2-25-25 - 9am - The Climate Grift

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Right.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
I sure hope they can doze the truck in industry
a little bit.

Speaker 3 (00:05):
Last night I had to spend the night in the
truck fifty two miles away from home because Uncle Sam
said I was too tired to drive at seven point
thirty charm bitch.

Speaker 4 (00:19):
Too tired or too drunk. I wasn't sure which I
couldn't understand.

Speaker 5 (00:23):
It's hard to tell.

Speaker 4 (00:24):
I know it is. I think maybe too drunk or
or you know, trying to watch porn and drive at
the same time just doesn't always work out too well.
The two lane bridge. You know, I love this audience,
Gouber number fifty five ninety, drive and listen to this. Yes,
timed layoffs do happen. It's usually a part of infrastructure restructuring,

(00:46):
like shutting down a plant and moving equipment across the country.
Usually somebody will get a decent bonus if they stick
around until the plan is shut down. These types of
layoffs are rare, but they do happen. Kind of makes sense.
So you know that you're shutting the plant down, so
you know that whenever your little segment of the shutdown occurs,

(01:09):
that you're going to get laid off. At that point.
So you know in advance that, oh, I am going
to get laid off if they stick to the schedule
on such and such days.

Speaker 6 (01:17):
Okay, Yeah, I can see that, because when we finally
sold the subway franchises, some of the employees didn't want
to move over to the new ownership group.

Speaker 5 (01:24):
So yeah, I suppose you.

Speaker 4 (01:27):
Timed they liked working with you that much.

Speaker 6 (01:31):
I mean, no, no, no, the other the other managers
are you know, oh, because.

Speaker 4 (01:35):
I can't imagine anybody wanted to if they had an
opportunity to leave working for you and work for anybody else,
like they would, they would have jumped at that opportunity. Yeah,
all right, center what Sheldon Whitehouse at a hearing on
Capitol Hill just a couple of days ago, I had

(01:56):
this to say.

Speaker 1 (01:58):
As I said last week, we have entered the era
of climate consequences. The stuff the scientists warned us would
happen is happening. Snicker all you want about green new deals,
ignore all you want. Collapse in coastlines, glaciers, coral reefs,
and fisheries. Pope Francis said, slapla, how's the Pope get
into this? My mother nature and she will slap you back.

(02:22):
The economic slap back is here now in skyrocketing home
insurance prices and failing home insurance markets.

Speaker 4 (02:30):
I will say it again.

Speaker 1 (02:30):
When climate have a hits property insurance markets, it then
hits mortgage markets, which then tanks property values so hard
it can take down the whole economy. You may have
missed it, but last week the FED chairman and Senate
testimony predicted within the next ten to fifteen years there
will be regions of the country where you can't get.

Speaker 4 (02:49):
A mortgage anymore.

Speaker 1 (02:52):
When all that hits the fan, Americans will be very
interested and who helped and who obstructed. Pretending solar and
wind energy aren't even energy will look awfully dumb and
not permitting and building a clean, modern grid will look
grossly negligent. So let's stop the law breaking and start
the grid building together.

Speaker 4 (03:12):
Well, okay, then NBC's I didn't even know he's he
was still in the air, Al Roker. Al Roker explains.

Speaker 3 (03:21):
Oh, yeah, yesterday I heard you guys talking when we
were talking about all this cold air, and you say, well,
if the planet's warming, how come it's so cold. So
we thought we would answer that for you. So Arctic
air is contained by this polar vortex. It keeps it
up there in the Arctic. However, as the planet is warming,
climate change has actually caused significant.

Speaker 4 (03:42):
Warming up into the Arctic.

Speaker 3 (03:43):
So as that warm air comes up into the Arctic,
that weakens the polar vortex, that boundary, and it allows
that cold air to move south. And that is why
climate change, global planet warming actually allows some parts of
the country to be colder than usual. For today, that
cold air goes all the way down to Texas. We've

(04:05):
got snow showers, great lakes, some snow in the Northern Rockies.

