Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, Michael, it's called the Citizen Involvement Project. The actual
class is called Citizen's Guide to Civic Involvement. And yes,
I'm having a class coming up in October. So go
to our website Thinkfreedom dot org and you two can
get signed up for my class.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
It's held by zoom.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Very convenient for a statewide thing. We could even reach
into Pitkin County.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Thanks.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Just to be passive, I'm not going to put that
up on the website of Michael saysco here dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Oh, come on, put it up, fine, put it up there.
Speaker 4 (00:32):
For because let me tell you why. She'll rip your
testicles off if you don't.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Probably she is accurate.
Speaker 4 (00:42):
She is, you know how Caldera is kind of a
I mean Caldre, don't give me wrong. When he when
he's sober, he can get fairly riled up, and he
can get pretty adamant, and he's very articulate, but he's
kind of a laid back kind of guy. Kathleen is
(01:07):
like a firecracker. She's like she's like a Roman candle,
just a a infinite Roman candle, just constantly going. She's
a she's a wild lady. Just if I had that
kind of energy. If I had that kind of energy,
I wouldn't need good Rocky Mountain men's clenning. That's what
(01:29):
that's how.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
You wouldn't be here, that's for sure.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
That's right. I wouldn't be here. Actually, you're right, I
wouldn't be here. I'd be at home in bed right now,
not listening to me.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
It's up at Michael says, go here dot com right now.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
Here's the plan for this. I don't know segment hour,
who knows? I want to do a story about peak oil. However,
they're doing the mic checks in Utah for the FBI
press conference about the apparent capture of the Charlie Kirk assassin.
(02:08):
If and when that occurs, assuming that Dragon's got a
good connection that we can hear something, or even if
it's an okay connection, I want you to be able
to hear what the FBI says about them capturing it,
because if indeed it is as being reported that his
(02:31):
father the shooters, the alleged shooter's father, is also a minister,
it's a pretty interesting story. That's did the father recognize
the photo? Was there something in the home. This raises
the whole question that Dragon has about parents should be
held responsible for their.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Children's probably college days, most likely over eighteen.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
Probably over eighteen, right, and but it also raises the
question about did the father suspect something prior to seeing
the photos.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
I mean, there are all sorts of issues that could
be a that could be.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
But father did if if if, if, if, if all
these things are true, it'll be a pretty interesting story.
So we will break in and take that press conference
when it occurs. However, for I don't know, the last
couple of years, both the i e A, the International
Energy Association, and Bloomberg the why the two of them, Well,
(03:36):
I know why the two of them are hooked up
because Bloomberg is anti fossil fuel, which fascinates me. You know,
when you're a billionaire and your company is you know,
a gigantic media company and a gigantic kind.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Of uh oh I T company.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
For lack of a better term, that provides all this
financial data and information to traders and everybody all over
the world, you would think they would understand how important
fossil fuels are to our society globally. They have been
pushing this absurd peak oil theory and now they've shifted
(04:19):
you know, peak oil was in the you know, back
in the nineteen nineties, and then it was going to
be in the two thousand. Well now it's twenty thirty.
Everything seems to be focused on twenty thirty. That seems
to be the magic number. The IEA in their zeal
to influence your opinion in favor of their climate alarmist narrative,
(04:41):
in favor of their gospel of the climate, of the
Church of the Climate alarmists. They even changed their modeling
methodology a couple of years ago, eliminating its long used
current policies scenario in favor of a new and this
(05:02):
word is particularly chosen. They no longer use current policies
and instead they use something called an aspirational method. The
aspirational method to calculate peak oil assumes governments would move
rapidly to force populations to just eat the massive higher
(05:28):
energy costs which come with these alarmist climate policies. You
see it in your increase cost of electricity, natural gas,
whatever it is your power needs that you have to
just conduct your business. I find it always fascinating that
(05:49):
those on the left side of the pinnicle spectrum, who
are generally the majority of the congregants in the Church
of the Climate activists are always out there advocating we've
got to make these changes. Yet they're completely oblivious to
the hypocrisy that while they advocate for the change, they
(06:10):
themselves fully enjoy the benefits of fossil fuels and then
claim that, oh, it's okay for higher costs because that
will drive us into these changes. We've had now Energy
Secretary Chris Right on this program debunking everything about peak oil.
(06:33):
In July, Chris Right let it be known that he
was very methodically considering canceling our membership subscription to all
the IEA's products because he believes that they are simply
politically motivated and not scientifically motivated. In a July fifteen
(06:56):
interview with Bloomberg, he said he has told Faith Barral,
the head of the International Energy Agency, that they've got
to either reform their forecasting methods or they're going to
face potential US withdrawal from the organization. Now you may think, well, BFD,
so what well when when the United States government supports
(07:20):
an organization, Take the United Nations for example, we're part
We're one of the largest, if not still the largest
contributor to the funding of the United Nations, So when
it comes to something like the IEA, we're one of
the largest contributors to that organization, meaning you are that's
(07:40):
where saying, this is where some of your tax dollars
are going. So these tensions between the Trump administration and
their energy priorities and the IEA's focus on a clean
energy transition is really starting to get tense now. Chris
writes criticism centers on the IEA's reports and projections because
(08:06):
he and other critics of the agency are arguing that
they are overly optimistic about renewable energy adoption and that
they completely fail to adequately prioritize energy security. If let's
just for the sake of argument, believe that we need
to transition to clean energy. I don't think that we
(08:28):
need to, but let's just make, for the sake of argument,
believe that we do.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Well.
Speaker 4 (08:33):
You cannot do that without ensuring that we have enough
to touch on Dragon's favorite subject, that we have enough
oil in the Strategic Patroleum Reserve, that we have enough
generating capacity so that if and when we're able to
literally flip the switch to renewable energy, we remain secure
(08:59):
in our energy consumption. Why is that important Because not
being secure in your energy consumption means that when you
start making this transition, the easiest thing to recognize is
we immediately go into a recession or a depression, or
(09:20):
the products and services that you depend upon, the groceries
that get to your grocery store, the electronics that you use,
the gasoline you've put in your car, everything suddenly becomes
horribly expensive. People start to lose jobs, the GDP begins
to drop precipitously, all because you're just trying to make
(09:42):
you know, at the same time, crank up all the windmills,
get all the solar panels out there, or whatever else
it is, it's going to be clean energy. And so
you've got to be concerned about energy security as you
make that transition.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
If only there was some kind of energy source that
would provide a lifetime of energy for an individual and
only create maybe about a pound.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
Or two of waste. If only there was something like
that out there, well.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
You know, I don't know, maybe a't sometime somebody could
figure out maybe they could split something and when you
split that something that would generate heat and you could
you know, heat up water, to create seam to drive.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Turbines to turbines, Yeah, to create electricity one day.
Speaker 4 (10:31):
One day, Well, there'll be a right brother somewhere down
the road that will come up with that, and we'll figure.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
That out, and we will.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
Give it a funny name like nuke, like nuke, nucular,
nucular like George Bush will. In fact, that may be
what we do is we'll just adopt the Bush adoption
of nucular, and that's what we'll call them. Back to
the i EA. It was established in nineteen seventy you
(11:01):
know what it's now. I know some of you are going, Oh,
I wasn't even born in nineteen seventy four. Yeah, will
bite my ass. I remember nineteen seventy four because I
remember gasoline going from oh, I don't know, fifty cents
a gallon to suddenly it was ninety nine cents of
that gallon, it was a dollar a gallon. That was
the first Arab oil embargoes. Do you know why the
(11:23):
IEA was established? Because they were focused on energy security.
How far they've fallen from their roots. They actually evolved
into a key provider of truly reliable data and forecasts,
so that industrialized nations could help guide energy policies, but
(11:46):
they've gone off the rails in recent years. Its long
term projections have increasingly incorporated all these dumbass government policies
aimed at transitioning away from fossil viels because they themselves.
The IEA started predicting peak in global oil demand by
twenty twenty nine. That's now already shifted a year to
(12:09):
twenty thirty. But they were predicting in twenty twenty nine.
Now their shift in methodology hasn't or has drawn criticism
not just from the likes of Chris Right, but from
energy producers of all walks of life. They the forecasts
(12:32):
are just not reflective of current energy realities, particularly the
continued global demand for oil and gas. Another story that
I wanted to get to today is about the energy demands,
the electricity demands that exist right now in other countries.
(12:57):
Because they don't have enough and so they're not really
contributing to the world's GDP. People are suffering, they're starving.
They don't have good jobs. They can't grow crops, they
can't produce products, they can't consume products, they can't travel
howls clothe themselves. Because they don't have access to reliable energy.
(13:21):
That's where we're headed. We're going back asswords. So right
laid out this country's position in an article in Bloomberg.
In an interview in Bloomberg, he said, quote, we will
do one of two things. We will reform the way
(13:43):
that the IEA operates, or we're going to pull out.
And he expressed that he really wanted to do the former.
He doesn't want to withdraw. He sees that the original
purpose of IEA of providing relays, reliable data and forecasts
so that industrial nations can guide their energy policies. That
(14:06):
he thinks that is a worthy goal. And I would
agree with him. But like many others who've got sucked
into the cult of the climate activist church, they've gone
off the rails. He said in that interview, my strong
preference is to reform it, referring to the IEA, and
he hoped that his discussions with the head of the
(14:27):
IA and others could influence a return to the more
balanced approach, which, as I said earlier, kind of characterized
the IE's modeling approach. Now, this is not the first
time that he's criticized IEA. He did back in June,
calling the agency's projection of peak oil demand by twenty
(14:48):
nine nonsensical, the same thing he said on this program.
The IEA's response was pretty interesting, Well, we welcome feedback
on our work, and we attach great importance to our
dialogue with a Department of Energy and other branches of
the government. It's always about the dialogue, right It's never
actually about doing anything. It's always just about talking about things.
(15:10):
I think that's part of the problem with the entire
world right now. Just dialogue, Just talk now. Don't get
me wrong. You need dialogue, you need the debate. But
do you really think that they're interested in debate because
they want to hear the differing point of view that
says you've got off the rails. No, they just simply
(15:32):
want to defend themselves. The myth of peak fossil fuel
demand is crumbling. That's an opinion piece right now in
Bloomberg The Energy Reporter, opinion writer Javier Bloss says the
(15:53):
IEA is about to do a turnabout and is going
to reinstate the current policy scenario that it got rid
of back in twenty twenty two, and in fact, in
the Energy Headline News they posted on x A graphic.
Peak oil demand isn't certain under current policies. The IEA
(16:17):
will offer a much bullish oil demand path until twenty fifty.
Then using other assumptions in the past, and it shows
current demand and million barrels per day going from nineteen
sixty five at the baseline up to more than one
hundred million barrels of oil a day, which is the
current current demand upwards at two one hundred and twenty.
(16:41):
They want to believe that they can drop that off
to around fifty million barrels a day. Well, when I
looked at that graphic, I thought, so your admission. You're
really admitting that, even though you want to claim they're
peak oil, that demand can drop off, but demand will
(17:07):
still exist. Now, why could that possibly be? Because the
renewables that they want us to move to cannot produce
the amount of power that's needed to create the very
infrastructure that is needed to use renewables. In other words,
(17:28):
you can't use solar power to create solar panels. You
can't create you can't use wind energy to create these
giant wind turbines that you see the analong Ey twenty five.
So this guy blasts in Bloomberg actually challenges that narrative
about global demand for fossil fuels, particularly oil and natural gas,
(17:50):
that it's going to peak and then decline sharply.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
He argues that.
Speaker 4 (17:54):
This myth is crumbling, as evidenced by the idea's own
annual report.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Do we have to actually go through.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
Energy insecurity to recognize the truth of what's really being
trained to be force fed to us?
Speaker 5 (18:14):
These climate extremists play a classic game of I win,
too much rain climate change, not enough rain climate change,
I win.
Speaker 4 (18:25):
It's Calvin ball. If you read Calvin and Hobbes, it's
Calvin ball. You just change the rules to fit the
circumstances where that you find yourself in. So you adopt
the rules to whatever it needs to be done.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
So that you win.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
That's how Calvin and Hobbes always played Calvin Ball, and
that's exactly what they're doing.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
So again, just.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
Remind you we're waiting for I find this fascinating as
I watched the chirons of both CNN and Fox and
then dragons whispering in my ear about different headlines that
he's seeing as he peruses the the interwebs. I'm not
going to tell you what you may be hearing or seeing.
(19:10):
But it's almost like we know everything that they're going
to tell us before they tell us what they're gonna
tell us.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
I hesitate to read what these headlines are saying as
to who this maniac shooter is without having, you know,
somebody of the officials say anything. But yeah, some of
these stories are over half an hour old stating as
to exactly who they are.
Speaker 4 (19:31):
Yeah, it's giving names, talking about the father. Uh some
the father. We found one where the father told the minister, uh,
were one or both involved in the military.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
I forget what you told me about.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
The father looked to be a part of the the
law enforcement in the area where he lived.
Speaker 4 (19:51):
And and they're doing a mic check again, they've done
like three or four mic checks now. So as soon
as a ABC starts, because that's where we need to
take it. As soon as ABC starts carrying.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
The Arguably we could take the Fox version from the television,
but there's a ton of static on it since.
Speaker 4 (20:11):
Yeah it's horrible. So and we're not gonna take ABC commentary.
We're just gonna take ABC coverage just straight Yeah, the
feed from the press conference. So we may just break
in in mid sentence, let's go back to the Bloomberg
story to your point about they win, because in this piece.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
In bloom Bloom Bloomberg.
Speaker 4 (20:34):
This guy named bloss challenges the prevailing narrative that global
demand for fossil fuels, oil and gas will peak eminently
and then decline sharply, and that is what's going to
pave the way for a swift energy transition. Instead, he
(20:55):
argues that this myth is crumbling, as evidence by a
draft from the IEA's annual Report. Everybody's trying to have
it every which way they can. Because the IEA's Annual
Report projects sustained growth in fossil fuel consumption for decades
(21:19):
under current policies. A shift undermines all these optimistic assumptions
about achieving zero emissions by twenty fifty and highlights a
gap between green aspirations and the reality of where we
really are. So this guy explains it. For years, the
(21:41):
IEA's scenarios one is the stated Policy scenario acronym for
Steps and Announced Pledges Scenario APPS quote had forecasted a
peak in fossil fuel demand by around twenty twenty nine,
followed by a decline. These projections influenced policy makers to
(22:06):
anticipate stranded assets in the fossil fuel industry.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
But the current draft report.
Speaker 4 (22:15):
From the IEA then goes back and reinstates the current
policy scenario, which is, according to Chris Wright, a more
realistic baseline reflecting the actual implemented policies. And when you
do that, it paints an entirely different picture. What's that picture?
(22:38):
Oil and gas demand will continue rising beyond twenty fifty,
coal peaks later in the twenty thirties, but still at
levels that are more than fifty percent higher than they
were previously projecting.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Duh.
Speaker 4 (22:58):
Now, I don't know, but bloss seems to be a
pretty good analyst and a writer who has expressed and
skepticism about the IEA's absurdist scenarios all along and is
now actually kind of beginning to point out they're flip flopping.
But despite that, Bloomberg as an institution shamelessly continues to
(23:23):
push peak demand theory in all of the so called
news reports that they put out across their entire system. Now,
what's my theory about that? That's probably spurred along by
the influence of its billionaire owner, Michael Bloomberg. But while
(23:46):
I might command Bloomberg for somewhat facing reality today by
allowing this opinion piece to be printed and letting blast
move ahead with his excellent opinion piece, that's great, But
let's stop and think about why would they do that?
One I think to curry favor with the current administration,
(24:10):
who is trying to debunk the peak oil theory and
is trying to make sure we have energy security. And
if you go back to my criticism about dialogue, how
they always want a dialogue. What's happened that's different this
time is the dialogue's being driven by someone like Chris Wright,
(24:36):
who comes with the receipts and who is able to
point out, no, peak oil is a bunch of bull crap.
