5-3-25 The Weekend Hour 3: Fifth National Climate Assessment Is A Scam & Outright Lie

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
To night, Michael Brown joins me here the former FEMA
director talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, No, Brownie, You're
doing a heck of a job. The Weekend with Michael Brown.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
Hey broadcasting life in Denver, Colorado. It's the Weekend with
Michael Brown again. Really happy to have you joining the
program today. I really do appreciate it. So a couple
of rules of rules of engagement. The first is, you know,
any time you're listening, or even when you're not listening,
and something crosses your mind and you want to bring
it to my attention, you know you can always twenty
four hours a day, seven days a week, send me

(00:31):
a text message and I read them all the time.
On your message at the number is three three one
zero three three three one zero three, just use the
keyword Mike or Michael. The other way to engage with
the program is to follow me on social media, and
the best place, most active place for that is on
x formerly Twitter, which is at Michael Brown USA, at

(00:51):
Michael Brown USA. There's a Facebook page. Two if you're
interest in that, it's at Michael D. Brown. So let's
get started with I want to talk a little bit
about the climate because something's been released that gets released
every few years, and this one, I think is a
total scam. I know that's a shock to you, right,

(01:13):
total scam, total lie. It's called the National Climate Assessment.
This is the fifth one that's been issued. Now. When
Trump got elected, or actually even before he got elected,
he made it clear that what he wanted to do
he wanted to dismantle a lot of the climate bureaucracy

(01:33):
within the Deep State, including something called the US Global
Change Research Program. That's the umbrella agency within EPA that
is responsible for what's called the National Climate Assessment. Now,
while predictably derided by the cabal as anti science, the

(01:54):
more you dig into the fifth National Climate Assessment, the
more you're attempted to say, wait a minute, you're just
lying to me. You're you're not even pretending to tell
me the truth. Well, and it's not just us. Before
we dig into that, let's go and think about how

(02:17):
for the for the stupid among us that don't really
pay attention to the facts just kind of get sucked
up into the hysteria. Let's go over to CNN where
they're talking to Bill Weir and they're really upset that

(02:37):
Trump is saying things like this, Oops.

Speaker 3 (02:40):
Are President Trump mark the end of his one hundred
days his first one hundred days of his second term
by firing hundreds of people in charge of a critical
report on how climate change is affecting the country. Seeing
and obtained an email sent last night confirming the dismissal
of scientists and authors tasked with putting together the National

(03:01):
Climate Assessment. Scientists say the report is a valuable resource
for officials dealing with extreme weather events.

Speaker 2 (03:08):
Now I remember, it's a very important document for dealing
with oh, extreme weather events.

Speaker 3 (03:14):
At the regional, state, and local levels. Let's get more
from CNN Chief Climate correspondent Bill weir So, Bill, what
is the goal here by eliminating these scientists.

Speaker 4 (03:27):
Well, it's to eliminate the science that is the underpinning
of many lawsuits.

Speaker 2 (03:33):
That could be a.

Speaker 1 (03:33):
Main sort of motive.

Speaker 4 (03:35):
We saw that in the Project twenty twenty five layout there.
But just to set some perspective here, in two thousand,
Congress passed the law that every few years, the best
are scientists in the country, about four hundred of them,
would put together a comprehensive assessment that would inform local government, states,
even private industries about what's happening when to the country,

(03:56):
water supplies, energy supplies to farms and fisheries, every aspects
of the economy, and let them know, just no holds
far so.

Speaker 1 (04:05):
We can better prepare.

Speaker 4 (04:06):
In twenty eighteen, it was a really blunt assessment, and
with a prediction that ten percent of the global economy
could disappear by the end of the century as a
result of an overheating Earth's too much fossil fool pollution.

Speaker 2 (04:20):
How many times have we heard these kind of predictions before.
I've lived through more of these false predictions that I
would care to sit down and really kind of inventory.
But you know, Al Gore told us that at least
ten years ago the world would be snow free. We've
been told that the sea level rise was going to

(04:41):
be so bad that New York and Miami Dade County
and probably Los Angeles and San Diego would be underwater.
People are still building condos and town homes and beachfront
homes and everything along the Gulf of Mexico. I'm sorry,
Gulf of America. So the I thought money was smart,

(05:03):
and I thought money wanted to get used by its
best and highest value. Building on you know, building on
Alan the Atlantic and you know West Palm Beach seemed
to be pretty stupid if you listen to this.

Speaker 4 (05:15):
The Trump administration then buried it. They released it on
Black Friday, the shopping day after Thanksgiving. As to remember this,
I was in Paradise, California covering that epic wildfire there and.

Speaker 2 (05:25):
Oh so the day it was released, he buried it
on a Friday, and there happened to be a weather
event on that day. I mean, I haven't looked today,
but I bet there's a weather event somewhere in the
world today.

Speaker 4 (05:37):
Nobody really paid attention. In twenty twenty three hundred Biden
and Knew one came out. But this next one, which
is supposed to come out in twenty twenty eight, was
just killed in the cradle. Like they're working on it
right now, and it is a law that they have
to deliver something. So the fear is that they're going
to just deliver pseudoscience and ideology, the kind of stuff
we were seeing and all these environmental and climate related

(05:59):
press releases and executive orders coming out of the White
House right now.

Speaker 1 (06:03):
But this is yet another blowboys.

Speaker 4 (06:05):
In the first one hundred days of just an all
out assault on science across every agency, anything with a
hint of climate change attached to it, or even ground
level pollution, py fast plastics, these sorts of things. Lee
Zelden just announced they're going to tackle microplastics source, but
with no real policy plan in place, meanwhile laying off

(06:26):
the best and brightest or scientists.

Speaker 1 (06:27):
Really only the.

Speaker 2 (06:31):
Best through brightest scientists work for the government. Huh. I'd
say maybe we ought to follow the money on that one,
because if only the best in the bride of scientists
work within the government, then who are all these scientists
out here that don't work for the government? Are they
just a bunch of duficices.

Speaker 4 (06:46):
In the world at a time is creating, as you
can imagine, incredible angst in the space right now.

Speaker 2 (06:53):
Yeah, I have real serious angst. I don't know if
I can go through with this story or not. I'm
so so bothered by it.

Speaker 4 (07:01):
But at the same time, the price of oil is
about fifty bucks a barrow, which is a huge money
loser for all the oil executives.

Speaker 1 (07:08):
At Donald Trump promised to help with the regulation. So
right now, everybody's hurting on the front of the story
and it mains to be seen.

Speaker 4 (07:16):
What becomes of this assessment the people working on it,
if they can do one they released to the public.

Speaker 1 (07:21):
Who knows, but once.

Speaker 4 (07:22):
Again really hiding the science, telling people essentially to stay
seated in a burning theater and removing the exits science
as well.

Speaker 1 (07:31):
Staying seated in a burning theater. What have we to
put it on.

Speaker 2 (07:33):
The burning theater? Oh my gosh, it's horrible. You know,
all those oil and gas executives that he's all worried about.
Those oil and gas executives are looking at what happened
in Spain and Portugal this week when those two countries
predominantly reliant on solar and wind and the grid failed

(07:56):
and what little bit of electricity they still did have
came from a little bit of coal, a little bit
of natural gas, a little bit of nuclear power. All
the wind and solar collapsed. So what does this stupid
climate assessment do well? I'd like to say good riddance
to it. So, as mister Weir points out, every four

(08:17):
to five years the government releases this assessment. It's a
sweeping report and ostensibly the purpose set up by Congress
is to summarize the impacts of climate change, on the economy,
on our health, on our infrastructure, now on the environment.

(08:38):
The latest version dropped in late twenty twenty three with
the flood of media fanfare and all sorts of dire predictions,
which I know you've seen amplified across all these major
news outlets within the cabal. For example, CNN had a
headline that day in November fourteenth of twenty twenty three,

(08:58):
no place in the United States is safe from the
climate crisis. But a new report shows where it's most severe.
But if you ever wondered who writes these reports, we're
told us the best and the brightest, and who funds
these people? And who's going to stand to gain if
their dire predictions do come true, or who's going to
gain if people at least start to believe that these

(09:20):
predictions are true. Now, this is funded by what I
told you earlier, the US Global Change Research Program. That's
fourteen different federal agencies. DOGE have you looked at this yet? NASA, Noah,
the EPA, the Departments of Defense, Energy, and State, and
it was it was established in nineteen ninety to coordinate

(09:43):
climate change research. But it's morphed, just like almost all
government programs do. It's now morphed, and I'll tell you
exactly what it's morphed into. It's a Weekend with Michael Brown.
Don't forget to text the word Michael, Michael. Send me
a message at three three one zero three, and don't
forget to subscribe to the podcast. Search for the Situation
with Michael Brown, The Situation with Michael Brown. Hit that

(10:04):
subscribe button and leave a five star review that'll get
you this program plus all five days of the weekday program.
I'll be right back. Hey, welcome back to the Weekend
with Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me. Be
sure and follow me on X formerly Twitter. It's at

(10:24):
Michael Brown USA. Go do that right now. So, as
I said, this National Climate Assessment is funded by a
department within EPA called the US Global Change Research Program,
and that's a COOM that itself is then a conglomeration
of fourteen different agencies including NASA, NOAH, EPADD Energy in State.

(10:48):
And this started in nineteen ninety but since then it's
really become entangled with are you ready in goos with
activist driven agencies, and of course the forecastings really become
ideologically motivated the authors of even though he says the scientists, well,

(11:10):
I guess technically, when Bill Weir says that the best
and the brightest are coming from the government, he may
be right in this sense. The authors of this climate
assessment are overwhelmingly drawn from universities, which I guess technically
are government employees, NGOs, and the federally funded laboratories around

(11:34):
the country, all of which should, unsurprisingly rely heavily on
climate related grant money and policies that are aligned with
all of the congregants in the Church of the Climate Activists.
And that's where I think the conflict begins, and that's
where we have to start questioning is this really an

(11:56):
objective study? So I want to focus on one sink
to start with. Anyway, I want to start on one
single contradiction in the report, which I believe exemplifies the
fundamental flaw in this report. You can pull this up.
You can you can go to EPA, or you can

(12:17):
you can just google National Climate Assessment and and you
can see the charts. I'm not I'm gonna I'm not
gonna refer to the charts since you can't see them obviously,
but I will just tell you there is a chart
that talks about the observed changes in hot and cold extremes.
That chart shows a Now this bumfuzzles me. This is

(12:44):
in the chart. I'm just not making this up. This
is why it's so important that you don't listen to
bs artists like Bill Weir on CNN tell you how
bad and dire this report is. To read it yourself
because in this one chart about observed changes in hot

(13:05):
and cold extremes, that chart documents a decline. Now, for
all of you who are graduates of public education, a
decline is the opposite of an increase. So rather than
it going up, it's going down. A decline in the
number of days above ninety five degrees fahrenheit across almost

(13:30):
the entire United States between the years two thousand and
nine and twenty twenty one. Did you get that. Now,
that's just to emphasize that's the actual observed data. So
the actual observed data where they go to different regions,

(13:51):
like they go to the southwest West region, they go
to the Northwest region, they go to what I would
call the upper West, like the Montana and the Dakota's Wyoming,
they go to the to the Midwest South, you know,
Kansas or Colomba, Texas. They go to a region that
I would say is the upper Midwest, you know, everything
from Minnesota down to say Ohio. They go to the south,

(14:11):
which is like Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Florida, and then they
go up into the northeast, you know, like Pennsylvania, New York,
up in that area. So those they look through all
of those regions and they observe. In other words, they
go to where they stuck a thermometer in the bud
of the earth to get you know, a rectal reading,
and they go check it. And so this is the

(14:32):
observed data, and the observed data shows a decline in
the number of days above ninety five degrees fahrenheit, which,
by the way, if you happen to live in the Southwest,
a day above ninety five degrees fahrenheit in the summertime
is a day ending. And why if you live in
Florida or Georgia and it's a day above ninety five

(14:56):
degrees saying from I don't know about June through in
the September, that's another day ending. And why sa'm's true
for probably Texas, maybe not so much in the northeast,
but everywhere else probably so, the number of days above
ninety five degrees has declined. But what if you keep
flipping to the pages, which is what most people don't do.