Speaker 4 (04:08):
And by the way, what he was showing chows a
Pacific high coming across. So it is circulating clockwise and
it's moving because of the the trade winds it it's
moving to the north.

Speaker 6 (04:27):
I'm just deeply concerned that he said there is snow
in the northern Rockies.

Speaker 5 (04:31):
That's in my lifetime. That has always happened.

Speaker 7 (04:40):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (04:40):
In fact, I think you and I both kind of
have this week observed about how gorgeous the mountains are. Yep,
with those feet and feet and feet and feet of
snow on those purple mountains. Magics huh yeah. Yeah. Anyway,
so the the high pressure is moving northward, and so

(05:01):
then the low pressure counter circulating is then pushed down,
you know, below the high pressure, and so that pulls
the cold air down. That's been happening for eons since
the creation of the planet. Then this week in Politico,

(05:24):
I read a story in the Energy and Environment section
with the headline viciousness of Trump's climate attacks stuns even
his critics. Wait a minute, so something that Trump did
stunned his critics. Everything Trump does stuns his critics. But

(05:46):
the subhead is President Donald Trump has attacked nearly every
aspect of the US ever to confront rising temperatures. Hmm.
If you ever need like a great example of how
the cabal constructs a narrative out of just thin air,

(06:08):
you ought to go read this political article viciousness of
Trump's climate attacks stunts even's critics. Yeah. Actually, yeah, that's
all you really need to read. That's all you need
to know, because here's here's the message. Trump bagged climate
policy good and if we just throw more money at
this problem, then we're gonna save the planet. And going
back to Sheldon white House, that means that, you know,

(06:30):
eventually we'll save the economy because everything's being destroyed, including
the economy. You're not gonna be able to get a mortgage,
You're not gonna be able to get insurance, You're not
gonna be able to get anything. And people are gonna
start looking around who did something and who didn't do something. Wow,
the vitriol this week is pretty amazing. Now. The entire

(06:51):
article on Politico follows the same template that we've seen
over and over and over since I don't know, since
the seventies, when Time meg Is told us so we
were gonna freeze our asses office, and then a decade later,
Time Magazine told us that we were gonna burn our
houses off. Either way, we're gonna we're gonna lose our
houses because well, because the climate is gonna do what
climate is gonna do. But Political warns us with the

(07:15):
usual breathless urgency that climate action was undermined under Trump,
and that the government agencies, because it takes a government
agency to solve climate change, that they had, they've been crippled.
And now we're in this desperate race to restore. Just
like Sheldon Whitehouse tells us, we've got to restore these
but we've got to restore the programs Here's what they

(07:37):
don't tell you. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to uptick,
to rise, to increase. Climate spending has done the same thing.
Climate spending has ballooned into the trillions of dollars. And
what do we have to show for it, Not a

(07:59):
damn thing nothing. So somehow we're supposed to believe that
Trump's you know, like the the twenty billion dollars that
leads elt in it, the new EP administrator found that
was just parked in City Bank or Bank of America
or somewhere and was eventually going to go to a
bunch of NGOs. We're supposed to believe, based on Politico

(08:19):
and Sheldon Whitehouse and even Al Roker, that if we
would just that Trump's rollback of all these bureaucratic mandates
has somehow single handedly sabotaged the planet. Now, when anybody
else did it, we got the same kind of hyperbole. Yet,

(08:44):
think about this, when those mandates were in place under Obama,
and then you know, now we're talking about eons, so
they're in place under Obama. You've got a short little
fart of four years of Donald Trump, and then boom,
your back to Biden again. Emissions still kept climbing. So

(09:05):
in that twelve year period when they're doing all this
climate activity bull crap, emissions still continued to increase. In fact,
here's the really scary stuff. Emissions aren't just increasing, they're accelerating.
So it kind of makes me wonder, then what are
we paying for? What if you want to doze this,

(09:28):
if we can make doze a verb, and then let's
doze it and see what are we getting for our money?

