9-25-25 - 9am - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Mike, looks like a bunch of people must have started
the thailand All challenge, and I hear it goes really
well with the Tide challenge. A few pods of that
and some tailanoll and you're good to go.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Interestingly, goober number three three seven four Regarding acetamnifin toxicity,
I worked at a major US university school of medicine
and did data input for their liver transplant program. A
high number of patients with liver failure requiring liver transplantation

(00:38):
for secondary to excessive use of acetamnafin.

Speaker 3 (00:44):
Sixty six twenty one.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
The bottles say, consult a physician of pregnant or breastfeeding
the infant. Tiland All says, do not give under two.
This whole thing is just a joke. It's ridiculous. It's
suicidal too, and did drag I didn't know it was true,
but apparently it is true.

Speaker 4 (01:01):
It's still there.

Speaker 3 (01:02):
And what is that?

Speaker 4 (01:04):
A tweet from Tailanol actually from a comment posted on
a previous tweet by tailanl. The first initial tweet was
sometimes the best headache relief is getting outside. After all,
brisk air is still fresh air. So that was tweeted
out in February of twenty seventeen. Then there was a
comment that was deleted, but Tailanal commented on that comment,

(01:29):
to which it says, we actually don't recommend using any
of our products while pregnant. Thank you for taking the
time to voice your concerns.

Speaker 2 (01:40):
We don't recommend taking any any of our products when pregnant.

Speaker 4 (01:46):
To which later, as in recently is in the past
few days, tail and Hal has come out and tried
to clarify that statement, saying yes, yeah, but yes, there's
the tweet still there from twenty seventeen where tyland All
says we actually don't recommend using any of our I don't.

Speaker 2 (02:08):
Think I have any with me. You know, I used
to carry a small bottle of ibuprofen in my backpack
and I was curious set what it's said on there
about consulting a physician.

Speaker 4 (02:17):
But I probably said the exact same thing.

Speaker 3 (02:19):
Probably does say exactly the same thing.

Speaker 2 (02:21):
We made a list again, I want to get to
the list before we get to the Smithsonian.

Speaker 4 (02:25):
Wait, what a good list?

Speaker 2 (02:31):
Surprisingly so, although I don't necessarily believe it, uh now,
this comes from Yahoo. In fact, to be specific, it
comes from creators Dot Yahoo dot Com slash lifestyle slash story.

(02:54):
I noticed at the end that it has a disclaimer.
Creators are not employed by Yahoo. Views expressed by creators
do not reflect the opinions and position of Yahoo. Learn
how to become a creator Dragon, You should be a
creator for Yahoo.

Speaker 3 (03:14):
The headline on.

Speaker 2 (03:14):
This from Lindsay Polls, creator of Have Clothes Will Travel,
dated two days ago four days ago. These ten cities
are officially the friendliest in America. New study finds residents
across the country righted how welcoming their hometowns are. Here's

(03:36):
where kindness shines brightest. Coming in at number one is
San Diego. Based on personal experience, I would agree it is.
It's a relaxed place. It's pretty laid back. Downtown's kind
of interesting. Coronado is interesting.

Speaker 3 (03:55):
So yeah. And of course when the Seals, no.

Speaker 2 (03:59):
Not those Seals, when they go out and get drunk,
well that makes it pretty interesting too. So you got
that going for it. Raleigh, North Carolina comes in at
number two. Southern warmth meets modern innovation. Well, I've been
to Raleigh quite.

Speaker 3 (04:15):
A bit, man, I'm not sure I agree.

Speaker 2 (04:18):
That Raley's one of the most friendliest cities in the country,
but be that as it may. Number three comes in
at Phoenix. Yeah, desert heat extends to the people here.
Phoenix vocals are known for their upbeat, can do spirit
in the city's outdoor lifestyle naturally fosters easy going encounters
with strangers who don't stay strangers for long. I don't

(04:42):
know that Phoenix would be on my top ten list
as the most friendliest places in the world, primarily because
nobody talks to each other, because everybody's fighting for that
one parking spot that's in the shade. Yeah, that's Miami.

