right

(01:12:32):
back to JFK. In the main, however, the public at
large seemed far more interested in the implications than you
kickoff Rale would have had on the NFL. Thoroughly enjoyed
the highly interesting range of guests you have on the
podcast or the best Phil.

Speaker 2 (01:12:48):
Phil appreciate that. But I have a question, where did
you go in Texas? I'm always interested in where people
go in the lone Star state. So let me know
from Samuel, as an American on that's coincidental as an
American four years there are certain things that I have
only bought with cash. Even though these things are legal,

(01:13:12):
i e. Alcohol, I did not want the government to
know I was buying them. A credit card leaves a trail,
c B DC will leave a trail of everything you buy.
The government would love to have that information. Thanks for
your terrific podcast, Sam, Thanks for your terrific email. I

(01:13:32):
wonder if you do what I do, and that is
encourage people to spend more cash, utilize cash more more
than they have been because we had the release of
the details of what the government, sorry, what the Reserve
Bank has planned for this country. And there is plenty
more to be said about that, just not this.

Speaker 3 (01:13:50):
Week, Layton Rogers says. Talking of cbdc's, he says, I'm
a late starter to your podcast, working my way through
the back catalog. I can recommend, by the way, the
book Broken Money by Lynn Alden, a history of Fiat
currency and how bitcoin, block chain and cbdc's fit into
the next major change of how the world deals with money.

(01:14:14):
Keep up the great work later and kind regards Roger Roger.

Speaker 2 (01:14:19):
I had a look at that book online and I'll
probably buy it. Thank you, Ah Jim. It's not Karmala
Harris's success nor intelligent that makes her particularly dangerous. It
is her misplaced beliefs when you say nor her intelligence.

(01:14:41):
She's not that right, Believe me. While Joe Biden merely
lent his vacant mind to the woke virus, Kamala Harris
has sold her very soul to her woke God. As
Patrick Bashan put it, Carmela actually believes in woke. The
most dangerous cult leaders in the world are the ones
who so deeply believe in their own delusions that they

(01:15:03):
would sacrifice their followers' lives to them. If Karlama wins
the election, she will turn the entire American political engine
into a full blown woke machine, making America jonestown twenty
twenty four. He goes on, just look at what the
woke virus did in the Olympics with its blasphemous sexualization
of Jesus Last Supper and pitting a male boxer who

(01:15:26):
nearly killed a woman in women's boxing. All there were
two actually woke kills people. In a recent Jordan Peterson
interview with Elon Musk, Elon explained why he hated woke
so much and had every intent of eradicating the woke virus.
He said that he was tricked into signing off one
of his sons into so called gender affirming care, resulting

(01:15:48):
in the irreversible mutilation of his son's perfectly working male body.
He basically said his son was killed by the woke
virus and he wants vengeance good on him. I say,
whilst I have utmost faith in Patrick Basham's utterly scientific
and honest polls, honest poles can't predict election sheets and

(01:16:08):
the Democrats are highly accomplished at cheating. If the Democrats win,
then they have succeeded in making America woke again. God
forbid a couple of couple of links, but we don't
need those.

Speaker 3 (01:16:23):
Leyton Dean says, I'm not sure if you've seen it,
but there's a documentary called Climate the Movie on YouTube.
It's an excellent look at the corruption on climate change.
Be good if you could try and spread it across
your channel. That's what Dean says.

Speaker 2 (01:16:38):
And I wrote to him about that, and I said,
what did I say?

Speaker 3 (01:16:43):
Oh yeah, so you have you say check out podcast
two three five?

Speaker 4 (01:16:50):
Dean, thank you?

Speaker 2 (01:16:51):
And what did he say?

Speaker 3 (01:16:52):
He says, thanks for applying. Why are you making me
do this later? And if you know what you've been doing.
I have just listened to podcasts two three five. I
am not sure how I missed it. Very good to
listen to. I wonder if the world will ever wake
up to the corrupt. I love listening to Patrick Basham too.
I'm a big Trump fan. Have been from the beginning there, Yes,

(01:17:16):
and I think that's the end of the communication of yours.

Speaker 2 (01:17:20):
How much brain power or common sense is required of
workmen to refrain removing support bolts from a standing pylon,
But no bureaucratization and blame deflection overtakes all else, every
time a comparatively lesser event that illustrates the degrees of
incompetence in the delivery of infrastructure across the board. In

(01:17:44):
God's own I can only say it got worse this
week than because this was written on the second of August.
It got worse this week, and it's going to get
worse even more. Have I filled you with anticipation and glee? Anyway?

