June 25, 2024 • 63 mins
Leighton is off this week, so we are highlighting one of his favourite guests from the podcast.
Dr Tim Ball Part 2 on the politics behind the climate change alarmism.
As I have said so often, there is new information almost every day, some of it vital. However, it rarely appears in the mainstream media.
Two examples since I spoke with Dr Ball. On September 6, the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Society says he does not accept arguments of climate alarmists that the end of the world is at hand.
Then with no connection to the above, Stanford University’s Dr Patrick Frank published a peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value.
Tim Ball is again the whole podcast.
File your comments and complaints at Leighton@newstalkzb.co.nz
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks ed B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcast now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of us Now the lighton
Smith podcast cowed by News Talks ed B.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to the podcast for June twenty six, twenty twenty four. Regretfully,
I'm not able to offer a fresh podcast, so we're
replacing it with one of the best from the archives.
Undeciding which episode, I received an email that made a
suggestion referring to episode twenty one. That was the first
interview that I did with Professor Timball. The author thought
(00:49):
it was the best. However, three months later, on the
eleventh of September, we did a second Timball interview on
the politics behind climate change, which started with an announcement
on the Man versus Ball court case. I've listened to
some of it again and it really is worth another airring.
(01:09):
And it's interesting also to keep in mind that this
is pre COVID. This is September eleven of twenty nineteen.
I think of the way the world has changed since then. Anyway,
I hope you enjoy and hopefully we'll be back with
a full podcast next week. Just keep in mind that
this is all dated material and you must take that
(01:31):
into account. Now. It was a few weeks ago. In fact,
it was it was number twenty one podcast where we
spent the entire podcast talking to doctor Tim Ball, climatologist
from Canada, and we arranged that we would have a
(01:52):
second discussion. I was going to leave it till later
in the year, but events have turned and the coincidence
is beautiful because I arranged this with him about two
days unknowingly, two days before the Supreme Court in Canada
announced the result of the court case between where Michael
(02:17):
Mann was suing Timbull, and the result was doctor Timbull won. Well, yes,
so that's all right, So tell me how you're feeling.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Well, I did not expect this outcome. I've dealt with
the you know, the illegal system, and this is what
bothers me about it. First of all, the use of
the legal system to silence people, because that's clearly what
happened in my case. I had I had three lawsuits,
all from the same lawyer and all by members of
(02:53):
the IPCC. So I thought that somebody would get to
the judge. So I am, I'm amazed at the result
were this complete dismissal is more than I could ever
have dreamed about. So I'm revitalized and hopeful again for
the legal system. So there's that that part of it.
(03:15):
Of course, then, because I didn't expect the result that
I that I got, I really haven't given a lot
of thought to where do we go from here? Because
what what the courts have essentially put into legal words
is that the whole climate thing is a deception. And
(03:35):
so the challenge now for me is to get that
out to the world and explain to the world, partly
as we did in the last program, who did it,
why did they do it, and how did they do it?
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Well, let us get onto that shortly. I'm I'm, I
just want to venture forth a little more on the
legal aspect of it. See, my grasp has been that
the courts are no place to be sorting out science,
and there's been a couple of examples of why why
that is. But in this case, this was a legal
(04:12):
meta of defamation. And you want it, and this is
the second one you've won. I take it. Then there's
another one hanging.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Well. The other one was actually the first one. And
this is another important part about this whole story. I
got the summons, and my wife and I looked at it,
and we contacted a lawyer and discovered what it would
cost us to defend ourselves and said we can't afford it.
We just simply couldn't afford it. And this is a
(04:43):
This is a major, major part of what is going
on in every country in the world, that the legal
system is beyond the reach of all but the wealthy.
Now in Britain, for example, about a year ago, they
passed some legislation saying that no laws should be brought
simply because you can afford to and and have access
(05:05):
to legal systems. So this is an the major part
of this whole story. My legal bills now are are
up over eight hundred thousand dollars, and yet I'm not
even halfway through.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
So there is another case.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Well, the first case was we decided not to fight it, Okay,
The second case we won. That was brought by the
now leader of the Green Party here in British Columbia,
and he's now appealing that. So of course, just because
you win the first the case, you're always going to
(05:43):
have appeals and that that gets just as expensive as
the court cases. So I'm that that appeal will be
held here in British Columbia in December of this year.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Okay, so this this case that's just been decided. Yeah,
I'm involving Michael Mann. That's the end of it. No,
as I said, it's.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
The end of the of the of the case and
the and the verdict of this court. But he can
now appeal that verdict and almost certainly will will appeal it.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
But this was this was in the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Was in the British Columbia Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Yes, so he would appeal to well.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
He appeals to to that precis Supreme Court and then
if he doesn't feel he's got just uh just a
reward there, he can then appeal it to the Supreme
Court of Canada.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
How long How long has he got to do that?
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Well, there's there's really no time limit on it. That's
that's part of the problem, that that these things can
go on forever.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Well, I've noticed that I noticed that some people have
been commenting on on missage sites good luck with getting
the money out of him for your cost?
Speaker 3 (07:02):
Yes, well, and of course that that was my concern,
and my low players tell me that the courts in
Canada and British Columbia especially don't like get in fact
take very angrily anybody that fails to pay or front
up with the money. And so what I can do
(07:25):
and my lawyers we've already discussed this. We can go
to the courts and say we want the money, and
the courts can turn around and garnish you their business,
their homes, whatever is necessary to get the money.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Okay, But Michael Mann is an American in America. What
is the cross border policy?
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Well, that's going to be the major part of it. Now.
There are very very good cross border rules in place,
but actually enforcing it is another whole different matter. And
I don't know. I can't answer your question.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Okay, Then back to what you said about what the
court said about the climate change issue itself. Yes, what
did they say?
Speaker 3 (08:15):
Well, the court ruling specifically doesn't say it, but it
infers it because you see, the lawsuit was that Michael
Man had produced this hockey stick, this complete falsification of
data and rewriting of climate history. And I spoke out
about that. I gave a lecture in Winnipeg about that,
(08:38):
and within hours of the lecture I got the lawsuit.
And so basically what it was saying was, Michael Mann
has presented the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change view of
climate and I'm saying it it's not true, it's not correct,
it's not scientifically accurate. And so that's essentially what the
(08:59):
lawsuit was about. So it wasn't directly about that, but
it was about this. It was framed in legal terms
as defamatory comments by me about him. But the actually
the actual result is that the courts have said, no,
what I said is correct and what he said is wrong,
(09:19):
so therefore scientifically that also applies.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Well, I think that's fabulous. But the sadness is, of
course that this could roll on. It'll be very interesting
to see. Having been punished what sounds like severely, one
would hope that he will, shall we say, discontinue. Now
there's one other thing. Very quickly. You were very recently
(09:44):
awarded an award for, if I remember correctly, your lifetime
service to climate climate science. Yes, congratulations, thank you.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
This was by the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago,
and one of the things that's been the problem over
the years is that virtually all of the funding, particularly
go funding, has gone to one side of the climate debate,
and it has all gone to promoting those that say
(10:16):
that it's human cause and it's co two cause and
so on. So unlike in other words, the government and
the funding completely interfered with the scientific method. As you know,
the scientific method is that you create a hypothesis based
on assumptions and then other scientists challenge not the hypothesis
(10:39):
but the assumptions on which it is based. Well, anybody
that tried to do that couldn't get any funding to
do that, and all the funding went to people that
were supporting the assumptions and the hypothesis. So in other words,
with government, you had government interfering with the proper scientific method.
(11:02):
And that's a serious problem in science and in the world.
And so this is why this this what's going on
here in climate is so critical now. Joeannova the Australian
did a study of a couple of years ago about
the amount of money that was being put by governments
and virtually all of the funding comes from governments into
(11:25):
the climate, you know, proving that humans are causing climate change.
And I say not even one percent going to the
other side of the issue. And the figure she came
up with was for the US in one year alone,
it was seventy billion dollars. So of course, yeah, well
(11:46):
I'm gonna say what you know, it's okay. But what
the point about it is is not only is that
only driving one side of the issue, but is of
course what all of the young researchers are looking for
research funding. That's what they're going to do. They're going
to go in and say, well, I'll do research on
this because that guarantees me the money from the government.
That of course is a distort science in completely unacceptable ways.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
I want to read you an email that I got.
I got a lot of emails from the previous interview
that we did this one. I want to read you
and get you to respond and it will lead on
to where we go from here. But there'll be a
bit of crossover validation along the way. And the author says,
I finally got round to listening to the Tim Ball special.
(12:32):
It was very good and following on from the well
the excellent David Shelley interview, I will order Tim Ball's
Human Caused Global Warming Scam pocketbook for my kindle, So
well done. What you discussed with Timball next, the politics
behind the disinformation and the reasons for it is what
(12:52):
I've always struggled with, because why would everyone sign up
to this lie, including so many respected scientists. I look
forward make it soon. So what's the answer.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
In short, Well, the answer is that this was a
a plan that needed a threat to the globe, and
therefore global warming became the target by the Club of Rome,
which was formed in nineteen sixty eight. And what they
wanted to do was their argument was that the world
(13:27):
was overpopulated. Each individual person was using resources at a
certain amount, and if you multiply the number of people
by the amount of resources they were using, that was unsustainable.
The world could not sustain that level of demand on
its resources, and that's where the word unsustainability came in.
(13:47):
And so what they decided was that they had to
get some way to shut down industry or limit industry.
So they looked at it and they said, okay, if
we cut off the fuel going into the plant or
into the city, then the public would screen right away.
That would not be politically possible. And so what they
(14:09):
decided to do was to show that the byproduct of
the industry and the industrialized nations was CO two and
that that CO two was causing runaway global warming. Therefore
that was a reason for targeting CO two and therefore
achieving their goal of shutting down the industry. So yeah,
(14:31):
the email speaks right to the issue why did they
do it? What was the motive? And of course that's
what I tried to explain in the book. What was
the political motive behind it? And the answer was overpopulation,
exhaustion of resources, and shutting down the industrialized nations.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
In the book. Very early in the book, you listened
nine points. I want to run through those nine points. Yeah,
and that'll cover off a lot more of the answer
to that particular question. But before we do, just with
regard to the number of scientists of profile, shall we say,
or they've gained from file through this, whichever you want,
(15:10):
but top scientists. The author of that email was asking
why would they sign up to this? And then the
part of that question then is who are they that
you referred to who put all this in motion?
Speaker 3 (15:24):
Well, of course, as I mentioned in my previous answer,
the Club of Rome, which was formed by David Rockefeller
in nineteen sixty eight, decided that the world was overpopulated
and that the population was exhausting the resources of the planet.
