7-28-25 - 7am - Climate Criminalization

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good morning Michael and Dragon from Nebraska. Well, your last
segment there is very clear that this nation is in
need of a strong heavenly father and a strong father
at home. I can promise you this. No son of
mine will ever be caught screaming in a lake, nor
start a club screaming in a lake.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
Thank you real quick.

Speaker 3 (00:23):
This is several different talkbacks from several different places outside
of Colorado. Okay, Michael, where's our map? Why are you
looking at me like goofy goober?

Speaker 2 (00:38):
I'm a total of goofy goober? And where's our map? Oh?
So there are several of that? Or is there just one? No?

Speaker 3 (00:49):
There there are several times we've gotten several different talkbacks
today about people stating what state they are in. Oh oh,
I am asking you where it's our map that we
can you know, locate our goober's across the country.

Speaker 2 (01:04):
Well, I was waiting for my bonus to buy one.
As soon as I get my bonus, I'll buy a map.
You say there's one on the third floor.

Speaker 3 (01:15):
I think KBP I has has one one.

Speaker 2 (01:18):
I may wonder down there after the program and see, I'll.

Speaker 3 (01:22):
But it's in the studio, so it's it's like the
k hell rap that we have here. It's the United States.

Speaker 2 (01:28):
Oh, the rap is a map. Yeah. Oh and so
they've put pins just all those the wrappers or something. Yeah. Yeah.
Do you think we need to ask permission or should
we just do it? Just do it?

Speaker 3 (01:43):
We can't you and I probably can't afford the rap,
but we can afford a map.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
No, we can. We can afford a map. Yeah, but
then are we gonna put it in here? Because I
don't think we can put it out there? Correct, Yeah,
I think I think they'll throw a fit right, which,
by the way, off air, I'll remind you. So Saturday,
I figured out what's going down on the third floor. Yeah,
and why why they're getting their restrooms remodeled, and we well,

(02:09):
we'll probably get ours remodeled once the televisions actually go
the TV monitors go live, installed digital clock and the
clock goes live and whatever is in that yeah, in
that box, whatever goes there, then we might get started

(02:29):
on a remodeling in the bathrooms on the fourth floor. Look, yeah,
but I think I put me, you know, just alone
on the third floor by myself, wandering around during a
break going hm, that makes sense? Yeah, yeah, I'll give
you a hint. Somebody around here or something around here

(02:54):
had a big ass birthday recently. Hmmm. So and if
you looked in your calendar, in fact, I think I
think the it's Thursday at four thirty pm, So I
think by Thursday. By the way, I said the bathrooms

(03:16):
were closed, didn't stop meny Saturday. I checked it. Maybe
I checked though before I used it, to make sure
that I did it. It's functional, Yes, I wanted to
make sure it was functional first. So yeah, I think
that's what's going on.

Speaker 1 (03:32):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (03:33):
Last week, July twenty third, twenty twenty five, Uh, you
were probably just sound asleep. You were happy, you know,
happy as a bugging a rug or whatever the saying is.
I don't know and I don't care, And you didn't
realize that the International Court of Justice has finally and

(03:53):
officially declared that the fifty seven states are not doing
enough to fight climate change, and that those states can
be held internationally liable for violating human rights. It's a
really dense, stupid document, but here's the core message that

(04:15):
I got out of the document. If you're not adequately
reducing emissions, you could be legally punished Now over the weekend,
I just parenthetically read a story about how polis is.
They had a meeting last week. There was like one
hundred stakeholders. It was a zoom meeting because nobody has

(04:37):
in person meetings anymore because somebody might yell at you,
so they don't have in person meetings. And what was
it about legislation for the upcoming session of the Colorado
polit Bureau to see how he can continue to push
decarbonization in this state. Yes, they're not letting up by

(05:00):
twenty forty. Yeah, by twenty forty, which is by my
calculationally fifteen fifteen years away. Let's take a step back
for a moment. The International Court of Justice is the
judicial branch of the United Nations, and it is empowered
to offer advisory opinions, and it is empowered to resolve

(05:22):
legal disputes between nation states. Now, in theory it exists
to uphold international law, but in practice, it's just another
platform for the global climate bureaucracy to enshrine their ideology
as law. Whatever the ideology is, you know, anti semitism,

(05:43):
climate change, racism, whatever you want to choose, just enshrine
that ideology into jurisprudence. Now, this is not the court's
first foray into climate law fair, but it seems I
think I would I would propose that it's the most
aggressive so far. It's not difficult to understand that climate

