12-10-24 - 9am - Population Panic

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
An account I follow on x at emuse a m
u s comment, how it's weird that we know so
much about Luigi for him being arrested in the morning.
By last night, then we know about the two people
who attempted to assassinate President Trump. Just interesting how the

(00:23):
media can find out so much information and share it
sometimes and not others.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Comment on that particular talk back.

Speaker 3 (00:34):
Uh, what do you mean?

Speaker 2 (00:36):
What did I say to you? Uh? It must have
been during the break at the top of the last hour.

Speaker 4 (00:43):
Oh yeah, well you asked me, how can we know
we know all about Luigi, but we don't know about
Thomas Crooks? Here you go, and I almost said, who's
Thomas Crooks? But you it's about to just before then
the Trump shooter.

Speaker 2 (00:58):
Yeah, sick minds think alike. But it is fascinating, isn't
it that we know everything about Well, we don't know
everything about because they're still doing the investigation, but we
certainly know a thousand times more about Luigi Luigi Mangioni.

(01:21):
Have you ever had any Luigi Mangioni over at Ma Giano's.

Speaker 4 (01:25):
It was delicious, It was wonderful, wasn't it. You put
a little pomersan on and it's great.

Speaker 2 (01:29):
Yeah. Yeah, and a little red pepper flakes. Yeah that's
really good. Spice it up just a little bit. Yeah,
really good. So we know more about Luigi than we
do about Thomas Crooks. You know, I completely blew by
on purpose the hearing that the acting Director of the

(01:49):
Secret Service testified at last week I think it was
last week sometime where they got into this stupid shouting
match with each other about you know, who was at
ground zero and who wasn't at ground zero, and who
helped nine to eleven who didn't help the nine to
eleven because it was like, it was so ridiculous. But

(02:10):
here we are, and we still don't know anything about
the phone or phones that Thomas Crooks had, who he
made phone calls to. We don't know anything about the weapon,
where he attained the weapon. We don't know. We don't
know anything. We probably know less. I know, many years

(02:35):
about fifty some years have past.

Speaker 1 (02:37):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (02:38):
We know less about Thomas Crooks than we do about
Lee Harvey Osma or Jack Ruby nothing uh or what
was the Ford? What was that she had some crazy
name that tried to shoot Gerald Ford Hinckley Bells know

(03:00):
everything about John Hinckley Thomas Crooks. Now is that a
function of an incompetent secret service trying to cover up
their malpractice? That day is a factor of it's Donald Trump,
And so the cup all doesn't want to give Donald
Trump any more attention about the assassination attempt.

Speaker 4 (03:22):
Possibly is much less social media presence for that kid
versus this other.

Speaker 2 (03:27):
Kid could be could be, Yeah, although I did notice
when when the name was released yesterday. The very first
thing I did, I went to X and Facebook to
see if I could find his social media pages, and
they had already been suspended, already taken down.

Speaker 4 (03:43):
In an argument could also be made that this Luigi
guy seemed to have accomplished much more in his life
so far than the other kid who shot at Trump.

Speaker 3 (03:55):
Oh yeah, so there's much more, are you not?

Speaker 2 (03:59):
That any life more important than any other life? I
would argue, though, that the consequences of the assassination of
a health insurance CEO versus the assassination of a former
president and the leading presidential candidate and now the president elect,
is probably much more earth shattering than the CEO.

Speaker 3 (04:17):
True, and.

Speaker 2 (04:22):
The assassination of the CEO did not involve the active
participation of an organization whose sole responsibility is to keep
that from happening. You cannot argue that the that the
role of a police department is to prevent murders, because

(04:44):
that's that's just an impossible task. You can't do it.
But it does. It really bugs the crap out of
me that we still know little, if anything about Thomas
Crooks and what took place on that day in Pennsylvania.
It drives me nuts. But that's not what I wanted
to talk about. I just found it interesting that Alexa

(05:06):
would leave that talk back when I had said exactly
the same thing to Dragon, just maybe an hour earlier.
Or maybe I should be more concerned that Alexa is
listening to us during the breaks. Certainly possible that now
now I can't get my mind.