Speaker 3 (04:56):
Number four.

Speaker 2 (04:58):
Uh South Yeah, South Beach. Pretty friendly Miami. Yeah, and
you sort of Okay Houston. I don't get Houston. Houston's
too big and sprawled out. But it hits number five,
then okay.

Speaker 3 (05:13):
Urban Honolulu.

Speaker 2 (05:14):
I would agree that Old Honolulu is pretty damn cool.

Speaker 3 (05:19):
I like it. Boston.

Speaker 2 (05:22):
Janie lives in Boston. How can it be one of
the top ten friendliest cities when Janice lives there. I
don't necessarily find Bostonians.

Speaker 3 (05:32):
To be the friendliest people in the world.

Speaker 2 (05:35):
Number eight, San Jose I might agree with that. Number
nine is Minneapolis Saint Paul, Minneapolis is a crap old place,
Saint Paul not quite as bad. Coming in number ten
is Denver, Colorado. Where But here's what it says about Denver.
Maybe I'm just because I know Denver too well. The

(05:55):
mile site, the mile high city brings more than mountain views.
It's known for its community minded spirit, whether you're chatting
with locals on a trail or grabbing a coffee downtown.
Denver Ights tend to offer it laid back, welcoming energy
that makes visitors feel like neighbors. If you're interested in visiting.

(06:20):
Here's a great Denveright tenerary which I don't see, but
I don't care. Are they referring to urban trails or
are they? Or is this woman who doesn't say where
she's from? Lindsay pulls, Uh, has she never been to Denver?
We don't have mountain trails in Denver. No, well, we

(06:41):
have trail we have we byplanes.

Speaker 4 (06:43):
Are you insinuating that Denver is not in the mountains?

Speaker 2 (06:47):
Don't tell anybody else, because everybody else thinks that it is.
My mother thinks that it is, and she's been here
one hundred bazillion time, and.

Speaker 3 (06:55):
Whenever we have a blizzard or you know, or there's.

Speaker 2 (06:57):
A of course, I think a lot of people like this.
People don't know their geography. If there's a forest fire
or wildfire until you ride, my mom calls me if
I'm okay. If there's a blizzard and it's an assmen,
my mom calls to see if I'm okay. If there's
a flood up and Fort Collins, my mom calls me
if I'm okay. When the tornado actually hits our house

(07:19):
a few years ago, Mom's oblivious to it. Friendliest Center,
my ass, City, my ass. You made the top ten.
So there you go. What was I going to do?
Oh no, I'm not going to do Smithsonian. I'm not
quite ready to do that story yet, but I do

(07:41):
want to do this. The global elites, because we talked
about Javier Malay earlier, they now spent at least thirty
years telling us that climate is is a global problem,
so only what, only a global solution is going to
fix it. Now that framing just didn't appear by magic.
It was actually written into law when George HW. Bush,

(08:06):
not W Bush, but George HW. Bush, the first Bush,
signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The
UNFCCC He signed it back in nineteen ninety two at
the Real Earth Summit, and the US Senate gave its

(08:27):
advice and consent to that treaty to that agreement on
October seventh, nineteen ninety two. Bush then signed the Instrument
of Ratification on October thirteen, nineteen ninety two, making us
the United States the first industrialized nation to ratify the treaty.