(06:12):
activists have truly given up on trying to persuade the public,
and instead what they're doing is they're now weaponizing the
courts in order to force compliance. The same activists that
cry that climate science is settled are always the first

(06:33):
to call in the lawyers. Now, if the science is
so settled, why do you have to rehab any sort
of judicial enforcement. Well, I think there's a very simple
to answer to that. That climate crisis narrative cannot stand
on evidence alone. It's got to be propped up, and
you prop it up with political coercion, censorship. And of course,

(06:56):
now the latest trend that's before our country befuddled the
entire world, and that's legal intimidation. Lawfair. This is a
simple lawfair. So the International Court of Criminal Justice, the
latest ruling elevates these vague obligations under the Paris Agreement
into binding legal duties under customary international law. It declares

(07:21):
that countries who fail to reduce emissions, either through acts
of omission or comission, that somehow that's violating the rights
of individuals, and they point out especially for future generations,
and they must provide restitution. In other words, show me
the money. That's right. Not only can countries now be

(07:44):
sued for not reducing emissions fast enough, which I think
is what Jared Polis is trying to do. He's trying to, Oh,
this is an excuse. I'm just trying to comply. Oh
did you not hear Michael Brown? He actually talked about
how the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, is forcing

(08:07):
these I don't want Colorado to get sued because well,
we don't have any money to begin with, so we
don't have to pay anything and we don't have to
you know. Phil Wiser, though, wants us to get sued
because then Phil Wiser of course can do what well
he can campaign on that criminalizing climate descent. Everything that

(08:33):
I'm about to talk about could be categorized as obviously
climate descent, and according to the International Court of Justice,
this could be criminalized. Now. While the advisory opinion itself
stopped short of explicitly calling for jail time, the logic

(08:55):
behind it paves the way for individual liability for speech restrictions,
and of course legal retaliation against anybody that opposes oh decarbonization,
things like net zero mandates. So maybe Posts could figure
out a way to use this against me. The opinion,

(09:17):
again just from last week, declares that all nations, regardless
of their wealth, irrespect of their history, does it make
any difference how much or what their emissions profile is,
they are legally responsible for the effects of climate change.
Every single country in the world is responsible for climate change.

(09:38):
Now it asserts that even cumulatively untraceable and speculative harms
can be grounds for international liability. Now, in our jurisprudence
in this country, an American jurisprudence, if you cannot quantify
the damage, if the harm that you're to claim in

(10:01):
a court of law in Colorado or almost any court
in this country, and that's pure speculative harm, that court's
gonna throw your ass out of court. Or if it's
untraceable back to the person you're suing. If you can't
trace your damages to actions or something that I did,

(10:21):
then you got the wrong person. But in the international
court of justice, that doesn't make any difference. It emphasizes
that states must act in accordance with a precautionary principle.
In other words, you should cower even if there's scientific uncertainty.

(10:44):
They write this, However, however, states should also not refrain
from or delay taking action of prevention in the face
of scientific uncertainty. In other words, just regardless it'sact. This
is so stupid. I would say I would use the
word irregardless, regardless of whether or not there is any certainty.

(11:07):
That shouldn't stop you from taking action. It says, according
to Principal fifteen of the Real Declaration, where there are
threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason. Now that's not
legal reasoning, that's climate ideology. Wearing a judicial robe, the

(11:30):
court's opinion. If you know, I hate to call the
court because it's really it's a make believe court. It's
it's a fantasy court. It's it's a court set up
to enforce ideology, not to enforce any I mean, they
what are they gonna do arrest Trump? Are they going
to track him down, you know, to turnbury and arresting. No,

(11:53):
I don't. I don't think so. It reads into the opinion,
which is all it is, is just an opinion, but
it reads like an activist manifesto. It dismisses the complexity
of global development, economic realities, energy poverty, all in favor
of a singular mission which gives me right back to

(12:15):
Jared Poulis enforced net zero I, decarbonization at any cost,
and it ignores I think three pretty damn important facts.
Em DAT data shows that the number of reported climate

(12:36):
related disasters has not increased significantly since accurate records have
been kept. Deaths from those disasters have declined by more
than ninety five percent since the nineteen twenties. So since
before the dust bow, deaths from natural disasters have declined