So they decided that they could not reduce the resource
(15:49):
use by everybody, so they focused upon the ones that
were using more resources than anyone else, and that was
the industrialized nations. And so they said that these industrialized
nations like America, Britain and Australians on achieved their exhaustion
of resources and their wealth by through using fossil fuels,
(16:13):
and therefore that that became became the target. And so
that's really the answer to the question. So what they
did was then they deliberately created science that focused upon
only CO two. So, for example, when they set up
the inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change through the United Nations,
(16:36):
they being marcu Strong who was the founder of the
United Nations Environment Program and was a member of the
Club of Rome and was the person that orchestrated Agenda
twenty one, which is this whole thing is incorporated within
Agenda twenty one. But when they set up the climate
(16:59):
research that they they did it to get the results
that they wanted. So for example, when the United Nations
has come out and they're going to come out with
one very shortly. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are
going to come out very shortly and say oh, and
all the seal too, and that the temperature is going
going up and it's getting worse. The reason for that
(17:21):
is they do not look at natural causes of climate change.
One of the one of the things that I learned
very early in my career of sitting on commissions of
inquiry of giving evidence at trials on environmental issues is
the way that the government control is by appearing not
(17:42):
to control. I used to think that a commission of
inquiry was a superb thing because you know, everybody says, oh, good,
finally we get the politics out of the use out
of the issue. But what happens is and I this
this very The very first case I was on was
dispute over a large lake in central Canada, and that
the minister come out and said, oh, we'll have a
(18:03):
commission of inquiry, and I thought, fabulous. He goes back
to his office with the bureaucrats and they say, okay,
who do we put on this commission of inquiry? And
then what terms of reference do we give them that
predetermines the outcome of that Commission of Inquiry, and that's
exactly what happened. And so that I was asked by
(18:24):
the Minister, what would you serve on the Commission of Inquiry?
And I said yes, and then they got the terms
of reference and I said, I can't. I can't serve
on this. With these terms of reference, you're absolutely predetermining
the outcome. Now, either you allowed me to look and
look at every bit of data and every bit of
the problem, or I'm going to go to the media
(18:45):
and say the Minister is trying to predetermine the outcome
if you look at any commission of inquiry. And I
remember watching the most famous one, the inquiry into the
Kennedy assassination, the Warrant Commission and Chiefs just as Warren
was on ABC shortly before he died, and they and
the interviewer said to him, well, why didn't you look
(19:07):
at Jack and the mafia connection in Dallas? And Warrens'
is very straight, faith, very calmly and correctly said it
wasn't in my terms of reference, all right, And so
I as soon as I heard that, I knew exactly
what he was saying. But the public that goes right
over the public's head. And so of course they said, oh,
(19:28):
there was a commission inquiry, therefore they looked at everything. No,
they didn't. The Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change, the
terms of reference they were given gave them a definition
of climate change that ordered them only to look at
human causes of climate change. So everybody thinks that there
this UN's reports that's coming out shortly, it's looking at
(19:50):
all of climate change. It isn't. It's only looking at
human causes. So they don't consider the sun, they don't
consider the oceans. They only look at that portion of
CO two that comes from human sources. That's that's how
narrow and contry.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
Tim the the I have to throw this in and
you'll understand why. But the way you've dealt with this
with the Club of Rome and Morris Strong, et cetera,
et cetera. The way to shut you down, at least
initially is you must be you must be you, you
(20:31):
must be a what's the term? I want? A contrarian
or nine it's gone complaint by the oil companies. Well then, no,
I wasn't even thinking that you must be a conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 3 (20:46):
Ah, well, do you know what I always find this
amusing because the reality is conspiracies occur, right, And I
know that because my birthday is November fifth, And you
remember what happened on November fifth in Britain in sixteen
oh nine when when Guy Fox went to Parliament was
(21:07):
caught with twenty five was a gunpowder in the basement.
That's a conspiracy. Okay, Now, I liked I liked the
comment of the person who said he was the only
person that ever went to Parliament with.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Good intentions, honorable intentions, I think it.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
Yeah, But but no conspiracies occur. And and this this
was a conspiracy because they planned it. You can go
and look at all the records, all the books, it's
all out there. It's all available through the United Nations
Environment Program Agenda twenty one. How they how they wrote
(21:43):
the definition to limit it only to looking at human causes,
how the the whole thing was orchestrated. And of course
I've laid it out as briefly as I can in
my book. So yes, it is a conspiracy, because conspiracies
do occur.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
All right, But it's but it's not a conspiracy any
longer because it's been exposed.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
Well hopefully that's true. But This is this fine line
because you could also argue that no, what they were
pursuing was a political agenda. Well, at what point does
a political agenda become a conspiracy?
Speaker 2 (22:17):
That's a good point. Let me quote from Let me
quote from the book, page two. This book shows how
the deception was designed to be global by involving every
nation through the agencies of the United Nations. Historians, with
the benefit of twenty twenty hindsight, will wonder how such
a small group was able to achieve such a massive deception.
(22:39):
There are several reasons why the public was deceived. First,
the objective and therefore the science were premeditated. Now you've
covered that satisfactorily. Second, the scientific focus was deliberately narrowed
to CO two. Any more you want to add to that.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
Well, yes, because if you, first of all, if you
look at greenhouse gases, which are about seven percent of
the total atmospheric gases, and that those greenhouse gases are
water vapor, and yet the whole focus is on CO two,
which is only four percent of all the greenhouse gases.
(23:17):
So CO two is four percent of the seven percent,
and yet water vapor, which is by far the most
important greenhouse gas never even guess mentioned. The public are
not even aware that it's a greenhouse gas. So this
was all deliberately narrowed down to divert the attention to
focus upon only one thing.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
And CO two is something that's produced by every single
individual in the world to from a minimal degree to
a massive degree. The third point from the starts unaccountable
government agencies were involved and in control.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
Well, yes, I mean this. The whole objective office, originally
through the Club of Rome, was that saying that you
needed one world government to deal with the climate issue
because no individual nation could deal with it. So there
was an underlying and you can see that the quote
(24:23):
Murray Strong in Elaine Dower's book she said, well you
know what, or she concluded after five days with him
at the UN that his objective was to create a
one world government and using the environment as as the lever.
And and so really what you're seeing is an attempt
at socialism and and uh so, how how do you,
(24:47):
uh you know, how do you achieve that other than
getting something as I set that threatens the whole world.
And and so that that that's what underlies the whole
whole process.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Now that elaineed you a book? Yeah, was it called
the green Hood or something cook of Green, Coco Green.
I had a look at I had a look at it,
and then I spun schooled down on it. I don't
do this often, but I spoiled down to look at
some of the negative comments and there was one there
from some I don't have it it was. I would
have had to print out so many pages to even
(25:20):
get it, but there was one there that just said
that your commentary was so fanciful, so absurd, so ridiculous,
as was the book that this individual just trashed it. Now,
I don't know whether you know the commentary that I'm
referring to or who it was, but that's that's, of
(25:41):
course what you get. But this was very determined. What
do you say, Well.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
Of course, people that are in this industry, and it
is an industry of continuing the idea that human cause
or human creative CO two is causing global warming. This
is huge. I mean I mentioned earlier in our discussion
when when the American government are putting seventy billion dollars
of research funds into it, of course you're going to
(26:10):
try and shoot down anybody that dares to challenge what
you're saying. So this huge invested interest in maintaining this.
But I want to tell you about Elaine Dower's book,
and I had a brief conversation with her a few
years ago. She wanted to write a book praising Canadian
(26:31):
environmentalists and this would include people like David Suzuki, who's
familiar on a global stage and so on. And she
started her research as a well qualified investigative journalist to
do this book. And by the time she got about
halfway through her research, she discovered that the people she
(26:55):
was going praising were in fact more political and more
devious than the people that they were attacking. And so
she started the book with one complete objective and ended
up with a completely opposite objective. And I said to her,
I said, you know, you need to update the book
(27:17):
because she wrote it one nineteen ninety nine or something
and that five years later. I said, you need to
update it a bit and she said, I wouldn't even
touch it. I said why not? She said, I've had
death threats. You wouldn't believe the attacks that I've had,
more than I've ever had on any other investigative journalism
I've ever done. And so this is why the book
is so remarkable. It's that it started out with one
(27:41):
hypothesis and through very good sort of research, ended up
with a completely opposite hypothesis. And that's what's significant about it.
And of course this is what people have a hard
time understanding, is well, then how could you take an
issue as important as global warming and use it for
(28:01):
a political agenda. Well, that's the way that you can
control people. And of course the argument I think Margaret
me the great anthropologist, once said, it's not surprising that
a small group of people do this. It's always been
small groups of people that are at the center of
any particular major change in the world. And it is
(28:25):
not large groups or organizations. I mean, when you narrow
it down in the case of the climacying, it's only
about six or seven people, most of them dased at
the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia
under Phil Jones and Tom Wigley.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
People are going to struggle with that answer on the
basis that it's now we're led to believe worldwide and
massively believed because we were all aware of the ninety
seven percent, and what a calm that is but nevertheless,
it gets trotted out every single time there's an interview
(29:05):
with somebody who wants to put down skeptics.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
Well, the answer the answer to that is that, yeah,
that's the case. And even when enough of people of
influence start to realize what's going on, there will still
be fifty sixty percent of the world that will believe it.
I mean, there are people out there that still believe
(29:30):
the earth is flat. I haven't.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
I haven't bumped into any I have, really I have.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
I have, and by the way, I have a tendency
you do agree with them, because if the world was flat,
we could push the idiots off the edge. But no,
I mean, this is always the way with new paradigms,
that there's new ways of looking and thinking about the world,
and there's always a group of people that will hang
(29:57):
on and resist, usually about twenty percent. There's also, by
the way, about twenty percent who grabbed the idea very
quickly because they see both political and financial reward in it.
So and then you get the other sixty percent saying, well, yeah,
it sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure I fully understand it,
(30:19):
so I'm not going to commit to it. That's where
we are with the climate change issue right now, all.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Right point four science and political structures and procedures were
put in place to enhance the deception. I think you've
covered some of that. Anything else you want to add
to it, well, it just.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
That it was the first time that the United Nations
had been deliberately used to bring in a global policy. This,
this is the evil genius of Boris Strong. The guy.
The guy was absolutely incredible, a genius, but an evil
(30:57):
genius nonetheless, I mean in what he was able to
do and how he was able to organize the fact
that you know when Elaine Doer said to him, well,
you know, that's a pretty big idea about getting rid
of the industrialized nations. And she said, well, are you
going to run for politics? And he said, no, you
can't do anything as a politician. She said, well, what
(31:19):
are you going to do? He said, I'm going to
go to the United Nations, where I can get all
the money I want to whatever I want and not
be accountable to anybody. And that's exactly what he did.
He went to the UN and set up the United
Nations Environment Program, and he created Agenda twenty one, and
he created and he chaired the nineteen ninety two Real
Conference at which all of this stuff was brought onto
(31:41):
the world stage, and that was done by Mars Strong alone.