(15:19):
It's like they just read the headline. Well, there's a
headline for you. The observed data shows a decline in
the number of ninety five degrees ninety five degree days.
Then you flip a few pages, you get to the
next chart. It projects an increase in days over ninety
five in the decades to come. Oh but it also

(15:45):
it also rejects a substantial increase in the number of
days that are going to be cold days. Now, that's
not a nuance. That becomes a narrative. You go from
a observe to projections, and you've created a narrative out

(16:06):
of thin air. The models behind those projections, many of
which have already been shown to overstate global warming. Somehow,
the projections are treated with more authority than the actual observations.
Is your child, is your child running a fever right now? Yeah,
it's likely ninety eight almost one hundred degrees. Oh well,

(16:29):
I project that it's going to be one hundred and two.
If you don't get it treated. I have no basis
for that whatsoever other than he's running a fever. Right now,
give him little tailanol or something, you know, seta metaphine
or something and maybe bring it down, or you know,
maybe you know, his body will react and correct the temperature.
The point is the authors try to explain away the

(16:52):
difference between the observed data and they're projected numbers by citing, well,
there's regional variability and there's land use changes. Well wait
a minute, if those same factors drove down the number
of hot days over the past decade, why do you
dismiss them or ignore them in your forward looking projections?

(17:16):
Because that means either they don't matter, or they or
they do matter, which is because you can't have it
both ways. You know, one of my favorite climate scientists
and commentator is a guy named Roger Pielke. Well, he
nails it on this assessment, and now I'll tell you
exactly how he nails it. Coming up NeXT's a weekend

(17:39):
with Michael Brown. Text your observation, your observed data to
three three one zero three keyword Michael, Michael. You'll follow
me on X at Michael Brown USA. I'll be right back.

Speaker 1 (17:54):
Tonight, Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director
of talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie. No, you're doing
a heck of a job the weekend with Michael Brown.

Speaker 2 (18:03):
Hey, some weeking with Michael Brown. Glad to have you
with me. I appreciate you tuning in. If you want
to engage with the program, a couple of ways to
do it. Send me a text message on your message app.
The number is three three one zero three three three
one zero three, use the keyword Mike or Michael. If
you engage on social media, that's pretty easy X or
formerly Twitter, and that's at Michael Brown USA. Go give
me a follow right now. So it's not just the oh,

(18:31):
I'm gonna train this so I just see Ann that
is the one that's constantly talking about how bad things are,
and everybody's doing this with that. No, it's the Prime
Minister of the new Prime Minister of Canada who is
also talking about how, oh my gosh, I'm going to

(18:53):
and this is so typical of liberal leaders like him.
He claims that he's going to.

Speaker 1 (19:03):
Climate change is an existential threat.

Speaker 5 (19:06):
We all recognize that there's increasing urgency around that, but
the converse of that. The flip side of that is,
if you're taking steps, making investments, coming up with new technologies,
changing the way you do business, all in service of
reducing and eliminating that threat, you're creating value. And what
we have seen, increasingly spurred initially by the sustainable development

(19:31):
goals accelerated with Paris and then through social movements and
others in governments acting is society is putting tremendous value
on achieving that zero. So the companies and those who
invest in them and lend to them, who are part
of the solution will be rewarded, but those who are
lagging behind and are still part of the problem will

(19:53):
be punished.

Speaker 2 (19:54):
Oh so he's going to punish companies who don't work
to end I'm a change.

Speaker 1 (20:01):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (20:02):
This sounds pretty communist to me. How about you? Of
course that's what they want to do. Back to Bill,
where again, because he makes it even worse, because you
can't talk about how bad things are unless you do
what Blaine.

Speaker 3 (20:20):
Trump, I do want to sort of remind our viewers
about your most recent.

Speaker 4 (20:25):
Book, which focus on innovators with climate solutions.

Speaker 1 (20:30):
Let's end on some hope here, Bill.

Speaker 4 (20:32):
Well, that's the thing I mean even under all of this,
the experts I talked to in the clean energy sector
and earth repair, the world is going that way regardless.
When you look at the adaptation of thermal batteries and
solar around the world, it.

Speaker 2 (20:47):
Is how's that solar working out in Spain and.