(12:58):
by more than ninety five percent, and the global death
rate from all natural disasters is now It is now
among the lowest and recorded history. Deaths per one hundred
thousand in nineteen hundred was less than ten. Nineteen twenty,

(13:24):
it's sored up to over twenty five today. It's deminimus
on the chart you can barely red. And I'm talking
about droughts, floods, earthquake storms, extreme temperatures, Oh my gosh,
scorching heat, we're gonna have scorching heat this week. You
know what scorching heat is to me? One hundred and
ten hundred and twenty. That's scorching one hundred degrees. Yes,

(13:47):
it's uncomfortable, it's it's miserable. It's not scorching. But you
go to Phoenix, you go to the desert in August,
when it reaches one hundred and fifteen one hundred, that's scorching. Anyway,
back to the death. When I talk about deaths from
natural disasters, I'm talking about droughts, floods, earthquake storms, extreme temperatures, volcanos, wildfires,

(14:12):
glacial lake outbursts, mass movements, dry mass movements, wet mass movements, fogs, fogs.
They actually count fogs in the data. This isn't from
our world. In data done, none of that information, not
one iota of it, was mentioned, not one chart, not
one graph, not one Shall we call it an inconvenient truth?

(14:34):
Not one inconvenient truth was mentioned in that article, in
that in that opinion, the twenty twenty five advisory opinions,
one hundred and thirty pages long. It's a bunch of
legal acrobatics. It's attempting to convert speculative, model based climate
fears and turn that into enforceable international law. It has

(14:59):
a broad, sweeping assertions that rely on heavy phrasings such
as significant trans boundary harm, due diligence, obligations, and common
but differentiated responsibilities. I'll get to that one in a minute.
But when I first read about common but differentiated responsibilities,

(15:20):
I thought, what the hell are you talking about? But
here's the central idea. The central idea is that all
nations must take appropriate measures to prevent emissions linked harm.
You want to find fascinating about that sentence is the
assumption in it that you can link emissions to specific harms.

(15:43):
It just makes the assertion. That's all. That just makes
the assertion because guess what, even if the harm is untraceable,
and even if the country in question contributes only a
fraction of global emissions, it is still that all nations
have to take your appropriate measures to prevent emissions linked harm.

(16:03):
And it repeatedly, over and over and over again, states
that these countries have obligations that extend beyond their borders
and extend beyond current generations, and even if there's uncertainty,
or even if it's mind numbingly complex. None of that

(16:25):
can be used to mitigate your duties to get to
net zero. The opinion uses these kinds of phrases sufficient
scientific understanding of the causes of climate change and its
adverse effects, cumulative emissions, and full reparation for climate related harms.

(16:48):
The state of science regarding the cause of link between
the wrongful act and the damage may be uncertain. You
walk into an American court of law and you tried
to draw a causal link between a particular act and
the damage, and you can't prove that causal link some

(17:14):
extenuating circumstances, your case is going to get thrown out.
This is, in other words, this is taking legal reasoning
and untethering it from what we require in American jurisprudence,
which is empirical evidence. These are just abstract concepts that

(17:34):
have no grounding in any observed data, yet their wieldest
tools of accountability against countries, including It's been a long
time since I've been over the road trucker and criss
crossing the country lately, I'm amazed at how many windmills
have sprouted up everywhere. We should have unlimited energy and
no birds left, but I tell you.

Speaker 1 (17:55):
What, Brownie, next time I see one of them things
burst into flame, all make sure I film it.

Speaker 2 (18:00):
For you do do? Yes? Yes? So if you're not
did he say he's no longer OTR?

Speaker 3 (18:11):
He said, it's been a while since he's been over
the road trucker, so apparently he is again or now,
or maybe he's just.

Speaker 2 (18:18):
Doing local or regional or something or that. I don't know. Well,
we need details. We want to know, you know, do
you really? Do you really? Yeah? There are there are
some in this audience who if I could put one
of my NSA buddies on on their trail and just

(18:39):
be him and just see right, just see what like
you know, there's there's always like little disturbances in the universe. Well,
I think those disturbances are caused like cause by people
like him who just go through you know, they nobody,
nobody see it happening, but they they feel like what

(19:04):
was that, you know, like a feeling of deje vous
or a feeling of chill in the room. Yeah, there's
a chill in the room right right, And you have
no idea you're in a restaurant or you're a you're
filling your carp with gas. You're just you're buying groceries,
and and you realize it was him. He just happened
to walk by, and just you know, it's not it's