Speaker 3 (05:25):
Off that she's been to the studio, she knows where
we work, she.

Speaker 2 (05:28):
Knows where we work, She's been in these studios, and
for all I know, maybe I need to do is sweep.
Maybe I need to call my FBI friends and have
them do a sweep and see just like you know,
this little flat wireless charger that Martine or somebody hasn't here. Yeah,
maybe just maybe that's not really just a charger.

Speaker 3 (05:48):
I mean, there was a mug that was left, and
it's just.

Speaker 2 (05:50):
Oh, there is a mug left, a mug in here
to day, huh. And of course it must have been
left for me because it says goat on the side. Yeah,
disgusting creature, the greatest of all time. You know, moral panic.

(06:15):
One An indicator of moral panic is when the facts
changed but the fear, but the fear does not. And
we've talked about how when when I was in high
school and debating on the debate team, that one of
the things that we had to debate was we didn't
call it climate change. We called it the new ice Age.

(06:36):
There's a coming ice age. Time Magazine, the Washington Post,
the New York Times, they all talked about a new
ice age. Well after scientists updated their models to show
a trend in the other direction. Then we changed the
We changed the language from a new ice age to

(06:57):
global warming. And then global warming became as threatening as
global cooling. And then when winters kept like it looks
cold outside right now, my watch says it's twenty one degrees.
I'll have to puff the jeep before I get into it.

(07:18):
So I don't freeze my ass off when I go outside.
And then when winters kept happening, and the worst predictions
of al Gore, you know, oh that was supposed to
have happened ten years ago, fifteen years ago, twenty years ago.
Then everything gets rebranded again and now it's just climate change.

(07:41):
And the other thing I love about the fact that
it's now climate change is that whether we have a
really bad winter or really bad summer, it's climate change.
If we have a thunderstorm in the springtime, that's climate change.
If we have a hailstorm in the summer, that's climate change.
If we have records snowfall, that's climate change. If we

(08:02):
have a drought, that's climate change. If we have floods,
that's climate change. In other words, the weather has become
climate change. Whatever the label, whatever the weather is or
thought to be, the moral implication of all of it
is exactly the same. We as humans are ruining the earth,

(08:23):
and we got to stop what we're doing, otherwise we're
all going to die. There was a time in human
history when you know pioneers or cavemen or hower for
you want to go back, bad weather was God's punishment
for our sins, Well, we've been a bad we've been

(08:47):
bad people, so we're going to have a bad crop
this year. Now it's that it's nature, because nature's become god.
Nature is punishing us for free markets, for capitalism, and
these wise men among us, these so called pudity scientists

(09:09):
who foresee the future, know this. And the only remedy,
of course, is one that all the environmentalists, all the socialists,
all the Marxist, all the anti capitalists, all the communists
have already demanded before the crisis was even identified, and
that was bigger government, more global government, and increasing control
over the economy and individual lives. There was Oh, I

(09:30):
don't think I saved it on my ex account, but
there was somebody from one of the United Nations organizations
giving a speech somewhere in Europe, and they had a
PowerPoint up and someone captured the PowerPoint. I don't whether
I've retweeted it or not, but it was basically that
climate change is our opportunity for wealth redistribution. Sometimes they

(10:01):
do say the quiet part out loud. It's all about
power and control, it's all about wealth distribution. Now we've
got a new version of climate change. You might say,
that climate change is about the planet. Well, now we've

(10:22):
got another panic, and it's the population panic. But the
pattern is exactly the same, you know, both the left
and the right. At one time we're freaking out about overpopulation,
but now it's global population growth slows and the wealthiest
countries like this country and China, which at one time
had this one child policy and then realized, oh, that's

(10:44):
going to f things up, so let's get rid of
that policy. And now we have birth rates that are
below the replacement levels. So now fears of overpopulation have
given way to equally intense anxieties about a birth dearth,
not enough babies. I'm talking about babies a lot today.