Speaker 1 (20:49):
Portugal exploding in huge ways.

Speaker 4 (20:51):
We look at the way we can rebuild cities to
be fireproof in the age of wildfirestorms or float communities
in the age of level is a woman.

Speaker 2 (21:01):
I don't have any problem with building a fireproof community,
Or you want to build a fireproof home, if I
could afford to do it, I'd rebuild my home in
New Mexico to be fireproof because who knows. I mean,
you've had wildfires before, had nothing to do with climate change.
Oh yeah, it was a lightning strike, that's right, something
that's been occurring for oh, I don't know, since Earth

(21:24):
was created. Or if you wanted to build a floodproof
home and you live along the Gulf coast, I'd say
go for it, not because of sea level rise, but
because what's been happening since the creation Oh hurricanes, yeah,
or a floodproof home along a river basin. Some you know, yeah,

(21:44):
of course, but it always has to be in the
context of climate change.

Speaker 1 (21:48):
As a place in Amsterdam we visited it is resiliency.

Speaker 4 (21:52):
Adaptation is now a must for communities trying to live
on this hot or more unpredictable planet. No.

Speaker 2 (21:59):
Resilience see, and resilient building is something you do because
we're always going to have Mother Nature and you're always
going to have natural disasters. So the more that you
can build up against that naturally occurring phenomenon called wind, hail, floods, fires, tornadoes,
whatever it might be, ice storms, you name it, blizzards,

(22:21):
then I'd say go for it. It's like to this day,
I know that we you know, it'd be really nice
in Colorado if we would learn to bury power lines,
but we don't want put out the money to do that.
So when storms, ice storms, wizards come through and then
we have power outages and everybody scratches their head and goes, well, gui,
you wonder what, and they blame on climate change. No,

(22:44):
it's the middle of December and you're gonna get they're
gonna get a ice storm, or you know, it's the
middle of summer and you're gonna have a wildfire.

Speaker 4 (22:52):
And there are so many exciting solutions out there which
will make an entirely new class of future billionaires, because
everything in the modern world is the process of being
reinvented right now.

Speaker 1 (23:03):
The people standing in the way are those getting rich
off the status quo.

Speaker 2 (23:06):
And fascinates me is he doesn't understand the precise he's
making my point that he's trying to panic us over
naturally occurring phenomenon. And as I've always said, if you've
listened to me for any length of time at all
of my in my almost twenty years of radio that
I've talked about, I certainly believe looking around the corner

(23:29):
that there are innovators, they are technologists, There are others
who are going to come up with the next big
thing that will help us be more resilient in this
carbon based natural world that we live in. There've always
been drafts, there's always been hurricanes, there have always been floods,
there have always been snowstorms, blizzards, ice storms. There always
there's always been wildfires. It's just that we haven't figured

(23:53):
out other ways to mitigate against those. And he's making
my case for me, except he wants to tell you
to go do it because the climate change. I'm saying,
once you go, do it, because it's probably good business.

Speaker 1 (24:05):
And the few folks in power helping them right now.

Speaker 4 (24:08):
But the load of surface, there's this sort of invisible
industrial revolution that's happening right now. There's a lot of
worry in that sector because so many of the grants
and incentives that were built into the Inflation Reduction Acts
which led to a Oh.

Speaker 2 (24:21):
They're worried because their government funded, taxpayer paid scam is
finally being eliminated. So if you want to go innovate,
I mean, did Thomas Edison need a government grant to
go invent the light bulb? Did Henry Ford need a
government grant to go invent you know, the assembly line?

(24:42):
No innovated? Did does someone need a government grant to invent?
To invent? I just was looking up here at the
monitor in front of me. There's a new version of Chrome,
the browser up. Did Google need a government grant to
reinvent Chrome? Did Steve job Jobs need a government grant
to invent the iPhone? Remember the old iPod? No? No,

(25:06):
those are innovators what he's talking about, And you can
do a lot of that, if not all of it.
Because we have in the past without government money, but
they become addicted on government money.

Speaker 4 (25:19):
Huge manufacturing boom are in the balance, and nobody knows
for sure what comes next.

Speaker 1 (25:25):
But blue states, blue cities.