Will at some time, maybe or maybe not, will we
reach peak oil. But it's not going to be twenty
twenty nine, it's not going to be twenty fifty and whatever.
You even making the argument that if you assume that
(24:58):
peak oil is a real thing, then you need to
focus on energy security. So if and when that point
ever does arrive twenty twenty nine, twenty thirty, twenty fifty,
whenever it is, that we can continue through a transition.
Think about a transition, the process or period of changing
(25:26):
from one state or condition to another. It's a process,
it's a period. You can't just say, you know what
today is Friday September twelve, is I'm broadcasting on Monday
September fifteen, We're just going to go all wind and solar.
It's not going to happen that way. The sad part is,
(25:47):
I think a bunch of the greeny weenies really do
believe that, and part of me, the sickle part of me, says, Okay,
let's just do it that way. Let's just say that
on you know, on Monday, May September fifteenth, we go
full board, just energy, solar, hydro, whatever green energy you
(26:09):
want to do it.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
We need to find that landman clip and clean it
up again. I thought we already found one that was
cleaned up. Did you clean up? Yeah, if you've got it,
that would be a good one to play.
Speaker 4 (26:20):
Because a transition is, by its very niche, very definition,
a period of time. I don't want to live in
a society where somehow we believe we can flip the
switch and when I come into this or to my
studio tomorrow downstairs and I flip the switch to turn
(26:43):
on everything in that studio. It's going to be powered
solely by Excel's wind and energy stuff. It doesn't happen
that way. That's why you need energy security. And we're
going to keep pumping it. We'll be right back.
Speaker 6 (26:58):
Good morning, Michael and Dragon. September twelfth recognizes the National
Day of Encouragement each year today, dedicated to lifting up
people around us and making a positive impact. I can't
think of a better time to encourage those around us.
We could all use a little encouragement.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Nay, that's not our style.
Speaker 7 (27:23):
That's not we don't want to encourage anybody. Well, he
just want you all to feel bad about yourselves and
you're just loser lives and you're just oh, you're just
big ale losers. No, we actually love you guys. What
are my pet peeves? And I forget?
Speaker 4 (27:41):
I know it occurs at King Soupers, but if I recall, right,
because I don't King supers that often to fill my
car with with hydrocarbons. But what I do, they're always
trying to sell me something. A stupid little monitor on
the on the gasoline pump, always trying to sell me
something and it's blaring in its lab and it's like, no,
(28:03):
shut up, you know one.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
I don't need that in my face. Well, I'm just
trying to pump my gas. Leave me alone. Shut up.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
I think you can turn those off. I'm not sure,
but I was somewhere putting gas in one of the
cars recently, and all I remember is it was a
because I don't care. It was a fairly brand new pump.
The monitor was not. The monitor didn't have the old
Joe Biden stickers kind of still stuck on it.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
I did not.
Speaker 4 (28:34):
It hadn't been scratched, it wasn't marred. It wasn't, you know,
like an old, you know, headlight cover on your car
that's been there for twenty years, yellow and dingy and
you can barely read it. It wasn't one of those.
It was brand new and crystal clear, and it was
in stereo.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
And I couldn't. I'm yelling at it.
Speaker 4 (28:52):
I'm trying to push buttons, and somebody on the other
side said, good luck, I've been trying to turn it
off too.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Well.
Speaker 4 (28:59):
Imagine this. China has experimented with ingenious ways of preventing
toilet paper waste. Back in twenty seventeen, eight years ago,
international news outlets reported the introduction of facial scanners connected
to toilet paper dispensers that only offered one sixty centimeter
(29:23):
long strip of paper per scan, or every nine minutes.
Some days, it might take you a long time to
wipe your butt. You gotta wait nine minutes to get
a sixty centimeter strip of paper, And considering it's a
public toilet, it's probably the same quality of toilet paper
(29:46):
that we.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Have at iHeart.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Well, if you think about it, those sixty centimeters is
almost two feet, so's that's not terrible. You need more
than two feet to wipe your butt?
Speaker 4 (29:58):
Well, just maybe a It depends. I don't know if
you had Taco Bell recently or not. Well, could be
that I haven't had Taco Bell in a long time.
That sounds kind of good. The old Taco Bell that
was in Hiland's ration shut down has now opened. Is
that what they're saying? Yeah, I believe I'll believe it.
Great timing, Yeah, I'll.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
Believe it when it happens. We're talking about the interview.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
AI AI technology was introduced in twenty nineteen, when toilet
paper dispensers began dispensing strips of paper once every.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Ten minutes per individual user.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
But now it has evolved even more with toilet paper
dispensers that play ads to release short strips of paper.
Last week, China Insider posted a short clip that went viral.
A young woman of public toilet scans a QR code
(30:54):
with her phone and then watches an AD on her
phone in order to active the release of a strip
of toilet paper from the dispenser. According to the outlet,
users have the options to watch an AD on their
phones or pay five wan or about seven cents for
every strip of toilet paper they need.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
What do you do venmo it?
Speaker 4 (31:20):
You have it directly with a seventh you have seven cents,
like I made a QR code in seven cents is
withdrawn from your.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
Checking account plus fees plus fees. That's right.