Speaker 6 (09:35):
Here?

Speaker 4 (09:36):
Because the political article goes on to really lament that
Trump dismantled various climate initiais all across the government, everything
from the EPH of the Department of Energy. But I
think I've got a better question, what were the programs
actually achieving? Because we alone have funneled hundreds of billions

(09:58):
trillions of dollars in to all sorts of subsidies, grants,
global climate funds on an international scale. Yet the atmospheric
concentration of CO two has continued just right. Almost it's
almost as if and I hope any CO two people
that I mean are I hope CO two itself doesn't

(10:20):
let me say this, but it's almost as if CO
two just continues to do what it's going to do
and is completely unaffected by writing checks or holding out
dollar bills. It's almost as if CO two doesn't even care.
I think CO two acts on its own, and so

(10:44):
we've got to just attack CO two And for everyone
that is out there producing CO two, you need to stop,
like right now now, I'm the exception. I'm going to
continue for a while because I've got to bring you this.
Think about it this way. If you paid for a
service like you do with this program, but if you

(11:07):
paid for a service home security, but your house still
got robbed every night, you might call the security company
and say, what am I paying you for? We shoveled
mountains of cash. Speaking of the mountains mountains of cash
in these programs, and the crisis, if you want to

(11:29):
call the crisis just keeps getting worse. But they don't
want to admit failure. Instead, the problem is what We're
just not spending enough money. We need to spend more money.
So the real beneficiaries of this scam are not the
people supposedly threatened by climate change. But who's really threatened

(11:53):
by what Trump's doing is that people in the way
of a wildfire. Because san Anna wins Is it the
Gulf of America coastline because of hurricanes or the Eastern
seaboard Born is it the Did you say the northern
Mountains of Colorado are covered in snow?

Speaker 5 (12:11):
The Northern Rockies.

Speaker 4 (12:12):
Yeah, the Northern Rockies. You mean all the way up
to the all the way into Canada.

Speaker 5 (12:16):
That's what Rocker was implying. Yeah, holy crap, this.

Speaker 4 (12:21):
Is maybe I should just move on and forget about this.

Speaker 6 (12:25):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (12:26):
The real beneficiaries are not just the bureaucrats, but the
nng os and the corporations all lining up for their
fair share because we got to do this equitably. We
got to imply, we got to use DEI in this
to make sure that everybody gives a fair share of
their government handout. Climate policy is not anywhere near the

(12:53):
goal about reducing emissions.

Speaker 7 (12:57):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (12:57):
The climate policy is a distribution scheme. So here's political
handwringing about Trump's defunding of these climate initiatives within all
these different agencies. I mean, you know, I mentioned EPA
and Department of Energy, but political also mentions the Department
of Agriculture and the Department of Defense. So we've got

(13:19):
four different gigantic, big ass agencies and departments all dealing
with climate change and nothing's changing. Yes, we've talked about
the federal bureaucracy a lot since we started dozing stuff,
and it's now metastasized into this bloated, unaccountable machine, and

(13:41):
every agency saving claims to have a stake in fighting
climate change. It's a fight. Posts nine to eleven. In
going through some of my notes for the book, I
came across this story, and I came across some testimony
that I had given about how suddenly cities and towns

(14:01):
and states, everybody was all clamoring for a new kind
of grant. Now it was the same grant before, but
now the standard was, how does this grant help fight terrorism?
And so now every fire truck, every cop, every emergency manager,

(14:21):
everything that they were doing to you know, control floods,
to help, you know, circumvent wildfires, whatever it might mitigate
against whatever natural disaster it might be, they threw in
the word terrorism because now they can get a federal
grant for it. What does the Pentagon have to do