It's absolutely criticle.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
I know somebody who has, shall we say, very strong
connections with the UN who says that Maurice Strong's reputation,
as you've just described it is overrated to the NS degree.
Speaker 3 (32:01):
I wouldn't disagree with that being overrated. But who was
the one that was got it overrated?
Speaker 2 (32:07):
It was Mars Strong, but he meant the influence that
he had was overrated.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
Oh it may be within the UN itself, but then
how much influence does the u N had on the
world with anything? The u N is just another bureaucratic
uh retirement home. The UN dos all sorts of things,
but it hardly affects anybody anywhere except those people that
(32:35):
want to exploit it and make a whole lot of
money out of it.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
All right, Number five, His actions were taken to block
or divert challenges.
Speaker 3 (32:44):
Oh yeah, Well, of course, if you're going to create something,
you've got to anticipate what the challenges to it are
going to be. And of course, the way that Maurice
Strong did that was when he set up the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. He did it through the World
Meteorological Organization, which is a UN agency made up of
(33:08):
all the weather offices across the world. Each each weather
office sends a bunch of bureaucrats to Geneva and they
determine policy for the world. And so they then go
back to their individual countries. And you look at each
country like the ukmo Or, you look at Noah, you
(33:29):
look at environment Canada. These are the people, the bureaucrats
that set all of the energy and environment policy for
each nation. So the politician is not in control of
this at all. And of course any politician that tries
to interfere is immediately challenged and said, well what do
you know about the science of this? And I watched
(33:51):
that in Australia when we challenged the Australian Bureau of Meteorology,
and we I mean Malcolm Roberts, who became a senator
in order to challenge this. But this is this is
something that Strong did deliberately. He put all of the
control of it in the hands of the bureaucrats the state.
This is this is the original Fate news story created
(34:13):
and perpetuated by by the deep state off the bureaucrats.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Number six. The people's natural fear is and this is
easily understood, the people's natural fee is about change and catastrophe.
We're exploited. Now this unquestionably involves the media.
Speaker 3 (34:31):
Yes, and and and of course you know, the whole
idea about change, change is normal. The only thing that
it is normal about change and that it always occurs.
But in the in this uh environmental, this new environmental paradigm,
the whole idea has been created that, uh, there are
(34:55):
changes that are occurring faster than ever or more dramatically
than ever, and therefore they can't be natural. Therefore there's
something that humans are doing. So the whole whole idea
is that you use this and say, look all you're doing,
industry development, all of these things are are are destroying
(35:16):
the planet and humans are to blame, and therefore we've
got to deal with it. And it's it's utter nonsense,
utter nonsense. I mean, you look at the amount of
energy that that humans produce against one thunderstorm. It's just
it's flappable. But but this idea that the change is
more drab, dramatic than ever before is central to selling
(35:40):
the idea that we this is, this is what humans
are doing, and therefore we've got to stop it. Of course,
it begs the question, Uh, well if if, if change
is more rapid than because of humans, well does that
say that humans are not natural? See, this is the
question they always ignore. If humans do it automatically, it's wrong. Well,
(36:03):
why aren't we like all the other animals? You're telling
me that Darwin says we're like all the other animals.
You can't have it both ways. This is a philosophical
contradiction in all of this environmental movement that nobody wants
to talk about, and certainly the world's not ready for
this discussion at this point.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
Is while I think of it, let me let me
just go back to that population issue. In the size
of the population I got I got another email from
somebody and I and I haven't checked this out, and
I'm not good at maths. But this is this is
off the top of my head because I haven't got
it in front of me. But the author of this
email said he did some did some work, some mathematical work.
(36:46):
The math was never my best subject, and said that
if if you put if you built boxes, in other words,
coffins that were six feet long, because I still work
in feet and inches. Six feet long point well point
four of a meter wide, So now I'm confusing everybody
point four of a meter wide. And then the depth
(37:08):
of them was whatever, whatever it was, but it was
it was the least of all. And you and you
put everybody in the world in one of those boxes.
And there was a lot more detail to this, but
to cut to the quick, it would fill up about
half of air's rock in Australia.
Speaker 3 (37:30):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
And if he's if he's right, that's just extraordinary because
it it restricts, it puts it into perspective the effect
of the number of people on the planet exactly.
Speaker 3 (37:46):
And of course this is the people. How can I
explain this? People go where all the people are and
then complain about all the people. You know, people say
they like isolation, Well you can about almost ninety percent
of the world is unoccupied. You look at Canada, the
(38:06):
second largest country in the world world with the same
population as California. And I remember we're doing churches in
the north and having Americans along and I said, look,
we're gonna fly and I showed them the line on
the map. We're going to fly about eight hundred miles
and you're not going to see a village or road, nothing,
(38:28):
And they couldn't believe it. They couldn't believe that that
there's that much of the world that's unoccupied. So now
the other thing is that if you took all the
population of the world and had them standing within within
a one square yard area, the whole world's population would
fit onto the Isle of Wight. But you see this,
(38:50):
think back to what I said to you about what
Murray Strong did. What was the Club of Rome argument, Oh,
the world's overpopulated. And people will say to me, well, okay,
I buy you that were not causing global warming or
climate change, but the world's still overpopulated. That underlies the
(39:10):
theme of all of this, and it's completely false. It's
completely false. Right now, you can argue that. And by
the way, the places in the world with the highest
population density also happen to have the higher standard of living,
so you go to the Netherlands, for example, and parts
of Europe, so it's completely contradictory. So, but the overpopulation
(39:35):
issue is the one thing that people fear. They don't
want too many people around. They think that, so it's
easy to sell it. So that's why it's central to
this whole theme of the global warming issue, the overpopulation.
Speaker 2 (39:50):
Yeah, number seven, this one speaks for itself. We can
move on. I think after I read this, the public's
lack of scientific understanding, especially with regard to climate science,
was exploited. Or did I read that before Anyway, the
point being the pil I don't think it needs any comment,
doesn't well? It?
Speaker 3 (40:08):
Yes, And the comment that it needs is that, And
I'm going to make a generalization, and I make no
apologies for that, because one of the worst things we've
done is to say that it specializes the mark of genius,
and to generalize is the mark of a fool. The
reality is that you have to generalize, and you must
generalize on generalities. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule.
(40:31):
That was always the case. But the sorry, what your
question was about.
Speaker 2 (40:39):
The lack of scientific understanding?
Speaker 3 (40:42):
Oh? Yes, okay. If we take the world population, and
I know this because I taught a science credit for
art students, Okay, so I am very familiar with the challenge.
You take any population anywhere in the world, and it
does vary a little bit from country to country. For example,
Finland has a higher percentage of people that are are
(41:05):
are competent in mathematics than most of the but it's
only like one or two percent more. But in virtually
every country in the world the ratio is about fifteen
percent that are capable of doing mathematics and science and
about eighty five percent that simply can't deal with a
(41:27):
number at all. So you go to any university, eighty
percent of the students are our art students and twenty
percent are science students at the best. And that's true
across the world. So of course, and this is when
I was on the committee that was advising Trump what
to do about the climate change issue. And I said
(41:48):
to them and to tell him, look, we can show
you the facts that show that the science of climate
change is wrong, and you can get up there and
say that. But the minute you're asked a question about
the science, you'll fall apart. They'll make you look stupid
so fast to make your head spin. So what you
do is you go and say, look, the Parish Climate
(42:11):
agreement is a rotten deal, and here's why. And of
course you're the guy that your whole shtick is bad deals.
That's why he got other Parish climate agreement. And so
even if Trump was to get up there and explain
what was wrong with the science, twenty percent of the
population would understand him and the other eighty percent on
(42:32):
So why even bother with that? That's why I why
I'm such a danger because I can explain the science
in ways that people can understand, but I also understand
and can get around the political ramifications.
Speaker 2 (42:48):
Of it all numbers eight and nine, I'll join them together.
People find it hard to believe a deception on such
a grand scale could occur, and opponents were rustlessly attacked,
causing others to remain silent. And you exhibit one for
that last point.
Speaker 3 (43:08):
Yes, the fact that I got the lawsuits, why did
they pick me out? I wasn't the only person that
was challenging what they were saying. But I had two
attributes that God given. One was that I could explain
the science, in the complex science in a way people
could understand, and I had had an ability to make
(43:29):
it understandable to the vast majority of the people. And
as I said, I honed those skills by teaching a
science credit for art students for twenty five years, so
they couldn't say I wasn't qualified. Noticed that nobody ever
said that al Gore wasn't qualified, was never even never challenged,
never said well, what do you know about climate change?
(43:51):
You know nothing? And yet here you've written books and
you're the world expert on it. You know nothing, So
they couldn't say I wasn't qualified. And I had this
ability to explain it in ways that people that didn't
understand science could make sense of it. Therefore I was
an enormous threat. So what do you do? You file
three lawsuits against the against me and and try to
(44:15):
shut me up that way, both in terms of the
cost and also other scientists. I had a lot of
scientists say to me, we agree with you, but we
never say it publicly because we don't want to get lawsuits.
We don't want to be attacked. So the intimidation factor
of what I've gone through is very much a part
of this.
Speaker 2 (44:35):
So do you think that your success to this point
anyway will carry each others.
Speaker 3 (44:44):
That I'm right at the point of not knowing whether
how to answer that question. My wife asked me that
question this morning because one of the things that I've
been saying recently is that I failed. And what I
mean by that is that for thirty or forty years now,
I've been trying to point out the world how what's
(45:08):
wrong with the science, the very basics of what's wrong
with the science, and an awful lot of people have
bought into that. You know, the the you can look
on the web, but at the groups, but the world
is still every single Democratic presidential nominee in the in
America recently climate change was their number one issue. Well,
(45:32):
if climate change is not an issue, why is it
an issue for them? Therefore I failed.
Speaker 2 (45:38):
And I read that when when you put that, when
you put that out, and I thought, I thought, I thought,
don't fall over now, Well you have been you have
been rehabilitated. They're they're the nine points. Now, who's got
the moral high grounds in this debate?
Speaker 3 (46:00):
Oh yeah, of course that's That's what it's all about,
is is uh, who's got the moral high ground? And
the answer is the minute the minute you say you know,
I'm protecting the environment or protecting the planet, than anybody
that dares to question what you're saying loses the moral
(46:21):
high ground. So they get the moral high ground by default.
And and of course this is this is what I'm saying.
I said earlier about where science would normally have a
full debate about the credibility of all this information. You
can't even present the other side of the argument because
(46:41):
you're immediately accused of not caring about the children, or
the planet or the future. So it stifles the debate
that we absolutely need to have, because you know, here's
one of the area just just a shirt to throw
something at you that completely out of left field. We're
talking about overpopulation. Every country in the world is, oh, well,
(47:04):
we got overpopulation. We got to reduce population. Do you
know the most effective way of reducing population?