(01:18:07):
So there was two fifty and we go to two
fifty one next week.

Speaker 3 (01:18:10):
Are you up for another two fifty?

Speaker 2 (01:18:15):
Will we see you next week?

Speaker 4 (01:18:17):
Let's do it week by week.

Speaker 2 (01:18:19):
Thanks later, That's exactly on my mind anyway, Thank you,
missus producer. Now for better or worse, as threatened, Here

(01:18:45):
is an extract from Beyond the Microphone that was published
in twenty thirteen, and this being the fiftieth anniversary of
my career in broadcasting, I shall honor my threat and
share with you the experience of the first radio job
that I ever had in a broadcasting world. Your status
is exemplified by your treatment. When I started in Devonport Into,

(01:19:09):
I had no status with which to concern myself. I
paid for my air fare from Sydney. I got off
the plane carrying two hefty suitcases and caught a bus
to the city. Got off the bus and headed toward
the motel that I was booked into. Discovered it was
the wrong direction, so it turned around and lugged the

(01:19:29):
bags twice as far. I stayed two nights, paying my
own bill, until the seven AD manager found me a flat.
It was part of a house. At my BedHead was
against the door that I presumed was to a passage.
Somewhere on the other side was a very sick old man.

(01:19:53):
His persistent cough had a death rattle to it, and
the flat was miserable. As soon as I had another apartment,
I was gone. It is fair to say that when
I started on seven a D I was pretty raw.
I recall all there was Taz Allen, who did the
breakfast slot and doubled as program director, the essential element

(01:20:15):
of that role being to choose the music for it
was a music station. There were two other young guys
who were part time, both locals. There was another who
did the women's show in the morning. I remember nothing
more than he was nice enough, which maybe says something.
And there was the local retailer with the largest store

(01:20:36):
in Devonport who owned that morning program through advertising and
did an hour behind the microphone behind the microphone each day.
It wasn't quite Snake Gully or Dad and Dave, but close.
Taz Allen, in choosing the music, was pedantic. He put
every record in the order it was to be played

(01:20:58):
in a pile. So I'd get a pile for the
six to eleven PM program, which would go something like this,
a track from the Sound of Music ever bing Crosby
and if you were lucky, a quiet track from maybe Chicago,
and so it went, yeah, right. It wasn't long before

(01:21:20):
one of the part timers decided that I could be trusted.
The record room had one window which we would make
sure was unlocked, the door to the record library being
locked by the close of business day. Being one floor up,
we'd shuffle along a brick ledge, open the window and
adjust the playlist. There was at seven a d a

(01:21:43):
part timer by the name of Shirley Britain who adopted me.
Shirley was married with four children. She was a big
woman who I recall wore tent dresses, but she had
a bit of style about her and I spent a
fair bit of time with her and husband Gary at
their house. She gave me some advice that I've never forgotten.
Fix someone in your mind and talk to them. Don't

(01:22:08):
try to talk to everyone, just one person, be intimate.
My time at seven ad lasted until just under six months.
My girlfriend of three years, Jenny, was back in Sydney
and we ran into some distance difficulties. We'd only seen
each other once in that time, when I had a

(01:22:29):
quick trip to Sydney, Jenny was at university. During a
phone call, we argued, told each other what we could
do with the relationship, and hung up. Five minutes later,
I was trying to wring her back when the receptionist
came in and said Jenny was on the phone. I
went directly to MERV Evans, the manager, and resigned, and

(01:22:51):
Jenny caught the first available flight to Devonport. MERV understood,
but was disappointed. If you'd stayed here another twelve months,
you'd get work anywhere in Australia. I'll never forget him
saying that, and that will be where I leave it.
But that was the first radio job lasted. I resigned

(01:23:13):
after five months. I did stay because it was the
end of the year, and I did persuade me to
stay through the Christmas period until the replacement he would
organize was available. What follows in the book is the
progress from one station to another as you climb the ladder.
And has things changed? I mean in the second job
in our Engine News other wells, they put me up

(01:23:36):
in the Carnobolis Hotel for a whole week, paid the
bill and it only got better from there. And that
will do. It's enough indulgence and that will take us
out for podcast two hundred and fifty. Love to hear
from you later at NEWSTALKSIB dot co dot mz or
Carolyn at NEWSTALKSIB dot co dot m Z back in

(01:23:58):
a few days with Podcasts two hundred and fifty one.
Until then, as always, thank you for listening and we'll
talk soon.

Speaker 4 (01:24:08):
M hmmmmmm.

Speaker 1 (01:24:14):
Thank you for more from News Talks at b Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio,