5-23-25 - 7am - Climate Scam Cooling & Carbon Credits

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Morning.

Speaker 2 (00:00):
Boys, Let's see Denver out of money. So what's the answer. Hey,
let's build the women's soccer stadium. Have a great day.

Speaker 3 (00:14):
Maybe you know now, I'm not gonna do that right now,
but I do want to talk about that eventually, because
in doing the Michael Brown Minute for Freedom, and I
mentioned that Denver's out of money, and it's astonishing to
me just how stupid politicians like Mayor Johnson think that

(00:41):
you and I are by saying that, you know, well,
if we if we invest, which means spend, if we
spend money on certain things, the ROI is so great
that we'll return all these things and we'll have all
this thriving, you know, thriving, beautiful downtown Denver.

Speaker 1 (00:56):
Well, bulk rash what was it the first bank center
in Broomfield.

Speaker 3 (01:02):
I haven't been up that way lately, but someone told
me it's gone. It's gone, it's gone gone.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
Yeah, they didn't use it enough and it wasn't enough
going to it, so they tore it down.

Speaker 3 (01:13):
And then so he's see, now you got me chasing
a little bit. I don't want chase it. That what
you're getting, because I don't have it all in front
of me right now. I've got to find it. But
yesterday he made some statement about when they decided to
re renovate Union Station that everybody screamed and hollered, you know,
it's too costly, we can't afford it. But he made

(01:33):
some wild claim yesterday. And I'm paraphrasing here, so don't
at me on this, but the claim was something to
the effect that but it's returned some five hundred million
dollars of additional business to downtown Denver. And I thought, well,
I'd like to know where that is, because all I
hear is that a third of the sixteenth Street mall

(01:55):
is now vacant, and that, you know, the the vacancy
rate downtown, like you know, whatever astronomical rate that it is,
and that places are lead you know. For example, again
last night, because I'm always reading so much, I came
across the story and I do remember the name of
the restaurant, but it is a Michelin Recommended restaurant in

(02:19):
downtown Denver, somewhere in I think, maybe Low High, but somewhere.
You know, it's one of the cool places, right Michelin rated.
Michelin Recommended opened in twenty twenty two, so open during COVID.
They're closing next month because they can't survive downtown Denver. Now,

(02:42):
I don't know, but it just seems to me that
if downtown Denver is such a vibrant, thriving place that
a Michelin recommended restaurant ought to be able to survive.
But apparently not what I do when I talk about
this hour or not maybe this hour, but for a
little bit is Congress voted to this is part of

(03:06):
my belief and point I want to go. Please let
it be true, my belief that the whole climate scam
is starting to be chipped at little by little, and
it's starting to dissipate. It's starting it's starting to lose

(03:29):
its steam. It's no longer warming up. It's starting to
it's starting to cool off. It's gone to global cooling.
And I want to give a couple examples. Congress voted
to block California's mandate that required the phase out of
new gasoline powered vehicle sales by twenty thirty five. The

(03:52):
House passed the legislation on May first. The legislation repealed
a waiver granted by Biden's EPA. That waiver allowed California
to mandate that at least eighty percent of new vehicle
sold be electric by twenty thirty five. The Senate voted

(04:18):
yesterday fifty one to forty four also to support that
legislation to overturn the waiver, along with two others related
to heavy duty truck emissions and low nitrogen oxide regulations. Now,
those waivers granted by under the Biden administration allowed California

(04:42):
to set stricter vehicle emission standards than federal rules under
the Clean Air Act. I want you to think about
how stupid that waiver was, because think about how your GM,
your FOE, your four, your Stillanti's, your Hyundai, your Kia,

(05:02):
your Mercedes, Benz excuse me, allergy, you're any car maker. Now,
how do you calculate as you're preparing your production year,
however they plan their production schedule, how do they calculate

(05:23):
how many evs to produce on a production line versus
internal combustion engines based solely on one state out of
what is it, fifty seven to fifty eight states? So
I forget how many Obama told us we had.

Speaker 4 (05:41):
How do you do that?