(08:49):
You've never read it, you don't even know what it says,
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Their ultimate
projective is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that
quote would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interferences with the climate system
close quote. That became the goal, the north Star. That

(09:16):
became the underlying point for everything that followed, remember the
Kyoto Accords, Copenhagen, the Paris Climate Accords, and of course
the sprawling cop process. Interestingly going back to nineteen ninety two, well,

(09:37):
actually this go to nineteen ninety four, because it was
it took a while for other countries to sign it.
So CO two levels from nineteen ninety four were about
three hundred and fifty eight parts per million. It has
steadily consistently increase, so Let's see, Finland signs it in

(10:08):
ninety four, so Japan signs it ninety seven. The Swiss
sign it in looks like ninety six. I don't recognize
all these flags. The Italian sign it No. Three, the
Canucks sign it no. Five. Let's see who's this? Oh here,

(10:30):
Spain they signed it in twenty ten. I'm just going by.
I don't recognize all these flags anyway. The last group
to sign this treaty occurred in twenty twenty one. In
nineteen ninety four, CO two was at three hundred and
fifty eight parts per million when the last country that

(10:52):
signed it, and I'm not sure who this is. Who's
the flag? Who's the country with the blue flag on
a background in a white X?

Speaker 3 (11:02):
Who is that? Anyway? Whoever that is?

Speaker 2 (11:05):
They signed it at COP twenty six, and when they
signed it, CO two parts per million had increased to
somewhere between four hundred and ten and four hundred.

Speaker 3 (11:14):
Twenty front three.

Speaker 1 (11:15):
What is it?

Speaker 4 (11:16):
Scotland?

Speaker 3 (11:16):
Scotland? So Scotland.

Speaker 2 (11:19):
From nineteen ninety four to twenty twenty one, as they
were all finding the CO two levels in the atmosphere
increased from three hundred and fifty eight parts per million
to almost four hundred twenty parts per million. Now, before
DEI became a campus and a human resources mantra, equity
was written into that climate policy and our climate policy

(11:42):
through that treaty. Because the treaties guiding principle of common
but differentiated responsibilities. What's that, Well, that tells the developed
countries to take the lead and makes climate finance from
rich countries to poor countries a expectation, a requirement. Over

(12:04):
the years, that principle involved into a one hundred billion
dollars a year climate finance pledge and of course the
green climate fund industry and the founding of the Church
of the Climate Activists. In fact, you can find a
report at the UN called delivering on the one hundred
billion dollar Climate Finance Commitment and Transforming Climate Finance. Independent

(12:28):
Experts Report Summary, well, independent experts hired by the UN.
Of course, here's why it matters. This treaty is not
just another communicat unlike the Paris Accords, which we joined
by executive action and was designed specifically to avoid Senate ratification. Oh,
we don't want to take this to the Senate because

(12:48):
it'll never pass, So let's just join it by an
executive order. That nineteen ninety two treaty went through the
Senate and is still anchoring our participation in this climate regime.
That's why it has more staying power than all these
virtuous pledges. That's why it has more staying power, and
that Trump and Lee's Elden and everybody else is having

(13:10):
to go to court to fight most of this stuff
because it's actually a treaty. Now I've warned, I've talked
before about hard code confirmation bias. Well, that's built into
the climate assessment and climate policies, confirmation bias within the IPCC.

(13:34):
Shows that shows how the UN's Climate Panel, their mission
is framed around identifying risks and future risks, but they
never weigh any benefits, only risks, no benefits. They don't
think about well CO two fertilization, or that there's been

(13:55):
a measurable drop in climate related mortality as we've developed
our societies even more advanced.

Speaker 3 (14:03):
So what do you get.

Speaker 2 (14:05):
You get a one way ratchet toward alarm regulation, wealth redistribution,
and you completely neglect all of the gains that we
get from energy abundance. It shows how this is inherently
designed to keep us fearful. There are all sorts of observation,

(14:33):
observational records that undercut all of the headlines about how
it's a crisis, robust global greening under higher CO two
fight or mixed trends and normalized disaster losses, and the
overwhelming role of adaptation and mitigation. When the Department of
Energy's recent Climate review landed, I didn't study it thoroughly,

(14:59):
but I went through it again. It emphasizes observations over
virtue signaling. As Trump addressed the you in General Assembly,
there's perfectly concrete steps he could encourage begin the formal
process to end our participation in that framework. Because the treaty,

(15:23):
if you dig deep into it, it provides a withdrawal mechanism.
All we have to do is notify the un just
tell them, hey, we're going to withdraw, and one year
later that exit takes effect. So if the Paris executive
pledge could be reversed because it was an executive order,
the Senate ratified treaty can be lawfully revisited as well.