(14:42):
with lowering global temperatures? I thought the Pentagon was about
war fighting, peace through strength, not peace through lower temperatures.
Why is the Department of Agriculture. Shouldn't they be focused
on food product for example, I don't know when I
think agriculture, I think about food Tommy silly, but that's

(15:05):
what I think about. Isn't that what the Department of
AGS should be doing? Instead? They're they're they're worried about
climate change. Really well, yes they are, and the reason
is clearer. Climate policy is the perfect pretext to expand
and grow the government because once an agency agency gets

(15:26):
even the little taste it, it's like it's like a
mountain lion getting a taste, or it's like one of
Jared Police's wolves getting a taste, you know, of a
calf of some fresh veal, and they think to themselves,
this is pretty good. It never wants to give up.
It'll just keep going after more and more and more.
And this is where the scam finally reaches its most

(15:46):
insidious stage because when Trump cut back on those voted budgets,
the climate cartel didn't see it as an attack on
the environment. They saw it as an attack on their budgets.
They saw it as an attack on their wallets. They
saw it as an attack on the funding of their
in goo. In fact, there, I should say they're preferred

(16:07):
in GEO. You know, we have preferred pronouns. Well, buer
cuts have their preferred NGOs. It's a self sustained It's
like if we could somehow convert this grift, which is
a self sustaining grift, into some sort of energy, we
have self sustaining energy. Forget about nuclear fusion or nuclear fission.

(16:28):
We got it right here. So go back to the
political article. It portrays Trump as a villain for defunding
the climate scam, but it never, ever, in the four
or five pages of the article, it never explains what
do we accomplish. There are no stats, they're no metrics,

(16:51):
just all these assertions about harm and damage to our
climate efforts. And that's the tell. If all this money
were spending having sort of tangible impact, we'd hear nothing
but stats. I mean, even the idiots, even the idiot
talking heads that just read from a teleprompt on the television,

(17:11):
would be spouting stats at you like they were some
like they had a PhD In statistics. But they don't.
And that's because the goal was not to solve anything.
It was to create a perpetual crisis. That justifies never
ending spending.

Speaker 8 (17:28):
Dos Al Roker is not even a meteorologist, is a
quote weatherman?

Speaker 4 (17:46):
Does it really take a weatherman to know which way
the wind blows? I mean, does it really? No, it
does not. So you may remember that Sheldon white House
in that previous segment talked about how the camera of
the Reserved Drome Pal says that climate change is an
existential threat to the economy. Well, I found that kind

(18:09):
of surprising, so I decided to go back and find
where he had talked about it, and a Democrat, Tommerson
by the name of Caston, really does try to force
Powell to say that climate change presents a threat to
our financial stability. So judge for yourself whether you think
he says it or not.

Speaker 5 (18:30):
When you were here in.

Speaker 9 (18:31):
July and I'd asked you this question, I just want
to confirm that you still feel the same way, as
it's still your view that the Fed of the Federal
Reserve that climate change constitutes an emerging threat to US
financial stability.

Speaker 5 (18:43):
I guess I would say it this way.

Speaker 10 (18:45):
I wouldn't say that climate change is currently a threat
to an emerging threat. I would say that it may
emerge over time.

Speaker 4 (18:54):
As such, it may.

Speaker 9 (18:59):
But okay, so two hundred and fifty billion dollars of
losses in California.

Speaker 4 (19:03):
We've Now this is really I don't think he realizes,
but he is actually being pretty clever here, the congressman
from Illinois. Oh, but let me give you some numbers
about the costs that disasters have cost this country.

Speaker 9 (19:19):
I've got multiple states where the insurer of last resort
is insolvent reporting today that California is having to build
it out. I know we have a difference of opinion
on a GFS. I don't want to go into that.
But is the FED monitoring what is happening to our
financial system as those insurers pull out, as insurance rates

(19:40):
goes up and people's both access to property insurance and
the cost of insurance are going up. Are you monitoring
what's happening systemically in our economy as a result of that.