Speaker 3 (05:44):
And then how do you figure out the distribution of
the numbers because California is not the only state that
would buy at California's only state that had that mandate.
But other people might want to buy an EV in Oklahoma,
or maybe maybe a rancher in Wyoming wants an EV

(06:05):
pickup so he can drive, you know, a thousand miles
across his ranch and you know, come back to the
farmhouse and never have to worry about charging. You know,
I'm sure there's a rancher somewhere wanting to do that.
I think that, I mean, I just can't believe that
Biden administration gave that waiver. Think of what that does

(06:28):
to interstate commerce. Think about what that does to the
to the auto industry. Then think about what that does
to the price of internal combustion engine cars. Because if
you put a number of evs on an auto lot

(06:49):
in California and they don't get sold, well, you're gonna
have to lower the price of those in order to
try to move them off the lot. Provide all sorts
of inciditives to trying to get someone to come in
and be enough of a sucker to go buy one,
which means then for your overall costs as a dealer,
you're you're going to have to increase the cost of

(07:10):
the gas powered vehicles to offset all of the incentives
that you gave because your margins, I mean your margins,
your margin you've got you've got the inventory, you're paying
interests on the loans on that inventory. You got to
get rid of that inventory. So you've got to balance
that out some way. So now we're waiting for Trump

(07:31):
to sign this resolution into law, which he's expected to do. Now,
it doesn't affect just California, but it affects eleven other
states that also adopted California's rules that represented about forty
percent of the US auto market. Now, Newsom, now I
want you to think about the stupidity. Gavin Newsom and

(07:54):
his Attorney General Rob Bone have vowed to challenge the
repeal in court. They argue that the use of the
Clean Air Act to revoke those waivers is unlawful. Hmm, Well,
if the waiver was for the Clean Air Act, and
you're gonna argue that repealing a waiver granted, I think

(08:16):
if if the waiver was granted for the Clean Air Act,
and you're gonna argue that it's unlawful to repeal the waiver,
that was first given. I see, it makes no legal
it makes no logical sense to me whatsoever. Now, the
Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian had previously advised

(08:38):
that the Congressional Review Act could not be used to
repeal these waivers, suggesting that that might be a potential
legal dispute ahead. But if Congress can't repeal a waiver
granted by the executive branch under an existing statue which

(09:03):
grants the authority to the executive to grant the waiver,
why can't Congress repeal the waiver? But anyway, I just
I just want to point out that that's an indication
to me that this whole bull crap about climate change

(09:25):
and the climate alarmism, I think the church is having
a hard time. You know, they're passing the collection plate
and they're not quite getting the number of congregants in
there that they want. Oh there's don't get me wrong.
They're still there and they're still saying Hallelujah, and they're
still you know, praising the you know, Mother Earth as
you know, their deity. But there's other examples too, So

(09:49):
I came across this story. There's in Australia, there was
something called the Go Neutral program. Go Neutral. The Energy Australia,
which is the country's third largest polluter, confess the truth.

(10:13):
Energy Australia has now admitted that carbon offsets don't work. Now,
just let that sink in for a moment. So they
sold Australians on the idea that they were buying carbon
neutral power, you know, much like Excel tries to convince
us that if you want to pay more than your
electricity is when generated or solar generated. Now, the last

(10:37):
I checked, well, I haven't really checked, but the last
I thought about it. The power that comes into my house,
the power that comes from natural gas, that electricity isn't
colored let's say gold, And the power that comes from
a solar farm' that's colored green. And there the electricity

(11:01):
that's generated from wind that's colored purple, you know, because
it's a big loser like the color out of Rocky.
So it's all the same color. It seems to me
that once the power hits the grid, it's the it's electricity.
You know. It goes through the inverters, which probably have
the Chinese communists communist Chinese communication devices on them so

(11:23):
they can spy on everybody and then that electricity finally
gets into the grid, it comes to my house. I
don't know whether it's I'm just paying for it. I'm
just paying for the solar farm or the wind farm,
and supposed to make me feel good. So in Australia,
they were trying to sell them on the illusion that
if you bought carbon neutral electricity, you were, you know,

(11:46):
doing the Earth a favor. Well, it turns out you
weren't what you're really doing, and you know what it
really is, You're it's it's like, didn't what what the
what the Catholics call it? You you bought dispensations? Was
that what it was called? You bought, You went and
you paid, You paid the priest, you know, some coins