Speaker 3 (15:46):
Just give notice that we're not going to do it
anymore now.

Speaker 2 (15:49):
If you care about evidence based climate policy, and if
you actually care about self governance and American sovereignty. Everything
should start right there with the text that the Senate
actually ratified in nineteen ninety two, and all the bureaucracy
that came with it, just withdrawal from it.

Speaker 3 (16:10):
The text.

Speaker 2 (16:12):
The text defines adverse effects of climate change as this
changes which have significant deleterious effects on ecosystems, socioeconomic systems,
or on human health and welfare. Now deleterious walks in negativity.
Benefits like increased productivity from seal to fertilization, all of

(16:33):
those benefits of seal two that's completely excluded from the
definition of adverse effects of climate change. So they start
out negative by their very definition. So anytime you talk
about the adverse effects or you talk about climate change,
it's always going to be adverse and it's always going
to be negative. Why can't we have anything positive? Is

(16:57):
there nothing positive about climate change? Increased growing seasons, increased
growing geography. Uh, maybe in Canada, girl, dad can start
growing some soybeans or some wheat.

Speaker 3 (17:10):
Imagine that, Huh.

Speaker 2 (17:14):
Withdrawal from the treaty, mister president, withdrawal from the treaty.

Speaker 3 (17:19):
It's pretty easy to do.

Speaker 2 (17:21):
You give notice You're gone.

Speaker 3 (17:36):
Grow soybeans or wheat in Canada? Are you kidding? No? Alaska,
till on ready. Sometimes you're a city boy. Really, shine,
sir no I said in Alaska, I said Alaska.

Speaker 4 (17:50):
I think you initially quantified it with girl dad in Alaska,
but then later on you said Canada.

Speaker 2 (17:56):
Well, yeah, because the growing season and the geography Canada,
because you get up in parts of Saskatchewan.

Speaker 3 (18:04):
There's no growing up there. I mean, ask the.

Speaker 2 (18:06):
Trees are you've been fishing in northern Saskatchewan.

Speaker 3 (18:10):
Oh man, the lake trout gigantic, gigantic. Yeah, But I
mentioned Alaska.

Speaker 2 (18:18):
City boy, city boy. That is really irritating. So congratulations,
you've irritated me.

Speaker 4 (18:29):
It.

Speaker 2 (18:31):
Let's go back to the text of this treaty that
we entered into in nineteen ninety one.

Speaker 3 (18:37):
In nineteen ninety two.

Speaker 2 (18:40):
So adverse effects of climate change is all negative, nothing
positive about CO two. Article three goes further because it
elevates common but differentiated responsibilities and direct developed company or
countries to take the lead.

Speaker 3 (19:00):
Us.

Speaker 2 (19:00):
That single sentence becomes the legal and for that matter,
for them anyway, not for us. The moral lever for
permanent wealth redistribution from industrialized Western society to the developing
world through financial pledges and funds. That's one of the
things that Hobby MLA was talking about in that speech,

(19:22):
a globalist redistribution of wealth. So that do you think
that people in I'm sure people in poverty stricten countries
in Africa would love to have some electricity?

Speaker 3 (19:35):
You know what they need? First?

Speaker 2 (19:37):
They need some water, They need water, they need clean water.
But no, no, we want to give them solar panels.
We want to give them windmills. Now, if the windmill
is going to draw some water out them, that's fine,
depending on what the typical wind speeds are in need
a given country. But this birth, that sentence, birth, this

(19:59):
one hundred billion dollar year pledge, and an ecosystem of
agencies and NGOs whose budgets depend on continued funding from
US taxpayers and portraying climate as a risk, an urgent,
and a crisis. Now, if you don't live in climate acronyms,

(20:22):
which I hope you don't, what it means in plain
English is that treaty created the stage, established the narrative,
set a recurring conference schedule, and basically established the rules
of the game. Narrative thick assessment reports that emphasize risk

(20:43):
and dangers, sidestepping any benefits whatsoever. So then policymakers can
point to that treaty and point to all of those
thick reports and then justify new spending and new mandates.
The machine pays for itself, or I should say, to

(21:03):
be technically correct, the machine funds itself. This upper level
framing then filters down into every US agency, whether you
involved or not.