Speaker 5 (19:48):
Yes?

Speaker 10 (19:49):
The question though, if the question is is it a
threat to the financial stability of the United States, that's
really the question, and we, of course we're following that.

Speaker 4 (19:57):
Very very carefully.

Speaker 9 (19:58):
Okay, So, if if you're monitoring it, where is the
risk that was being backed by the insurance industry moving
where in the economy is at risk now live.

Speaker 10 (20:07):
So insurance companies, as you know, can cancel policies and
not issue them, and they can leave states, and they're doing.

Speaker 4 (20:12):
A lot of that.

Speaker 5 (20:13):
So where do those risks fall They.

Speaker 10 (20:15):
Fall on homeowners and and other beneficiaries, and they fall
on state governments and to some extent of faileral government. Right,
they don't fall on they don't. They don't cause large
financial institutions to fail.

Speaker 9 (20:26):
Are you seeing shifts in mortgagers, mortgage services their willingness
to provide loans to homes as those insurance rates go
up or disappear?

Speaker 10 (20:34):
Implicitly, if you can't get insurance, then they won't be
a mortgage. So I can't point to episodes where that's happening,
but that's that's certainly where this looks like it's headed.

Speaker 9 (20:44):
Okay, because I mean, there has been reports going back
several years now that the more prone your property is
to flood risk, to fire risk, the more likely you
are as a bank to offload that on to Fanny
and Freddy. Right, we've seen that data happening.

Speaker 4 (20:57):
So why would your home be more subject to fire,
flood or tornado risk or anything else because you might
build a house where those things occur. You might build
your house up against the dry mountains of California, where
you know the Santa Ana winds are going to come
barreling through, and either by accident, by neglect looking at you,

(21:23):
PG and E, or by even a terrorist or just
a homeless person or maybe a cartel member deciding, oh, look,
the winds are blowing really badly. Let's cause some chaos.

Speaker 9 (21:36):
That then raises the question of, and this is maybe
just purely academic and wonky, if you own a set
of cash flows and you want to sell them to me,
we both have full information.

Speaker 4 (21:48):
I'm only going to buy them from.

Speaker 9 (21:49):
You at a creative value to you to the extent
that I have a lower cost of money than you do. Right,
Just I mean sort of like the kind of one
on one. Right, So, if we own Fanning and fred
right now, because they're in receivership and they are throwing
off a string of cash flows to the treasury, setting
aside the nuances of how the CBO scores all these
sorts of things, isn't the sale of Fanny and Freddy

(22:12):
on the assumption that the buyer and seller have perfect information,
the same information on both sides of that transaction. If
that's a creative to the American taxpayer, doesn't that implicitly
soon that we have to sell to somebody with a
lower cost of capital than we do.

Speaker 10 (22:28):
That's I followed your logic there, Yeah.

Speaker 9 (22:31):
Okay, And that would only not be true to the
extent I suppose either that the buyer violates every rule
I had in my own and a career of paying
for upside as they say, or that the buyer lacked
information that the seller had right there.

Speaker 4 (22:50):
Okay, So.

Speaker 9 (22:53):
What I'd like to understand you is, does that create
a conflict of interest for the United States government?

Speaker 4 (22:58):
Because if we have.

Speaker 9 (23:01):
If we have information about climate change being scrubbed from
our data sets, and we have a White House that
would like to sell Fanny and Freddy, are we committed
to efficient markets that depend on accurate, transparent information or
are we committed to making a quick buck, in which
case we might want to have we might want people
not to be un informed. Is the FED committed to

(23:24):
transparent markets? I guess is the first question separately, and
then the second one? Do you feel that conflict?