Speaker 4 (31:33):
The watch an ad model was implemented to cut down
on toilet paper use. But the burning question is what
if you do need to use the restroom and you
don't have your phone with you, or you don't have service,
or you've run out of Paul.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Just go scooting around like your old puppy. Just scoot
around like the puppy dogs,
Okay, Michael, it's called the Citizen Involvement Project. The actual
class is called Citizen's Guide to Civic Involvement. And yes,
I'm having a class coming up in October. So go
to our website Thinkfreedom dot org and you two can
get signed up for my class.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
It's held by zoom.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Very convenient for a statewide thing. We could even reach
into Pitkin County.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Thanks.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Just to be passive, I'm not going to put that
up on the website of Michael saysco here dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Oh, come on, put it up, fine, put it up there.
Speaker 4 (00:32):
For because let me tell you why. She'll rip your
testicles off if you don't.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Probably she is accurate.
Speaker 4 (00:42):
She is, you know how Caldera is kind of a
I mean Caldre, don't give me wrong. When he when
he's sober, he can get fairly riled up, and he
can get pretty adamant, and he's very articulate, but he's
kind of a laid back kind of guy. Kathleen is
(01:07):
like a firecracker. She's like she's like a Roman candle,
just a a infinite Roman candle, just constantly going. She's
a she's a wild lady. Just if I had that
kind of energy. If I had that kind of energy,
I wouldn't need good Rocky Mountain men's clenning. That's what
(01:29):
that's how.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
You wouldn't be here, that's for sure.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
That's right. I wouldn't be here. Actually, you're right, I
wouldn't be here. I'd be at home in bed right now,
not listening to me.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
It's up at Michael says, go here dot com right now.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
Here's the plan for this. I don't know segment hour,
who knows? I want to do a story about peak oil. However,
they're doing the mic checks in Utah for the FBI
press conference about the apparent capture of the Charlie Kirk assassin.
(02:08):
If and when that occurs, assuming that Dragon's got a
good connection that we can hear something, or even if
it's an okay connection, I want you to be able
to hear what the FBI says about them capturing it,
because if indeed it is as being reported that his
(02:31):
father the shooters, the alleged shooter's father, is also a minister,
it's a pretty interesting story. That's did the father recognize
the photo? Was there something in the home. This raises
the whole question that Dragon has about parents should be
held responsible for their.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Children's probably college days, most likely over eighteen.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
Probably over eighteen, right, and but it also raises the
question about did the father suspect something prior to seeing
the photos.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
I mean, there are all sorts of issues that could
be a that could be.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
But father did if if if, if, if, if all
these things are true, it'll be a pretty interesting story.
So we will break in and take that press conference
when it occurs. However, for I don't know, the last
couple of years, both the i e A, the International
Energy Association, and Bloomberg the why the two of them, Well,
(03:36):
I know why the two of them are hooked up
because Bloomberg is anti fossil fuel, which fascinates me. You know,
when you're a billionaire and your company is you know,
a gigantic media company and a gigantic kind.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Of uh oh I T company.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
For lack of a better term, that provides all this
financial data and information to traders and everybody all over
the world, you would think they would understand how important
fossil fuels are to our society globally. They have been
pushing this absurd peak oil theory and now they've shifted
(04:19):
you know, peak oil was in the you know, back
in the nineteen nineties, and then it was going to
be in the two thousand. Well now it's twenty thirty.
Everything seems to be focused on twenty thirty. That seems
to be the magic number. The IEA in their zeal
to influence your opinion in favor of their climate alarmist narrative,
(04:41):
in favor of their gospel of the climate, of the
Church of the Climate alarmists. They even changed their modeling
methodology a couple of years ago, eliminating its long used
current policies scenario in favor of a new and this
(05:02):
word is particularly chosen. They no longer use current policies
and instead they use something called an aspirational method. The
aspirational method to calculate peak oil assumes governments would move
rapidly to force populations to just eat the massive higher
(05:28):
energy costs which come with these alarmist climate policies. You
see it in your increase cost of electricity, natural gas,
whatever it is your power needs that you have to
just conduct your business. I find it always fascinating that
(05:49):
those on the left side of the pinnicle spectrum, who
are generally the majority of the congregants in the Church
of the Climate activists are always out there advocating we've
got to make these changes. Yet they're completely oblivious to
the hypocrisy that while they advocate for the change, they
(06:10):
themselves fully enjoy the benefits of fossil fuels and then
claim that, oh, it's okay for higher costs because that
will drive us into these changes. We've had now Energy
Secretary Chris Right on this program debunking everything about peak oil.
(06:33):
In July, Chris Right let it be known that he
was very methodically considering canceling our membership subscription to all
the IEA's products because he believes that they are simply
politically motivated and not scientifically motivated. In a July fifteen
(06:56):
interview with Bloomberg, he said he has told Faith Barral,
the head of the International Energy Agency, that they've got
to either reform their forecasting methods or they're going to
face potential US withdrawal from the organization. Now you may think, well, BFD,
so what well when when the United States government supports
(07:20):
an organization, Take the United Nations for example, we're part
We're one of the largest, if not still the largest
contributor to the funding of the United Nations, So when
it comes to something like the IEA, we're one of
the largest contributors to that organization, meaning you are that's
(07:40):
where saying, this is where some of your tax dollars
are going. So these tensions between the Trump administration and
their energy priorities and the IEA's focus on a clean
energy transition is really starting to get tense now. Chris
writes criticism centers on the IEA's reports and projections because
(08:06):
he and other critics of the agency are arguing that
they are overly optimistic about renewable energy adoption and that
they completely fail to adequately prioritize energy security. If let's
just for the sake of argument, believe that we need
to transition to clean energy. I don't think that we
(08:28):
need to, but let's just make, for the sake of argument,
believe that we do.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Well.