Speaker 2 (47:10):
Yes, development exactly, and that's been known for sixty years. Well,
I profit that on this podcast, I think only a
week ago, to a question that somebody wrote to me,
and I got a response to it from another individual,
and it went something like this, how can you believe
(47:34):
the figures that are proposed about the popular the oil's
population dropping around twenty fifty How can you believe that
from people who look to the future, when we won't
believe this about climate and other things. In other words,
they get it wrong all the time, So why would
we believe that. Figure, Well, what.
Speaker 3 (47:57):
You have to do as what I have always done,
and why I got into climate and then into the
area of climate that I did. I got into climate
reconstruction because one of the things I discovered was that
there was very little long term data about climate and
climate change. And until you know how much the climate
(48:17):
has changed in the past, you haven't got a hope
of getting to the mechanisms and then to predicting and
planning for the future. And so when I made these
arguments about decreasing population due to development, go and look
at the demographic transition and look at all the countries
(48:40):
where it has operated. Look at the countries where in
fact there are countries now and even parts of countries,
for example, Quebec here in Canada are paying parents to
have a third child because the demographic transition is so
effective that they can only maintain their workforce with immigration.
(49:02):
America is replacing a declining birth rate with immigration. And
so this is evidence of how effective our population control
can be.
Speaker 2 (49:18):
All right, two more things. I don't know whether you've
seen it, but Japan has The Japanese Prime Minister has
announced I think yesterday that he's given approval for a
thirty percent increase, and they currently have one hundred coal
fired power plants in Japan a thirty percent entry, So
(49:42):
another thirty coal fled coal fired power plants to be
built in Japan. Well, what's what's going on then with
countries like ours, where where we're talking about the government's
talking about punishing everybody and doing their very best and
closing down infrastructure and searches for power sources, when Japan's
(50:09):
simply going to build another thirty CO five.
Speaker 3 (50:12):
Well, of course, it's like with the people. Ultimately it's
yourself interest that you look after. You'll go along with
the group as long as you see some benefit and
you want to be part of the group, but ultimately
it's your own survival. Japan's problem has always been a
complete lack of resources. Japan has had to depend upon
(50:34):
imported resources, and in fact, back in the oil energy crisis,
back with the OPEC back in the eighties, what Japan
did was built huge inflatable rubberized containers and floated them
in all of the estuaries around Japan and filled them
up with oil so that they had in those containers
(50:57):
two years of oil supply in case they got cut
off from the rest of the world. Japan has always
had an energy problem. It's why they were quite happy,
despite what being the only country in the world to
suffer from the effects of the nuclear bomb, they were
quite happy to adopt nuclear power, and forty percent or
(51:18):
so of their power now comes from nuclear. The other
point about this is if they opened thirty coal burning plants.
First of all coal and this has been the case
now for at least sixty years. The technology to burn
coal perfectly clean has been around for at least sixty years.
(51:40):
In fact, there was a coal burning plant in the
middle William and Mary Campus University in the US that
students didn't even know it was a coal burning plant
because it was the first place where they experimented with
scrubbers and burning the coal clean. It never got adopted
to the national situation because at that time that they
(52:04):
were pushing it, they were Tristia bill was about three
hundred dollars a month and if they went to this
clean coal approach, it would lick more than double the
price of the energy, and no politician was willing to
do that. There are there are energy companies in the
US three and have got together and built a coal
(52:26):
burning plant in North Dakota that is completely cold. Uh,
you know, clean coal, free clean, Yeah, clean coal, But
people don't want to pay the price for it. There's
other alternate energies. The other point that I make is
so so Japan bills thirty coal burning plants, they would
be with complete scrubbers because they don't want to pollute themselves.
(52:49):
But that's not a fraction of what China's building every month.
And and so this is this is part of the
difficulty that unless you determine and can prove scientifically that
the CO two is a problem, and then you can
bring in legislation that is truly global in its adaptation,
(53:13):
then why would any country uh may you know have
produce electricity more expensive than it needs to? As I said,
if you if you could do this reduction unilaterally, fine,
but it ain't gonna happen. And it's never and it
has never happened, and and so as I said, there's
(53:36):
so much misinformation about uh energy production, coal production, uh
and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1 (53:45):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (53:45):
It's it's absolutely amazing. I mean, one of the one
of the pushes for for Antarctica and the reason the
U en several years ago said no, we're not going
to allow any resource extraction on Australia in Antarctica. Is
because there's some of the best massive coal scenes anywhere
in the world, and countries that had a slice of
Antarctica said hey, I'm going to go and drag the
(54:07):
coal out of there. And the UN had to step
in and say no, we're going to We're going to
pass the policy that there'll be no resource extraction out
of Antarctica. This is the sort of thing that people
don't even hear about about what's going on now.
Speaker 2 (54:21):
Finally, September twenty three, the UN biggest meeting since on
climate since Paris. What's what would we expect from that?
Speaker 3 (54:34):
Well, what they'll do is they'll can continue to push
that the global warming and the climate issue is, well,
what's the term an existential threat and all this nonsense.
But the numbers that they're using come from the Intercunmental
Panel on Climate Change, who only look at human causes
(54:54):
of climate change. So, in other words, they're going to
base a war policy on data that has been deliberately
restricted and created in order to justify the policy. It's
the most incestuous self serving system you could imagine, and
(55:15):
but that's what they'll do. They'll come out and say, Oh,
it's worse than we thought. We've got to act, We've
got to do this, We've got to do that. Meanwhile,
countries like China say, there, go away, we're going to
burn the call.
Speaker 2 (55:28):
What would you what would you advise somebody who asks
you they know very little, but they want to know more.
What should they? Can you suggest a website? Can you
suggest I mean, you've got two books, but can you
suggest the best book and the best website that anyone
who wants to advance their knowledge of this could go to.
Speaker 3 (55:52):
Well, that's the problem with it. There is no one
website because you're dealing with politics and you're dealing with science,
and in climate change, every single science is involved. I mean,
you look at the range of people that call themselves
climates scientists. They're everybody from hydrologists to atmospheric chemists and
so on. And so this is back to that problem
(56:16):
I mentioned at the beginning of the program, where the
atmosphere is a general thing, but everybody that's studying it
is only looking at one small piece of it as
an atmospheric specialist. And so some of the best websites
to go to. The one that is very very good
is what's up with that? Yes, because what Anthony does
(56:42):
is he tries to explain the science in a way
that people can understand and then also present political arguments
that are are relevant to the issue, so that that
is as good a website as Eddie. There's another one
called CO two Science. That's all one word CO two
(57:03):
Capitalists Science. CO two Science now that's run by Craig
is So and sure what it's so? And these are
people who have been specialist since CO two well Sherwood
for forty years at least that I know of, and
so they of course are the world experts on CO
(57:24):
two properties, what it can do, what it can't do,
and of course because they know, they also are aware
of all of the misinformation and lies that are out there.
So that's another superb site to go to. Unfortunately, I
because my site got hacked by people putting pornographic films
(57:45):
on there. I just quit trying to protect it and
took the site down. I'm debating whether I want to
put up another site.
Speaker 2 (57:52):
When did you When did you do that? Because I tried,
I attempted to get onto it this morning before we spoke,
and yeah, it won't go anyway.
Speaker 3 (58:01):
No, I took it out. I took it down two
days ago. And the reason is, I mean normally I say, okay,
adults at looking at it, the pornographic intrusions are no
big deal. But the problem is because of so many
children researching climate and climate change. You know, I mean
every every subject in school, they got an essay to
(58:23):
do on global warming. And so I just couldn't risk
having children click onto my site and see the pornographic site.
Speaker 2 (58:34):
You've just touched on something that we won't go into today,
and that is the abuse of children. You know, I
get male from parents who was on my kid. My
kid tried to write an essay because he doesn't believe
it and I was told he'd fail if he did it.
Speaker 3 (58:53):
Yep, yep. The child abuse that's going on in the
schools really needs to be examined. Schools of schools have
gone from places of of of well babysitting and one
level of education, they are now totally schools of indoctrination.
Speaker 2 (59:13):
Very sad. Listen, once again, once again, I've got to
say thank you so much for your time. We did
what we did last time we've done an hour and
I'm thrilled with it. And you must get very weary
of doing all these interviews. But I'm so grateful and
I want to thank you very much, and again congratulations
on your recent award and the court victory.
Speaker 3 (59:38):
Thanks for the opportunity. And by the way, late and
one of the things that the climate issue week is
a lot more we can talk about. But they're doing
what I said they would do. As the climate issue
is weakening, water is becoming the focus, You're going to
see a whole panic around the world about water and
water resources.
Speaker 2 (59:55):
Well, lot, this is something to talk about. I'm happy
to engage with you again.
Speaker 3 (01:00:01):
Good and I taught a course in water resources for
twenty five years and I served on several commissions on water,
so both at the federal and international level. So be
happy to talk about that topic too, so that people
can at least get some facts and formulate or sort
out whether they're hearing is true or not.
Speaker 2 (01:00:24):
It's beautiful, Tim, Thank you so much. Thank you lying
ladies and gentlemen, Doctor Tim Ball. So there you have
it from doctor Tim Ball. Now I could talk I
could talk this particular topic every week and I could
fill this podcast up with individual scientists of his standing
(01:00:46):
and even higher, and there are some, and we could
just hammer it, but none of us want I want
to do that all the time. I don't, but I could,
because there are enough of them and they have various
things to say from different disciplines in science. Now, I
want to leave you this week with a little story
with well that has connections anti the meat move. It
(01:01:08):
is certainly gained by metum in recent years, with vegetarians
and vagans set to make up one quarter of the
UK population by twenty twenty five, and that's according to
an analysis by Sainsbury's. But a big study released last
week might just put the brakes on the rapidly accelerating
plant based trend. According to Oxford University research published by
the British Medical Journal, vegetarians and vagans have a twenty percent,
(01:01:33):
zero one and five percent higher risk of stroke than
those who regularly apply themselves with meat. The authors of
the study, which tracked almost fifty thousand Britains for eighteen years,
said this might be because veggies do not have enough
cholesterol in their blood. The finding flies on the face
(01:01:54):
of much conventional wisdom, which says that vegetarianism is a
healthy alternative to a carnivorous lifestyle. We are forever being
hected about the need, apparently for health and environmental reasons,
to cut back on red meat altogether. Nutritius say the
increased risk of stroke is just one of the many
health risks that any would be vegetarian should be made
(01:02:16):
aware of before they take the plunge. Now, it's a
lengthy article, but that's all I need to cover. But
can I leave you with one final thought. This belief
that there are too many people on the planet and
the desire to reduce the number of people by one
way or another just could fall into this category. You
(01:02:41):
imagine it. The encouragement is to get people off meat
and onto a plant based diet. With a twenty percent
increase in chance of stroke, wouldn't it be one fine
way to reduce the number of people on the planet,
especially as age catches up with people. So I leave
you with that thought, and the next time you jump
(01:03:02):
into a vagan or a vegetarian, ask them if they've
used up four of their five lives. We shall talk
again next week. Thank you for listening and take care.