Speaker 3 (21:16):
For example, it.

Speaker 2 (21:17):
Falls down into FEMA. FEMA has to take take into
consideration climate change. Everything we do, I'm talking about climate change.
The Department of Energies Review Climate Review from this year
reinforces the point that what's going on here are not

(21:37):
modeling exercises, they're simply observations. If your objective and the
objective of the treaty is really to prevent danger, then
the first question ought to be what does.

Speaker 3 (21:48):
The evidence say?

Speaker 2 (21:50):
Not what do the models say might happen if we
ignore adaptation or mitigation or development, but what's really the evidence?
And that gets back to the twenty twenty five Climate
Review noting that most extreme weather categories show no statistically
significant long term trend in the historical record. Now that

(22:15):
conclusion aligns if you do a neutral reading of all
of the information, all of the actual observable data about
what the climate and the weather has been doing. Dragon noted,
I didn't hear this, but Dragon says that if at
the top of the hour weather that or at the
bottom of the hour weather, I guess technically that the

(22:36):
heida today is supposed to be like something like seventy
six seventy seven degrees. And then whoever's doing the weather
did what Dragon?

Speaker 4 (22:42):
She said it was extremely average?

Speaker 2 (22:44):
Oh, extremely average? Your average is average? Yeah, okay, but
this is extremely average. Why do you think she may
have done that? I have I'm not going to impugne
any motivation behind that, but I think it's an example

(23:05):
of how the narrative fits in or since we had
a cold spell, well cool spell, since we had a
cool spell and a lot of rain, and now it's
going to get back up into the seventies. Oh, we
got to point out that average, that average. Well, no,
it's September. Now, we've had snow in September before down here,
down here, and the first snow or the first frost

(23:27):
I think occurs sometime in October, and oftentimes it snows
in Halloween. That's pretty typical. When you look at the
number of disasters like drought, extreme temperature, floods, storms, wildfires,
and you chart that out from two thousand to twenty
twenty five, you can draw an average line right through

(23:50):
the reported cases, the actual number of cases somewhere between
two hundred and fifty and three hundred. Now, from twenty
nineteen to say, twenty twenty four, it's been slightly above,
but in the almost ten years prior to that, it
was slightly below, and so far for twenty twenty five,

(24:11):
it's way below average, way below. You know, I keep
I keep waiting for the end of the hurricane season
because I've already started putting together the data about this
hurricane season. And you'll be shocked. After all of the
hooplaw at the beginning of hurricane season back in the spring.

(24:34):
Oh yeah, oh, stronger hurricanes, more damnage, is going to
be horrible.

Speaker 4 (24:40):
Now, the worst season ever, worst season ever.

Speaker 2 (24:43):
Now we may end up because it doesn't end for
a while, we may end up with a horrible season.
There could be something coming off the cape of South
Africa right now that I haven't even looked at. Some
tropical depression, just a tropical depression, just a low system
coming off that may cross the Atlantic and turn into
the largest hurricane ever in the history of mankind.

Speaker 4 (25:02):
It was fun tracking that hurricane that didn't even ever
hit land.

Speaker 2 (25:06):
You mean, the one that came across and kept getting
bigger and bigger, and then just as they often do,
just then went off into the Atlantic and disappear.

Speaker 4 (25:13):
It didn't hit land at all. Yeah, that one was fun.