(11:08):
And again, despite this problem being exactly the opposite of
what it was just a few years ago, the solution,
of course, never changes if you're conservative. The social cries
of babies having babies, as it was framed during this
period of high rates of teen pregnancy, was a return

(11:30):
to old time religion and you know family value. You
remember family values. Well, those are the same cures for
an insufficient number of babies today. For progressives, too many
pregnancies were a social ill to be addressed through family planning,
family planning as well as government planning. And that would

(11:50):
be all everything that involves, you know, family planning imposed
by the government, sex, educational, legalized abortion, birth control pills,
any kind of motive interception, anything at all has got
to be promoted at home by all the social engineers
using your tax dollars, whether it be it a school
or a nonprofit or planned parenthood or whatever. And now

(12:11):
in the twenty first century, the same means are used,
but put to opposite use. Now we're going to have
technology that's going to promote bursts through in vitro fertilization surrogacy.
Remember how that was an issue, How quickly we forgot.
Remember how big of an issue about in vitro fertilization

(12:33):
was During the presidential campaign. Oh, Donald Trump was against
in vitro fertilization, despite how many times he said no, no, no,
I'm all for it, they kept telling us that he
was against it. Now they want to do refundable tax credits.
What's a refundable tax credit. That's a subsidy. If you'll

(12:53):
just have kids, and if you'll just hire childcare facilities
to take care of those kids, you don't have to
do it. Why, well, we'll subsidize that. Margaret Sanger is
alive and well of kiddos. All all of these left
wing population control uh government control people, all of their

(13:19):
intention to cut down berths is unthinkable because modern progresses.
They're not going to restrict abortion. They're not going to
insist the husbands be paid enough that their wives can
stay home with their children instead working and hiring childminders
to influence your children, to raise your children for you. Now,

(13:40):
don't get me wrong that a lackadaisical economy. Now, many women,
many men. You know, some husbands stay home, some wives
stay home. And that's a great choice. And if you
can make that choice, power to you. I think it's wonderful.
But when you have taxes and a cost of living

(14:03):
and the need for just transportation, housing and food being
so dang expensive, that means that many people have to work.
And so if you have to work, you don't necessarily
have a job that is starts at eight o'clock and
ends at two or three o'clock, you know, school hours,
So you have to have childcare, so your children get

(14:24):
turned over to these child minders for most of their
waking hours. You ever stoping thinking about that, Do you
know what goes on in the classroom? Do you do
you know what's said? Of course you don't. You're not there,

(14:44):
and your kids aren't always going to tell you. Now,
even if you raise your kids right, you may still
not learn everything that your child's being taught, or what
are they learning in childcare? What kind of socialization is
going on in childcare? Thought about that because, well, it
depends on the cost of the particular childcare. But you're

(15:05):
throwing in a huge mix of all sorts of socioeconomic
backgrounds into one little place that's got just a few
probably underpaid people unless they're overcharging you for childcare. Underpaid people.
They're just there to just make sure that the fights
don't break out, or that you break up the fights
that do breakout. So, whether the source of the current

(15:27):
penny is population or client, two things are constant. One
is that the problem is not simply inconvenient. It's apocalyptic.
Is the end of humankind, It's the end of the
planet for the left over. A population is a planet
depleted of resources. We were watching Landman again last night,

(15:52):
Billy Bob Thornton. It's a great series. I mean, I
don't know how Taylor Shared, who apparently is an ass
produces as many stories as he does, but apparently he's
got must have a boatloader rider somewhere. But once again, uh,
they're they're having a big argument in a boardroom in

(16:12):
a petroleum club somewhere where they're all wringing their hands
about what are we going to replace oil with? And
and John Hann from mad Men most famous I guess
for mad Men gives a really great speech about how
you know, they're sitting there in the petroleum club in