(19:27):
not even evil, it's just a disturbance. It's just it's
just a you know, just yeah, that's what he does.
That's exactly what he does. Because I get that same
feeling when he when at least talking about like he's listening.
You ever stop him. Think about the people that are
listening to us. They're all crazy, They're all that almost

(19:50):
came out. I almost said they're all crazy, because that's
what I really think about. They are all Evan crazy.
I know, look exactly, they're just to you and me,
So they can't be anything other than Eving crazy. Why
do I obsess about this, all this climate stuff, because
if there's still one overarching thing that is being used

(20:15):
to eventually try to control society, and it's it's a
Marxist ideology, it's climate change. This, as I said just
before we took the break, their their whole opinion is
legal reasoning, untethered from any empirical evidence. For example, even

(20:39):
though this stupid court acknowledges the difficulties of assigning specific
responsibility for any particular adverse impact. It then asserts that
that does not relieve a nation of their obligation. Well,
that's that is not law. That is not any form

(21:01):
of jurisprudence that I ever studied in law school. That's
unequivocally unadulterated ideology, and it's a Marxist ideology. But then
the court takes another step and it commits Well, there's
probably the gravest offense of all pretending that the harms
of climate change are universal, that they're escalating, and that

(21:25):
we can observe them. I often refer to, and you
can find it on their website itself or our world
in Data obviously publishes a lot of this, but I
refer to em DAT em DAT. Well, that's literally what
it is, em hyphen D. That's Emergency Management Data. There

(21:48):
is a website. Let me, I'll tell you what it
is cause you want to look it up. Uh do
do do? Do they maintained they maintained this? It is
em DAT. No DASH is just e m D a
t dot b bravo Echo E m D a trought

(22:16):
dot bravo echo. That's the International Disaster Database em DAT
That's what I'm referring to. The thing that is fascinating
about this entire thing, as I said earlier, is that
natural disaster deaths are down over ninety five percent since

(22:42):
the nineteen twenties. There is zero statistically significant increase. This
is the argument I have with Tavis Smiley on his
program last week or week before. There is statistically no
significant rise in droughts or extreme temperatures, or floods or

(23:02):
storms or wildfires. When adjusted for exposure and detection bias.
The numbers are astonishing when you look at the number
of deaths again, go back to nineteen hundred, somewhere between
one and one and a half million in nineteen twenty

(23:26):
six because of floods. Floods, oh seem to be having
those right now. The number of deaths from floods between
nineteen twenty six and nineteen thirty four, at its peak
was more than three and a half million, approaching four
million people worldwide in twenty twenty four. I blow the

(23:52):
chart up as large as I can on my sixteen
inch screen, and floods don't. I can't even see the
highest number for any disaster goes back to nineteen sixty six,
and those are droughts nineteen forty two, nineteen sixty six,

(24:15):
you know a million people, that it drops down to
half a million people. But in twenty twenty four, the
only significant number of deaths which is well below it's
got to be below one hundred thousand, is earthquakes. Earthquakes.
You can find that all at emt be or our

(24:38):
world in data has got it too. But then when
you look at the global reported climate related natural disasters
by type, you see that there is from the year
two thousand all the way to twenty twenty five broken
down by drought, extreme temperature, floodstorms, and wildfires. It's if

(25:01):
you're looking at a trend line. It's all the same. Yes,
it rises and falls, but it's statistically insignificant. And here's
what's important. The court doesn't ignore this data. It buries
the data, and it buries the data under models, under

(25:24):
the assumptions that they create using models worst case scenarios.
And then what I can only I trying to figure
out how to describe this abstract moral rhetoric. Abstract moral rhetoric.
I didn't know that if you were studying things like

(25:48):
numbers of natural disasters, deaths from natural disasters, frequency damages, etc.
That you would use something called abstract moral rhetoric. Was
that I get another word for that. It starts with
B and ends with T. It's bull crap, total bull crap.

(26:14):
So this ruling speaks endlessly of global duties, but it
doesn't name names, particularly one name in comp that probably
matters the most when it comes to studying emissions and

(26:35):
the one country that is producing the most emissions of
any other country on our China. But interesting again, go
back to our World and Data and you look at
annual CO two emissions emissions from fossil fuels and industry.
Land use change is not included in this chart. The

(26:58):
United States is on a downward China is soaring, literally soaring.
It's the hockey. It's al Gore's hockey stick from nineteen
fifty to twenty twenty three. For this particular chart in
Our World and Data, it is straight up, straight up.