Speaker 1 (01:03:19):
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
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks ed B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcast now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of us Now the lighton
Smith podcast cowed by News Talks ed B.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to the podcast for June twenty six, twenty twenty four. Regretfully,
I'm not able to offer a fresh podcast, so we're
replacing it with one of the best from the archives.
Undeciding which episode, I received an email that made a
suggestion referring to episode twenty one. That was the first
interview that I did with Professor Timball. The author thought
(00:49):
it was the best. However, three months later, on the
eleventh of September, we did a second Timball interview on
the politics behind climate change, which started with an announcement
on the Man versus Ball court case. I've listened to
some of it again and it really is worth another airring.
(01:09):
And it's interesting also to keep in mind that this
is pre COVID. This is September eleven of twenty nineteen.
I think of the way the world has changed since then. Anyway,
I hope you enjoy and hopefully we'll be back with
a full podcast next week. Just keep in mind that
this is all dated material and you must take that
(01:31):
into account. Now. It was a few weeks ago. In fact,
it was it was number twenty one podcast where we
spent the entire podcast talking to doctor Tim Ball, climatologist
from Canada, and we arranged that we would have a
(01:52):
second discussion. I was going to leave it till later
in the year, but events have turned and the coincidence
is beautiful because I arranged this with him about two
days unknowingly, two days before the Supreme Court in Canada
announced the result of the court case between where Michael
(02:17):
Mann was suing Timbull, and the result was doctor Timbull won. Well, yes,
so that's all right, So tell me how you're feeling.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Well, I did not expect this outcome. I've dealt with
the you know, the illegal system, and this is what
bothers me about it. First of all, the use of
the legal system to silence people, because that's clearly what
happened in my case. I had I had three lawsuits,
all from the same lawyer and all by members of
(02:53):
the IPCC. So I thought that somebody would get to
the judge. So I am, I'm amazed at the result
were this complete dismissal is more than I could ever
have dreamed about. So I'm revitalized and hopeful again for
the legal system. So there's that that part of it.
(03:15):
Of course, then, because I didn't expect the result that
I that I got, I really haven't given a lot
of thought to where do we go from here? Because
what what the courts have essentially put into legal words
is that the whole climate thing is a deception. And
(03:35):
so the challenge now for me is to get that
out to the world and explain to the world, partly
as we did in the last program, who did it,
why did they do it, and how did they do it?
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Well, let us get onto that shortly. I'm I'm, I
just want to venture forth a little more on the
legal aspect of it. See, my grasp has been that
the courts are no place to be sorting out science,
and there's been a couple of examples of why why
that is. But in this case, this was a legal
(04:12):
meta of defamation. And you want it, and this is
the second one you've won. I take it. Then there's
another one hanging.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Well. The other one was actually the first one. And
this is another important part about this whole story. I
got the summons, and my wife and I looked at it,
and we contacted a lawyer and discovered what it would
cost us to defend ourselves and said we can't afford it.
We just simply couldn't afford it. And this is a
(04:43):
This is a major, major part of what is going
on in every country in the world, that the legal
system is beyond the reach of all but the wealthy.
Now in Britain, for example, about a year ago, they
passed some legislation saying that no laws should be brought
simply because you can afford to and and have access
(05:05):
to legal systems. So this is an the major part
of this whole story. My legal bills now are are
up over eight hundred thousand dollars, and yet I'm not
even halfway through.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
So there is another case.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Well, the first case was we decided not to fight it, Okay,
The second case we won. That was brought by the
now leader of the Green Party here in British Columbia,
and he's now appealing that. So of course, just because
you win the first the case, you're always going to
(05:43):
have appeals and that that gets just as expensive as
the court cases. So I'm that that appeal will be
held here in British Columbia in December of this year.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Okay, so this this case that's just been decided. Yeah,
I'm involving Michael Mann. That's the end of it. No,
as I said, it's.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
The end of the of the of the case and
the and the verdict of this court. But he can
now appeal that verdict and almost certainly will will appeal it.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
But this was this was in the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Was in the British Columbia Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Yes, so he would appeal to well.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
He appeals to to that precis Supreme Court and then
if he doesn't feel he's got just uh just a
reward there, he can then appeal it to the Supreme
Court of Canada.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
How long How long has he got to do that?
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Well, there's there's really no time limit on it. That's
that's part of the problem, that that these things can
go on forever.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Well, I've noticed that I noticed that some people have
been commenting on on missage sites good luck with getting
the money out of him for your cost?
Speaker 3 (07:02):
Yes, well, and of course that that was my concern,
and my low players tell me that the courts in
Canada and British Columbia especially don't like get in fact
take very angrily anybody that fails to pay or front
up with the money. And so what I can do
(07:25):
and my lawyers we've already discussed this. We can go
to the courts and say we want the money, and
the courts can turn around and garnish you their business,
their homes, whatever is necessary to get the money.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Okay, But Michael Mann is an American in America. What
is the cross border policy?
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Well, that's going to be the major part of it. Now.
There are very very good cross border rules in place,
but actually enforcing it is another whole different matter. And
I don't know. I can't answer your question.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Okay, Then back to what you said about what the
court said about the climate change issue itself. Yes, what
did they say?
Speaker 3 (08:15):
Well, the court ruling specifically doesn't say it, but it
infers it because you see, the lawsuit was that Michael
Man had produced this hockey stick, this complete falsification of
data and rewriting of climate history. And I spoke out
about that. I gave a lecture in Winnipeg about that,
(08:38):
and within hours of the lecture I got the lawsuit.
And so basically what it was saying was, Michael Mann
has presented the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change view of
climate and I'm saying it it's not true, it's not correct,
it's not scientifically accurate. And so that's essentially what the
(08:59):
lawsuit was about. So it wasn't directly about that, but
it was about this. It was framed in legal terms
as defamatory comments by me about him. But the actually
the actual result is that the courts have said, no,
what I said is correct and what he said is wrong,
(09:19):
so therefore scientifically that also applies.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Well, I think that's fabulous. But the sadness is, of
course that this could roll on. It'll be very interesting
to see. Having been punished what sounds like severely, one
would hope that he will, shall we say, discontinue. Now
there's one other thing. Very quickly. You were very recently
(09:44):
awarded an award for, if I remember correctly, your lifetime
service to climate climate science. Yes, congratulations, thank you.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
This was by the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago,
and one of the things that's been the problem over
the years is that virtually all of the funding, particularly
go funding, has gone to one side of the climate debate,
and it has all gone to promoting those that say
(10:16):
that it's human cause and it's co two cause and
so on. So unlike in other words, the government and
the funding completely interfered with the scientific method. As you know,
the scientific method is that you create a hypothesis based
on assumptions and then other scientists challenge not the hypothesis
(10:39):
but the assumptions on which it is based. Well, anybody
that tried to do that couldn't get any funding to
do that, and all the funding went to people that
were supporting the assumptions and the hypothesis. So in other words,
with government, you had government interfering with the proper scientific method.
(11:02):
And that's a serious problem in science and in the world.
And so this is why this this what's going on
here in climate is so critical now. Joeannova the Australian
did a study of a couple of years ago about
the amount of money that was being put by governments
and virtually all of the funding comes from governments into
(11:25):
the climate, you know, proving that humans are causing climate change.
And I say not even one percent going to the
other side of the issue. And the figure she came
up with was for the US in one year alone,
it was seventy billion dollars. So of course, yeah, well
(11:46):
I'm gonna say what you know, it's okay. But what
the point about it is is not only is that
only driving one side of the issue, but is of
course what all of the young researchers are looking for
research funding. That's what they're going to do. They're going
to go in and say, well, I'll do research on
this because that guarantees me the money from the government.
That of course is a distort science in completely unacceptable ways.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
I want to read you an email that I got.
I got a lot of emails from the previous interview
that we did this one. I want to read you
and get you to respond and it will lead on
to where we go from here. But there'll be a
bit of crossover validation along the way. And the author says,
I finally got round to listening to the Tim Ball special.
(12:32):
It was very good and following on from the well
the excellent David Shelley interview, I will order Tim Ball's
Human Caused Global Warming Scam pocketbook for my kindle, So
well done. What you discussed with Timball next, the politics
behind the disinformation and the reasons for it is what
(12:52):
I've always struggled with, because why would everyone sign up
to this lie, including so many respected scientists. I look
forward make it soon. So what's the answer.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
In short, Well, the answer is that this was a
a plan that needed a threat to the globe, and
therefore global warming became the target by the Club of Rome,
which was formed in nineteen sixty eight. And what they
wanted to do was their argument was that the world
(13:27):
was overpopulated. Each individual person was using resources at a
certain amount, and if you multiply the number of people
by the amount of resources they were using, that was unsustainable.
The world could not sustain that level of demand on
its resources, and that's where the word unsustainability came in.
(13:47):
And so what they decided was that they had to
get some way to shut down industry or limit industry.
So they looked at it and they said, okay, if
we cut off the fuel going into the plant or
into the city, then the public would screen right away.
That would not be politically possible. And so what they
(14:09):
decided to do was to show that the byproduct of
the industry and the industrialized nations was CO two and
that that CO two was causing runaway global warming. Therefore
that was a reason for targeting CO two and therefore
achieving their goal of shutting down the industry. So yeah,
(14:31):
the email speaks right to the issue why did they
do it? What was the motive? And of course that's
what I tried to explain in the book. What was
the political motive behind it? And the answer was overpopulation,
exhaustion of resources, and shutting down the industrialized nations.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
In the book. Very early in the book, you listened
nine points. I want to run through those nine points. Yeah,
and that'll cover off a lot more of the answer
to that particular question. But before we do, just with
regard to the number of scientists of profile, shall we say,
or they've gained from file through this, whichever you want,
(15:10):
but top scientists. The author of that email was asking
why would they sign up to this? And then the
part of that question then is who are they that
you referred to who put all this in motion?
Speaker 3 (15:24):
Well, of course, as I mentioned in my previous answer,
the Club of Rome, which was formed by David Rockefeller
in nineteen sixty eight, decided that the world was overpopulated
and that the population was exhausting the resources of the planet.