Speaker 4 (08:33):
You cannot do that without ensuring that we have enough
to touch on Dragon's favorite subject, that we have enough
oil in the Strategic Patroleum Reserve, that we have enough
generating capacity so that if and when we're able to
literally flip the switch to renewable energy, we remain secure
(08:59):
in our energy consumption. Why is that important Because not
being secure in your energy consumption means that when you
start making this transition, the easiest thing to recognize is
we immediately go into a recession or a depression, or
(09:20):
the products and services that you depend upon, the groceries
that get to your grocery store, the electronics that you use,
the gasoline you've put in your car, everything suddenly becomes
horribly expensive. People start to lose jobs, the GDP begins
to drop precipitously, all because you're just trying to make
(09:42):
you know, at the same time, crank up all the windmills,
get all the solar panels out there, or whatever else
it is, it's going to be clean energy. And so
you've got to be concerned about energy security as you
make that transition.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
If only there was some kind of energy source that
would provide a lifetime of energy for an individual and
only create maybe about a pound.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
Or two of waste. If only there was something like
that out there, well.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
You know, I don't know, maybe a't sometime somebody could
figure out maybe they could split something and when you
split that something that would generate heat and you could
you know, heat up water, to create seam to drive.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Turbines to turbines, Yeah, to create electricity one day.
Speaker 4 (10:31):
One day, Well, there'll be a right brother somewhere down
the road that will come up with that, and we'll figure.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
That out, and we will.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
Give it a funny name like nuke, like nuke, nucular,
nucular like George Bush will. In fact, that may be
what we do is we'll just adopt the Bush adoption
of nucular, and that's what we'll call them. Back to
the i EA. It was established in nineteen seventy you
(11:01):
know what it's now. I know some of you are going, Oh,
I wasn't even born in nineteen seventy four. Yeah, will
bite my ass. I remember nineteen seventy four because I
remember gasoline going from oh, I don't know, fifty cents
a gallon to suddenly it was ninety nine cents of
that gallon, it was a dollar a gallon. That was
the first Arab oil embargoes. Do you know why the
(11:23):
IEA was established? Because they were focused on energy security.
How far they've fallen from their roots. They actually evolved
into a key provider of truly reliable data and forecasts,
so that industrialized nations could help guide energy policies, but
(11:46):
they've gone off the rails in recent years. Its long
term projections have increasingly incorporated all these dumbass government policies
aimed at transitioning away from fossil viels because they themselves.
The IEA started predicting peak in global oil demand by
twenty twenty nine. That's now already shifted a year to
(12:09):
twenty thirty. But they were predicting in twenty twenty nine.
Now their shift in methodology hasn't or has drawn criticism
not just from the likes of Chris Right, but from
energy producers of all walks of life. They the forecasts
(12:32):
are just not reflective of current energy realities, particularly the
continued global demand for oil and gas. Another story that
I wanted to get to today is about the energy demands,
the electricity demands that exist right now in other countries.
(12:57):
Because they don't have enough and so they're not really
contributing to the world's GDP. People are suffering, they're starving.
They don't have good jobs. They can't grow crops, they
can't produce products, they can't consume products, they can't travel
howls clothe themselves. Because they don't have access to reliable energy.
(13:21):
That's where we're headed. We're going back asswords. So right
laid out this country's position in an article in Bloomberg.
In an interview in Bloomberg, he said, quote, we will
do one of two things. We will reform the way
(13:43):
that the IEA operates, or we're going to pull out.
And he expressed that he really wanted to do the former.
He doesn't want to withdraw. He sees that the original
purpose of IEA of providing relays, reliable data and forecasts
so that industrial nations can guide their energy policies. That
(14:06):
he thinks that is a worthy goal. And I would
agree with him. But like many others who've got sucked
into the cult of the climate activist church, they've gone
off the rails. He said in that interview, my strong
preference is to reform it, referring to the IEA, and
he hoped that his discussions with the head of the
(14:27):
IA and others could influence a return to the more
balanced approach, which, as I said earlier, kind of characterized
the IE's modeling approach. Now, this is not the first
time that he's criticized IEA. He did back in June,
calling the agency's projection of peak oil demand by twenty
(14:48):
nine nonsensical, the same thing he said on this program.
The IEA's response was pretty interesting, Well, we welcome feedback
on our work, and we attach great importance to our
dialogue with a Department of Energy and other branches of
the government. It's always about the dialogue, right It's never
actually about doing anything. It's always just about talking about things.
(15:10):
I think that's part of the problem with the entire
world right now. Just dialogue, Just talk now. Don't get
me wrong. You need dialogue, you need the debate. But
do you really think that they're interested in debate because
they want to hear the differing point of view that
says you've got off the rails. No, they just simply
(15:32):
want to defend themselves. The myth of peak fossil fuel
demand is crumbling. That's an opinion piece right now in
Bloomberg The Energy Reporter, opinion writer Javier Bloss says the
(15:53):
IEA is about to do a turnabout and is going
to reinstate the current policy scenario that it got rid
of back in twenty twenty two, and in fact, in
the Energy Headline News they posted on x A graphic.
Peak oil demand isn't certain under current policies. The IEA
(16:17):
will offer a much bullish oil demand path until twenty fifty.
Then using other assumptions in the past, and it shows
current demand and million barrels per day going from nineteen
sixty five at the baseline up to more than one
hundred million barrels of oil a day, which is the
current current demand upwards at two one hundred and twenty.