(16:33):
Dallas or Fort Worth or wherever the club is, and
you know, they got their cowboy hats on, other suits on,
and it's opulent with all of the you know, the
the boardroom look and everything, and they're eating their fancy
lunch and and Hann gives a lecture about, you know,
we might be billionaires, but what are we really We're
just well diggers and we don't care and nor can

(16:57):
we control what they do with our product. And ninety
nine point nine percent of the world wants and needs
that product, they just don't want to admit it. So
this idea that we're going to destroy the planet with
fossil fuels or that overpopulation is going to you know,

(17:19):
rise up the masses and is going to disturb the
political order. There's also a threat to society from the
youth culture that followed the Baby Boomers and corresponds to
the invention of rock and roll, declining respect for authority,
escalating crime rates. It just goes on and on and on,
and it's all human's fault. So did God make a mistake?

(17:39):
Did God make a mistake in creating humans? Because if
you listen to the left and sometimes the right, we're
the problem now. Left and right dread the one singular
thing that's brought them I shouldn't say the one singular thing,
but a singular thing that has brought them together, and

(18:00):
that's the declining birth rates. Who's gonna pay for the
welfare state? I had someone to sent me an email.
By the way, let me answer the email real quickly,
so I'm not going to give your name out. But
where's that email?

Speaker 3 (18:15):
Rita?

Speaker 2 (18:16):
No last name? Oh, I to your last name, Rita.
I keep hearing on various news and articles that Trump
and Elon and Musk are going to take our social
security away from us. I'm retired. My husband's seventy one
and still working because of the costs to live nowadays.
Can you please tell me if there's any truth to
these rumors.

Speaker 3 (18:32):
No, they're rumors, and.

Speaker 2 (18:35):
I'm not mad at you, Rita, but it drives me
nuts that I'm constantly asked about the Donald Trump's gonna
take away my social Security. No, the reality is Social
Security is insolvent, so some changes have to be made.
But there has never been anybody, Democrat or Republican who

(18:55):
has said, let's cut those who are now on Social Security,
let's take it away from them. Oh, I'm not saying
there won't be a reduction and benefits. There certainly could
be a you know, a ten percent count to benefits
or something. But the system itself has to be reformed
otherwise it's not going to survive. But they're not taking

(19:16):
it away. They'll get grandfather down.

Speaker 3 (19:20):
But if the.

Speaker 2 (19:25):
And on the right, people worry because how's the economy
going to grow if the consumer base declines? Well, and
what with the birth dearth go on forever until just
whole nations disappear. It's insane what people are thinking.

Speaker 5 (19:39):
But Michael, shouldn't the luck be happy that the population
is going down?

Speaker 3 (19:45):
There's less people to destroy.

Speaker 5 (19:48):
Ruin whatever you want to call it the environment, which
we all know is bullpucky.

Speaker 3 (19:53):
But hey, that's life. So be happy. Fewer people, less
climate change, That's what I think.

Speaker 2 (20:02):
Well that is what you would naturally think. But it's
not that they might be happy with it. But what's
their solution because they've now identified it as a problem.
What you know, if we have, for example, in this country,

(20:23):
a declining birth rate, so what do you hear from
the Democrats? Spend money, spend money and bring more people in,
so open the floodgates and that all the illegal aliens
come in because we have to solve this problem of
a declining birth rate. Now, I've always believed that our

(20:43):
limit on growth is limitless the economy, the population. I mean,
I guess I get an envision a time when the
density on the planet is so bad that it's unbearable.
But you want to believe, simultanee is that we will
figure out ways to accommodate that growth, either based on

(21:06):
how we live, how we transport, how we house ourselves,
how we feed ourselves, where we could just continue to
grow and grow and grow. And you know, maybe maybe
Elon Musk is right, Maybe we end up colonizing Mars
or the moon or whatever, and the population just continues
to grow and grow and grow. But no, the Democrats