Speaker 2 (25:17):
But didn't we have people out reporting that it was coming.
They were actually on the beaches reporting that was coming
our way. I think we did. They were out. They
always go out to Miami, and they always go out
to the Carolina's report. Way out there, two thousand miles
way over the horizon, you know where the Earth ends,
and you fall.

Speaker 3 (25:36):
Off the edge. There's a hurricane out there.

Speaker 2 (25:42):
Go back to the withdrawal clause that allows any party
to notify the United Nations and then exit one year later.
If if Trump truly believes that the treaty now imposes
commitments that conflict with our own self interest, and then
it's also relying on assessments with embedded confirmation bias, then

(26:03):
it all to start the process While Congress debates a
replacement framework, it's grounded in actual impacts, not model driven projections,
or as I would prefer, just withdraw completely and say
to the United Nations and all those other dumbass countries, yeah,

(26:24):
we just don't buy this crap at all, So we're
just going to pull out and not participate at all.
I don't know how much we give every year. I'll
see if I can find that, but whatever we give,
it's too much. If the countries that are going down
the crapp are right now, Europe or China, if they

(26:45):
want to keep funding this, then let them do it.
I'm tired of funding this kind of globalization bull crap.
Congress could explicitly recognize the benefits of all types of
energy and if CO two fertilization to agriculture and ecosystems,

(27:05):
direct the agencies to anchor risk assessments and observations rather
than speculative models, and then prioritize mitigation and resilience where
people actually live, not because the sea levels are rising,
but because there's erosion because of tides. So if you

(27:25):
live on the coast, then they ought to start mitigating
against that. My aunt used to live on the Gulf
coast and down kind of south and west of Galveston.
Live in one of those houses right on the beach
on stilts. Never of course, she's been dead for decades.
But we never thought about sea level rise. But we

(27:46):
did think about extraordinarily high tides, and we did think
about hurricanes, and we did think about, you know, the
fact that you might have that storm surge. And so yeah,
the houses are built on stilts, they're built above green.

Speaker 4 (28:00):
Did you think about taking a break?

Speaker 3 (28:02):
No, but when it's ninety three, I will.

Speaker 4 (28:05):
Mike Dragon, I'm sorry.

Speaker 5 (28:08):
Did you have Charleston in that list of top ten
friendliest cities? Because Charleston's one of the friendliest cities out there,
there's no doubt, and it is twenty maybe thirty times
friendlier than Denver.

Speaker 4 (28:21):
I live in both. Give me a break, not us.

Speaker 2 (28:28):
We don't make the list, We just share them with you.
So talk to y'allhoo or talk to whoever that woman was,
Kimberly Polls or something like that. She's the one I
know Charleston wasn't on there, and I'd agree with you.
I think i'd put Charleston on that list too. Cash
battel is out with a tweet.

Speaker 3 (28:45):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (28:46):
Maybe we can figure out what the motive of the
shooter in Dallas was. Yesterday he downloaded a document called
Dallas County Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. It
has a list of d DHS facilities. He searched apps
that track the presence of ICE agents. Well that's nice,

(29:06):
isn't it. He scrawled anti ICE on his AMMO. Bailly
managed to hit the illegal aliens, not anybody from ICE.
He did multiple searches for videos of Charlie Kirk being shot,
and then he had a handwritten note found at the
scene that read this, hopefully this will give ICE agents

(29:30):
real terror to think? Is there a sniper with AP
rounds on that roof? This evidence, Patel suggests, is a
significant level of pre attack planning.

Speaker 4 (29:43):
Can you read that again?

Speaker 3 (29:45):
I don't know, Dragon, it seems to be a little
wishy Washington.

Speaker 4 (29:48):
I'm still confused. Do you mind? Do you mind reading
that one more time?

Speaker 3 (29:51):
Well?

Speaker 2 (29:52):
Something about I hope, uh where was it? Hopefully this
will get off ICE agents real terror?

Speaker 4 (30:03):
Don I'm still confused.

Speaker 3 (30:06):
Well, he must be Jimmy Kimel MHM