(12:08):
in exchange for those coins you were permitted to you
were forgiven for some sins or something. What did the
Catholics call that? Somebody helped me out here, I don't remember,
but that's that's kind of the same thing. Here. They
were selling the illusion that you were buying carbon neutral
power power, when in fact you really weren't. It was
just simply a marketing gimmick. It was a green sticker

(12:29):
slapped on coal and gas or whatever. They were using
to create their electricity. Well now Energy Australia is under
legal fire and they finally said it out loud. Offsets
don't undo the harm of burning fossil fuels. That's their words,
not mine. But here's what is even worse. They've apparently
known this for years. Of course you and I have

(12:52):
known it for years too, but Energy Australia just only
figured it out. Back in twenty twenty two. A guy
by the name of an Andrew McIntosh. He's some kind
of professor. He ran the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee. He
blew the whistle. He blew the whistle on the entire scam.
And he's not some fringe critic, he's actually an insider.

(13:15):
He ran the Admissions Reduction Assurance Committee. He was the
architect of the system. And even he said, this thing
doesn't work, This is a total joke. In his own words,
seventy to eighty percent of Australian carbon credits were devoid
of integrity. And he called it a fraud on the environment,

(13:35):
of fraud on taxpayers and a fraud on unwinning private buyers.
You know here in this country, you commit that kind
of fraud, the SEC is going to come after you,
and you'll end up in it. You know, you end
up in some sort of you know, uh country club
prison somewhere, but nonetheless you'll end up in a prison.
And yet, for two years, the Australian government, in cahoots

(14:00):
with the banks and the bureaucrats and the climate activists,
the churches, they all greenwashed the corporates. They kept pushing
the lie. Well why would they keep pushing a lie
when the insider said that, hey, this isn't working because
for them it was profitable. So for them it was
about the money. They didn't give a rats as about
whether it was carbon neutral, or they were really any

(14:22):
offsets or not. They were making money on the trades.
They were making money on buying and selling the offsets.
There was an Australian senator. The guy's name is Malcolm Roberts.
He gave a speech last year. Let me just give
you the speech. Carbon dioxide credits are a scam and

(14:45):
an absolute fraud. And the Greens agree with one nation
on this. Yes, you heard that correctly. While the Greens
and one Nation may agree on the integrity issues with
carbon dioxide credits, here's where I leave them behind. There
is no reason to reduce our output of carbon dioxide
or no reason to trade credits for it. Carbon dioxide
credits can never have integrity because they are a scam

(15:08):
designed to transfer wealth from the pockets of everyday Australians
and their families and small businesses to the bank accounts
of billionaire net zero scam artists and parasitic multinationals sucking
on the financial payout from climate fraud and associated financial scams.
This is a This is a Gettysburg address for the

(15:31):
stupid climate scam, he continues. This is a five point
five billion dollar market that's being fabricated in order to
give the United Nations income. Ultimately, as usual, they enlist
parasites who benefit while pushing you in policy for them.
For example, the major banks Rothschild Australia, the Bank of

(15:54):
America and Merrill Lynch had on their advisory boards in
this country at the time the Carbon chief executive, doctor
Megan Clark a conflict of interest the Chubb review of Whitewash.
It addressed nothing of substance, no evidence, no analysis. It
did not disclose what evidence relied on. The public is

(16:17):
simply expected to trust that the evidence exists maybe the
dog ate. The evidence for breakfast there has never been there,
never is. He spoke an empirical scientific data and logical
scientific points that human carbon dioxide is warming the planet.
There is not any from the Australian Group, nor from

(16:39):
the Bureau of Meteorology, not from the United Nations. There
is no basis for the policy on which the carbon
dioxide credits are based, no cost benefit analysis, no business case,
just consensus spend and subsidies. You see, as I keep

(17:02):
trying to point out, it's not about policy, it's about
their religion, back by junk science, back by hidden motives,
and that hidden motif primarily is money, a money trail
that leads straight to the same global institutions and the
energy giants that profit from both fossil fuels and the renewables.

(17:23):
So to some degree, yeah, the fossil fuel industry is
all right. Listen, you got a scam going. As long
as we're selling you know, oil and gas, we'll play
along with you because we can make money on this too.

Speaker 5 (17:39):
It's over, Michael, yes or no, how many drinkles on
the prompt tru or false reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time.
So let's.