(21:26):
right now see population decline declining birth rates as a
problem because well that's just their excuse to bring more
people in. But stop and think about this. So you
got the ice age, global warming, climate change, and then
you have overpopulation, then you have a declining population. Well,

(21:48):
what's consistent throughout all of those? What's the one consistent
thing through all of them? Politics? Not that a free
market it or capitalism can somehow resolve these I'll use
air quotes around the word problem. And if it's if

(22:11):
it's a political solution, it's an institutional political solution. Now
that's a conceited attitude because you can only maintain that
conceit by ignoring the complexity of the issue. I firmly
believe the climate changes, and so there may be now

(22:36):
there's no evidence of this, but let's say that it changes,
and that we do start ending up in a ice
age or or the ice age that we're actually in.
You know, it starts to get worse. Well, we're going
to need new ways to live in areas that are

(22:58):
outside the tropics where it will get the coldest last,
I assume it we get coldest last. I don't know
that for a fact. I just make that assumption. Or
if we are in a warming period, Okay, humans thrive
more in warm climates than they do in cold climates,

(23:19):
and you have longer growing seasons, so whatever, whatever it is.
And more people means to growing economy, more consumers, more producers,
more everything. But we ignore the fact that human populations
rise and fall over time. And while some populations have

(23:41):
gone in extinct, Yes, where where are those incas? Where
did they go? Uh? Where are all the people that
live in Bombay? Where they? Well, you can you actually
see some of their bones. Nations that exist at present.

(24:03):
Every single nation has experienced peaks and troughs before, but
what's unprecedented is the height of the most recent peak.
There are far more people alive today than ever born
in the history of the human species, in so far
as we know, not only until the early nineteenth century
did human population first cross the one billion mark, and

(24:26):
today there are more than eight billion souls on this planet.
So that exceptional growth spurt generally derives from the effects
of the industrial revolution, which gave us all these things
that extended our lifespan and gave us the ability to
have even more children because we could afford more children.

(24:50):
And today virtually the entire world is industrialized, so the
process that accelerated growth is at an end, and so
population growth has slowed, halted, or re The baby boom
and all the baby busts may have been triggered by
human activity, but they were not the result of anyone's
grand social plan. Even the most coarsely population control efforts,

(25:12):
such as you know, China's one child policy, they couldn't
outdo the reduction and growth rates brought about through natural developments.
So we're now at the stage where everything, even if
they're the total opposite problem overpopulation, birth decline, birth decline

(25:35):
in birth rates. What's the solution, oh, government intervention. Now
let's just focus for a moment on the climate and
stop and think about if climate is the problem, whether

(25:55):
it's cooling, warming, or just change. Ask yourself these ten
questions and then tell me if you've ever heard an answer.
I know you've heard these questions, because this is a

(26:16):
compilation of questions that over the pot past I don't know,
fifteen years or so, that I've consistently asked, so if
the Earth is overheating? Question number one. If the Earth
is overheating, and you say it's too hot, what is
the correct global mean surface temperature for life on Earth?
And why isn't that? Give me a numerical answer, Give

(26:40):
me some unit rounded to the nearest tenth of a
degree fahrenheit or celsius. I don't care. Then explain why
that value is ideal and give me the evidence to
justify your answer. What is too hot? What is too cold?
What's the correct global mean serface temperature for the Earth?

(27:00):
It varies all over the place. You can't even answer
that question. What about question number two? What's the correct
atmospheric CO two level for life on Earth? What level
of CO two optimizes production in agriculture? What's the correct

(27:26):
atmospheric CO two level that maintains the maximum production value
for any given crop? What is it?

Speaker 3 (27:38):
What CO two level will.

Speaker 2 (27:41):
Make the weather less scary? And again, I want an
exact value in a fraction er of volume percentage, and
explain to me why that is the ideal volume for
CO two in the atmosphere. We keep telling you know
CO two that which was just a naturally occurring gas

(28:02):
suddenly becomes a greenhouse gas, and the government solution is
too regulated. Okay, well, if you're going to regulate it,
tell me to what level are you going to increase
it or decrease it?