Speaker 4 (23:29):
What uh we should get rid of? Freddie May and family?
We should get rid of both of them. And yeah,
they're pretty much insolvent. And they're insolvent because well, we
kept ordering them to uh blown out to sub parlament
borrowers and then they couldn't repay them, and so taxpayers

(23:52):
ended up taking that on the chin. And now he's
going to try to make a correlation or some sort
of link between that, and we're going to get screwed
because the marketplace is driving insurers out of certain states
because of over regulation and not controlling risk and not
being ready to and not doing anything to mitigate against

(24:13):
natural disasters. And so therefore climate change does present a
threat to financial stability.

Speaker 10 (24:19):
No, I think we're getting a little away from my
from our mandate to FED. I mean there the idea
of privatization is to get private to get this off
the balance you to the FED and get it into
get private capital backing it up.

Speaker 9 (24:34):
And sure, and there would be good reasons for that,
but if that if that is coming at the expensive
value to the American taxpayer, we need to be transparent
to that.

Speaker 10 (24:40):
At Piper we have private sector banks. You know, we
could make all credits, but all credit could be made
cheaper if if offered by the by the central steeled
back government.

Speaker 1 (24:49):
Right.

Speaker 4 (24:50):
Wow, No, So the point is climate change does not
present a threat to us financial stability. But he can't
let it go. Oh, he can't let it go because
the grift is here and we can't get rid of
the grift. At some point we have to ask what

(25:12):
is the limit? We have to ask, just like he
wants to know. Like, okay, so we've taken on Freddy
and Fanny because well they're insolvent. How much money do
we throw at this problem before admitting that what we've
been doing is a dead end, because if trillions of dollars,
you know, this is much like the War on poverty.

(25:34):
Trillions of dollars for the war on poverty and guess what, Oh,
poverty still exists. Oh, trillions of dollars to stop or
reverse the growth of emissions, and emissions continue to grow,
and therefore you have continuing climate change. The truth is,

(25:55):
these bureaucratic climate programs they're not failing. They are succeeding.
They're succeeding by doing exactly what they were intended to do.
They exist to justify their own expansion. They exist to
siphon tax payer money into the pockets of all these
middlemen and these NGOs, and then it also exists and

(26:19):
the money is being spent to perpetuate the illusion that
only government can save us from ever looming catastrophe. And
if government is the only one that can save us
from this ever looming catastrophe, then whatever rules and regulations
that the government comes up with, whether it's something as stupid,
it's whether you can cook with a gas or electric stove,
or how much insulation you're going to have in your home,

(26:40):
or how you're going to power your home, or what
you're going to use to drive to and from work.
That's all subject to government control. So therefore it all
boils down to these programs are doing exactly what they
intended to be doing, and that's to exert more federal
control over your daily life. So that means if you

(27:01):
really wanted to fix so called fix this mess, you
don't reform it. This is way beyond any sort of reformation.
You need to blow it up. You need to nuke it,
you need to destroy it. You need to stop the subsidies,
you need to shut down and close the bureaucracies. You

(27:23):
gotta finish the not finish you got to stop the
handouts to all these international climate funds. They're just slush
funds for the global elitis to what expand their globalism.
But they're not gonna let go of this building goose
without a fight. And they're going to scare you, Oh,

(27:46):
you're doing the planet your children. Think of the children, Well,
I am thinking of the children. We're going to bankrupt
the children, that's what we're going to do, and the
emissions are going to continue to increase. This is why
when you step back and you look at the people
that Trump has put in place in the cabinet, holy moley.

(28:07):
If they really can do what they say they can do,
If Chris Wright can do it, Doe what he claims
he can do, If Lynda McMahon can do what she
thinks she can do, work her way out of a
job at the other Doe Department of Education. If Lee
Zelden can trim down the EPA to just the bare

(28:27):
necessities of just making sure we have clean air and
clean water pretty much, that's kind of it. If we
can get rid of all these other climate programs that
exist in agencies that have nothing to do with the climate,
If we can just recognize that it's all a big
scam to begin with, and never forget there's one question

(28:48):
that they will not answer. If your friends are all
scared about the climate, then ask them what have we
gotten for the trillions of dollars? Because if the money
was making a difference, why is the problem actually getting worse?
And you know, let me rephrase that, because it's not
a problem, because no one has yet to convince me

(29:09):
that increasing CO two E missions are actually a problem.
I'm pretty in fact, I'm damn well healthy. I'm outside
breathing air all the time and driving big ass cars.
If all this money was making a difference, then why
is their issue, their so called problem, still getting worse?