(16:41):
They want to believe that they can drop that off
to around fifty million barrels a day. Well, when I
looked at that graphic, I thought, so your admission. You're
really admitting that, even though you want to claim they're
peak oil, that demand can drop off, but demand will
(17:07):
still exist. Now, why could that possibly be? Because the
renewables that they want us to move to cannot produce
the amount of power that's needed to create the very
infrastructure that is needed to use renewables. In other words,
(17:28):
you can't use solar power to create solar panels. You
can't create you can't use wind energy to create these
giant wind turbines that you see the analong Ey twenty five.
So this guy blasts in Bloomberg actually challenges that narrative
about global demand for fossil fuels, particularly oil and natural gas,
(17:50):
that it's going to peak and then decline sharply.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
He argues that.
Speaker 4 (17:54):
This myth is crumbling, as evidenced by the idea's own
annual report.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Do we have to actually go through.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
Energy insecurity to recognize the truth of what's really being
trained to be force fed to us?
Speaker 5 (18:14):
These climate extremists play a classic game of I win,
too much rain climate change, not enough rain climate change,
I win.
Speaker 4 (18:25):
It's Calvin ball. If you read Calvin and Hobbes, it's
Calvin ball. You just change the rules to fit the
circumstances where that you find yourself in. So you adopt
the rules to whatever it needs to be done.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
So that you win.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
That's how Calvin and Hobbes always played Calvin Ball, and
that's exactly what they're doing.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
So again, just.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
Remind you we're waiting for I find this fascinating as
I watched the chirons of both CNN and Fox and
then dragons whispering in my ear about different headlines that
he's seeing as he peruses the the interwebs. I'm not
going to tell you what you may be hearing or seeing.
(19:10):
But it's almost like we know everything that they're going
to tell us before they tell us what they're gonna
tell us.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
I hesitate to read what these headlines are saying as
to who this maniac shooter is without having, you know,
somebody of the officials say anything. But yeah, some of
these stories are over half an hour old stating as
to exactly who they are.
Speaker 4 (19:31):
Yeah, it's giving names, talking about the father. Uh some
the father. We found one where the father told the minister, uh,
were one or both involved in the military.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
I forget what you told me about.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
The father looked to be a part of the the
law enforcement in the area where he lived.
Speaker 4 (19:51):
And and they're doing a mic check again, they've done
like three or four mic checks now. So as soon
as a ABC starts, because that's where we need to
take it. As soon as ABC starts carrying.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
The Arguably we could take the Fox version from the television,
but there's a ton of static on it since.
Speaker 4 (20:11):
Yeah it's horrible. So and we're not gonna take ABC commentary.
We're just gonna take ABC coverage just straight Yeah, the
feed from the press conference. So we may just break
in in mid sentence, let's go back to the Bloomberg
story to your point about they win, because in this piece.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
In bloom Bloom Bloomberg.
Speaker 4 (20:34):
This guy named bloss challenges the prevailing narrative that global
demand for fossil fuels, oil and gas will peak eminently
and then decline sharply, and that is what's going to
pave the way for a swift energy transition. Instead, he
(20:55):
argues that this myth is crumbling, as evidence by a
draft from the IEA's annual Report. Everybody's trying to have
it every which way they can. Because the IEA's Annual
Report projects sustained growth in fossil fuel consumption for decades
(21:19):
under current policies. A shift undermines all these optimistic assumptions
about achieving zero emissions by twenty fifty and highlights a
gap between green aspirations and the reality of where we
really are. So this guy explains it. For years, the
(21:41):
IEA's scenarios one is the stated Policy scenario acronym for
Steps and Announced Pledges Scenario APPS quote had forecasted a
peak in fossil fuel demand by around twenty twenty nine,
followed by a decline. These projections influenced policy makers to
(22:06):
anticipate stranded assets in the fossil fuel industry.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
But the current draft report.
Speaker 4 (22:15):
From the IEA then goes back and reinstates the current
policy scenario, which is, according to Chris Wright, a more
realistic baseline reflecting the actual implemented policies. And when you
do that, it paints an entirely different picture. What's that picture?
(22:38):
Oil and gas demand will continue rising beyond twenty fifty,
coal peaks later in the twenty thirties, but still at
levels that are more than fifty percent higher than they
were previously projecting.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Duh.
Speaker 4 (22:58):
Now, I don't know, but bloss seems to be a
pretty good analyst and a writer who has expressed and
skepticism about the IEA's absurdist scenarios all along and is
now actually kind of beginning to point out they're flip flopping.
But despite that, Bloomberg as an institution shamelessly continues to
(23:23):
push peak demand theory in all of the so called
news reports that they put out across their entire system. Now,
what's my theory about that? That's probably spurred along by
the influence of its billionaire owner, Michael Bloomberg. But while
(23:46):
I might command Bloomberg for somewhat facing reality today by
allowing this opinion piece to be printed and letting blast
move ahead with his excellent opinion piece, that's great, But
let's stop and think about why would they do that?
One I think to curry favor with the current administration,
(24:10):
who is trying to debunk the peak oil theory and
is trying to make sure we have energy security. And
if you go back to my criticism about dialogue, how
they always want a dialogue. What's happened that's different this
time is the dialogue's being driven by someone like Chris Wright,
(24:36):
who comes with the receipts and who is able to
point out, no, peak oil is a bunch of bull crap.