Speaker 1 (28:13):
What?

Speaker 2 (28:13):
What If we're going to look at regulations and we're
going to say that regulations are supposed to optimize safety
or optimize production or whatever supposed to do, then tell
me what your regulations and CO two are going to do.
Are they going to optimize CO two for agricultural productivity
or are they going to decrease CO two because it
somehow affects, you know, human growth capacity or something. Tell me,

(28:37):
tell me what it is, which leads to the third question,
why is CO two a pollution? Why is it a pollution?

Speaker 1 (28:46):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (28:46):
I know because the EPA told us his pollution because
they you know, under the Clean Air Act, they passed
their regulation and they determine that CO two is a
greenhouse gas. Well, what does that mean? Justify its science?
Typically that CO two is a pollution. If CO two

(29:07):
is a pollution, why not water vapor because it's also
a greenhouse gas. In fact, it's the most abundant greenhouse
gas and it absorbs a wider spectrum of infrared wave
links than does CO two, So what makes COE two pollution?
Nobody ever stops and thinks about them. We get so

(29:27):
wrapped up in the day to day politics that we
never again like I like to do. I'd like to
step back and just say, okay, oh, then explain to me.
If if warming is so bad, cooling is so bad,
or just change is so bad, then what's the idea.
What ideal are we trying to reach in terms of

(29:48):
the global mean surface temperature? And if CO two suddenly
is so bad and all we hear about, you know,
so I put our flights to go to Phoenix for
a few days over Christmas, and it drives me notes
United Airlines, Hey, you want to pay more to offset
your greenhouse gas emissions? No, I certainly do not. I
don't care if it's if it's a dollar, I don't

(30:10):
give a rats ask how much CO two is omitted
on a flight from Denver International to Sky Harbor. I
just don't care. And I'm certainly not going to pay
for something I don't care about. But we get inundated
with this stuff in our faces every single day, and
we never stopped them and just ask wait a minute,

(30:31):
why why or what? Why is it the greenhouse gas?
And what's the correct temperature? And I love this question.
I'll do I'll do this question after break, Michael.

Speaker 5 (30:47):
In the beginning, God created the heavens on the earth,
and it was good. Then God created all of the
animals and the.

Speaker 3 (30:53):
Plants, and it was good.

Speaker 5 (30:56):
And then God created man and it was good and
all was well. Then God created women, and the whole
world went to hell in an afternoon, says the single guy, says.

Speaker 2 (31:11):
The single guy whose phone number is three zero three
six nine seven. For all you women out there, that
what I call Billy, Bob and Delli. The last question.
I've actually got more, but this is the last one
I can get to. Janet Yellen, the Treasury Secretary, estimates

(31:34):
that for US to get to net zero by twenty fifty,
it will cost the US economy seventy five trillion dollars. Now,
with approximately one hundred and sixty five million US taxpayers,
it would cost every single taxpayer about four hundred and
fifty thousand dollars, almost half a million dollars to get

(31:56):
to that zero by that target date.

Speaker 3 (31:58):
Pocket change, Well.

Speaker 2 (32:00):
Maybe for you, But for me, I'd have to dip
into savings and I don't want to do that. So
are you willing to shell out that money or do
you just expect everybody else is going to fit the
bill for you? And And if we spend seventy five
trillion dollars to decarbonize the economy of by twenty fifty,
how much will that reduce the global mean surface temperature

(32:24):
by the end of the century. Tell me to a
tenth of a degree celsius and show me the calculations.
What does the perfect climate look like? We get so
wrapped up in the day to day arguments about this
that we never just stop and ask ourselves, wait a minute,
what are we arguing about? You tell me you answer

(32:47):
my questions before we go a step further in this
debate about the stupid idea about climate change, and then
we can have a debate