So they decided that they could not reduce the resource
(15:49):
use by everybody, so they focused upon the ones that
were using more resources than anyone else, and that was
the industrialized nations. And so they said that these industrialized
nations like America, Britain and Australians on achieved their exhaustion
of resources and their wealth by through using fossil fuels,
(16:13):
and therefore that that became became the target. And so
that's really the answer to the question. So what they
did was then they deliberately created science that focused upon
only CO two. So, for example, when they set up
the inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change through the United Nations,
(16:36):
they being marcu Strong who was the founder of the
United Nations Environment Program and was a member of the
Club of Rome and was the person that orchestrated Agenda
twenty one, which is this whole thing is incorporated within
Agenda twenty one. But when they set up the climate
(16:59):
research that they they did it to get the results
that they wanted. So for example, when the United Nations
has come out and they're going to come out with
one very shortly. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are
going to come out very shortly and say oh, and
all the seal too, and that the temperature is going
going up and it's getting worse. The reason for that
(17:21):
is they do not look at natural causes of climate change.
One of the one of the things that I learned
very early in my career of sitting on commissions of
inquiry of giving evidence at trials on environmental issues is
the way that the government control is by appearing not
(17:42):
to control. I used to think that a commission of
inquiry was a superb thing because you know, everybody says, oh, good,
finally we get the politics out of the use out
of the issue. But what happens is and I this
this very The very first case I was on was
dispute over a large lake in central Canada, and that
the minister come out and said, oh, we'll have a
(18:03):
commission of inquiry, and I thought, fabulous. He goes back
to his office with the bureaucrats and they say, okay,
who do we put on this commission of inquiry? And
then what terms of reference do we give them that
predetermines the outcome of that Commission of Inquiry, and that's
exactly what happened. And so that I was asked by
(18:24):
the Minister, what would you serve on the Commission of Inquiry?
And I said yes, and then they got the terms
of reference and I said, I can't. I can't serve
on this. With these terms of reference, you're absolutely predetermining
the outcome. Now, either you allowed me to look and
look at every bit of data and every bit of
the problem, or I'm going to go to the media
(18:45):
and say the Minister is trying to predetermine the outcome
if you look at any commission of inquiry. And I
remember watching the most famous one, the inquiry into the
Kennedy assassination, the Warrant Commission and Chiefs just as Warren
was on ABC shortly before he died, and they and
the interviewer said to him, well, why didn't you look
(19:07):
at Jack and the mafia connection in Dallas? And Warrens'
is very straight, faith, very calmly and correctly said it
wasn't in my terms of reference, all right, And so
I as soon as I heard that, I knew exactly
what he was saying. But the public that goes right
over the public's head. And so of course they said, oh,
(19:28):
there was a commission inquiry, therefore they looked at everything. No,
they didn't. The Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change, the
terms of reference they were given gave them a definition
of climate change that ordered them only to look at
human causes of climate change. So everybody thinks that there
this UN's reports that's coming out shortly, it's looking at
(19:50):
all of climate change. It isn't. It's only looking at
human causes. So they don't consider the sun, they don't
consider the oceans. They only look at that portion of
CO two that comes from human sources. That's that's how
narrow and contry.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
Tim the the I have to throw this in and
you'll understand why. But the way you've dealt with this
with the Club of Rome and Morris Strong, et cetera,
et cetera. The way to shut you down, at least
initially is you must be you must be you, you
(20:31):
must be a what's the term? I want? A contrarian
or nine it's gone complaint by the oil companies. Well then, no,
I wasn't even thinking that you must be a conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 3 (20:46):
Ah, well, do you know what I always find this
amusing because the reality is conspiracies occur, right, And I
know that because my birthday is November fifth, And you
remember what happened on November fifth in Britain in sixteen
oh nine when when Guy Fox went to Parliament was
(21:07):
caught with twenty five was a gunpowder in the basement.
That's a conspiracy. Okay, Now, I liked I liked the
comment of the person who said he was the only
person that ever went to Parliament with.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Good intentions, honorable intentions, I think it.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
Yeah, But but no conspiracies occur. And and this this
was a conspiracy because they planned it. You can go
and look at all the records, all the books, it's
all out there. It's all available through the United Nations
Environment Program Agenda twenty one. How they how they wrote
(21:43):
the definition to limit it only to looking at human causes,
how the the whole thing was orchestrated. And of course
I've laid it out as briefly as I can in
my book. So yes, it is a conspiracy, because conspiracies
do occur.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
All right, But it's but it's not a conspiracy any
longer because it's been exposed.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
Well hopefully that's true. But This is this fine line
because you could also argue that no, what they were
pursuing was a political agenda. Well, at what point does
a political agenda become a conspiracy?
Speaker 2 (22:17):
That's a good point. Let me quote from Let me
quote from the book, page two. This book shows how
the deception was designed to be global by involving every
nation through the agencies of the United Nations. Historians, with
the benefit of twenty twenty hindsight, will wonder how such
a small group was able to achieve such a massive deception.
(22:39):
There are several reasons why the public was deceived. First,
the objective and therefore the science were premeditated. Now you've
covered that satisfactorily. Second, the scientific focus was deliberately narrowed
to CO two. Any more you want to add to that.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
Well, yes, because if you, first of all, if you
look at greenhouse gases, which are about seven percent of
the total atmospheric gases, and that those greenhouse gases are
water vapor, and yet the whole focus is on CO two,
which is only four percent of all the greenhouse gases.
(23:17):
So CO two is four percent of the seven percent,
and yet water vapor, which is by far the most
important greenhouse gas never even guess mentioned. The public are
not even aware that it's a greenhouse gas. So this
was all deliberately narrowed down to divert the attention to
focus upon only one thing.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
And CO two is something that's produced by every single
individual in the world to from a minimal degree to
a massive degree. The third point from the starts unaccountable
government agencies were involved and in control.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
Well, yes, I mean this. The whole objective office, originally
through the Club of Rome, was that saying that you
needed one world government to deal with the climate issue
because no individual nation could deal with it. So there
was an underlying and you can see that the quote
(24:23):
Murray Strong in Elaine Dower's book she said, well you
know what, or she concluded after five days with him
at the UN that his objective was to create a
one world government and using the environment as as the lever.
And and so really what you're seeing is an attempt
at socialism and and uh so, how how do you,
(24:47):
uh you know, how do you achieve that other than
getting something as I set that threatens the whole world.
And and so that that that's what underlies the whole
whole process.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Now that elaineed you a book? Yeah, was it called
the green Hood or something cook of Green, Coco Green.
I had a look at I had a look at it,
and then I spun schooled down on it. I don't
do this often, but I spoiled down to look at
some of the negative comments and there was one there
from some I don't have it it was. I would
have had to print out so many pages to even
(25:20):
get it, but there was one there that just said
that your commentary was so fanciful, so absurd, so ridiculous,
as was the book that this individual just trashed it. Now,
I don't know whether you know the commentary that I'm
referring to or who it was, but that's that's, of
(25:41):
course what you get. But this was very determined. What
do you say, Well.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
Of course, people that are in this industry, and it
is an industry of continuing the idea that human cause
or human creative CO two is causing global warming. This
is huge. I mean I mentioned earlier in our discussion
when when the American government are putting seventy billion dollars
of research funds into it, of course you're going to
(26:10):
try and shoot down anybody that dares to challenge what
you're saying. So this huge invested interest in maintaining this.
But I want to tell you about Elaine Dower's book,
and I had a brief conversation with her a few
years ago. She wanted to write a book praising Canadian
(26:31):
environmentalists and this would include people like David Suzuki, who's
familiar on a global stage and so on. And she
started her research as a well qualified investigative journalist to
do this book. And by the time she got about
halfway through her research, she discovered that the people she
(26:55):
was going praising were in fact more political and more
devious than the people that they were attacking. And so
she started the book with one complete objective and ended
up with a completely opposite objective. And I said to her,
I said, you know, you need to update the book
(27:17):
because she wrote it one nineteen ninety nine or something
and that five years later. I said, you need to
update it a bit and she said, I wouldn't even
touch it. I said why not? She said, I've had
death threats. You wouldn't believe the attacks that I've had,
more than I've ever had on any other investigative journalism
I've ever done. And so this is why the book
is so remarkable. It's that it started out with one
(27:41):
hypothesis and through very good sort of research, ended up
with a completely opposite hypothesis. And that's what's significant about it.
And of course this is what people have a hard
time understanding, is well, then how could you take an
issue as important as global warming and use it for
(28:01):
a political agenda. Well, that's the way that you can
control people. And of course the argument I think Margaret
me the great anthropologist, once said, it's not surprising that
a small group of people do this. It's always been
small groups of people that are at the center of
any particular major change in the world. And it is
(28:25):
not large groups or organizations. I mean, when you narrow
it down in the case of the climacying, it's only
about six or seven people, most of them dased at
the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia
under Phil Jones and Tom Wigley.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
People are going to struggle with that answer on the
basis that it's now we're led to believe worldwide and
massively believed because we were all aware of the ninety
seven percent, and what a calm that is but nevertheless,
it gets trotted out every single time there's an interview
(29:05):
with somebody who wants to put down skeptics.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
Well, the answer the answer to that is that, yeah,
that's the case. And even when enough of people of
influence start to realize what's going on, there will still
be fifty sixty percent of the world that will believe it.
I mean, there are people out there that still believe
(29:30):
the earth is flat. I haven't.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
I haven't bumped into any I have, really I have.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
I have, and by the way, I have a tendency
you do agree with them, because if the world was flat,
we could push the idiots off the edge. But no,
I mean, this is always the way with new paradigms,
that there's new ways of looking and thinking about the world,
and there's always a group of people that will hang
(29:57):
on and resist, usually about twenty percent. There's also, by
the way, about twenty percent who grabbed the idea very
quickly because they see both political and financial reward in it.
So and then you get the other sixty percent saying, well, yeah,
it sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure I fully understand it,
(30:19):
so I'm not going to commit to it. That's where
we are with the climate change issue right now, all.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Right point four science and political structures and procedures were
put in place to enhance the deception. I think you've
covered some of that. Anything else you want to add
to it, well, it just.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
That it was the first time that the United Nations
had been deliberately used to bring in a global policy. This,
this is the evil genius of Boris Strong. The guy.
The guy was absolutely incredible, a genius, but an evil
(30:57):
genius nonetheless, I mean in what he was able to
do and how he was able to organize the fact
that you know when Elaine Doer said to him, well,
you know, that's a pretty big idea about getting rid
of the industrialized nations. And she said, well, are you
going to run for politics? And he said, no, you
can't do anything as a politician. She said, well, what
(31:19):
are you going to do? He said, I'm going to
go to the United Nations, where I can get all
the money I want to whatever I want and not
be accountable to anybody. And that's exactly what he did.
He went to the UN and set up the United
Nations Environment Program, and he created Agenda twenty one, and
he created and he chaired the nineteen ninety two Real
Conference at which all of this stuff was brought onto
(31:41):
the world stage, and that was done by Mars Strong alone.
It's absolutely criticle.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
I know somebody who has, shall we say, very strong
connections with the UN who says that Maurice Strong's reputation,
as you've just described it is overrated to the NS degree.
Speaker 3 (32:01):
I wouldn't disagree with that being overrated. But who was
the one that was got it overrated?