Speaker 3 (27:19):
And you can go see those charts at Michael says
go here dot com because.

Speaker 2 (27:22):
He's actually a pretty good producer occasionally. China's by far
the largest emitter, accounting for nearly a third of global
coeal two emissions today, more than the entire developed world combined. Now,
since joining the UN Framework Conventional and Climate Change in
nineteen ninety two and signing the Paris Agreement in twenty fifteen,

(27:42):
China's emissions have only accelerated. We're the dummies. First. There's
no correlation. You can't show me any causation or even
correlation between these increased emissions and climate change, particularly global warming.

(28:02):
But that doesn't make any difference to them, because the
International Court of Justice doesn't mention China even once it
refers to something as different national circumstances. How would you
translate different national circumstances. I'll tell you exactly how you

(28:24):
do it. And this is why this is such Marxism.
It's actually truly communism. Different national circumstances means that rich
Western countries got to pay, China gets a pass. Well,
that's not justice, it's certainly not international justice. It's geopolitical capitulation.

(28:44):
It's surrender somehow dressed up as legal virtue. So we
now have where are the lefties about that? You know,
how often do we hear in this country, to diverge
just a little bit, how do we hear about two
tiered justice systems? Or how do we hear about, you know.

Speaker 4 (29:04):
A.

Speaker 2 (29:06):
Disproportionate distribution of wealth, too many wealthy people. Yea, well,
Mandami's got what we got, too many billionaires. He get
rid of billionaires. They create, in this opinion, the equivalent
of a two tiered climate liability regime. You got one

(29:26):
regime in which democracies democratic. Well, let me make it broader.
You have one in which Western civilization has sued for
their past, while authoritarian regimes get credit for just a
vague promise about yeah, we'll do something down the road somewhere.
China is using the courts and using these international organizations

(29:52):
to influence global climate narratives, through green energy diplomacy, through
the Belton Road initiatives, and through their influence in the
United Nations. So let's be abundantly clear. This ruling is
not about climate justice or climate change or anything else.
It's simply about one word control.

Speaker 4 (30:15):
Michael, I think that God is just laughing at us
and laughing at us and laughing at us. Going. You know,
I wrote out a list of things that you should
be working on love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
and self control. So maybe we should work on those
things instead of screaming like Bansheese and letting it our

(30:38):
self control go away.

Speaker 2 (30:41):
Cool. Oh wait a minute, dragon, do you think for
a minute that she's never screamed like a banjie Caldera
because everybody screams at Caldera like a banjie. Well makes
her such an exception, But she makes a really good point.

(31:02):
All the things that we should be focusing on. Instead,
we got people screaming at the trees and again at prison.
My point, there's nothing new under the sun. We go
back for twenty years or whatever that stupid video was
of them sitting there screaming at the trees. Oh, I
don't want you to die. I don't want you to die.
So let me conclude with this about the opinion. That's

(31:24):
not binding, so we don't worry about that. But that
doesn't make any difference. It'll be used as legal and
political ammunition all over the world because activist lawyers are
going to cite it to sue governments. Politicians will use
it to justify censorship. Financial institutions will use it to

(31:44):
debank fossil fuel companies. The ruling is just the judicial
arm of zero authoritarianism. And as I said, there was
a meeting last week in Colorado one hundred so called
stakehold all to discuss net zero. They call it decarbonization,

(32:06):
but the result is net zero by the year twenty forty.
Police continues to push that they're going to introduce, you know,
the whole thing at the whole point of the meeting.
I haven't heard the notes about the meeting yet, but
the I haven't read the notes about the meeting. I
haven't seen them. But the whole purpose is to continue
that push. So while the federal government is going an

(32:31):
entirely different direction, stupid states like California and Colorado and
New York and Illinois, Massachusetts and all the others are
going in the exact opposite direction. And this will be
used by them, and this sets the stage for further
escalation of the whole issue, criminalizing climate disinformation and targeting

(32:51):
the dissenters, and then redefining the harm to include ideas
that challenge this whole call consensus, which it is not
a consensus today, it's an opinion. Tomorrow, it's Jared Polus's
government's justification for oh, I don't know, speech restrictions, regulatory overreach,

(33:16):
digital surveillance, all in the name of saving the claim,
actually all the name of control