Speaker 3 (18:00):
I'm want to go back to the carbon credits for
a moment, because let's not forget where all this madness began.
The godfather of the carbon credits scheme in this country,
he was probably Al Gore, but overall was probably actually
a guy by the name of Maurice Strong. He was

(18:22):
not an environmentalist. He was an oil tycoon. He was
a United Nations insider, and he was a convicted criminal.
He made millions off of petroleum, and then he pivoted
over to green politics and created a new racket in

(18:42):
the forms of this emissions trading, carbon trading. He didn't
change sides, he created both sides, and then behind the
scenes he pushed for world government new taxes, even mystical
New Age nonsense about a planetary realignment going on, you
can't make the crap up. Maurice Strong actually believed the

(19:04):
catastrophic collapse would usher in a global new order. So
he bought up a two hundred thousand acre ranch here
in Colorado, a site that he claimed, after being advised
by a mystic, would become the center for a new
planetary order right here in Colorado. Isn't that great? He

(19:27):
founded the Manitou foundation, built temples to various world religions,
poured money into spiritual experiments, and all the time that
Australians were being lectured about cutting emissions, he was plotting
the spiritual rebirth of humanity, funded by oil money and
enforced through UN climate policy that he was getting them

(19:50):
to do. So it was Strong, Maurice Strong, that really
lit the match, that became the firestorm of this stupid
carbon trading bull crap. A multi trillion dollar market that
sells make believe environmental outcomes and just prints money for
the rich people that can play in that market. This

(20:12):
isn't saving the planet. It's all propped up by junk
markets in greenwash propaganda, and the radical green fringe is
caught on too. Some groups like green Peace and Parents
for Climate they're starting to wake up and realize, oh,
this whole carbon trading system is rigged. But now they
still believe in the dream. Don't get me wrong, They

(20:33):
still believe in the dream. But they think if they
can just fix the offsets, or get states like Colorado,
like dumasses like Jared Poulos to keep decarbonizing even further,
then eventually things will just turn out fine. But what
they don't get is this entire thing is a con

(20:55):
because the myth, it really is the myth of catastrophic
man made climate catastrophe. All that's just politics because it
allows governments and corporations to build a new market one
back not by anything of value, it's backed by fear.

(21:15):
And so then it allows the energy giants like Shell
and VP that they can rebrand as clean energy pioneers
because they're engaged in carbon offsets.

Speaker 5 (21:26):
And what does it do.

Speaker 3 (21:29):
It allows them to rank in profits from both ends,
so they can rake in profits by selling fossil fuels
and then go flip their carbon credits. It's a great scam.
And then it lets the banks and the bureaucrats create
entire departments around climate compliance, carbon neutral certification, ESG finants.

(21:51):
It's a climate aristocracy. They're rich, they're untouchable, wholly uncountable,
and it's all building a big fat lie. And the
people that are in places where they're trying to decarbonize
checks geographic location. Oh yeah, us. We put the bill

(22:11):
through taxes, inflated power prices, regulations that crush farmers, that
crush manufacturers, that drive out businesses, and we're seeing it
happen right here. At the same time that we see
it happen right here, China's building cold plants. We shut
ours down. India ramps up steel production, We outsource ours.

(22:35):
We're told to give up beef. We're told to pay
extra for carbon neutral rubbish. That doesn't mean anything. Even
the carbon market kingpins are starting to abandon ship overseas.
The lies already been called out. The European Parliament has

(22:56):
ban marketing products that are labeled as carbon neutral if
it's based on carbon offsets. Why would they do that,
because the evidence is clear because they don't work. They
never did. And so just because something has a label
on a slapped carbon neutral and that carbon neutrality is
based on carbon offsets, you really haven't done anything. So

(23:18):
even Europe has done the lie. So at some point
we get to realize that all of this green energy
is a bunch of lies. No more indulgences, no more
climate clergy, no more silence. I'm all for the First
Amendment freedom of religion, but when that religion starts taxing me,

(23:40):
runs out businesses, does I mean the know it's a business,
not a religion, although it's got all these religious tenets
Chris Wright. You know, with maybe the exception of Secretary
of Energy, with maybe the exception of Rubio, has probably

(24:02):
become the most quotable member of Trump's cabinet. And they
had a hearing instead of Appropriations Committee to discuss the
FY twenty six budget request for the Department of Energy.