Speaker 2 (32:07):
It was Mars Strong, but he meant the influence that
he had was overrated.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
Oh it may be within the UN itself, but then
how much influence does the u N had on the
world with anything? The u N is just another bureaucratic
uh retirement home. The UN dos all sorts of things,
but it hardly affects anybody anywhere except those people that
(32:35):
want to exploit it and make a whole lot of
money out of it.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
All right, Number five, His actions were taken to block
or divert challenges.
Speaker 3 (32:44):
Oh yeah, Well, of course, if you're going to create something,
you've got to anticipate what the challenges to it are
going to be. And of course, the way that Maurice
Strong did that was when he set up the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. He did it through the World
Meteorological Organization, which is a UN agency made up of
(33:08):
all the weather offices across the world. Each each weather
office sends a bunch of bureaucrats to Geneva and they
determine policy for the world. And so they then go
back to their individual countries. And you look at each
country like the ukmo Or, you look at Noah, you
(33:29):
look at environment Canada. These are the people, the bureaucrats
that set all of the energy and environment policy for
each nation. So the politician is not in control of
this at all. And of course any politician that tries
to interfere is immediately challenged and said, well what do
you know about the science of this? And I watched
(33:51):
that in Australia when we challenged the Australian Bureau of Meteorology,
and we I mean Malcolm Roberts, who became a senator
in order to challenge this. But this is this is
something that Strong did deliberately. He put all of the
control of it in the hands of the bureaucrats the state.
This is this is the original Fate news story created
(34:13):
and perpetuated by by the deep state off the bureaucrats.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Number six. The people's natural fear is and this is
easily understood, the people's natural fee is about change and catastrophe.
We're exploited. Now this unquestionably involves the media.
Speaker 3 (34:31):
Yes, and and and of course you know, the whole
idea about change, change is normal. The only thing that
it is normal about change and that it always occurs.
But in the in this uh environmental, this new environmental paradigm,
the whole idea has been created that, uh, there are
(34:55):
changes that are occurring faster than ever or more dramatically
than ever, and therefore they can't be natural. Therefore there's
something that humans are doing. So the whole whole idea
is that you use this and say, look all you're doing,
industry development, all of these things are are are destroying
(35:16):
the planet and humans are to blame, and therefore we've
got to deal with it. And it's it's utter nonsense,
utter nonsense. I mean, you look at the amount of
energy that that humans produce against one thunderstorm. It's just
it's flappable. But but this idea that the change is
more drab, dramatic than ever before is central to selling
(35:40):
the idea that we this is, this is what humans
are doing, and therefore we've got to stop it. Of course,
it begs the question, Uh, well if if, if change
is more rapid than because of humans, well does that
say that humans are not natural? See, this is the
question they always ignore. If humans do it automatically, it's wrong. Well,
(36:03):
why aren't we like all the other animals? You're telling
me that Darwin says we're like all the other animals.
You can't have it both ways. This is a philosophical
contradiction in all of this environmental movement that nobody wants
to talk about, and certainly the world's not ready for
this discussion at this point.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
Is while I think of it, let me let me
just go back to that population issue. In the size
of the population I got I got another email from
somebody and I and I haven't checked this out, and
I'm not good at maths. But this is this is
off the top of my head because I haven't got
it in front of me. But the author of this
email said he did some did some work, some mathematical work.
(36:46):
The math was never my best subject, and said that
if if you put if you built boxes, in other words,
coffins that were six feet long, because I still work
in feet and inches. Six feet long point well point
four of a meter wide, So now I'm confusing everybody
point four of a meter wide. And then the depth
(37:08):
of them was whatever, whatever it was, but it was
it was the least of all. And you and you
put everybody in the world in one of those boxes.
And there was a lot more detail to this, but
to cut to the quick, it would fill up about
half of air's rock in Australia.
Speaker 3 (37:30):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
And if he's if he's right, that's just extraordinary because
it it restricts, it puts it into perspective the effect
of the number of people on the planet exactly.
Speaker 3 (37:46):
And of course this is the people. How can I
explain this? People go where all the people are and
then complain about all the people. You know, people say
they like isolation, Well you can about almost ninety percent
of the world is unoccupied. You look at Canada, the
(38:06):
second largest country in the world world with the same
population as California. And I remember we're doing churches in
the north and having Americans along and I said, look,
we're gonna fly and I showed them the line on
the map. We're going to fly about eight hundred miles
and you're not going to see a village or road, nothing,
(38:28):
And they couldn't believe it. They couldn't believe that that
there's that much of the world that's unoccupied. So now
the other thing is that if you took all the
population of the world and had them standing within within
a one square yard area, the whole world's population would
fit onto the Isle of Wight. But you see this,
(38:50):
think back to what I said to you about what
Murray Strong did. What was the Club of Rome argument, Oh,
the world's overpopulated. And people will say to me, well, okay,
I buy you that were not causing global warming or
climate change, but the world's still overpopulated. That underlies the
(39:10):
theme of all of this, and it's completely false. It's
completely false. Right now, you can argue that. And by
the way, the places in the world with the highest
population density also happen to have the higher standard of living,
so you go to the Netherlands, for example, and parts
of Europe, so it's completely contradictory. So, but the overpopulation
(39:35):
issue is the one thing that people fear. They don't
want too many people around. They think that, so it's
easy to sell it. So that's why it's central to
this whole theme of the global warming issue, the overpopulation.
Speaker 2 (39:50):
Yeah, number seven, this one speaks for itself. We can
move on. I think after I read this, the public's
lack of scientific understanding, especially with regard to climate science,
was exploited. Or did I read that before Anyway, the
point being the pil I don't think it needs any comment,
doesn't well? It?
Speaker 3 (40:08):
Yes, And the comment that it needs is that, And
I'm going to make a generalization, and I make no
apologies for that, because one of the worst things we've
done is to say that it specializes the mark of genius,
and to generalize is the mark of a fool. The
reality is that you have to generalize, and you must
generalize on generalities. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule.
(40:31):
That was always the case. But the sorry, what your
question was about.
Speaker 2 (40:39):
The lack of scientific understanding?
Speaker 3 (40:42):
Oh? Yes, okay. If we take the world population, and
I know this because I taught a science credit for
art students, Okay, so I am very familiar with the challenge.
You take any population anywhere in the world, and it
does vary a little bit from country to country. For example,
Finland has a higher percentage of people that are are
(41:05):
are competent in mathematics than most of the but it's
only like one or two percent more. But in virtually
every country in the world the ratio is about fifteen
percent that are capable of doing mathematics and science and
about eighty five percent that simply can't deal with a
(41:27):
number at all. So you go to any university, eighty
percent of the students are our art students and twenty
percent are science students at the best. And that's true
across the world. So of course, and this is when
I was on the committee that was advising Trump what
to do about the climate change issue. And I said
(41:48):
to them and to tell him, look, we can show
you the facts that show that the science of climate
change is wrong, and you can get up there and
say that. But the minute you're asked a question about
the science, you'll fall apart. They'll make you look stupid
so fast to make your head spin. So what you
do is you go and say, look, the Parish Climate
(42:11):
agreement is a rotten deal, and here's why. And of
course you're the guy that your whole shtick is bad deals.
That's why he got other Parish climate agreement. And so
even if Trump was to get up there and explain
what was wrong with the science, twenty percent of the
population would understand him and the other eighty percent on
(42:32):
So why even bother with that? That's why I why
I'm such a danger because I can explain the science
in ways that people can understand, but I also understand
and can get around the political ramifications.
Speaker 2 (42:48):
Of it all numbers eight and nine, I'll join them together.
People find it hard to believe a deception on such
a grand scale could occur, and opponents were rustlessly attacked,
causing others to remain silent. And you exhibit one for
that last point.
Speaker 3 (43:08):
Yes, the fact that I got the lawsuits, why did
they pick me out? I wasn't the only person that
was challenging what they were saying. But I had two
attributes that God given. One was that I could explain
the science, in the complex science in a way people
could understand, and I had had an ability to make
(43:29):
it understandable to the vast majority of the people. And
as I said, I honed those skills by teaching a
science credit for art students for twenty five years, so
they couldn't say I wasn't qualified. Noticed that nobody ever
said that al Gore wasn't qualified, was never even never challenged,
never said well, what do you know about climate change?
(43:51):
You know nothing? And yet here you've written books and
you're the world expert on it. You know nothing, So
they couldn't say I wasn't qualified. And I had this
ability to explain it in ways that people that didn't
understand science could make sense of it. Therefore I was
an enormous threat. So what do you do? You file
three lawsuits against the against me and and try to
(44:15):
shut me up that way, both in terms of the
cost and also other scientists. I had a lot of
scientists say to me, we agree with you, but we
never say it publicly because we don't want to get lawsuits.
We don't want to be attacked. So the intimidation factor
of what I've gone through is very much a part
of this.
Speaker 2 (44:35):
So do you think that your success to this point
anyway will carry each others.
Speaker 3 (44:44):
That I'm right at the point of not knowing whether
how to answer that question. My wife asked me that
question this morning because one of the things that I've
been saying recently is that I failed. And what I
mean by that is that for thirty or forty years now,
I've been trying to point out the world how what's
(45:08):
wrong with the science, the very basics of what's wrong
with the science, and an awful lot of people have
bought into that. You know, the the you can look
on the web, but at the groups, but the world
is still every single Democratic presidential nominee in the in
America recently climate change was their number one issue. Well,
(45:32):
if climate change is not an issue, why is it
an issue for them? Therefore I failed.
Speaker 2 (45:38):
And I read that when when you put that, when
you put that out, and I thought, I thought, I thought,
don't fall over now, Well you have been you have
been rehabilitated. They're they're the nine points. Now, who's got
the moral high grounds in this debate?
Speaker 3 (46:00):
Oh yeah, of course that's That's what it's all about,
is is uh, who's got the moral high ground? And
the answer is the minute the minute you say you know,
I'm protecting the environment or protecting the planet, than anybody
that dares to question what you're saying loses the moral
(46:21):
high ground. So they get the moral high ground by default.
And and of course this is this is what I'm saying.
I said earlier about where science would normally have a
full debate about the credibility of all this information. You
can't even present the other side of the argument because
(46:41):
you're immediately accused of not caring about the children, or
the planet or the future. So it stifles the debate
that we absolutely need to have, because you know, here's
one of the area just just a shirt to throw
something at you that completely out of left field. We're
talking about overpopulation. Every country in the world is, oh, well,
(47:04):
we got overpopulation. We got to reduce population. Do you
know the most effective way of reducing population?
Speaker 2 (47:10):
Yes, development exactly, and that's been known for sixty years. Well,
I profit that on this podcast, I think only a
week ago, to a question that somebody wrote to me,
and I got a response to it from another individual,
and it went something like this, how can you believe
(47:34):
the figures that are proposed about the popular the oil's
population dropping around twenty fifty How can you believe that
from people who look to the future, when we won't
believe this about climate and other things. In other words,
they get it wrong all the time, So why would
we believe that. Figure, Well, what.