Speaker 4 (25:28):
Leaders in those places, as they did during the first
Trump administration, are vowing to keep the climate momentum going.
And it just makes economic sense. There's a soul of
big solar company here in the United States that just
got something like half a billion dollars in foreign investment,
regardless of the Trump stuff, because the momentum is there.
There was a certain point when humanity wasn't going back
to riding horses. We're fast to point we're not going

(25:50):
back to internal combustion in this next generation.

Speaker 1 (25:54):
And it's not just health and wealth, but it's also prosperity.

Speaker 4 (25:57):
China now is loving that they've been given the postcarbon economy.

Speaker 2 (26:01):
We'll see what happens next. Yeah, we will see what
happens next, and it's not going to be dependent upon
government money. So doc to Roger Pilke, whose work on
the politicization of climate science is for anybody essential reading.
He exposed the contradiction in a piece called original Sin,

(26:25):
and in that article he notes that this fifth National
Climate Assessment commits the same methodological error as its predecessors.
They use worst case emissions scenarios to create maximum impact headlines,
and then quietly admit elsewhere that those scenarios are increasingly implausible.

(26:47):
So together the critiques converge on the same point. What
I'm saying and what he's saying, This assessment's core conclusions
are actually more than result of modeling assumptions than measuring reality,
and those assumptions happen to align perfectly with the political

(27:08):
goals of the institutions that are funding and writing the
report and of those who are receiving the funding and
writing the report. Now, if that sounds bad, it really is.
But the real eye opener is who these authors are,
where their funding comes from, how deeply embedded they are

(27:29):
in the machinery built to profit from the climate fear.
According to the assessment, more than five hundred individuals contributed
to this report, authors, technical contributors, people that were agency
liaisons advisory committees with the government. As I said, it's

(27:50):
under the oversight of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research
and the EPA. The entire structures funded with taxpayer money,
and the entire structures does to maintain institutional continuity, which
means reinforcing the same alarmist narratives that justify your agency's expansion,

(28:10):
that justifies research grants, that justifies regulatory interventions. Now it
tries to present itself as a scientific document, but it's
actually more of a political roadmap coordinated by all these
agencies with billions of dollars from your pockets in annual
climate related budgets. And then they staff those agencies with

(28:32):
individuals whose careers are tied to the perpetuation of the
climate urgency. It's a big giant grift that they've got
going on. And I want to name some of the
names that are involved in this. Most of them don't
mean anything to me, but their organizations do. And then

(28:53):
you'll suddenly realize, oh, it is a grift. It's the
Weekend of Michael Brown. Text the word Michael michaels of
this number in your message apre you one zero three,
Do me a favor. Go follow me on x formerly
Twitter at Michael Brown USA. I'll be right back. Hey,
Welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown.

Speaker 1 (29:13):
Again.

Speaker 2 (29:14):
As I always do, at the end of the program,
I want to thank everybody for tuning in. I hope
you'll tell your friends and family about the program. I
hope you'll subscribe to the podcast, and of course, feel
free to text me anytime about any aspect of the
program that you want to tell me about or ask
me about. I just want to make sure you understand
how much I appreciate you taking time out of your day,
whether it's today, tomorrow, or whenever you listen and listening

(29:37):
to this program. I really do appreciate it. So I
don't want necessarily give you all the names. I've got
them listed here, but it's more important to focus on
the institutions that are a part of this National Climate
Assessment number five. It is Texas Tech, the Nature Conservancy,
Columbia University, USDA, the Department of Commerce, Noah Department, the

(30:00):
Defense Department of Energy HHS. They're academic contributors, the University
of Washington, Andrew Jorgenson of Boston College. He's a sociologist
by training, and he often prioritizes ideology over you know,
actual climatology. Then there are these people that represent the
regional teams that are almost all from NOAH, the National

(30:22):
Oceanic and atmospheric administration, or university based researchers that specialize
in in climate and adaptation planning. It's a who's who
of all being federally funded climate professionals that are ideologically
aligned academics, and their work not only reflects their institutions agendas,

(30:44):
that often serves as the very justification for expanding their
authority and expanding their budgets. So the people that write
the report are the same ones that benefit from the conclusions.
How do they benefit? You and I have funded more
than fifty billion dollars in the climate related science and