(24:24):
It didn't go as exactly as some of the Democrats planned,
but it's marvelous to listen.

Speaker 6 (24:29):
To, mister secretary. I want to go back to some
of your earlier testimony. Be sure I heard it correctly.
The seventy six day period you're talking about, that's the
period between the time that President Trump was elected and
President Biden left office?

Speaker 4 (24:50):
Is that right?

Speaker 3 (24:51):
That is correct?

Speaker 6 (24:53):
And during that short period of time seventy six days,
how much caxpayer money went out the door of the Department.

Speaker 7 (25:02):
Of Energy from the Loan Program Office in loans and
commitments ninety three billion dollars, well over twice as much
as in the previous fifteen years.

Speaker 6 (25:16):
Two. How do you vet and do due diligence on
a loan.

Speaker 4 (25:25):
In seventy six days.

Speaker 6 (25:28):
One loan, much less ninety three billion dollars?

Speaker 4 (25:36):
How do you do it?

Speaker 7 (25:39):
I think it's probably pretty clear it wasn't done. In
many cases, as I mentioned, I'm told i'm holding back
clearly in place stuff. There is lots of funds that
have gone out the door, and commitments that were made
from businesses that provided no business plan, no numbers about
their own financial solvency or how this project.

Speaker 6 (26:01):
So you're telling me that the Department of Energy in
the seventy six day period before their boss's going to
leave office gave our loan money to institutes that had
no business plan, correct, no financials.

Speaker 4 (26:24):
Correct.

Speaker 7 (26:25):
A number of those were not were before the seventy
six day period as well. That's that's I've come in
with great concern about how this institution, this great American institution,
has been run, and how American taxpayer money has been handled.
I'm sorry everyone's upset that we're taking some time to
do it, but what we've seen the record shows.

Speaker 4 (26:46):
I'm not upset.

Speaker 6 (26:47):
Could it means that a lot of people say you
haven't returned your calls. Could it be that you and
your your colleagues have returned the calls, but the people
call them just didn't like the answer.

Speaker 4 (27:00):
Could that be a possibility.

Speaker 3 (27:03):
I'm not.

Speaker 7 (27:03):
I'm not.

Speaker 4 (27:04):
I'm not aware of that.

Speaker 7 (27:05):
You know, I give my cell phone number to any
senator that what you do, and I return my calls.

Speaker 6 (27:11):
I mean, is your is your department gone dark? Somebody
said your department's gone dark? Is it dark over there?

Speaker 4 (27:19):
Doesn't look it doesn't look dark.

Speaker 6 (27:20):
Behind me, I don't see any of you sitting on
your hands. Somebody made that charge. I see everybody's hands.
I'm going to ask you something else, Secretary.

Speaker 4 (27:33):
Does does anybody.

Speaker 6 (27:34):
Ever come to the Department of Energy to get some
of this free money and lie to you?

Speaker 7 (27:46):
I have not experienced that, but I think it's a
reasonable assumption that that has happened.

Speaker 6 (27:52):
Uh, does anybody ever come to you.

Speaker 4 (27:57):
Or is it conceivable that some.

Speaker 6 (27:58):
Of these folks have heard about this free money came
to you with a half baked idea.

Speaker 7 (28:06):
I think it's very conceivable, in the fact, I've seen
such plans that were half.

Speaker 4 (28:12):
That didn't have a business plan, right.

Speaker 7 (28:15):
Correct, A promise to develop one, to find a lot,
give me.

Speaker 4 (28:19):
The money and I'll develop the plan later. Correct. And now.

Speaker 6 (28:27):
You're going back through not money that's already been contracted,
but you're going back through and checking each one of
these loans and these grants to make sure there was
no stealing, aren't you? We are we make sure there
was no incompetence, aren't you?

Speaker 4 (28:46):
Is that correct?

Speaker 7 (28:47):
We're looking at that and yeah, my blood pressure is
rising right now just thinking about what we have seen
and what did happen?

Speaker 3 (28:54):
And I wonder what he saw. Well, he'll tell you
in just a minute.

Speaker 2 (29:00):
Briddy, did you know May is National Mental Health Awareness months?

Speaker 3 (29:05):
Maybe you ought to think about taking two weeks off
a week ago.