(29:33):
And then when they can't answer that, ask them this. Then,
if you believe that climate change is really an existential
threat to life on this planet, what would you do?
What would you do? Mike?

Speaker 2 (29:50):
Everyone's talking about all the layoffs. No one's talking about
the irresponsible hiring that the government did, hiring people that
we did not need.

Speaker 4 (30:03):
And in addition to that, not only the unnecessary hiring,
but then the complete mismanagement of your human capital resources,
you completely mismanage them. So yeah, first you get rid
of all of the of the dead wood. And then
you look as any business does, including this business. I'm
sitting in midll of right here. Oh, where can we

(30:26):
be more efficient? Where can we get more bang for
our buck? Where can we squeeze a little more out
of dragon? Where can we squeeze a little more out
of Michael? We don't do that at all, not at all.
And then when it comes to the whole climate fiasco,
we don't. We never there was a great text message

(30:49):
zero two three eight Michael. This has bothered me for years.
No stats, no empirical data, no venn diagrams except for
that made up number that we are warming up. These
people need to be charged, tried, convicting, and given a
right to a fair hangd yeah or seventeen thirteen. Our
spending on climate change, that's the real threat to our economy.

(31:11):
But when I point out that if these people will
do what they say, they will do, and I believe
they've been given great leeway to do that, and I
think we will see a change. Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy,
I think personifies what I mean. Listen closely to what

(31:32):
he says to data premus.

Speaker 7 (31:34):
First of all, stop the price rises, and then with
continued effort, hopefully start to reverse prices and bring them
the other direction.

Speaker 5 (31:40):
Look, listen to President Biden.

Speaker 11 (31:42):
This is back in November of twenty twenty three.

Speaker 12 (31:46):
You know, I've seen firsthand my the reports made clear
the devastating total of climate change and it's existential threat
to all of us, and is the all of the
threat to humanity?

Speaker 4 (31:57):
I did a lot the the the greatest threat ever
to humanity climate change. Oh really, look around you? Is
it now? I know I'm biased towards Chris right, But
I'm biased toward him because one, he's knowledgeable, and he's informed,

(32:17):
and he's in the business, so he knows what he's
talking about. But one of the first things he says,
and I know this is confirmation biased, one of the
first things he says is what I've been saying for
more than a decade.

Speaker 11 (32:32):
A lot of work before I was the White House
Press Secretary, working with reporters for a Republican administration.

Speaker 5 (32:38):
Where every day you are called an.

Speaker 11 (32:41):
Enemy of the people because of your position on fossil fuels.
I think that you are probably going to get the
same kind of treatment from that kind of media. How
do you respond on climate change.

Speaker 7 (32:54):
Oh, I love to have that dialogue, and I've been
having that dialogue for twenty years. Climate change is a
real thing, but it's not at all what is represented
to be. It's nowhere near the world's biggest problem. It's
a slow moving problem that the only solution is new
and better energy technology. But treating it as a political football,

(33:14):
spending trillions of dollars on less effective energy that just
makes energy more expensive, makes people's lives harder, and displaces
jobs to other countries, other states. That's the wrong way
to approach this challenge. This president gets it present, brings
common sense back to Washington.

Speaker 4 (33:31):
And he's exactly right. The climate always has changed. And
if we want to do anything to come up with
better technologies, come up with better, more reliable, even more
reliable than fossil fuels energy like nuclear energy. If he
can pull this off, Wow, in the griff, He'll in

(33:53):
the griff.