Will at some time, maybe or maybe not, will we
reach peak oil. But it's not going to be twenty
twenty nine, it's not going to be twenty fifty and whatever.
You even making the argument that if you assume that
(24:58):
peak oil is a real thing, then you need to
focus on energy security. So if and when that point
ever does arrive twenty twenty nine, twenty thirty, twenty fifty,
whenever it is, that we can continue through a transition.
Think about a transition, the process or period of changing
(25:26):
from one state or condition to another. It's a process,
it's a period. You can't just say, you know what
today is Friday September twelve, is I'm broadcasting on Monday
September fifteen, We're just going to go all wind and solar.
It's not going to happen that way. The sad part is,
(25:47):
I think a bunch of the greeny weenies really do
believe that, and part of me, the sickle part of me, says, Okay,
let's just do it that way. Let's just say that
on you know, on Monday, May September fifteenth, we go
full board, just energy, solar, hydro, whatever green energy you
(26:09):
want to do it.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
We need to find that landman clip and clean it
up again. I thought we already found one that was
cleaned up. Did you clean up? Yeah, if you've got it,
that would be a good one to play.
Speaker 4 (26:20):
Because a transition is, by its very niche, very definition,
a period of time. I don't want to live in
a society where somehow we believe we can flip the
switch and when I come into this or to my
studio tomorrow downstairs and I flip the switch to turn
(26:43):
on everything in that studio. It's going to be powered
solely by Excel's wind and energy stuff. It doesn't happen
that way. That's why you need energy security. And we're
going to keep pumping it. We'll be right back.
Speaker 6 (26:58):
Good morning, Michael and Dragon. September twelfth recognizes the National
Day of Encouragement each year today, dedicated to lifting up
people around us and making a positive impact. I can't
think of a better time to encourage those around us.
We could all use a little encouragement.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Nay, that's not our style.
Speaker 7 (27:23):
That's not we don't want to encourage anybody. Well, he
just want you all to feel bad about yourselves and
you're just loser lives and you're just oh, you're just
big ale losers. No, we actually love you guys. What
are my pet peeves? And I forget?
Speaker 4 (27:41):
I know it occurs at King Soupers, but if I recall, right,
because I don't King supers that often to fill my
car with with hydrocarbons. But what I do, they're always
trying to sell me something. A stupid little monitor on
the on the gasoline pump, always trying to sell me
something and it's blaring in its lab and it's like, no,
(28:03):
shut up, you know one.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
I don't need that in my face. Well, I'm just
trying to pump my gas. Leave me alone. Shut up.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
I think you can turn those off. I'm not sure,
but I was somewhere putting gas in one of the
cars recently, and all I remember is it was a
because I don't care. It was a fairly brand new pump.
The monitor was not. The monitor didn't have the old
Joe Biden stickers kind of still stuck on it.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
I did not.
Speaker 4 (28:34):
It hadn't been scratched, it wasn't marred. It wasn't, you know,
like an old, you know, headlight cover on your car
that's been there for twenty years, yellow and dingy and
you can barely read it. It wasn't one of those.
It was brand new and crystal clear, and it was
in stereo.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
And I couldn't. I'm yelling at it.
Speaker 4 (28:52):
I'm trying to push buttons, and somebody on the other
side said, good luck, I've been trying to turn it
off too.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Well.
Speaker 4 (28:59):
Imagine this. China has experimented with ingenious ways of preventing
toilet paper waste. Back in twenty seventeen, eight years ago,
international news outlets reported the introduction of facial scanners connected
to toilet paper dispensers that only offered one sixty centimeter
(29:23):
long strip of paper per scan, or every nine minutes.
Some days, it might take you a long time to
wipe your butt. You gotta wait nine minutes to get
a sixty centimeter strip of paper, And considering it's a
public toilet, it's probably the same quality of toilet paper
(29:46):
that we.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Have at iHeart.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Well, if you think about it, those sixty centimeters is
almost two feet, so's that's not terrible. You need more
than two feet to wipe your butt?
Speaker 4 (29:58):
Well, just maybe a It depends. I don't know if
you had Taco Bell recently or not. Well, could be
that I haven't had Taco Bell in a long time.
That sounds kind of good. The old Taco Bell that
was in Hiland's ration shut down has now opened. Is
that what they're saying? Yeah, I believe I'll believe it.
Great timing, Yeah, I'll.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
Believe it when it happens. We're talking about the interview.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
AI AI technology was introduced in twenty nineteen, when toilet
paper dispensers began dispensing strips of paper once every.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Ten minutes per individual user.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
But now it has evolved even more with toilet paper
dispensers that play ads to release short strips of paper.
Last week, China Insider posted a short clip that went viral.
A young woman of public toilet scans a QR code
(30:54):
with her phone and then watches an AD on her
phone in order to active the release of a strip
of toilet paper from the dispenser. According to the outlet,
users have the options to watch an AD on their
phones or pay five wan or about seven cents for
every strip of toilet paper they need.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
What do you do venmo it?
Speaker 4 (31:20):
You have it directly with a seventh you have seven cents,
like I made a QR code in seven cents is
withdrawn from your.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
Checking account plus fees plus fees. That's right.
Speaker 4 (31:33):
The watch an ad model was implemented to cut down
on toilet paper use. But the burning question is what
if you do need to use the restroom and you
don't have your phone with you, or you don't have service,
or you've run out of Paul.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Just go scooting around like your old puppy. Just scoot
around like the puppy dogs,
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.