Speaker 3 (47:57):
You have to do as what I have always done,
and why I got into climate and then into the
area of climate that I did. I got into climate
reconstruction because one of the things I discovered was that
there was very little long term data about climate and
climate change. And until you know how much the climate
(48:17):
has changed in the past, you haven't got a hope
of getting to the mechanisms and then to predicting and
planning for the future. And so when I made these
arguments about decreasing population due to development, go and look
at the demographic transition and look at all the countries
(48:40):
where it has operated. Look at the countries where in
fact there are countries now and even parts of countries,
for example, Quebec here in Canada are paying parents to
have a third child because the demographic transition is so
effective that they can only maintain their workforce with immigration.
(49:02):
America is replacing a declining birth rate with immigration. And
so this is evidence of how effective our population control
can be.
Speaker 2 (49:18):
All right, two more things. I don't know whether you've
seen it, but Japan has The Japanese Prime Minister has
announced I think yesterday that he's given approval for a
thirty percent increase, and they currently have one hundred coal
fired power plants in Japan a thirty percent entry, So
(49:42):
another thirty coal fled coal fired power plants to be
built in Japan. Well, what's what's going on then with
countries like ours, where where we're talking about the government's
talking about punishing everybody and doing their very best and
closing down infrastructure and searches for power sources, when Japan's
(50:09):
simply going to build another thirty CO five.
Speaker 3 (50:12):
Well, of course, it's like with the people. Ultimately it's
yourself interest that you look after. You'll go along with
the group as long as you see some benefit and
you want to be part of the group, but ultimately
it's your own survival. Japan's problem has always been a
complete lack of resources. Japan has had to depend upon
(50:34):
imported resources, and in fact, back in the oil energy crisis,
back with the OPEC back in the eighties, what Japan
did was built huge inflatable rubberized containers and floated them
in all of the estuaries around Japan and filled them
up with oil so that they had in those containers
(50:57):
two years of oil supply in case they got cut
off from the rest of the world. Japan has always
had an energy problem. It's why they were quite happy,
despite what being the only country in the world to
suffer from the effects of the nuclear bomb, they were
quite happy to adopt nuclear power, and forty percent or
(51:18):
so of their power now comes from nuclear. The other
point about this is if they opened thirty coal burning plants.
First of all coal and this has been the case
now for at least sixty years. The technology to burn
coal perfectly clean has been around for at least sixty years.
(51:40):
In fact, there was a coal burning plant in the
middle William and Mary Campus University in the US that
students didn't even know it was a coal burning plant
because it was the first place where they experimented with
scrubbers and burning the coal clean. It never got adopted
to the national situation because at that time that they
(52:04):
were pushing it, they were Tristia bill was about three
hundred dollars a month and if they went to this
clean coal approach, it would lick more than double the
price of the energy, and no politician was willing to
do that. There are there are energy companies in the
US three and have got together and built a coal
(52:26):
burning plant in North Dakota that is completely cold. Uh,
you know, clean coal, free clean, Yeah, clean coal, But
people don't want to pay the price for it. There's
other alternate energies. The other point that I make is
so so Japan bills thirty coal burning plants, they would
be with complete scrubbers because they don't want to pollute themselves.
(52:49):
But that's not a fraction of what China's building every month.
And and so this is this is part of the
difficulty that unless you determine and can prove scientifically that
the CO two is a problem, and then you can
bring in legislation that is truly global in its adaptation,
(53:13):
then why would any country uh may you know have
produce electricity more expensive than it needs to? As I said,
if you if you could do this reduction unilaterally, fine,
but it ain't gonna happen. And it's never and it
has never happened, and and so as I said, there's
(53:36):
so much misinformation about uh energy production, coal production, uh
and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1 (53:45):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (53:45):
It's it's absolutely amazing. I mean, one of the one
of the pushes for for Antarctica and the reason the
U en several years ago said no, we're not going
to allow any resource extraction on Australia in Antarctica. Is
because there's some of the best massive coal scenes anywhere
in the world, and countries that had a slice of
Antarctica said hey, I'm going to go and drag the
(54:07):
coal out of there. And the UN had to step
in and say no, we're going to We're going to
pass the policy that there'll be no resource extraction out
of Antarctica. This is the sort of thing that people
don't even hear about about what's going on now.
Speaker 2 (54:21):
Finally, September twenty three, the UN biggest meeting since on
climate since Paris. What's what would we expect from that?
Speaker 3 (54:34):
Well, what they'll do is they'll can continue to push
that the global warming and the climate issue is, well,
what's the term an existential threat and all this nonsense.
But the numbers that they're using come from the Intercunmental
Panel on Climate Change, who only look at human causes
(54:54):
of climate change. So, in other words, they're going to
base a war policy on data that has been deliberately
restricted and created in order to justify the policy. It's
the most incestuous self serving system you could imagine, and
(55:15):
but that's what they'll do. They'll come out and say, Oh,
it's worse than we thought. We've got to act, We've
got to do this, We've got to do that. Meanwhile,
countries like China say, there, go away, we're going to
burn the call.
Speaker 2 (55:28):
What would you what would you advise somebody who asks
you they know very little, but they want to know more.
What should they? Can you suggest a website? Can you
suggest I mean, you've got two books, but can you
suggest the best book and the best website that anyone
who wants to advance their knowledge of this could go to.
Speaker 3 (55:52):
Well, that's the problem with it. There is no one
website because you're dealing with politics and you're dealing with science,
and in climate change, every single science is involved. I mean,
you look at the range of people that call themselves
climates scientists. They're everybody from hydrologists to atmospheric chemists and
so on. And so this is back to that problem
(56:16):
I mentioned at the beginning of the program, where the
atmosphere is a general thing, but everybody that's studying it
is only looking at one small piece of it as
an atmospheric specialist. And so some of the best websites
to go to. The one that is very very good
is what's up with that? Yes, because what Anthony does
(56:42):
is he tries to explain the science in a way
that people can understand and then also present political arguments
that are are relevant to the issue, so that that
is as good a website as Eddie. There's another one
called CO two Science. That's all one word CO two
(57:03):
Capitalists Science. CO two Science now that's run by Craig
is So and sure what it's so? And these are
people who have been specialist since CO two well Sherwood
for forty years at least that I know of, and
so they of course are the world experts on CO
(57:24):
two properties, what it can do, what it can't do,
and of course because they know, they also are aware
of all of the misinformation and lies that are out there.
So that's another superb site to go to. Unfortunately, I
because my site got hacked by people putting pornographic films
(57:45):
on there. I just quit trying to protect it and
took the site down. I'm debating whether I want to
put up another site.
Speaker 2 (57:52):
When did you When did you do that? Because I tried,
I attempted to get onto it this morning before we spoke,
and yeah, it won't go anyway.
Speaker 3 (58:01):
No, I took it out. I took it down two
days ago. And the reason is, I mean normally I say, okay,
adults at looking at it, the pornographic intrusions are no
big deal. But the problem is because of so many
children researching climate and climate change. You know, I mean
every every subject in school, they got an essay to
(58:23):
do on global warming. And so I just couldn't risk
having children click onto my site and see the pornographic site.
Speaker 2 (58:34):
You've just touched on something that we won't go into today,
and that is the abuse of children. You know, I
get male from parents who was on my kid. My
kid tried to write an essay because he doesn't believe
it and I was told he'd fail if he did it.
Speaker 3 (58:53):
Yep, yep. The child abuse that's going on in the
schools really needs to be examined. Schools of schools have
gone from places of of of well babysitting and one
level of education, they are now totally schools of indoctrination.
Speaker 2 (59:13):
Very sad. Listen, once again, once again, I've got to
say thank you so much for your time. We did
what we did last time we've done an hour and
I'm thrilled with it. And you must get very weary
of doing all these interviews. But I'm so grateful and
I want to thank you very much, and again congratulations
on your recent award and the court victory.
Speaker 3 (59:38):
Thanks for the opportunity. And by the way, late and
one of the things that the climate issue week is
a lot more we can talk about. But they're doing
what I said they would do. As the climate issue
is weakening, water is becoming the focus, You're going to
see a whole panic around the world about water and
water resources.
Speaker 2 (59:55):
Well, lot, this is something to talk about. I'm happy
to engage with you again.
Speaker 3 (01:00:01):
Good and I taught a course in water resources for
twenty five years and I served on several commissions on water,
so both at the federal and international level. So be
happy to talk about that topic too, so that people
can at least get some facts and formulate or sort
out whether they're hearing is true or not.
Speaker 2 (01:00:24):
It's beautiful, Tim, Thank you so much. Thank you lying
ladies and gentlemen, Doctor Tim Ball. So there you have
it from doctor Tim Ball. Now I could talk I
could talk this particular topic every week and I could
fill this podcast up with individual scientists of his standing
(01:00:46):
and even higher, and there are some, and we could
just hammer it, but none of us want I want
to do that all the time. I don't, but I could,
because there are enough of them and they have various
things to say from different disciplines in science. Now, I
want to leave you this week with a little story
with well that has connections anti the meat move. It
(01:01:08):
is certainly gained by metum in recent years, with vegetarians
and vagans set to make up one quarter of the
UK population by twenty twenty five, and that's according to
an analysis by Sainsbury's. But a big study released last
week might just put the brakes on the rapidly accelerating
plant based trend. According to Oxford University research published by
the British Medical Journal, vegetarians and vagans have a twenty percent,
(01:01:33):
zero one and five percent higher risk of stroke than
those who regularly apply themselves with meat. The authors of
the study, which tracked almost fifty thousand Britains for eighteen years,
said this might be because veggies do not have enough
cholesterol in their blood. The finding flies on the face
(01:01:54):
of much conventional wisdom, which says that vegetarianism is a
healthy alternative to a carnivorous lifestyle. We are forever being
hected about the need, apparently for health and environmental reasons,
to cut back on red meat altogether. Nutritius say the
increased risk of stroke is just one of the many
health risks that any would be vegetarian should be made
(01:02:16):
aware of before they take the plunge. Now, it's a
lengthy article, but that's all I need to cover. But
can I leave you with one final thought. This belief
that there are too many people on the planet and
the desire to reduce the number of people by one
way or another just could fall into this category. You
(01:02:41):
imagine it. The encouragement is to get people off meat
and onto a plant based diet. With a twenty percent
increase in chance of stroke, wouldn't it be one fine
way to reduce the number of people on the planet,
especially as age catches up with people. So I leave
you with that thought, and the next time you jump
(01:03:02):
into a vagan or a vegetarian, ask them if they've
used up four of their five lives. We shall talk
again next week. Thank you for listening and take care.
Speaker 1 (01:03:19):
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
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.