(31:07):
programs just over the past ten years. Reuter's reports that
the US government will spend more than five hundred billion
on climate technology and clean energy over the next decade.
Now where does that money go? That Almost all that
money gets channeled through grants, and those grants are tied

(31:31):
directly to the type of projections that you find in
the National Climate Assessment. So it becomes a grift, a
feedback loop, if you will, Because the grimmer they can
make the outlook, the greater they can make the alarmism,
then the more money that they think is going to
flow back to them, and of course it flows right
back into the very people who have predicted, you know,

(31:54):
that the world's going to fall apart, the world's going
to blow up, the world's going to go a hell
in a hand basket. So give me some money so
I can go star and so I can go develop
some new technology. If if you're that worried about it,
once you can find your own money. You know, as
Bill Weir pointed out, there were foreign investors into a

(32:14):
solar company in the United States. Well, that proves to
me that you can find private money, assuming it wasn't
some sovereign fund from Cutter or the UAE or somewhere.
Then that proves to me that there are investors around
the world who are willing to put their money into
I like I if I have knew of a really

(32:34):
good startup company that was developing new battery technology that
showed promise, that might be a worthwhile investment. Yeah, but
otherwise go find it on your own. You know this,
this failed prediction I told you about at the very beginning.
So the number of days in this assessment, the very

(32:58):
first figure they tell you is that the number of
days above ninety five degrees has declined over the past decade.
But then they do projections that show there's going to
be an increase over the next decade in number of
days over ninety five. Now they contribute to decline, interestingly,

(33:21):
to land use, weather changes, population moves, everything that you
can possibly imagine. Well, if all of those things are
in place now and they're going to be in place
in the future, then wouldn't the decline continue Because they
never show you any causation or correlation to show that
those things are going to now result in the projected

(33:45):
increases because they obviously can't show you any actual increases
because well that's in the future, so they have to
use computer models. So garbage in, garbage out. But they
failed these predictions in the past. It's not new. The
very first national assessment that was done back in the
year two thousand said that we would have significant increases

(34:08):
in US heat wave frequency by twenty twenty five years ago.
But yet you go to data from NOAH, it shows
that the heat wave frequency and the heat wave severity
have remained stable in most regions around the world. Wait
a minute, I thought it was going to get worse.

(34:33):
And in fact, if you can look at the chart
that I'm looking at right now the heat wave index.
There was a spike you and that spike was between
nineteen I'd say about nineteen thirty five and nineteen thirty nine.
Oh yeah, the dust bowl. Yes, And then you look
from nineteen forty all the way through twenty twenty. Oh

(34:54):
it's just tiny little spikes up and down. But if
you drew a trend line, the trend line would be
flat line. That's from the twenty twenty report. I mean
from the two thousand report. Let's go to the second
report they did in two thousand and nine. They told
that crop yields would decline by twenty twenty five years

(35:16):
ago because of climate stress. But then you look at
the actual yields for some commodities like corn or soy
beans and wheat, they've reached record high multiple times in
the past decade. In fact, the trend line starting in
nineteen sixty all the way through twenty twenty and continuing,
the trend line for crop yields has been increasing. Huh.

(35:43):
Let's go to twenty fourteen. They told us in the
third Assessment that, oh my gosh, hurricanes are going to
become stronger and more frequent. But even now, the United
Nations IPC IPCC acknowledges that, well, there really is no
long term trend in global hurricane frequency and we can't
establish one. So despite all these errors, they continue to

(36:05):
use it as alarmism, just as CNN was doing so
that the uninformed, the useful idiots among us. We'll hear
the CNN story here about did you hear about this
climate assessment? Oh my gosh, it's going to get hotter
and hotter, and it's going to get horrible. We get
to start doing stuff. We need to start spending more money.
We need to spend more and more money on it.
It's absurd, It really is absurd. Don't fall for the

(36:29):
hysteria from the Church of the climate activists. They're singing
the Hallelujah chorus and it's hollow. It's the weekend with
Michael Brown. Thanks for tuning in. Everybody, have a great weekend.
I'll see you next weekend.