Speaker 1 (29:11):
It's what mental health awareness months, So you should have
taken two weeks off starting last week.

Speaker 3 (29:19):
I was off last week pretty much work. Yeah, if
you're talking about this week, I've been off all week long,
most definitely.

Speaker 5 (29:27):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (29:27):
I mailed it in this week. Maybe mailed it in
back to everybuddy Chris. Right. You know what's great about
this is not always he great, but he's from right
here in Colorado.

Speaker 4 (29:40):
Call some of these boondoggles, know, warn't you? That's correct?
And they're going to be upset, aren't they? That's correct?
And they ought to be upset, shouldn't they. I don't
think they should be upset. I think they should be ashamed.
I am.

Speaker 6 (29:59):
It's rare that I'm speechless, But I want to be
sure I understood. The people running the Department of Energy
for President Biden's administration shoveled ninety three billion dollars, not million,

(30:19):
ninety three billion dollars out the door in seventy six days.
And it just happened to be the time between when
President Trump was elected in President Biden their boss was leaving.
Is that right?

Speaker 7 (30:36):
It is correct and distasteful confidence undermining.

Speaker 4 (30:44):
My God.

Speaker 6 (30:47):
Look, I hope you take whatever time you need to
go through all.

Speaker 4 (30:52):
Of these projects.

Speaker 6 (30:56):
A penny by penny, I mean, I've heard this testimony today. Well,
it'll cost jobs in my state. If somebody steals fifty
million dollars and goes and spends the money in their
state's that's gonna stimulate.

Speaker 4 (31:13):
The economy, isn't it. Yes, it will. But that's still stealing,
isn't it? And it's still illegal, isn't it.

Speaker 3 (31:22):
Yes.

Speaker 6 (31:23):
I mean they were spending money at the Department of Energy.

Speaker 4 (31:27):
Like it was it gets water. Their budget went.

Speaker 6 (31:31):
From sixty billion dollars to one hundred and sixty billion
dollars the fiscal year twenty twenty one. It just sunds
to me like there were a lot of people coming
to the Department of Energy who had all four feet
and their snout in the trough. Now, I hope if you,

(31:55):
I hope you'll turn down the boondoggles and refer the
thieves to the Department of Justice.

Speaker 4 (32:03):
We will, indeed, Senator.

Speaker 7 (32:04):
The one complication in there, too, is mixed in there
are good companies doing good things, honestly with credible lands.

Speaker 4 (32:12):
And you're trying to suffer a week from the chaff.

Speaker 7 (32:15):
Yes, that's what we're trying to do. That's our job,
and we're doing it. But there's there's a lot of chaff.

Speaker 6 (32:22):
I'm gonna answ you one final question. I'm gonna go
back to how many employees you have? Now, there have
been some allegations today that you've you've cut tens of
thousands of employees.

Speaker 4 (32:37):
Is that accurate?

Speaker 7 (32:39):
Well, I think the allegations worth thousands, and we are
head count will ultimately be reduced by thousands, but we
are doing it.

Speaker 6 (32:49):
You got eighteen thousand now, yes, and you think you
can do it with fewer than sixteen thousand, correct?

Speaker 4 (32:56):
What's wrong with that?

Speaker 7 (32:59):
I think it's just common sense business.

Speaker 6 (33:01):
Yeah, businesses do it every day in the real world.

Speaker 4 (33:07):
America taxpayers deserve it.

Speaker 6 (33:08):
That's never happened in the federal government. I mean, it's
easier to divorce your spouse than to get rid of
a federal employee up here.

Speaker 4 (33:18):
That's not the way the world works.

Speaker 6 (33:19):
As a secondary, it's not the way the world should work.

Speaker 7 (33:23):
And I give enormous credit to President Trump who had
the boldness to say, if there's a right thing that
needs to be done and it's difficult, please do it.

Speaker 4 (33:34):
And so yes, this is new territory.

Speaker 7 (33:36):
This is not what happens normally in the federal government,
but it is what needs to happen periodically in the
federal government. And I give the credit to President Trump,
who's willing to take the heat and has set the
department's free make the changes you need to make to
better serve American taxpayers and American consumers.

Speaker 3 (33:54):
And that's how leadership changes the culture of organizations.